What Makes A Commander In Chief Good?

The whole media hype of who would make a better Commander in Chief, is just that, Hype. The simple truth is no one is prepared for the job of being President, there is no other job that prepares you for it. So to claim that because you served in the Military makes you a better choice for being Commander, is just wrong. What makes a good commander is one who takes charge, who gets all the facts possible before making a decision. You don’t just shoot from the hip, or listen to those who claim to know more, without knowing if they do or don’t. The USA is in Iraq because the Commander in Chief was lied to, so he claims. John McCain supported that war, without checking the facts presented to him. How does that make him a better choice for Commander?

More on page 1196

Good Question, Wrong Answer Ashcroft

It is sad when a former Attorney General can stand before Congress and say that waterboarding isn’t torture, and that he assumes it was of great benefit in the War on Terror. He won’t come out and say that if it was done against American Soldiers what his opinion would be, because then he’d have to show what a two faced lie his support of waterboarding is. It is torture, and to hell with what Politicians think, ask the Viet Nam vets what they think.

More on page 1194

Can We Trust Any Candidate?

While Big Business and Unions have the cash, there is something that they, and the Political Machines need that only WE, the People, can provide. That is our Vote. So do we take it seriously enough? Do we educate ourselves on what the various parties platform is, or do we really on the pundits from the various news services? Are we that lazy, that it simply is not important? Is that why so many in the US have no health insurance, why so many are facing foreclosures, because after all, it just isn’t important enough to check out the policies, the goals of the various political parties? Isn’t it time we took back our Governments?

More on page 1192

Corporate Interests in Both Campaigns

If anything, the 2008 Campaign is showing that the entire election system is in need of overhaul. From how candidates are chosen, to how they are funded. To think that any candidate who receives millions in contributions will not owe a giant corporation, or will enforce tough regulations for that industry is naive. Government needs to represent the people, not the money machines or profit based Corporations. It needs to do what is right, but it can’t do that if it is in bed with the very identities that need to be controlled.

More on page 1189

Khadr, Emotions Aside.

IF we are at war, how can we treat prisoners of war as if they are criminals in a civil case? How can we charge a boy soldier, or any soldier, with murder, if they are simply doing what any soldier is required to do, which is kill the enemy. Our troops do it, but are they being charged with murder? Surely we are better than this, yet Khadr is on trial for doing what a soldier is supposed to do. Assuming he did, which is a leap as well. War is about killing, about death, and while any loss of life is tragic, it is the price of war. One we engaged in, are in, so why is Khadr under trial, and not simply being held in accordance with the rules of war, as stipulated by the Geneva Convention? Ignoring that Convention is what one would expect from the likes of Osama, from Hitler, from other despots, but from a US President? A Canadian Prime Minister?

More on page 1186

Gutless and Disgraceful

For the PMO to claim Justice is being served at Gitmo is like saying George Bush is the most beloved and respected President the United States ever had. It is a joke, to claim that any Justice can be served by hand picked Judges run by the Military. It is a crime against humanity, to claim it is justice, when the evidence is obtained by torture, and bullying. Yet that is what Stephen Harper claims, that Justice is being done at Gitmo against a kid, a Canadian born Kid. This isn’t justice, this is a witch hunt.

More on page 1184

Who Are The Good Guys? Us or Them?

The tapes of Khadr’s interrogation by CSIS proves one thing. It shows that there is no Justice, that Canada, along with the United States are guilty of abuse, of torture. They can claim the high road, but the world can see for itself, that the high road is bullshit. To abuse a kid no matter his alleged crime, is wrong. This is not what Democracy is about, nor is this even faintly close to what Justice is supposed to be about. This is a disgrace, a blight, that needs to be corrected, needs to be addressed. Stephen Harper, George Bush, need to be shown, that we are human, that we do care about the Rule of Law, and that they are not tin pot dictators. This is wrong, to abuse any child, no matter his crime, no matter the sins of his father. This is not justice, he is a Canadian Citizen deserving of equal protection under the law. It is our obligation and duty to see that he gets it, despite the wishes of George Bush and his Gestapo.

More on page 1181

Bad Lending Practices to Stop

Seems stupid, but the Feds are toughening up the laws for lenders, though it is years behind the times, yet at the same time they are borrowing oodles of cash from China, making it nearly impossible to be repaid. Adding debt to generations unborn seems to be the solution, which begs the question as to whether these idiots care about their kids, or if it is just political rhetoric used to get votes. To bail out Freddie Mack and Fanny Maye, then say they are toughening up the rules while opposing any break for the homeowners, is just too callous for words to express. Yet that seems to not ruffle anyone’s feathers, as no one seems to care.

More on page 1180

A Drilling We Will Go, A Drilling We Will Go, He Ho a Drilling We Will Go

The Oil Industry is no friend of the people, or of nations. It is driven by greed, and while Bush panders to these special interest groups, he is putting future generations at risk. Offshore drilling is not a solution to high gas prices, not now and not for tomorrow. The issue is to reduce consumption, reduce dependency on petroleum fuels. Seeking alternative energy is the solution, not endangering the environment even more.

More on page 1179

Did You Have Fun Today?

Hope someone enjoyed today, cause it really sucked around here.
To begin with, the damn server went KAPLOO and the backup generator thingee at the host, well it got cranky around 11am and so the site, all of my sites, went for a nice long snooze.  Then when they managed to get it back, the old [...]

More on page 1178

Unifying Religion?

Pope Benedict continues to show why modern day religion isn’t about GOD, or about keeping one’s soul safe. It is about power, about wielding unlimited power so as to insure that the wealth of his institution continues to prosper, and grow. His delight is evident, at the divisions growing among the Anglicans, yet it worries him too, as people continue to find God’s path, despite his efforts to hide it, to oppose it.

More on page 1177

Bush’s Honest Market Appraisel

Economy Comments (0)

So in a private and off camera moment, President Bush may have uttered his first real honest answer regarding the United States Economy, and the absolute mess that it is in. He said that Wall Street had gotten drunk, and that he was waiting for them to sober up, to get things back on track. Wonder if his last seven years of his Presidency, if he was sober?

“There is no question about it. Wall Street got drunk,” the president said. “That’s one reason I asked you to turn off your TV cameras.”

“The question is, How long will it (take to) sober up and not try to do all these fancy financial instruments?” (source - CBS News)

Thing is, if he can say the truth in private, what the hell is stopping him from saying it in Public, and worse, DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT?

I mean he is planning to bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to the tune of $25 Billion, but he won’t lift a finger to help the MILLIONS FACING FORECLOSURE. It just is inconceivable that a man who knows that a sector is out of control, is unwilling to lift a finger to correct the situation. It really is absurd, to hide the truth, as he does, to spout about how the Economy is Basically Sound, when the truth is, it isn’t.

Ian @ July 23, 2008

Media Bias or Censorship or Sour Grapes?

Election 2008 (USA) Comments (0)

The McCain camp has confirmed that an opinion editorial by Senator McCain was denied by the New York Times Newspaper, for publication.  Fox News, in a careful attack of innuendo, have linked the rejection by the New York Times Op Ed Editor as being political, as the man served in the Bill Clinton Administration. Naturally it doesn’t go into the actual ‘he rejected it because he’s a democrat‘ stuff, but the implication is clear.

The New York Times on Friday blocked an opinion piece submitted by John McCain to the newspaper shortly after it printed a piece by his Democratic rival, Barack Obama, McCain campaign officials confirmed to FOX News on Monday. (source - Fox News)

Frankly, after reading the article itself, the whole article, I have to wonder if perhaps both sides are simply trying to meddle? Is Fox News trying to gain readership by its defence of John McCain or is the New York Times trying to censor what news it prevents? There appears to be a lot who would support either opinion, however I myself belief that both sides here are missing a key issue.

The Media is not about News, but about taking sides, about convincing people where they should stand on issues that matter to their advertisers, not to their readers. Simple truth is that on the surface, the request by the Op Ed Editor for Senator McCain to define more clearly his policies, is about informing the voters, but let’s be serious here. It is a tactic to force the Senator to make a statement, that can come back to haunt him later, or be used against him. While it would be nice if ALL CANDIDATES would be clear, concise, and definite about their policies, we all KNOW that isn’t going to happen in our lifetime.

“It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama’s piece. To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq. It would also have to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory — with troops levels, timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate. And it would need to describe the Senator’s Afghanistan strategy, spelling out how it meshes with his Iraq plan,” Shipley wrote. (source - Fox News)

This is not the job of any Newspaper nor is it the job of any Media to censor what a political candidate has to say. Now some will disagree that any Media has the right, under its rules, and under the rules of editorial sections, but I wonder, if they aren’t simply missing the whole point here. Yes, this is not a NEWS section, but an OPINION SECTION, so why then is John McCain being censored for voicing his opinion? Why is any Editor working with the authors to better frame their piece, if this is about EXPRESSING OPINIONS?

What is needed is a clear law and stated guidelines in which ALL MEDIA are forced to provide ALL CANDIDATES a FREE FORUM to express their views, their policies, AS THEY SEE FIT. Not to have some editor MAKE THAT CHOICE.  This is part of the problem, with elections costing so much, and with the rampant polarization of the Media. Fox News for example is a clear organ for the Conservative Side, while the New York Times has the same reputation for the Liberal Side.

During an Election Year, both Candidates should have CLEAR FREE ACCESS to the other side Media Outlets, meaning that Obama should be given Equal Access to state his views on FOX or other Conservative Outlets, and McCain given the same EQUAL ACCESS on the Liberal side.

No matter how nicely the New York Times puts its argument forward, this smacks not of Censorship as it stinks of pushing a Political Agenda. That really isn’t the job of any media outlet, though that has long since fallen by the wayside, with 99.9% of all Media Outlets.

Ian @ July 22, 2008

Limiting Speech via the Backdoor.

Justice Comments (0)

The world has changed a lot over the last decade or two. One of those changes has been the Computer, and the Internet. The way information can suddenly reach millions of people, in a flash. How gossip and inuendo can suddenly be flashed across the world is one of those advances, but so to is the spreading of concerns, of voicing opinions that others may never have thought of. It is a double edged sword, but one that is growingly under attack.

The blogging community increasingly is subject to lawsuits and threats of legal action running the gamut from subpoenas to cease-and-desist notices.

Since blogging became popular in about 2004, there have been 159 civil and criminal court actions involving bloggers, according to the nonprofit Media Law Resource Center (MLRC) in New York. Seven cases have resulted in verdicts against bloggers, with cumulative penalties totaling $18.5 million. Many more legal actions never result in trial. (source - ABC News)

While some who post online are simply posting gossip, idle chit chat, it has far reaching consequences. And yet we all believe we are protected by some vague freedom of speech, that supposedly entitles us to say what we want. I think we all fall into that trap, but is the assault on the so called ‘blogosphere’ really about perceived insults? Is it about a perceived threat to a person’s reputation that is driving these increased lawsuits, or is it something else?

For example, our Prime Minister is suing the Liberal Party for what was said on the Liberal Party website. He is claiming that it was defamation, libel, or whatever the legal term is, and that it harmed his reputation. On the surface that sounds reasonable, but is the goal of the lawsuit about correcting an injustice, or is it about stifling free speech? Is it to intimidate those who oppose his policies into silence? Or to lessen their voiced opposition to those policies, for fear of being sued?

Simple truth is that more people are suing over comments made on the Internet. Now I don’t know, but when does opinion become construed as fact? I for example, am not a fan of the Harper Government, or the Bush Administration. I voice that dissatisfaction, and is that libel? It is my opinion, my personal view, so when does it cross the line?  Or does it?

Are these increased lawsuits about someone trying to right a wrong, or is it a veiled attempt at stifling the rights of people into voicing their opinions?

“These defamation suits are chilling free expression on the Internet,” said Lawrence Walters, a First Amendment attorney based in Florida, who told ABCNEWS.com that in the past two years his practice has seen an increased volume of defamation cases. “Where someone might be able to get away with some criticism on a low-key level, when you post it on the Internet people tend to take action and then these defamation suits are filed. It scares people from expressing themselves in the future.” (source - ABC News)

What is worse, is that it appears that a lot of those doing the suing, are elected officials or those in position of public responsibility, such as School Boards, or other similar posts. So I wonder, are these lawsuits really about protecting one’s image, one’s reputation, or is it more about finding a back door to limiting the rights of people to express their opinions?

Ian @ July 21, 2008

20 Hours of Grief

Site News Comments (0)

In case you noticed, the links were somehow generating a 404 error when clicked on. The front page loaded fine, but nothing else.  Seems I added a plugin that had a conflict and it took me all of today to figure it out, and solve the error.

Sorry for the inconvenience, but I am now hairless if that helps…

Ian.

Ian @ July 20, 2008