The Right Wing strikes back! In memoirs published by Karl Rove and reflecting attack dog Dick Cheney and his daughter, truth is not respected but the myth that Bush did everything to contain terrorism and that “no attacks happened in America during his term of office” would be a joke if it were not for a sizeable slice of American that actually buy this twist on reality.

To justify torture and mass slaughter of innocents under Bush’s watch, a war which was not at all necessary but bankrupted American prowess and ability to police the world effectively, to justify the stupid “war on terror” these discredited and destructive old traitors trot out this garbage as it if it is their sole domain and duty to “keep America safe”.

Balony. Bush’s terrifyingly ineffective reign as war maker in chief has given the likes of Osama Bin Laden the perfect recruiting tool. Instead of a small movement of extremists there are now millions of young men prepared to throw their bones into the furnace. They see the American action in Iraq as aggression and it makes no sense to justify it. The United Nations weapons inspector, before the war, stated clearly that there were no WMDs. And yet fruity dossiers were used as “evidence” of a need to go to war.

War is not effective when it is waged for invalid reasons. And the invasion of Iraq was from a sense of belief – of a personal grudge – of the convictions of a fundamentalist that history may well view as just as insane as the acts of Osama Bin Laden. Although one has to credit the terrorist in chief with a little more leverage and effect, the “war on terror” is merely a bad fiction and evidence of corruption in the American political system.

And so these stupid men strive to continue the myth. Meantime President Barack Obama is forcing the Taleban, the real crooks, into a corner and trying to save a country that is so torn by war from itself. Is his “surge” justified? It has been heavily criticised by the Left and may indeed prove ineffective. But if the Taleban are broken as a force, and Al Qaeda’s head is removed, there is a hope that the opium trade could be abated and that US military forces could withdraw from both of these nations.

The real issue is Pakistan, Iran and the continued spreading of anti-Western feeling as American forces blunder over the dead bodies of children. The real issue is over population and the need for power. It is not Islam. It is the threat of death and destruction. It is a lack of trust that these countries can exercise a political will that is based on a philosophy of peace and good will.

The same can be said of the Cheney – Rove – traditions and how America may well embrace it as they vote Sarah Palin into power, is America that gullible?

See also
New York Times

The Right Wing strikes back! In memoirs published by Karl Rove and reflecting attack dog Dick Cheney and his daughter, truth is not respected but the myth that Bush did everything to contain terrorism and that “no attacks happened in America during his term of office” would be a joke if it were not for a sizeable slice of American that actually buy this twist on reality.

To justify torture and mass slaughter of innocents under Bush’s watch, a war which was not at all necessary but bankrupted American prowess and ability to police the world effectively, to justify the stupid “war on terror” these discredited and destructive old traitors trot out this garbage as it if it is their sole domain and duty to “keep America safe”.

Balony. Bush’s terrifyingly ineffective reign as war maker in chief has given the likes of Osama Bin Laden the perfect recruiting tool. Instead of a small movement of extremists there are now millions of young men prepared to throw their bones into the furnace. They see the American action in Iraq as aggression and it makes no sense to justify it. The United Nations weapons inspector, before the war, stated clearly that there were no WMDs. And yet fruity dossiers were used as “evidence” of a need to go to war.

War is not effective when it is waged for invalid reasons. And the invasion of Iraq was from a sense of belief – of a personal grudge – of the convictions of a fundamentalist that history may well view as just as insane as the acts of Osama Bin Laden. Although one has to credit the terrorist in chief with a little more leverage and effect, the “war on terror” is merely a bad fiction and evidence of corruption in the American political system.

And so these stupid men strive to continue the myth. Meantime President Barack Obama is forcing the Taleban, the real crooks, into a corner and trying to save a country that is so torn by war from itself. Is his “surge” justified? It has been heavily criticised by the Left and may indeed prove ineffective. But if the Taleban are broken as a force, and Al Qaeda’s head is removed, there is a hope that the opium trade could be abated and that US military forces could withdraw from both of these nations.

The real issue is Pakistan, Iran and the continued spreading of anti-Western feeling as American forces blunder over the dead bodies of children. The real issue is over population and the need for power. It is not Islam. It is the threat of death and destruction. It is a lack of trust that these countries can exercise a political will that is based on a philosophy of peace and good will.

The same can be said of the Cheney – Rove – traditions and how America may well embrace it as they vote Sarah Palin into power, is America that gullible?

Freedom means many things to many people. One of the supposed freedoms we are born with is to exist in nature. This is not a right bestowed by Government or God, but is part of what and who we are. One of the greatest crimes against humanity is the pursuit of profits to line the pockets of the wealthy with scant regard for natural consequences.

Governments pursue economic advantage in order to be considered popular but ministers are not all powerful. Political systems that “evolve” seem more advantageous than ones which overturn established systems however when that evolution is corrupt, when it is masks the democratic interests (of the many) to bestow advantages upon the few, an aristocracy exists. Conservative politicians seek to align the efforts of the many (tax payers) to support rational goals – to reduce national debt – to benefit the actions of corporations who provide much employment to the citizens. Liberal politicians seek to balance the actions of corporations so that the population realises value for their contributions. Socialists seek to claim this wealth back.

When things go out of balance, then injustice occurs. Revolutions too often install a new system of corruption at the top that takes over the levers of power but the needs of the few being placed above the society they serve all too often take precedence over principals. Hence few revolutions result in governments that are considered “saintly” by the West. One example of a successful revolution is that of India, led by one man who sought not power, but social justice, Gandhi. One example of a corrupt revolution, that replaced one ruling class with another is Zimbabwe. The French and American revolutions were based around fundamental principles of liberty and equality even though these principals took hundreds of years to be reflected in peoples’ lives and it remains an on going project, there is still an ongoing aspiration.

The dissolution of the British Empire created the free nations of the Commonwealth and although Great Britain appears now diminished, it is an evolved Empire – one that has had its children. The deeds of the 20th century undid centuries of domination asserted by military superiority. In that way, one could view that revolution as socially progressive.

Except that international finance driven in large part by the migration of population and the need/opportunity to employ them and the economic systems of measurement have resulted in conglomeration, the growth of a world class of corporatisation commonly called “globalisation” against which there is considerable popular protest. Why?

When you consider that the profits of these huge corporatations may avoid taxation then a level of fairness is denied to the population. When you also consider that they are responsible for much of the pollution the world is starting to confront, then you begin to assess the costs above unfair taxation as criminality.

The economic troubles the world is facing are due to corporate irresponsibility. Seeking wealth for the very sake of being competitively powerful does not benefit anyone but cements a super class into an unassailable position and that is the instinct that our laws seek to moderate.

This article in theGuardian UK supports what Disturbing Trends has been saying for years: it is the cost free pollution that is seen as beneficial (provision of jobs) that distort economic systems – that provide an economic rationality to putting political systems in place that allow the rape of society (GW Bush, Margaret Thatcher, Sarah Palin) with no regard for the environment which the majority of us live in. This movement that seeks to discredit climate science is as real a threat as is the terrible expansion of human population in much of Asia and the corporate structure that both feeds it and takes advantage of it.

Humanity needs to reassess what it is doing. Polluting in the name of profit kills people. To herald it as rational is simply false.

Conjecture that Israel would bomb Iran may return as the highjacked election that kept Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the President’s seat seems part of a plan to escalate tension by asserting Iran’s “right to power”. When it perceives enemies have nuclear weapons, then it naturally will pursue that course. Previously it may have appeared that Iran was claiming not to be wanting nuclear weapons but the world now knows that they do. So what will happen next? An arms race?

NY Times

350 economists agree, it is time to change the parameters of finance. A suggested tax on the transactions between banks of 0.05% and a suggestion of a tax on speculation to alleviate poverty in this unbalanced world are two ideas which may take hold. Conservative economics it is claimed are based on common sense, but the idea that the super-rich hold the economy together seems only true for the super rich. The fact is that there are more and more people being held in poverty year after year and it seems hardly necessary to support a system that is making the majority indebted to the very few or allows millions to live under the poverty line without hope of change.

Any attempt at health reform or changes to the status quo get met with cries of “communism!” or knowing claims that it is socialist dogma. It is about time that the super wealthy around the world invested in raising the bar for the many. This does not need to be communism but support of educational institutions, expansion of business employment of graduates and facilitation of public amenities by an honest engagement in the tax system.

It is not communism. It is essential human decency.

The Independent

Terrorism fails to exert political pressure on governments, as nobody in the world wants random acts of violence to take the lives of their children, or indeed themselves.

Where terrorism has succeeded is forcing Western governments to take actions that limit freedoms – but what the Osama bin Laden mentality that has gripped the radical Islamic extremes seems to not understand – is that the West was already reluctantly accepting of restrictions imposed historically (e.g. during WWII) and is better setup (especially the UK) for the police to keep watch on its citizens.

There is however an assumption that these restrictions, inspections and limitations on real freedom would be released once the terrorist threat is over. The day Osama bin Laden is caught and tried may be the token end that the voters are waiting for, but it probably means nothing; now that the Western governments have committed acts of war to try and prevent the terrorism threat. There is a growing discomfort that the acts of government are becoming the default stance and that freedom itself is being redefined to mean “freedom within limits”.

What I find truly disturbing is not the 2 million video cameras in London, or scanners that can see through my clothing, but the reaction of people to each other evident in today’s media. The judgementalism reflects a shift where distrust between people is the assumed stance and everyone is seen as a potential threat.

Our political forums are unbalanced, there is no respect for political leadership and with only more of the same on offer, a lack of imagination seems to have gripped the world in an economic cold war where bankers claim a natural right to 7 figure salaries and their actions put 5% more of the population out of employment and countless numbers of lives are damaged as foreclosures ruin the future hopes of far too many.

This we did all by ourselves, without the prodding of the insane suicide bombers. There is simply no heroics in those kind of tactics. Nor in the response to them.

A better path is the realisation of the great beauty of difference.

When a flaw in the protective shield (that makes airflight possible without holding your breath) exposed American flights a new kind of designer suicide bomber with a concealed and undetectable chemistry set to be set off by an “emergency injection”, the media in the UK highlighted how detailed scanners would fail to show such kit, but would expose peoples’ genitals to the security police. Making people the “apparent victims” because they are viewed as a parade of pornographic images is what the prurient minds of a few are most concerned about? Is that their response?

I avoided international travel for eight years not so much for a fear of terrorists, but the sense that being intimately searched at every border under the watchful eye of machine gun toting security could result in a mistake. But now, that the bullet has been bit and I have travelled to the UK, I find that the real response of this Government is far less intrusive or threatening than when I travelled before 9/11.

If one’s naughty bits are exposed in a virtual lineup parading past the border, then so be it. Security is not infallible, but so long as the scanning of human bodies is not harmful, then it should be employed. Discreet methods to make things harder for the wannabe terrorist are better than being pointlessly delayed and questioned or blown up.

In other words, it a response. President Obama decided that it is not acceptable to rely upon failure and passengers to tackle security and has taken an immediate action by ordering air marshals on all flights into America. And now he has ordered security reviews and responded in such a fashion that it is obvious that he intends to disrupt the threat to public safety that increasingly sophisticated attacks may bring. Thinking ahead of the plotters is the trick and when a politician takes responsibility for solving the previously unsolvable, the public is rightfully reassured to get on with business as usual.

The unacceptable risk of being exposed to acts of war carried out upon the innocent by people who can only be perceived as totally insane or brainwashed far exceeds any fear that security police may view the bodies of the public in a virtual invasive search does provide a better rationale that will have a side effect of reducing the ability of idiots to stuff their bodies with condom wrapped drug contraband as well.

So long as there are no adverse effects, it is not a threat to freedom. And when a politician takes responsibility, there is hope of real progress. Terrorism is a serious wound, triage involves stemming blood loss, while the antibiotics take more time to be effective.

Let us hope that the Obama responsibility extends to winning the war by reducing the motivators that allow insanity to prevail. Terrorism is a terrible sickness that has befallen some of the most committed idiots who’s goals can not be realised because the forces that will act against them are not only far stronger, smarter and increasingly evolving (also), but it now has a leadership that understands responsibility.

The year 2000 was a fine boundary, because of the mathematics of dates. 2010 seems a little more mathematical, in that the century count is double that of the year count. 2000 however exposed a hole in thinking shared by everyone who entered a two figure date into their computers. Time marches on, and it is necessary to record the details.

The 2000 decade was the decade that Tony Blair and GW Bush decided that the Geneva Convention prevented them from dealing with the threat of Iraq. There is a movement to bring them to justice as their actions were not legal or desirable. They appear to have been politically driven to protect energy consumption by Americans as that was the “engine of the world” economically. How wrong could they be? Far from being an engine, the West was empowering China and India by overextending greed.

And that is why the war in Iraq was a mistake of epic proportions. If a war was to be fought in Iraq, it’s timing was wrong. Iraq was the barrier between Israel and Iran, and two “dangerous” countries who were at war with each other for years seems more threatening than one tamed and one restricted. By weakening Iraq militarily, there is a weaker buffer zone separating Iran and Israel.

It is an imbalance of credibility to claim that certain countries have a “right” to nuclear weapons, and others do not. Nobody has a right to murder all life on the planet.

And when the US withdraws from Iraq, Iran is far more likely to try and annex the Shi’ite zones of Iraq and thus raise the stakes by presenting a more polarised fundamentalist Sunni and Shi’ite division. Iran lies between the two GW Bush war zones. The Taleban are anti-Shia, therefore America has strengthened Iran and is in essence attempting to defeat Sunni fundamentalism with its continued war against the Taleban. Afghanistan is 99% Sunni, therefore acceptance of the Taleban is a very likely consequence of the failing war effort. That is why the Obama administration are ramping up the war against Sunni extremism. Iran is being defended by America. The rational however for Iran’s nuclear capability is clear.

The cause of international law and justice continues to be of terrible importance. The injustice of the Iraq invasion is reflected by a new generation of terrorists, some home grown. The unpredictable threat of a suicide bomber on air-plane flights is inviting Western governments to screen the skin surface of all passengers, so Al Qaeda has now managed to terrorise huge numbers of Muslims.

This insensitivity is due to the nature of Islamic militancy: most evident in the Teleban movement. Young men controlled the government of Afghanistan with ultra strict Sharia law enforcement. When the toll of continuous war is considered, it is no wonder that the Taleban arose. They were the children of the war with the USSR.

The absence of justice for reckless or ill considered actions by these leaders implies that they were infallible and somehow above all that. Remember, justice is a balance and if Blair or Bush were to be found not guilty of war crimes, at least it would explain their rationale. And if they were found guilty?

The first year of a National (conservative) government has been able to say that economic recovery is on its way, is all smiles and champagne – as we managed to survive – see NZ Herald.

Economic recovery in terms of trade is an excellent mark of progress. The economic boom times we thought we were enjoying as property prices went up and up was due to international capital rather than money NZ was making itself, although growth in the local economy has been enormously encouraging, that is not the capital supply that underpinned our property boom.

The problem seems that prices have not dropped, but increased. If they had dropped, then a recovery would mean them adjusting, but despite the fact that there were no bail outs, property prices sort of held and are now rising again. In other words, if there is an adjustment, it is yet to happen. But the inevitable drift will inevitably be upward, so this is not so much a problem, but a risk to locally sourced capital availability. Real growth comes about by correct investment and if those investment decisions are not part of the locality, the rationales for decisions tend to lack local benefit. This does not really matter, we are living in a global economy, already.

The Government want to reduce its investments in the community and that path has been to subscribe to foreign ownership to keep demand stimulated as NZ people find better opportunities open up in the global market.

A population constriction, when the population is forcibly reduced by war, disease or policy requires a different set of release valves than a growing economy. Instead of inflation vs interest rates, it is deflation sets in because decreasing numbers of people create demand, in other words nobody is there to buy things. It is hard enough to sell your products into a niche in competition, but when your customer base erodes, there is a sense of that being economically troubling.

In the case of China, it is simple fact that can not be escaped. Is there a way that continually dropping demand can be harnessed as an economic imperative? Why buy today if the prices drop tomorrow? Why buy at all? When things get too cheap, it becomes an imperative. The rest of the world stocked up on cheap things the nearly universally smaller families enabled more people to go out to work.

Now that the two parents are being replaced increasingly by a single child, there will be an oversupply and slackening of demand in China’s ability to earn foreign exchange. The currency crisis now is shortening the market ahead of that expectation.

China may be surging ahead now to fund a future inevitable collapse of its manufacturing capacity. In a climate of reduced world demand, China keeps its currency shielded and thus its government is effectively creating a superstructure economy and shielding the population from wealth.

See Feer.com