Disgust

Well, I suppose I've put this off long enough.

There's one word that sums up why I haven't been blogging lately: disgust.

It crept up slowly and finally and reached a crescendo with an exclamation point at the beginning of the farce of a Gitmo "military tribunal" for former child soldier Omar Khadr - an expression of the moral bankruptcy of the American Empire™ and our own minority Conservative government which, despite a Canadian Supreme Court ruling stating that his charter rights were violated, has refused to lift a finger to help Khadr.

His "trial" has now been postponed for one month while his military lawyer recovers from an apparent gallbladder surgery-related illness.

Let me share an interview transcript with you that exemplifies why I've reached the point of disgust.

On July 26, 2010, CNN's Larry King interviewed Wikileaks founder Julian Assange and Daniel Ellsberg, leaker of the infamous Pentagon Papers.

ELLSBERG: You know, the people who put U.S. forces in harm's way, 100,000 men and women are -- in Afghanistan, are the last two administrations, but particularly this one -- the last administration, particularly this one, with a decision to escalate the war. It's -- I think it takes a lot of -- I don't know what to say, chutzpah (INAUDIBLE) for people who made the reckless, foolish, and I would say, irresponsible decisions to escalate a war that I'm sure they know internally is as hopeless as these new revelations reveal it to be.

And yet, they're preferring to send men and women into harm's way to die and to kill civilians and others -- in a war that I think they perceive is endless and hopeless, rather than to face the accusations of generals that they have, these politicians have lost a war that the generals claimed is winnable, they claimed that very foolishly.

I'd say that was exactly the same as the boss I served in 1965, Lyndon Johnson. He didn't want the General Johnson, the chief of staff of the Army, and others to resign if he didn't give them enough of what they were asking for. I think President Obama has made the same terrible error.


***

KING: Daniel, do you understand why Mr. Gibbs, representing the president, is so upset?

ELLSBERG: Well, he's very upset in part because he's working for a president who has indicted more people now for leaks than all previous presidents put together. And two of those people -- Thomas Drake and Shamai Leibowitz -- have been indicted for acts that were undertaken under Bush, which George W. Bush administration chose not to indict.

Powerful, indisputable facts.

But then came this:

ELLSBERG: So this is an administration that's more concerned about preventing transparency, I would say, than its predecessor which I'm very sorry to hear. As somebody who voted for Obama and expect to vote for him again, despite all this.

So, why should I care how Ellsberg votes?

The point is that this isn't about him.

It's about citizens who, in the face of horrendous human and civil rights violations, continue to support the perpetrators as if they have no other choice.

It's about citizens who surrender their power to an oligarchy whose only function is to sustain itself - rights be damned.

It's about citizens who think that believing in The Goodness of a leader trumps the very real and destructive actions of that leader.

It's about people who put the survival of political parties before the principles those parties are supposed to stand for.

It's about people who would rather "move forward" and not do what the law and international treaties demand: prosecuting government war criminals - a festering wound that has now been re-opened with this little parade of the so-called "last combat brigade" leaving Iraq this week - book-ended by the spokesman for US forces in Iraq, Maj Gen Stephen Lanza, (in an interview with Rachel Maddow) declaring that it's not a "war" anymore. The only thing missing was a "Mission Accomplished" banner for Obama to stand in front of.

It's about a dangerous subservience to governmental and corporate authority.

It's about an addiction to money and the supposed promise it's believed to fulfill.

It's about media more interested in maintaining access and survival than credibility.

It's about focusing on contrived political issues when the fundamentals of our very lives are at stake.

It's about disgust.

And it's about damn time more people woke up. Or maybe living in a suspended state of ignorant apathy is the best most people can do. Is that it? If it is, count me out. I refuse to live my life cowering in fear of my supposed "betters" when they have done nothing to earn my trust, respect, support or vote. You don't get to trample on peoples' rights and expect anything but disgust in return.
 

Olbermann: "Let Obama be Obama"

Olbermann: The witch-hunt vs. Sherrod, and those who made it possible

To paraphrase President Reagan's Secretary of the Interior, James Watt — Mr. Messina, and Mr. Emanuel, and everybody else in this White House who is gradually remodeling this President into something generic and safe and electable in 2012 by the slimmest of margins on the strength of being as media-circus-free and better suited to "this atmosphere" as possible.

Let Obama be Obama! And that advice must be heeded by one man above all others.

Let Obama be Obama?

Breaking news for you, Olbermann. This is Obama being Obama. Mr "No Drama" Obama who avoids confrontations at all costs until his back is against the wall and he has no choice but to respond.

What I find interesting here is that Olbermann is saying that Obama is simply a political puppet of stronger forces like Jim Messina and Rahm Emmanuel. So, I guess when he said, "The buck stops with me", he really meant that it stops with him after he's been directed by his advisors about what to do with it.

I suppose Olbermann had to include some excuse to cover for Obama in this shameful incident that saw a useless WH political machine throw yet another African-American under that now infamous bus to keep his Obama-loving fans happy. I doubt they even realize that Olbermann said Obama's presidency is being managed behind the scenes just as Dubya's was.

To top it off, Olbermann apparently believes that "Fired up?" was more than just some catchy campaign slogan.

The question used to be "fired up?" - and the answer: "Ready to go!" The question now is "fired up?" - the answer now is: "Not ready, because we cannot afford the impression of not looking sufficiently presidential and neutral and inviting a media circus in this atmosphere."

And he doesn't seem to realize yet that "hope" and "change" meant that starstruck fans like him would be hoping Obama would change all through his presidency to become this flaming liberal he never was during his campaign. That was blatantly obvious to anyone who was paying attention without fanboy blinders on.

There has been no gradual remodeling of Barack Obama during his presidency.

Obama is being Obama.

By stating, "Let Obama be Obama", what Olbermann is asking is that he be anyone but who he really is. And that is obviously not going to happen.

As for what happened to Shirley Sherrod, the Leave Obama Alone! crowd which has insisted he had no part to play in this travesty and who didn't think he owed Mrs Sherrod a damn thing because of that will now have to live with the fact that he has finally personally apologized to her - because he was ultimately responsible for the actions of his government.

Too little, too late considering just how quickly his administration jumped to get rid of her in the first place after (yet again) foolishly believing that right-wing nuts actually tell the truth. Some of his defenders even tried to claim that Vilsack wasn't a part of the administration. Apparently, they don't either don't know how government is structured or they were just grasping at any excuse to place distance between Obama and Vilsack. Either way, it's been quite the pathetic display of refusing to hold those responsible accountable.

Those defenders - comparable to Bush's 20 percenters - truly believe he is not responsible for anything that goes wrong in his administration while heaping praise on him for absolutely everything that goes right. They gaze at pictures like him as if he's some sort of teen idol - a phenomenon I never saw any Bush supporters engage in. Can you imagine the ridicule from the left if some right-wing blog had posted that kind of propaganda week in and week out during Bush's presidency while adding only Good News™ about what their dear leader was up to because they couldn't deal with reality?

That's why they cannot fathom any criticism being lobbed Obama's way. "Brand Obama", as described by Naomi Klein,  is too big too fail and must be bailed out continually at all costs:

Klein: One of the things in this-you know, a large part what I write about in No Logo is the absorption of these political movements into the world of marketing. And, you know, the first time I saw the "Yes, We Can" video that was produced by Will.i.am, my first thought was, you know, "Wow. A politician has finally produced an ad as good as Nike that plays on our, sort of, faded memories of a more idealistic era, but, yet, doesn't quite say anything." We think we hear the message we want to hear, but if you really parse it, the promises aren't there, it's really the emotions.

And, you know, I think that that explains in some sense the paralysis in progressive movements in the United States where we think, Obama stands for something because we-our emotions were activated on these issues, but we don't really have much to hold him to because, in fact, if you look at what he said during the campaign, like any good super brand, like any good marketer, he made sure not to promise too much, so that he couldn't be held to it.

Political consumers.

That does not bode well for a democracy that is supposed to be based on reason. And we're watching as the results of that marketing are being played out while dignified people like Shirley Sherrod become victims of that emotional consumption engaged in by the right, the left and all of those in between. It has produced the same outcome as unchecked capitalism: moral bankruptcy.
 

C'est dommage...

So, I had promised myself that I would finally get around to writing a new blog post today since I've been on a bit of a hiatus lately working on my little vegetable garden and then taking painkillers, naps and physio treatments to deal with the pain. Gardening with lupus, fibromyalgia, scoliosis, degenerative discs, bad feet and burning hips makes this effort a definite labour of love.

Just as I feared, however, after years of not having space to plant a garden and now actually having achieved that feat it was devastated by hail this afternoon. Not sure what there is to salvage yet besides some potatoes that look like they'll survive and perhaps a few garlic plants. I also managed to move some flower pots in time to save them from the storm but certainly not all of them, as you can see in the photos. All of this after having to wait through a very wet spring until the first week of June to actually plant anything. Murphy's Law as far as my life goes.

On top of that, I'm off to see my doctor on Wednesday after getting new x-rays of my hips and back last week which he would now like to discuss with me (code for: he saw something that concerns him.) Because I need yet one more thing to go wrong with my body. If he actually has a clue how to fix my back though, I will be grateful.

This week sucks so far... c'est dommage (literally).

Yes, it could be worse and, yes, others are suffering much more than I ever will. But - every now and then - it's okay to wallow just for a little while.
 

G...

Questions for the Cons:

Do you understand now why holding the G20 summit in downtown Toronto was a huge fucking mistake?

Did you really think these summits would boost Ontario tourism? Really?

Care to comment on how at least 3 cop cars were torched after apparently being left unattended?

How about the report about a journalist who was punched in the face? Got anything to say about that?

And this one? Emomotimi Azorbo charged with assaulting a police officer, resisting arrest, but friends say he couldn’t hear and follow police instructions. He is deaf.

Can you tell us why the TO police chief says he's "shocked" by the violence? "Shocked"?

Seriously, if you Cons thought Canadians were outraged at the $1 billion security tab you racked up for this farce, just wait until the fallout from this really hits the fan.

And Saturday nite has only just begun...

And while you try to blame what's going on on a bunch of anarchists, more than a bit of self-reflection about this absolutely bone-headed, politically-motivated decision you made about the location of this clusterfuck will definitely be in order.

I'll tell you what: next time you guys want to get together, do the rest of us a favour and try Cuba. I hear Gitmo has damn good and cheap security. And that pesky "free speech" thing won't even be an issue.
 

Generally Speaking - About Afghanistan

There's obviously no need to rehash what was written about General Stanley McChrystal and his aids in the now infamous Rolling Stone article that shook DC more than the very real earthquake that rattled Ontario and Quebec today.

McChrystal is out. A political no-brainer for Obama.

The other shoe that dropped, however, is that Petraeus is in.

And what did candidate Obama have to say about the man he just nominated to head the ISAF surge?

Obama Gives Petraeus Remarks Low Marks

By ELI LAKE, Staff Reporter of the Sun | September 11, 2007

WASHINGTON — Senator Obama, the Democrat from Illinois seeking his party’s nomination for the presidency, is giving the Iraq progress report of General David Petraeus low marks, going so far as to claim the one clear success in Iraq in recent months — the rout of Al Qaeda in Anbar — has nothing to do with the military surge the general in Washington is defending.

“I’m not sure that the success in Anbar has anything to do with the surge,” Mr. Obama said today at the first of two hearings featuring General Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker. “You yourself said it was political.”

And yet president Obama bowed to McChrystal when he publicly shamed him to send tens of thousands more troops to Afghanistan for yet another military surge that's bound to end in failure - something even McChrystal now acknowledges.

Obama today:

He urged the Senate to confirm Petraeus swiftly and emphasized the Afghanistan strategy he announced in December was not shifting with McChrystal's departure.

"This is a change in personnel, but it is not a change in policy," Obama said.

That policy is killing record numbers of soldiers.

That policy may well slow down the withdrawal of US troops while painting a rosy picture that counts on collective amnesia about just how "successful" Petraeus' surge strategy was in Iraq.

Same war. Different commander. Same policy. Different outcome?

Not likely.

It wasn't McChrystal's policy implementation that Obama had a problem with. It was his insubordination.

Candidate Obama would have told president Obama not to have nominated McChrystal in the first place considering his track record. But candidate Obama and president Obama are two very different people - as we all know by now.
 

Control Freak Steve

It's no surprise that Father Knows Best Harper has been using a tightly controlled message strategery to muzzle his ministers and anyone who represents his government or that they've tried for years to cloak the Canadian involvement in the Afghanistan war as some sort of peacekeeping mission. (See also: 2007: Canadians Will Not be Fooled by War Propaganda).

What is surprising is that they actually allowed this access to information request that uncovered the MEPs to go through considering their blatant contempt for free-flowing information. ("Attack dog" Marleau retired not long after that. We'll see how the new czar does under this repressive regime.)

Anyone who watched question period the past couple of weeks saw the MEP talking points about the Cons' G8/G20 billion dollar security cost boondoggle following Steve's Bouncing Ball of Bullshit as the excuses rolled out day after day:

"We don't want to spend this money. We have to."

"9/11."

And today's rendition after being confronted with the "fake lake" controversy:

"We're proud of Canada."

"Tourism."

The message has been clear: if you oppose spending a billion bucks on security for a 72 hour gabfest, you:

1. Hate Canada.

2. Hate security and the security forces.

Just more of the typical fear-mongering that Conservatives are infamous for.

Poor Steve.

And he wonders why his party can't muster enough support to actually form a majority?

Look in the mirror, honey.

Transparency: a word in Steve's dictionary that comes between tragedy and treason.
 

Bringing Home the BP Oil Disaster

If the oil gusher happened in my neck of the woods, here's how much area it would currently cover.

h/t to The TO Star

Related:

Gulf oil spill: BP lacked the right tools to deal with crisis, chief executive admits
Oil Companies Weigh Strategies to Fend Off Tougher Regulations
As BP disaster grows, Canada’s deepwater well faces scrutiny
Gulf Tribunal

Quote du Jour: Today's Parliamentary Food Fight

After QP today, BQ member Michel Guimond, while being heckled during a point of order about repeated accusations by the Cons who have said the party does not support children and that it sides with criminals, responded with this little swipe about Shelly Glover, MP for St Boniface (a former police officer who is a staunch supporter of scrapping the long gun registry and the Cons so-called "tough on crime" agenda):

Mr Speaker, please tell Calamity Jane to go play with her revolvers outside the house.

Outrage ensued, of course.

Shelly Glover: such a beacon of fairness and democracy - as evidenced by this member statement made on May 14, 2010:

Mrs. Shelly Glover (Saint Boniface, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Russian online newspaper Pravda had an interesting story yesterday about the leader of the Liberal Party entitled, “Russian Duke Craves Power in Canada”. Many Canadians probably do not know that the Liberal leader admitted on a Canadian television program to being flattered when addressed using the aristocratic and hereditary term “count”.

They also probably do not know that the Liberal leader admitted that his aristocratic and hereditary title was useful for social advancement in the United Kingdom. We do know that the Liberal leader is a self-identified cosmopolitan who admits to being “horribly arrogant”. It is no wonder the Liberal leader wants to raise taxes that will hurt Canadian families by killing jobs. Clearly, in his mind—

The Speaker:
We will move on to the next statement. I think that is out of order.

Yes, she quoted Pravda.

Case closed, I'd say.
 

All Hail the Oligarchy

Yes, of course it's obscene that the minority Conservative government is going to spend an estimated $1 billion for security for the upcoming G8 and G20 summits as a result of political grandstanding (remember 9/11?!) and in the shallowest attempt to highlight one of the Cons' ridings (which those attending the summit won't see anyway because, apparently, it's too scary out there!). But let's get real here: the opposition won't vote against this spending (inflated from the original estimate of $137 billion in the budget documents - did I say "inflated"? Try "blown right out of the water like BP's Gulf Gusher"). To vote against the budget would be a vote of non-confidence which would trigger an election which none of the parties currently want because all over their numbers guarantee yet another (probably Conservative) minority government. (Don't let all of this resurrected "coalition" talk fool you. Ignatieff thinks being the next PM is, laughingly, his destiny.) And, of course, none of these political puppets (except the Bloc Quebecois) wants to "embarrass" Canada on the "world stage" (compliant actors that they are) by causing a domestic ruckus before the meetings even take place.

And what of these meetings with these leaders and their entourages of thousands? The very fact that they think that spending $1 billion of taxpayers' money on their security - not to mention the numerous other expenses that go along with these quickie tete a tetes that could just as easily be handled via Skype - while a global recession is going on and while claiming that it's their humanitarian mission to help the poor with yet more promises of aid that either never materializes or is so wrought with restrictions based on ideology (no abortion funding for you dying women in Africa!) is just another slap in the face to we powerless peasants living in these so-called democracies whose only voting choices include picking a) Party A that panders to Big Business b) Party B that panders to Big Business or, at least in Canada since we have the New Democrats c) Party C that goes along with parties A & B while they pander to Big Business (although they do have showboating tantrums along the way to try to convince the rest of us that they're really different when they're not).

Look, we have a massive clusterfuck of an oil spill in the Gulf courtesy of British Petroleum. Former BP chairman Peter Sutherland who left the company this past January is now the managing director of Goldman Sachs International. That's right - the same Goldman Sachs involved in bringing down Greece's economy. The same Goldman Sachs whose officers were welcomed with open arms into the Bush and Obama administrations. The same Goldman Sachs that's currently trying to cut a deal with the US government to avoid fraud charges for contributing to that same global recession I mentioned above. The Obama administration sent their AG Holder down to the Gulf to make it look like he's actually going to pursue criminal charges against BP. Any idea how long that would actually take in court? Expect yet another deal where BP ends up paying some small fine (in proportion to its ridiculous amount of profits). Oh - ironically - the cost of the cleanup efforts etc to this point in the Gulf equal - wait for it - the same amount projected to be spent on security for those "G we're trying to look like we're doing something" summits (almost $1 billion). Chump change for a corporation like BP. Hardship for the taxpayers of Canada who will pay for these clowns to get together and talk about how they can keep pandering to monster corporations like BP and Goldman Sachs (offering them every possible legal protection they can) while the rest of us pay for their corporate crimes for decades.

This isn't just about BP, obviously. But BP is symptomatic of a much larger problem: we can't get any decent action to deal with climate change and the horrific damage these corporations are causing because the oilgarchy listens to money. They're Money Whisperers. Let's stop pretending that these guys get together to discuss anything resembling The Common Good unless by "Common" you mean those sitting in corporate boardrooms figuring out even more ways to buy more government officials while getting every possible regulation watered down to the point where it does about as much "good" as trying to get we peons to believe that if we all just switch over to compact fluorescent light bulbs, monstrosities like BP wouldn't have to drill 5,000 feet under water just to satisfy our greedy need for more oil. (Let's forget about the fact that corporate America was busy killing innovations like electric cars and that now that they are available, we can't afford them because they're "too new". See how that works? It's all your fault.)

And the latest crime by Israel? Does anybody realistically believe that will even be on the agenda? Of course not. Perpetual war and occupation is good for business. (See: Wars, Afghanistan, Iraq). What does this Con government plan to so with its' so-called "Maternal Health Initiative" in Gaza? Ooops, sorry. That's off the table. They wouldn't want to insult the Israeli government, after all. Look over there! Iran!! Nope. Israel won't even get a "sternly worded letter". The Cons (and the Obama administration) know where their bread is buttered when it comes to campaign donations. Money Whisperers...

So, what's the point of all of this, really? I'd suggest that these so-called leaders could just meet on a cruise ship in international waters somewhere but then they'd run the risk of the Israeli government mistaking it as a humanitarian mission to Gaza and we all know how that would turn out. So they'll descend on Canada for some 72 hours for photo ops while crowing about the "good" they're doing for various and sundry serfs and we'll be left holding the bag for the most expensive meeting of its kind ever. But don't complain. Just get out there and buy a few light bulbs and the order of the world will remain as it should be.

Never before have so many been bought off so much by so few. All hail the oligarchy.
 

Justifying Murder on the High Seas

Once again the ugly specter of Israel's collective punishment of Palestinians in the Gaza strip has been brought to the forefront of the world's attention and, this time, it wasn't just the actions of activists (who have largely been ignored) that has drawn the laser-like focus and condemnations of nations far and wide. This time, it was the IDF's commandeering of a humanitarian aid flotilla ship in international waters - causing the deaths of 9 activists (that we know of so far) and the wounding of dozens of others - justified as "self-defence" by the Israeli government that has quite rightly been met with scorn by the UN security council (although the wording of the specific condemnation has yet to be agreed on. Typical.)

As Amnesty International noted this past January, "Israel's [Illegal] Gaza Blockade Continues to Suffocate Daily Life". There is no legal or moral justification for this blockade to continue.

Israeli government propagandists and apologists are out in full force spreading their version of the ship boarding - even going so far as to claim that the activists tried to "lynch" their soldiers. Before this display of disproportionate violence, Israeli foreign minister Lieberman made the ludicrous assertion that "there is no humanitarian crisis in Strip" and called the flotilla "an attempt at violent propaganda against Israel". Ships peacefully headed for Gaza with humanitarian aid are "violent propaganda"? Extreme Zionist hard-liners like Lieberman will stop at nothing to excuse the Israeli government's continued crimes against humanity.

The Palestinians can't count on the Canadian or US governments to do anything but support Israel's ongoing inhumanity, as they've done for decades. And while there are reports that Turkey's government has stated it will send navy ships along with the next Gaza aid convoy - a move that could potentially set off a larger conflict - the toothless UN which has issued decades of resolutions condemning Israel's actions cannot be expected to do anything but let this opportunity for real action pass once again. Collectively, and because the US has veto power on the security council, they prefer the status quo to any challenge to Israel's power-mongering.

Meanwhile, the Palestinian people continue to suffer.

Netanyahu, who cut short his visit to Canada to return to Israel to deal with what's happened, has asserted that the only path to "peace" is to 1) have the Palestinians recognize Israel's right to exist and 2) agree to the demilitarization of Palestine. The second condition is unthinkable considering Israel's propensity for using military force at the slightest provocation (or what it perceives to be provocative.) As it has just shown, if it feels threatened by ships in international waters and feels justified launching a thuggish pre-emptive attack as it did this weekend, how can the Palestinian people ever feel secure living in a demilitarized zone? That would be madness.

Those aboard the ships are currently detained in Israel and have not been allowed to speak freely, giving the Israeli government ample time to try to win over public opinion. As far as I'm concerned, they've failed. They can claim alleged ties to "terrorist groups" or "Iran" or say that the activists had no right to defend themselves against IDF soldiers armed with guns (one Israeli mouthpiece actually said the soldiers were at first armed with "paint ball guns") but there's no escaping the fact that they forced themselves onto ships in international waters and there's no justification for that. None.

What, exactly, has to happen before there are actual consequences for these crimes? How many more people have to die?

Related:

Free Gaza
Robert Fisk: Western leaders are too cowardly to help save lives
UN Security Council members urge Israel to lift Gaza siege
Several Israeli Arab protesters arrested in mass rallies over Gaza flotilla deaths
US activist loses eye after being shot in face with tear gas canister