McCain Taps Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (???) for VP

Ok, McCain has officially sold the last shred of his soul.

He has chosen the 44-year-old, scandal-ridden, Governor of Alaska for all of 2 years Sarah Palin as his running mate.

She is largely unknown, because she hasn't really done a thing. She was the mayor of a 6000 person village three years ago, and now she's supposed to be ready to step in for the 72-year-old with a history of cancer at any moment as President of the United States. To quote Wayne, of Wayne's World, 'Chyyya...ruhight'

This is a straight pander-pick, in a couple of different ways. Firstly, she is a staunch conservative, anti-choice, and a creationist, for the Roves and Huckabees of the right wing. Secondly, she has a vagina, which of course means that all disaffected Hilary supporters will swing over to vote for a woman, basing absolutely nothing on policy, and everything simply on matching reproductive organs. Right-o.

This shows some serious desperation on McCain's behalf to make some sort of energetic splash with his pick, to stifle the wave Obama is riding after his speech of a lifetime last night and his bang-on pick of Joe Biden as his running mate. This really does nothing to help him, and simply casts some serious doubt on that 'judgment' he's always harping on as an edge.

Also, as an added benefit of choosing someone with less of a resume than the Democrat who you lambaste for not having enough of a resume, McCain has effectively ended the 'experience' meme against Obama, and really showed how off-base it was to start with. I think that was ended last night anyways, but this is the nail in the coffin.

I'm just trying to sort out all the negatives here, too many to count.

Biden is going to rip her to shreds too in surrogate battles and the VP debate. He has more experience and political skills in his pinky than she does in her whole career.

A lot of people are comparing this to the Dan Quayle pick of '88, as Palin is completely out of her league and her depth, and that was also a mega pander of a pick by HW Bush. I think this comparison is dead on, as Palin really brings nothing to the table besides her age and gender, which is not all that should be on the docket of someone who is a heartbeat from being President.

All in all, I'd say this is about the best news possible. Pawlenty would have brought a lot of credibility as a Governor to the table. Romney would have brought name recognition and a bevy of cash, even Lieberman can stand on his own two feet based on his experience and record, but nope, lets shelve all these experienced, qualified candidates, and just choose the best right-wing woman available. Good job Johnny.

I'm just sitting her shaking my head, and thinking how much has changed since yesterday morning. Obama passed the commander in chief test with a speech of a lifetime and McCain made the biggest error of his political career.

Wow, what a change a day can make.

The Obama Speech

That was simply amazing. It was the best speech by a politician, or by anyone for that matter, that I have ever heard, hands down.

He did everything he needed to do, hit every area he needed to hit, and dropped more than one notable, time-enduring quote.

It started with a biographical video beforehand that was so deeply personal it let everyone know exactly who Barack Obama is and where he came from. He alluded to this in his speech as well, and I'm paraphrasing here, that his upbringing was not that of any celebrity, taking a shot at that particular and ridiculous narrative, and hopefully putting it to bed for good now that people understand his roots.

It was about his mother, his grandparents, his childhood and his romance and marriage to Michelle. His work in the streets, eschewing a life on Wall Street or in a prestigious law firm. His career in the Illinois State Senate, where he made his first mark. It was a complete picture of the man Barack Obama, and then Senator, candidate and future President Obama walked onto the stage.

He hit McCain on everything. His ties to Bush, voting record, his temperament, (which I found to be particularly outstanding, as that is one of my bigger fears of a McCain presidency, the fact that that hothead is going to have his finger on the button), domestic policy, Katrina, everything. And the beauty of it all was it was not done in a petty way, or a cheap way, but in a calm, rational, respectful way, which always has more resonance than say, the Rush Limbaugh, battering you to dust style of politics.

It was a strong, tough speech, and it showed the fighter that Obama is, which should allay some fears about his perceived weaknesses against McCain's supposed strengths of judgment and leadership skills.

He hammered McCain on Iraq, Afghanistan and the War on Terror, saying, "John McCain said he would follow Osama bin Laden to the gates of hell, but he won't even follow him to the cave that he lives in." Wow.

Then there was the domestic issues, where he clearly defined every single major policy piece he is laying out. That was the major worry of many, that there was no details, but that cannot be said now.

There was a lofty promise as well, that the United States will not be dependent on oil from the Middle East within 10 years.

10 years! Amazing.

He also made it very, very clear that the ads McCain is running stating he is going to raise taxes on the middle class are completely false, stating flat-out that 95% of middle class families will get a tax cut, and under McCain, those cuts would go to corporations and oil companies. Great contrast.

Tax credits for hybrid vehicles, to the producers and the buyers. $150 billion into renewable energies like wind and solar power.

Most importantly, a vision for the future, not a continuation of the past.

And all on the 45th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King's 'I Have a Dream' speech.

Even the most Republican of the CNN 'pundits' are lauding the speech. Alex Castellanos, who is a straight-up Republican street fighter, said that whomever didn't get chosen to be the Republican VP is "a lucky Republican". Whoa, THAT is some serious praise.

Do you really think John McCain is going to be able to compete with that one week from tonight? No way in hell. Word is he is still trying to give away tickets to his 10,000-strong VP announcement in Ohio tomorrow. The 75,000 tickets for this speech were gone within hours, and were actually being sold (The tickets were free by the way) on Craigslist for upwards of $1000/pair. I'd call that an enthusiasm gap.

Barack Obama inspires me like no other politician I have ever seen. I know I will be talking about him to my children and grandchildren the way people talk about Kennedy, and in Canada at least, Pierre Trudeau. In the video that kicked off Obama's time, there was a quote that I'm going to carry with me for a long time, that is going to define a lot of what I do with my life, and a lot of what Barack Obama has done with his.

"You see a situation, and you think, well that's not right, someone should change that. Then you realize that no one is going to change it unless you do."

Perfect.

Fox News Reporter Greeted with Chants of "F**k Fox News" After Venturing into Anti-War Protest in Denver

Just had to put this up. It's too beautiful for words.

Well, except three words...

The fun begins about 1:30 in.

Obama-Biden - A More In-Depth Look

My VP allegiance has swung a bit during the build-up, but in the last week or so, I found myself pulling hard for Joe Biden.

I was a Sebelius fan for a while there until I became convinced that she alongside with Obama, would be prime targets for a 'no experience' line of attack from the McCain campaign, and would compound Obama's biggest problem, his lack of experience.

Quick note, I don't think experience should be a huge issue in most elections, this one especially. I think every leader, when they sit behind that desk for the first time, is a bit daunted by the challenges that lie in front of them. The best thing for any leader to have isn't necessarily a long resume, but good judgment to confront those challenges in ways that progress the nation.

Anyways, I'm getting a bit off point.

Experience is an issue with this electorate though, as they are not all simply clones of myself, and so Obama not choosing someone with one of those long resumes could be an issue, shake people's confidence in what his administration would really bring to the table, etc.

So you go with experience, easy, there are plenty of people in and out of Washington that can fit that bill, right?

Problem is, when you base your whole campaign on a theme of sweeping change and eliminating the lobbyist culture and scuzzy politics of Washington, D.C., picking someone with experience is also problematic. (My what a tight rope to walk!)

So as we see, walking that rope deftly, as always, Obama has chosen a 33-year Senate veteran who, for those 33 years, has never held a residence in Washington, and never had time to fall under those special influences. A person who takes an Amtrak train every day to and from DC from his home state of Delaware.

Watching Biden and Obama on stage together Saturday, and hearing them speak only confirmed all the positives I saw in the past few weeks with the idea of this ticket.



Most of the response to Biden from the media, and the party, seems to be fairly positive, with Gov. Ed Rendell saying, "He speaks our language", and Gov. Ted Stricland quoted, "...his humble Pennsylvania roots give him a deep understanding of the challenges facing Ohio families."

There are of course the Hillary supporters who are threatening to jump ship again to the (incredibly misogynistic) John McCain, but after the convention, where the Clintons will be getting two nights to speak, and Hillary's name will be placed in roll for the nomination, showing her the respect she does rightly deserve, hopefully a chunk will see the light and come back.

Joe Biden has an almost unparalleled level of experience with foreign policy issues, grew up in a small Pennsylvania factory town, made himself into a multi-term powerhouse of a US Senator, has pushed legislation to fight violence against women and fills in all the areas Obama seemingly lacks on that ever-important resume.

He has a silver tongue and whipcrack of a wit, and he seems to have no bones about taking Republicans to task. I frankly think that McCain will have to factor this into his choice, as if he picks someone safe with relatively little charisma, who isn't quick on their feet, Biden will embarrass and destroy them come the VP debate and subsequent interactions between the campaigns.

His personal story, aside from all the success in the Senate, is also very inspiring.

He overcame personal tragedy with the death of his first wife and young daughter, two weeks after he was first elected to the Senate at age 29, and then proceeded to commute every day from DC to care for his two sons in the decades following. One of those sons went on to be the Attorney General of Delaware and is shipping out to Iraq in the coming months.

I'm sure more will be said about Joe Biden in the coming months, not all of it good, as with nearly every politician, he has his flaws, but he was by far the best VP choice out there for Obama to make.

VP picks can be dicey, especially for someone who has no scandals to their name for Republicans to hammer upon. Obama is essentially tying himself to Biden, and everything that comes with him. I don't forsee any problems, but I don't think anyone saw Rev. Wright coming either.

I'm sure I'll take up many more pixels talking about Joe Biden, but for now, I'll keep everything simple.

When the microphones went cold on Saturday in front of the Old Capitol Building in Springfield, Illinois, I was struck with the simple thought that this election was over, and that Joe Biden was that final piece of the puzzle to winning this thing and convincing people that Obama does have the skills, and the team, to get the job done.

Obama-Biden Will Be the Ticket to Win

It's been leaked.

Joe Biden will be Barack Obama's running mate for the 2008 election.

It's been confirmed by the AP, DKos, HuffPost, and CNN.

No time for links and such, but Joe Biden will be introduced, and the much-fabled text message sent out, tomorrow morning.

Obama-Biden '08 sounds damn good to me.

Biden to Georgia a GOP Monkey Wrench for VP Timing?

I was thinking last night while reading some speculation over when Barack Obama is going to choose his VP, that Joe Biden's trip over to Georgia is going to really mess with the timing of a pick, especially if that pick is, as I hope, Joe Biden.

His presence was requested by Georgian President Saakshvili but it still smells a tad fishy to me.

There's been far too many Diaries already posted on the merits of Kaine, Bayh, Sebelius, etc, so I won't get into anything in that regard, but what I will say simply is from the group that is apparently shortlisted, Joe Biden would be, by far, the best choice available in my humble opinion.

Now, with the Olympics winding down on Sunday of this week, and the Democratic convention opening a week from today, Obama is running out of time to choose, at least if he wants to get 2-3 days of positive (hopefully) spin before the Olympics ceremonies overshadow anything political.

The convention is already going to dominate the news, so that isn't the place we would see an announcement, if we're talking pure publicity, which should always be part of the conversation.

So, the way I see things, the nod should come, at the latest, on Wednesday, giving at least two days of solid coverage, effectively removing John McCain from the news cycle until after Obama gives his 75,000-strong acceptance speech next week.

With all of that said, Joe Biden, the strongest VP choice available, is not in the country to stand with Obama, appear on stage or in front of microphones, hug, look good as a team, etc, etc, that would come along with such an announcement.

Biden isn't gone forever, but he likely won't be back until Thursday at the earliest, which isn't ideal time-wise.

I think I've gone far enough into this Diary without covering the actual title, so here goes. Georgia just had the US get its back over the war with Russia, hard. Georgia owes the current leadership in Washington a lot, and I think Mr. Bush might be cashing at least some of his chips with Saakshvili right here and now.

With the election being such a 'horse race' in the minds of many, despite so many reasons why it should not be, every little jab, stall tactic or delay is important. If Obama loses a day of publicity over his VP pick, so much the better for Johnny Mac, and for the Republican Party.

Obviously there is no hard evidence here, and I have no quotes from George, McCain or Saakshvili to point towards this hypothesis, and with Joe Biden's serious foreign relations cred, I can understand why he was the pick, but it's all just very convenient.

Maybe it's Saakshvili soaking up his 15 minutes on the international stage as much as possible, using his newfound ironclad allegiance with the US to show his own people how strong of a leader he is, cavorting with the US Secretary of State, and along with Lieberman and Graham, three heavyweight US Senators, who knows for sure.

Of course, no one knows who Obama is going to pick, and it could be Bayh or Kaine anyways, but I just hope if it was set to be Biden, that the announcement timing doesn't alter the decision, because while the VP pick is important for so many other reasons, the timing, and the control of the news cycle that one gets out of such a high profile choice is really what counts at this time of the year.

I don't think Obama would really toss Biden into the dumpster alongside the Superticket (sorry Hill) simply because of a scheduling conflict, but in the minutiae-heavy Presidential race we find ourselves in, every little tit or tat counts.

Cross-Posted at Daily Kos under the name Red Star

Russia and Georgia - Squashing the Narrative

I've been struck more than once by the utter hypocrisy of the US, and leaders around the world in their response to the Russia-Georgia war.

George W Bush was quoted as saying that invading a sovereign nation in the 21st century was 'unacceptable' (Blogger's note : Was the Iraq War in the 21st century? Someone remind me when that started). Former UN Ambassador and certified nut John Bolten said Russia was trying to re-create the Soviet Empire. John McCain jumped into this narrative as well, accusing Putin and Medvedev of wanting to reform not the Soviet, but the Russian Empire.

Wow.

That is some serious and heavy rhetoric.

I wonder why then that these kind of words were not tossed around say, back in the summer of 2006, when Israel launched their own little 'destroy the thorn in our side' war with Lebanon?

Or maybe in 2002, when the US was prepping for their 'thorn in the side' war with Iraq?

Squashing long-standing enemies seems to be so en vogue in this century of ours, that Russia's war in Georgia is fairly in-line with the example world powers have set over the last eight years.

To say that this is Russia's war, that Russia started, also seems to be the most popular way to frame the conflict in the West.

The basic timeline is this : South Ossetia is a breakaway province that wants independence, Georgia attacked South Ossetia to try and regain its grip over them, after a small terrorist attack by South Oseetia rebels, and Russia rolled in in an attempt to stabilize.

Now, from there, Russia has certainly been opportunistic, looking to squash the country, and a leader, that has been opposed to them for a while now, and who is very pro-US. They have bombed airports, bridges and civilian housing complexes. These are tragedies of course, but were they viewed as tragedies when those airports, bridges and bodies were Lebanese, or Iraqi? Of course not.

I want to make special note of the Lebanon conflict, because it mirrors this one in many ways. A small group, Hezbollah, kidnapped a few Israeli soldiers on a cross-border raid. While Hezbollah is headquartered in a small tract in Lebanon, a strip along the Israeli border, the entire country was razed with missiles, gunships and a ground invasion. It was collective punishment for allowing Hezbollah to exist in their nation. We all knew this at the time, and yet, there was nothing but support for Israel, that they were defending themselves, and were only fighting defensively, etc.

Now, in the very same sense, Russia is protecting it's territorial integrity by warring with a party on its border that has instigated a conflict. And yet, Russia is seen as the aggressor in this case, and Israel the victim in theirs.

It's all PR, it's all spin, and it's all about the false narrative that Russia is the new threat to everything that is holy and good. The Cold War worked brilliantly for those who use the politics of fear, and with under 90 days until the US elects Mr. Bush's successor, this feels like a rehash of that, with a dash of terrorist ties and a pinch of misplaced self-righteousness.

Think of a situation like this : In Mexico, along the US border, there is a group that wants independence, and they are prepared to fight for it. They run border raids across into the US, they attack Mexican interests. Mexico tries to stamp them out, but the US feels they need to protect their security as well, and of course, they feel they can do it better than any Mexican ever could, so they roll in to put out the rebellion, and then see the opportunity to shape the country in their image.

I know this isn't the perfect example, but it is an elected government, on the border of a world power, whose internal machinations have spilled over their own borders, and have sparked an international incident.

Vladimir Putin has been steadfast in his rejection of the disingenuous criticism from around the globe. He called out George as well, questioning why it was okay for the US to execute Saddam Hussein for gassing a few villages tens of thousands of miles from the US borders, but a war of aggression on Russia's border was not cause for a response.

I don't agree with Russia's actions here, so please, don't get my point confused. I am against any conflict like this, like Iraq, like Lebanon, like any smaller nation that gets stomped by a larger power for doing something that power saw as 'unacceptable'. What I am attacking in this piece is the hypocritical narrative laid out.

The US seems to also be stoking the flames of the war a bit by airlifting Georgian troops out of Iraq, where Georgia has the largest military contingent apart from the US and Britain, right into the conflict zone back home.

Understandably, Putin was a tad incredulous as to why a supposed ally would hamper another major allied power's efforts so directly, but, the main handbook on US foreign policy seems to still be 'do as I say, not as I do'.

There are also now whispers here and there of WWIII (Rush Limbaugh), and the fact that Russia has provided plans and built reactors for Iran seems to be at the top of the news again.

I'm not really sure just how WWIII would start, seeing how the US doesn't have the forces outside of Iraq to be able to even perform peacekeeping in Georgia, let alone fight Russia in an all-out war. That would likely require a draft, which is a different theme for a different article.

Funny thing is, the timing on these stories, and the expansion of the anti-Russian narrative is just immaculate, almost like state media, trumpeting the President's message for all the people to hear.

The bottom line is this, Russia's actions, while not desirable, are within the boundaries that have been set for international conflict of this kind. The US set the precedent of a world power having the justification to invade another sovereign nation based on their own suppositions, and nothing else. Israel continued this line in 2006 with Lebanon, and now Russia has its turn at the plate.

No one is in the right, or no one is in the wrong, the US doesn't get to play both ways on this one, they've gone too far to have that right any longer.

Barack Obama Passing on Town Hall Debates is a Mistake

Barack Obama said during his interview with Tom Brokaw that he is moving away from the Town Hall debates idea floated just after the Democratic primary ended, and sticking to three traditional moderated debates instead.

My question is, why?

It is plain to see who has the oratorical edge, who is better on their feet, and who has the issues advantage in this election.

So why are we not looking to hammer McCain and make him look ridiculous on a grand scale? It doesn't have to be anything like getting to the Republicans level and attacking him, I just mean airing out all his flip flops, bad policies, and GWB-like qualities with an audience at home watching.

Can't you see McCain getting flustered in that type of setting, showing that anger we've all heard numerous stories about? I sure can, and I don't know why Obama isn't pushing for it. He doesn't have to attack McCain, he just would have to poke at him enough for Johnny to implode on himself like a dying star. Kind of like the last week has done. Barack did nothing but show why he would be a more effective Commander in Chief, and it riled McCain into making almost a baker's dozen of horrendous mistakes, gaffes and outright lies.

The debates he came off best in during the primary season were the informal ones, where both people sit, either behind a desk or on stools. In the podium debates, he seemed to lose a bit of his gravitas. Now he is the one advocating those as the only method of direct interaction with McCain until November.

Maybe he doesn't want to be paired with McCain in the sense that he could be seen as the big black man dominating the old white guy. Who knows. Or it could be plants in the audience with fluff questions like the flag pin, or attack questions about Rev. Wright or him being a Muslim. Maybe he fears being seen as a snob or an elitist while McCain turns up the good ol' Straight-Talkin' charm.

In short, maybe Obama smells a setup.

This is about the only rationale I can see for not putting himself and a lesser opponent together in a free-wheeling environment.

I don't doubt that Obama will do well against McCain in the traditional debates, but he could do so much more with even one Town Hall.

It just seems like a missed opportunity, where McCain could have been very much exposed, within an hour or so, for the liar, flip flopper and Pander Bear that he is.

I don't know, maybe I'm missing some sort of strategic play here from the Obama camp, but to me, Town Hall debates seem tailor made for a huge Obama advantage.

Cross-Posted on Daily Kos Under the name Red Star

Anti-Media Media

As I was watching The Daily Show tonight, I was thinking about how more than ever, it seems there are some media types that have really started to tee off on the ridiculous coverage of this election, and the insipid nature of the state of journalism as a whole.

John Stewart usually devotes at least the first segment of his show, every single night, to lambasting McCain, and the media by proxy. I know Stewart has always had an 'edge', but it seems like after the writer's strike ended, he was filled with a different kind of fire, and I like it.

Keith Olbermann is a prominent member of the so-called 'MSM' that seems to be trending harder and harder against the media as a whole, calling out CBS, BIG TIME, for the jimmied up editing of the McCain interview the other night. Also of course, there is his long battle with Bill-O from a certain news channel that Nas protested today for, gasp, racist and biased coverage.

These are two examples of the 'Anti-Media Media', who are a part of mainstream news or pop culture, who consistently criticize others in their own medium.

Rachel Maddow and Arianna Huffington would be another two who are bucking the trends of modern journalism for the pure sake of rationality and truthful coverage.

It's like journalism died around these people over the last few years, and they are kind of standing in the ruins, contemplating just WTF happened.

Without these few, the Hannity's, Limbaugh's, Blitzer's and Katie Couric's of the world would be considered all too normal. (Well, maybe not Hannity)

Lightness breaking into darkness, Jedi vs Sith, pick your metaphor, you get the gist.

Of these, only Olbermann can truly be considered mainstream, with a nightly show on a major network, but the others do their part to squeeze the tiny bits they can into the narrative that is being told.

John McCain might get a largely free ride on his now daily idiocy, but with a handful of names fighting for the issues and reporting the stories that others won't, the ones discussed here and on hundreds of other communities, we may just be able to sneak a little bit of this truth thing into the argument.

With McCain's frequent flubs, there are dozens of opportunities to nail him to the wall. 9 times out of 10, he's probably going to slither past, but every now and then, as with the CBS interview, he's going to get hit, and we have the members of the Anti-Media Media to thank for that.

Cross-posted on Daily Kos under the name Red Star

Finally! : After 5 Years, UN Takes Action on Sudan

Sudan has been something that has horrified anyone that even had a cursory understanding of the situation for over 5 years now.

Now we have found out what everyone suspected all along, that the Khartoum government was sponsoring and planning the genocide from its highest levels. A high level commander in the janjaweed militia now says that their actions : raping, pillaging, killing and burning villages in the Darfur region, was straight from Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir.

We all knew this was likely the case, but now there is confirmation, and as this person spilling the beans is a high level commander, it just makes the information carry that much more weight.

There were two other major news pieces on Sudan this week as well.

There is now evidence to confirm that China has played a significant role in aiding the genocide militarily, as Chinese military vehicles have been spotted in use on both sides of the conflict. Leaving all moral conflicts aside from helping this sort of movement along, this contravenes a 2005 UN ban on military aid to the Sudanese government. With a recent move to 'not anger China', this will likely go to the wayside, but in the larger sense of the court of public opinion, China's direct support for the Darfur genocide is now on record.

Also, the UN War Crimes Tribunal is likely going to try the leaders of the African nation for war crimes at the Hague for their role in the slaughter.

So, after 5 years of inaction, while it was the cause celebre of the celebrities and non-body hair shaving activists everywhere, we have some solid results on Sudan.

None of this means the genocide will stop, as this news isn't a major change of pace from what we already understood about the conflict. But what it does mean is that countries, such as Canada, can take action now, with hard evidence showing the crimes of Khartoum.

Being bogged down in Afghanistan may prevent us from really stepping up, it just makes it harder for Omar Hassan al-Bashir to continue to deny help from the African Union or the UN to stop the violence.

Sudan is a complex situation, and it will require a lot more than words and empty threats to make the changes that are needed. I think the same is true for Zimbabwe.

The western world largely turns a blind eye to continent as a whole, and only slightly turns a head when millions are dying in horrible and savage conditions. This conflict and the new details about it, seem to have finally broke through and reached a point where people really give a shit, and are prepared to take action.

I hope so, and I hope the war crimes charges stick, I hope China is censured, and I hope we never have to discuss this kind of topic ever again.

But then again, when have 'millions displaced, hundreds of thousands killed' ever really made a meaningful difference in the future?

Remember Rwanda? We said never again. And then we let it happen again.



We need to act. It is just that simple.

G8 Summit : Loooowwwerred Expectaaaatttions...

Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Environment Minister John Baird dampened expectations for wide-ranging deals on basically anything at the upcoming G8 Summit in Japan.

There are too many to list off, but climate change and the world economy are the two heavy hitters right now. Environment, at least, is getting pushed back before it evens begins to take hold as an issue, with Baird stating we all have to wait about 18 months, until Fall / Winter 2009 in Denmark, where the next major UN climate change conference will be held.

Yasuo Fukuda, the PM of Japan and host of the summit, wanted to set an agenda to halve greenhouse gases by 2050, at the very least. This was immediately rebuffed by the US, as always. Fukuda declined to say specifically if the US was blocking a deal, but if they weren't Baird and Harper probably would have made the ol' college try themselves.

There are other opportunities for climate change discussions, Baird stated, saying essentially that Canada could build momentum at the G8 for Copenhagen in '09. This seems like the usual right-wing 'stall on climate change until we're out of power' routine, but there are actual opportunities for discussion here, as emerging economic powers like China, India and Brazil will be attending, with a contingent of African nations as well.

I see nothing meaningful coming out of these meetings in terms of climate change, because the biggest polluter, the US, is seeing it's most unpopular President out of power this year, and his final months will not be spent on climate change. They will be spent trying in his own halfassed way to broker peace in the Middle East in Israel / Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan and beyond.

Nothing else matters, and nothing else will be accomplished before the US inaugurates its next President.

On the global economic front, there is more ideological games to be played, as the conservative leaning leaders are pushing deregulation and free trade as a way to shore up flagging economies. As has been shown with Mr. Bush, who deregulated the financial industry at home and signed free trade deals with anyone that would scrawl their name next to his, conservative ideology no longer applies, and never really did.

As with climate change, with Bush riding out of power, nothing will be accomplished. The US will continue bungling around, maybe send out another rebate cheque and bomb Iran before November. That's about it.

The last thing on the docket, apparently, is Robert Mugabe and Zimbabwe, one of the more successful despots there has been in Africa, in terms of keeping his iron grip on power even with one of the worst economies in all of human history. I'm sure many have heard and read about the one man elections and intimidated opposition dropouts. There seems to be a video out now as well, which shows vote rigging in the election held a few weeks ago. Why there was vote rigging in a one-man election I don't know.

The point is, and Harper actually said this the other day, to have 'one voice' from the G8 criticizing Mugabe, and further pressuring him to either step down or allow foreign intervention to have free and fair elections, where Mugabe would likely get trounced.

That may be an easy way to show progress in this G8 Summit, because in place of all the things that actually matter, such as war, economy, climate change, HIV, etc, etc, we are going to get an empty threat to a dictator who likely will ignore it and continue in power until he dies.

Awesome.

As the title says, these guys really know how to do Loooowwwerred Expectaaaatttions... :



........................

Maybe I'm a tad cynical this morning, and this piece may have been a little more biting than intended, but seeing inaction in the face of so many challenges is rather aggravating. And when I get aggravated, like Hulk, I SMASH....well not really, I write political articles, I don't really smash a thing.....

Dion's Delivery Failure -- And No, I'm Not Talking Emails Here

As you can tell by the last article I posted up, I am in favor of a carbon tax to address the problems of climate change.

Now, this support of the BC plan does not mean I support the idea across the board.

Here we come to the point of this post, which is Stephane Dion's proposed federal carbon tax. It has been hammered from the start, much like the BC Liberals plan, from all sides. There is a reason why though, and it points towards a huge part of Dion's overall problem as Liberal leader.

Delivery.

The BC Liberals delivered their carbon tax with hard-set plans to offset the tax through tax cuts and dividend cheques. It hasn't quelled the furor, but when people actually get down to it, and look at their paystubs, hopefully the message finally hits home, and I don't have to convince person after person, some who I view as extremely bright, that the carbon tax is not akin to Satan rising up from the depths of Hell to swallow children.

That aside, Dion did not deliver his carbon tax in any way that would have been palatable. He introduced it flippantly, without a plan to show why it would be revenue neutral, and has been shooting himself in the foot with the details ever since.

There are some plans in place now, with hard prices per tonne of carbon ($10 in the first year, rising to $40 by the fourth year). There will be tax increases of around $15 billion on the highest fossil fuel consumers and carbon emitters, and it will be offset by around $15 billion in tax cuts, which trickle mostly to lower and middle income families who will feel most tightly squeezed by the new rules.

From CBC.ca :

• A 1.5 percentage point rate reduction for the lowest tax bracket (the first $37,885 of taxable income), to 13.5 per cent from 15.
• A one percentage point rate reduction for the second-lowest tax bracket ($37,885-$75,769), to 21 per cent from 22.
• A one percentage point rate reduction for the bracket between $75,769 and $123,184, to 25 per cent from 26.

There is also set to be a supplement of $1225 to low income families with kids under 18, by the fourth year, there will be a $350 child tax credit every year, and rural taxpayers would receive a $150 dividend cheque every year.

Dion predicts a family of four with an income of $60,000 / year will actually end up saving $1300 a year under these types of programs, even though their fuel costs will have risen.

Dion has also pledged that gas prices will not rise due to his new tax, which I personally find to be the most troubling part of the whole idea. Basically the justification for this belief is that oil and gas companies are already making tremendous profits off our backs, so they wouldn't translate the new tax over to the pump.

If I may, let me just say, bullshit. Absolute bullshit. The large oil and gas producers have already translated higher costs of oil down to us, at a rate higher than what the actual cost of a barrel of oil is rising. They have shown no remorse in raping everyone at the pump up until now, so where is the belief that they will magically stop? This tax is targeted to make their industry more expensive to run, and eventually either force them to diversify or die. If I'm in that position, I'm probably not going to be too peachy about going along and making the plan easier to swallow.

Gas prices will likely rise nationally, and Dion will have to account for it, or risk losing the whole argument up front.

The most major part, as with BC, in selling this kind of plan, is to make it 'revenue neutral'. Ah, there's that lovely buzzword again. He has pledged to make it so, and to have the Auditor General do a review every year to ensure that commitment continues to hold water.

Dion has said flat-out that within four years of his new system, costs for a regular, median household in Canada would rise $225-$250. Home heating costs will jump up to 8%. But as those increases will be offset by tax cuts, we're all good right? Wrong.

The most vocal critic of this plan has obviously been Stephen Harper, who is a much better communicator and politician than the BC carbon tax's main opponent, Carole James of the NDP. The fact that Harper can communicate his opposition, and basically Western Canada's opposition to Dion's plan so well may doom it from the start. Harper can deliver his ideas, Dion cannot.

I may not like Dion's style, but he seems to be rather ballsy when it comes to something he believes in. He has said flat-out this tax will hurt Saskatchewan and Alberta most (Alberta obviously, but Saskatchewan due to a high number of coal-fired power plants) and now he is touring there to sell / convince skeptics. If nothing else, this may push Dion's timid and tepid image to the back burner a bit.

The carbon tax. Yes, we need it. Yes, it will help us in the end, even though it may be painful now. Yes, BC, and Canada can be world leaders in green technology.

The problem is that it is long term. Our politics, mindsets, society, is all instant. Instant gratification, quick money and real-time results is what we thrive on, and it is not what the carbon tax gives us.

This is why, in the end, I am labeling Dion's ideas good, but his delivery of them as absolutely craptacular. The carbon tax is something you push through when already in power (see Gordon Campbell and the BC Liberals), not something to campaign upon. You campaign on those short-term, positive sounding ideas that sell you and your government to the people, then you start the wide-ranging, long term policies once in office.

This is fairly fundamental in our politics, but it is something Dion doesn't seem to grasp.

It's all about the message, where, when and how it is communicated.

In short, my friends, it is about the delivery, something Dion needs to learn if he has a hope in hell of selling his carbon tax, and the Liberals as a whole to Canada.

The Carbon Tax -- Don't Let Politically Motivated Opposition Spoil Our Path to Environmental Leadership

I've heard a lot tossed around the last few weeks about the carbon tax that Gordon Campbell and his BC Liberals crammed through the Legislature with minimal debate. Of course, I think that debate should have been allowed to continue, but probably for different reasons than one would assume.

I am fully and completely for the carbon tax.

There, I said it.

Everyone hates it, and I can understand why with the way the whole debate has been framed by the media and opponents, but I'm here to tell you why this is a good thing, and why it will make BC better, provide jobs, and stabilize our economy for decades.

Ok, bad news first. Yes, your gas prices will go up.....by a whopping 2.4 cents. Gas is already rising 5-7 cents a week as is, so realistically, the uproar over that portion of the carbon tax is a little overblown.

The main problem I can see is with heating. This is going to be more of a cost impact than anything seen at the pump. An average house in the suburbia around Vancouver is already paying far more than they should to heat their homes (because Gordon Campbell sold our public Gas utility to an American conglomerate, who has since doubled, and will soon triple the rates).

This is where what seems to be the most popular new term in Canadian politics comes into play: 'Revenue Neutral'.

Obviously the meaning of the term is that even though it is a tax increase, the government will not be collecting any new tax dollars off of it, as there will be cuts and dividends in other areas. It is a tax shift. You have already seen the $100 Carbon Tax dividend cheque in your mailbox if you're a BC'er, and there is more to come in the form of tax cuts.

We are still paying the same amount of money overall, and all the revenue collected from that extra 2.4 cents a litre is going to be directed towards developing alternative fuels, green technology, and breaking the province, the country, and maybe even beyond from our addiction to fossil fuels as a whole.

There is a bigger picture than just at the pump here people. We are doing our part to ensure that in a decade or two, there doesn't even need to be a pump at all.

Directing huge chunks of money towards these technologies means there will be plenty of new 'Green Collar' jobs created as well. Think of what we can do with all that money and people power put to good use.

Imagine if we can bridge the gap and actually become a world leader in green technology? We can sustain ourselves in the new world we are seeing the edges of today. The world is moving green, and if BC can be on the forefront of that, we can make ourselves, and Canada, into serious powerhouses.

The other day, I read that within 7 years, Mercedes-Benz will no longer be producing cars that run off of gasoline. 7 years! Unbelievable. This is the world we will be living in soon, and by taking this brave step, and being the first in North America to introduce a carbon tax, Gordon Campbell and his Liberals have taken BC down a potentially prosperous new path.

The NDP, provincially, and federally actually, now that Stephane Dion has introduced his federal carbon tax, are opposed, saying that everyone shouldn't be hit, and any taxes on carbon emissions should heavily target corporations and companies who are the worst offenders. I am more than fine with that, but it doesn't mean people driving SUVs and H2's and cars from 1973 shouldn't be hit as well. This is an 'across the board' problem that needs to be dealt with, you guessed it, across the board.

I find it odd that a party so focused on environmental initiatives as Jack Layton's would take a stand against something this progressive and dedicated to the movement away from fossil fuels, but with him, and with Carole James here provincially, the issue isn't really the carbon tax, it's that they both need some kind of uniting issue for their parties to draw in votes in quickly approaching elections.

Provincially, Carole James didn't have a leg to stand on, and did not have a single uniting issue, until now, with this carbon tax. Same goes for Jack. So while they will push on, decrying that the Liberals, provincially, and nationally, are hitting ordinary Canadians with a tax increase, their words will likely never ring so hollow. Both have betrayed their ideological beliefs for political posturing.

It is by no means the first or last time something like that will happen in politics, but for me personally, as someone that has voted NDP every time I have marked a ballot, it is especially disingenuous.

I just hope the larger picture is seen in this whole debate, because if the argument is going to be framed as just a jump in gas prices, the larger message, and the larger plan as a whole, will be lost, and 10-20 years from now, we'll be watching another country taking the mantle (and the revenue) as the place to go for green.

Hillaryis44.com Has Gone Over the Deep End

I thought it would be an educating trip to look over at the extreme Hillary camp after her concession speech yesterday, and see their viewpoint on the general election going forward.

The main extreme pro-Hillary, anti-Obama site has got to be Hillaryis44.com, especially after mydd.com has united behind the choice of the Democratic Party, as they are, in the end, Democrats. The Hillaryis44 people have been saying they were going to not only vote for McCain but try in an extremely proactive way to disrupt and derail the Obama campaign in the name of Hillary.

But now that Hillary has stepped aside, and endorsed their most hated foe, the Hillaryis44 people have gone down a different, far more disturbing track.

Now, the main message is that the Democratic Party has betrayed its roots.

Yes, you heard it right, the Joe Lieberman argument is in full steam.

The main message in the first page is a diatribe by a self-described former 'Reagan Democrat' named Taylor Marsh, who goes off on Obama for betraying the Democratic Party :

I’m an American first. I will not support my party no matter what, or someone in my party who is doing what I believe is horrendously destructive things to the ideals I hold dear.

I have no intention of stuffing my beliefs back in a bag in the name of party unity. On this I stand with the Founders who weren’t all that crazy about political affiliation. I have absolutely no intention of backing someone who believes Republicans were the party of ideas for the last 10-15 years.

As a Reagan Democrat, I know that dog whistle, baby, and I’m running in the other direction. Someone who takes Democrats for granted in order to reach out to independents and Republicans to get the Democratic nomination holds no sway over me. It’s also not my job to unify the Democratic party.

So apparently betraying everything the Democratic Party stands for and voting for the Republican in the fall is a way to...protect the Democratic Party's values? Huh?

His last line is a doozy :

I’m a proud Democrat, but I’m an American first. If you want unity you’ve come to the wrong place.

Hmmm, can I get some extra Lieberman sauce on these sour apples?

And as a final coup de gras, this is what convinced me that these people have literally lost it :

...a few words of advice to Hillary: If you lie down with dogs you wake up with fleas.

They are now attacking the woman they so fervently worked for because she has the gall to try and swallow her pride, admit her defeat and unite the Party to defeat the Republicans in the fall.

This line also came about a paragraph after this :

November will come soon enough and we will vote for Hillary; No one else but Hillary. We will encourage others to do the same.

We won’t be alone in that decision- vote for Hillary - Not Big Media, Not Big Media Tool Obama. We will also NOT vote for any candidate who endorsed Obama over Hillary during the primary season. We will encourage as many Democrats as possible to follow our lead.

You love Hillary and the Democratic Party so much that you will not only will you work against a Democrat in the White House in the fall, you will also work to prevent a Democratic majority in the House and Senate. Awesome guys, thumbs up.

I wish Hillary had directly called out this sect of her supporters in her speech yesterday, which was actually my motivation for thinking it wasn't up to snuff, and told them in very distinct terms that going against Obama and the Democratic Party is a betrayal of everything she has stood for in this campaign. Hopefully she will soon enough, but with the mood already at this level, and threats already being tossed out there, I don't think it will matter.

These types of sites, as well as 'Hillary Clinton Supporters for John McCain' need to be completely ignored, and not flamed, cited, or referenced ever again. This is the reason why I am writing this diary, not to increase their hits or start a war like mydd and DKos experienced. Not to divide, but to unite, against this kind of nonsensical crap, just as my candidate would do, and just as their former one did in the end.

Cross Posted on Daily Kos under the name 'Red Star'

Barack Obama, 2008 Democratic Party Nominee for President of the United States

I know I'm a little late with this, but as anyone can tell by the lack of posts, I've been busy.

On Tuesday night, we all witnessed a piece of history. We watched something unfold that even 3 months ago you probably would have said was impossible, and for the entire history of the United States, was impossible.

A black man will lead a major party into an election, with a very good chance of being the first man of color to actually take the mantle of President.

I remember the night that Obama won the first primary in Iowa, I was watching the results roll in on CNN and heard Wolf Blitzer say this about the historic victory that started the tidal wave, "This is only the first contest, and this doesn't mean a thing." I was taken aback, but it set a good standard for the quality and class of the media so far in this cycle. Next came Rev. Wright, Flag Pins and Ayers, and attempt after attempt to drive this campaign towards the meaningless gutter issues, by the classy media and an even classier Hillary Clinton, who was all too eager to go dirty the second she faltered.

But through it all, Barack Obama was never tripped up, he never strayed from his values, no matter how tempting it must have been to take shot after shot back at Hillary and really blow her hypocrisy and lying into the mainstream argument. He was class all the way. He gave her the benefit of the doubt, he let things slide that could have killed her early, and he re-directed things back to the issues whenever possible.

He never got that courtesy in return, but it didn't seem to matter. From the start Barack Obama didn't take lobbyist and PAC money, and he hasn't to this day. While John McCain sold his Maverick values for a staff full of lobbyists and Hillary sold her soul to anyone that would cash a cheque, be it corporate interests or not.

McCain so far, frankly, has looked well out of his depth, and like a complete fool during the free time he enjoyed in the last few months while Democrats were still battling. Mixing up Sunni and Shia Islam 4 separate times, saying the US was down to pre-surge levels in Iraq when they are not, flip flopping on things we had as a hallmark, like opposition to torture, the list goes on and on.

If anyone caught his speech on the night Obama clinched the nomination, you know how terrible he is going to look when put toe-to-toe with Barack. If you haven't seen it, well, gosh golly, I happen to have it right here :



McCain has challenged Obama to a series of 10 Town Hall-style debates across the country. I have heard the yay and the nay arguments on this, the nay being that McCain just wants to suck off Obama's star power, and get larger audiences than he has now, but I think the positives of making McCain look like a fool in real time outweigh anything he might gain.

The Obama camp has said they would like more of an open style than what the McCain campaign has designed, which of course would be ideal, as McCain isn't very good on his feet (or actually that good reading off a teleprompter, see video above). Even if they can't get that kind of forum, I think anything where McCain has to stand side-by-side, or on stools, or behind podiums with Obama is already a win in my books, because every single time, McCain will look like shit, guaranteed.

I think the real race for the Presidency just ended, as McCain should be like high school football next to the Super Bowl we just watched unfold. Hillary was ten times the campaigner and the opponent John McCain ever could be. They both would have walloped him in the fall.

I would like to salute Hillary Clinton, because she did break a glass ceiling for women, just as Obama broke it for minorities. She did receive millions of votes, even if she didn't win the popular vote, as she is claiming, as you cannot count a state where Obama wasn't on the ballot, and then not count caucus states where estimates are half a million people or more participated in.

She had moments where I wanted to throw my shoe at the TV, like during the ABC debate/debacle when she said Ayers was a legitimate talking point, or when she tacked "Not that I know of..." onto the end of an answer that should have been unequivocal about Obama being a Muslim, or when she said on more than one occasion that McCain and her had passed the leader test but Obama had just made a speech in 2002.

Her surrogates, and her husband stirred the race pot, subtly, and not-so-subtly. She let the campaign be run by a man that didn't understand the modern campaign, and bungled even management of an old-style campaign, Mark Penn. She disparaged states, didn't count others, and basically took February off and let Obama take the momentum, which he never gave back.

She was groundbreaking, but she made her share of mistakes, and had the misfortune of running against the most dynamic and powerful candidate since JFK.

When these campaigns were launched, it was seen as an inevitability that she would be the nominee. I knew of Obama earlier than he hit the mainstream and was a fan instantly, never thinking he would actually do this thing. It's an amazing feeling to watch someone, support them to your wits end, defend them like family even though you've never met and don't even share the same citizenship, and then have them pull off the most unexpected political victory in history.

So, hats off to Hillary, and I hope she doesn't fade away. She should stick in the Senate and help Obama pass Universal Health Care, there's the legacy she's looking for. Maybe the governorship of NY? Or a higher post in the Senate? Either way, she will not be President, and I don't mean now. This was a one shot deal for her, and that is why she fought so hard.

She will be 68 years old when Obama's theoretical two terms end, leaving little space to run again. Also, she has probably put many voters off her for a very long time. Hillary will fade to the background after Saturday, when she is officially ending her campaign, endorsing Obama and advising her supporters and donors to do the same.

The Democratic Party is Barack Obama's to lead now. He has started, instructing the DNC not to accept lobbyist funds, and pulling rogue 'Democrat' Joe Lieberman, by the hand, over to the corner in the Senate chamber to talk some sense into him for supporting McCain so vocally. That is what a leader does.

It will only grow from here, but a movement and an election that will shape this generation, my generation's future, is fully under way.

It began during Barack Obama's stirring speech on Tuesday from the site where the GOP will hold their convention in the summer. I was standing at my patio door, thinking, as I did during the Philadelphia speech on race, that I should remember where I was when this all went down, so that I can tell my kids what it was like to watch President Obama on his road to the White House.

Hillary Invokes RFK's Assassination as a Reason Not To Drop Out

She has simply lost all shame. She is stating, for the national media and anyone nutjob watching that she's readily available to step in if, y'know, Barack Obama gets, y'know, ASSASSINATED.

Some may say this wasn't what she was going for, and since she made these comments, she has tried to explain them, halfways retracted them, then got mad at the media for taking them 'out of context'. Hillary says she was just referring to long nominating contests stretching into the fall, but even this is shoddy.

Bill Clinton did have the nomination wrapped up, he was just waiting to be rubber-stamped, much in the same way McCain is the 'presumptive' nominee now, so toss that out. Also, there have been much closer and politically relevant races than RFK's back in '68. There was the other Kennedy, the man who should have been President, Ted Kennedy, and also Gary Hart, who both ran campaigns almost up to the Convention to secure their spots.

I know she brings up Bill constantly, and that's fine, they're married and all, but I wish she would do it with a little truth. With Bobby Kennedy, I just think it's ghoulish, uncalled for, and frankly shows her judgment is not up to snuff to be Commander in Chief, period.

CNN's Bill Schneider : Obama Too 'Exotic' For Kentucky Voters

He just said this live on the air, in between shiny clips of Hillary's 'victory' speech on the night Obama clinched a majority of delegates.

This is now the second primary in a row where I've watched CNN and been utterly appalled by what I heard said on the air. Last time it was the alleged fraud and 'old school Chicago Style Politics' when a county close to Illinois posted their results a few hours late.

Now it is an outright slur right on Live TV.

Obama is too exotic? I turned to my partner and went, 'did he just say that?' and we both kind of sat there stunned while Wolf Blitzer segued onto the next spot.

I've come to expect the worst from most news networks, especially CNN, but I thought we could maybe keep this to some biased issues and language. But nope, we're going to move right to the GOP's under the radar message this fall, that Obama doesn't fit into the 'values' of everyday people, that he is an elitist, exotic and extreme liberal.

I really should stop watching the results on CNN, I know this, but I think that magic screen that John King plays with is hypnotic...

Cross Posted on Daily Kos Under the Name 'Red Star'

Obama and the Teflon of Rationality

This is why Barack Obama will be sitting in the White House nine months from now.



This man is like no other politician I've ever seen. No matter what kind of ridiculous kitchen sink attacks come at him, he holds a press conference and calmly makes reasoned and logical arguments that make the other side look petty, stupid, and just plain wrong.

You cannot doubt the sincerity of his words, but you sure as shit better doubt the hypocrisy of John McCain's.

I don't think the GOP quite understands yet what they are going up against in the fall. Not Al Gore, and not John Kerry, but Barack Obama, the once-in-a-generation candidate that is going to blow them, and their tired, out of touch 'distraction issues' out of the water.

Hell, this kind of crap was put On Notice wasn't it?


Cross Posted on Daily Kos under the name ' Red Star '

McCain-Clinton - The New Dream Ticket

With all the talk of a Dream Ticket on the Democratic side dying away, as it should, my mind got to wandering about another match made in heaven that seems to be emerging.

No, not Gore-Obama, I'm talking about John McCain and Hillary Clinton.

Blasphemy, you say?

Well, yes, but as they have been coordinating their messages lately, it almost seems like Obama is running against a McCain-Clinton ticket right now.

I know there isn't a realistic shot of a McCain-Clinton ticket here, both parties would throw the two square out on their asses. But, they seem to have no trouble unofficially cooperating to drag Barack Obama's name through the mud.

Now with McCain, the motivation is easy, Republican nominee-Democratic nominee (presumptive on both accounts**).

But why is Hillary tearing down a fellow Democrat and building up a, supposed, Republican foe?

This is one of the mysteries of the day right now, with the only clear theory being she wants to utterly destroy Obama, even if it costs Democrats the White House this fall.

With all these kind words bandied around by Clinton to McCain, it's a little hard to see her coming back in the fall and campaigning for the Democratic Party against him.

Hillary seems to be swinging more and more 'Rove-ian' with her campaign as she sinks deeper and deeper into the hole her lies, and Mark Penn, have dug underneath her.

Watch this short video, where Clinton is giving a lot of praise to McCain, and taking a lot of talking points from not only just McCain, but Bush, and even Cheney, all while criticizing a fellow Democrat. Some of the quotes are taken a bit too ambiguously for my taste, but the meaning is clear for the majority of them.





If she is elected, what changes? The mindset is the same. There might be large differences in domestic policy between a Bush administration and a HRC administration, which I would gladly welcome, but is the price of maintaining the aggressive stance of the Bush administration worth it?

There still will be a hard-line approach, and the threat of an attack on Iran looming. Obviously ditto for McCain.

Comparing the two, their seemingly high respect for each other, and how they seem to really synch up nowadays, uttering the words 'elitist' and 'out of touch' like a toddler that just learned how to say them, John McCain and Hillary Clinton don't just sound like the new Dream Ticket, they sound like Best Friends:




Also posted on Daily Kos under the name 'Red Star'

Barack Obama responds to the 'Bitter' Criticism

Barack Obama again today proved why he is going to be giving a brilliant Inauguration speech as President about 9 months from now.

He is smart, level headed, and he is honest with people. He responds to the 'elitist', 'out of touch' criticisms from the multi-millionaires with this down-to-earth speech in Steelton, PA.



For all those that worry Barack Obama is going to be stripped apart by the Republican attack machine this fall, that video should show you that he's more than ready to bob and weave and jab around it all the way to the White House.

Watch Hillary's head nearly split in two

We Should Not Boycott the Beijing Olympics

It will only hurt the athletes, no one else. It will not affect the situation in Tibet, or convince the Chinese leadership to stop what they are doing. It will only make the gap between us larger, as the Chinese will not want to lose face on the international scene. Trade and other human rights issues would end up harder to solve in the future, and for what?

It is a selfish ploy that uses athletes that train harder than all others, that have a stage once every 4 years, some only once in their life, maybe twice if they are extremely lucky.

We should not be taking away the dreams and goals of these men and women for political points.

I'm fine with the protesters right now causing havoc on the Olympic flame's route to China, because that is free and open protest, no matter how much brutality the police seem to be showing the protesters who do step up.

What did this kind of approach do in Moscow 1980? Not too much. Some would say it started the dominoes that ended the Cold War, but it wasn't, it was just a lost cycle of athletes used by their government to make a point.

If you want someone to blame, then blame the IOC for awarding the Games to China in the first place, as their human rights abuses have been well known for a long time now. We were fine with it when these Games were awarded, when China's brutality was behind closed doors, but now that it is out in the open, we want to make sure no one thinks we condone this sort of thing, at least not if its captured on film.......

The Olympics are one of the few, if not the only place where nations can actually come together in genuine good spirit and compete, without politics playing a factor.

I'm all for opening a dialogue on China's abuses, because they are very numerous and terrible, but not through the athletes, it's simply not fair.

UPDATE : Stephen Harper has declared we will not boycott the Olympic Games, for the very reason I stated here, that it would do nothing but harm the athletes. Kudos Stephen, which is something I may never say again.

Bilateral Civil Assistance Plan

There was an agreement signed on February 14, 2008, between U.S. Air Force Gen. Gene Renuart, commander of North American Aerospace Defense Command and U.S. Northern Command, and Canadian Air Force Lt.-Gen. Marc Dumais, commander of Canada Command, that essentially ended Canada’s stint as a free and independent country.

It is called, as this article is entitled, the 'Bilateral Civil Assistance Plan'. What this agreement does is allow American troops to operate on Canadian soil in times of civil emergency, and vice versa. I can't think of a circumstance where the US would ask us to step in, but with the depleted numbers of their own National Guard due to the war in Iraq, maybe it is a possibility.

Either way, this kind of agreement, signed with smiles, as you can see if you like by clicking on the title, which will take you to the US Northern Command site, is dangerous in so many ways I'm thinking if I should check and see if there's a word limit on Blogger before I get really into this.

We're losing sovereignty, straight up. I don't know about the rest of you, but watching the US operate on the world stage for the last 8 years doesn't instill too much trust in them not abusing this agreement and taking it in ways it was never originally intended (see, Original UN Iraq Resolution)

Who defines this 'emergency'?

Say for example, the Canadian Prime Minister is assassinated, everything is in chaos, we have no clear number 2 because of a ridiculously outdated political system, the US steps in to 'lend assistance' during the crisis. Bingo Bango, we've got a 'friend' who won't get the hell out of our country.

The US has plenty of fingers in plenty of friendly pies, and it will be over my dead body before those fingers are in ours. I know we have been bought out piece by piece by US companies, our culture is dominated by that from the South of us, and our current government panders to the Bush administration like an underachieving child to an overbearing father, but US troops, in our streets, 'keeping the peace' is more than I could handle.

That is just one of many different scenarios that would be made out to be justifiable in such a circumstance, as any logical and realistic person knows the US would love to have our resources and space for their own uses. We have always resisted them at every turn from complete and utter domination, but this agreement sets all that back dramatically.

We have laws in place to preserve 'Canadianism', culturally, requiring so much Canadian content on our radio and airwaves, but is that really enough?

The most troubling aspect of this entire agreement, leaving out everything mentioned, is that it was never even brought up in the House of Commons, let alone debated and passed by a plurality of elected members. The same goes for the US Congress. Not a whiff of this passed through there either. And it was not released to the press, and was actually suppressed by the Canadian government from coming to light.

This is a major treaty, changing the way we define our borders and how we allow other nations to operate within them. This fundamentally alters Canadian sovereignty forever. And no one knows it even happened.

I will be lobbying my Member of Parliament, Bill Siksay of the NDP, to at least raise this issue in the House, and have the Prime Minister and the Conservative government answer for their actions and their secrecy. I recommend you do the same if you at all care about maintaining Canada as a free and independent nation. Links to each party, where you can find your MP, and for US readers, your Member of Congress, are located on the right side. We need to raise this issue now, because it seems like our governments are completely unwilling to.

Find Your Member of Parliament

Find your Member of Congress

Compare and Contrast

I was just reading another article about Barack Obama's 'problems' regarding controversial (To say the least) sermons of Rev. Jeremiah Wright. What I've been thinking and waiting for ever since this story broke, was when the story of John McCain's controversial pastor John Hagee was going to be blasted all over the airwaves.

And then........nothing...

Nothing about how Hagee called the Catholic Church 'The Great Whore', who called Hurricane Katrina 'The judgment of God against New Orleans', who said the Catholic Church collaborated with Hitler during WWII to exterminate the Jews, or who said the Qua'ran stipulates the murder of Jews and Christians.

Are these on par with "Goddamn America!" and 9/11 as "Chickens coming home to roost", I'd say so. In fact, I'd say it far surpasses the statements of Rev. Jeremiah Right.

Unless you've got your blindness-inducing patriotic glasses on, I think most can agree with all the death and destruction the US has wrought upon the world, 9/11, however it actually played out (INSIDE JOB!) it was certainly chickens coming home to roost. It was deserved, and frankly, the US deserved 10x more.

I'll never wish death on another human, not even Bush, Cheney and company, and I do not condone the thousands of deaths on that day, but the simple and plain fact of the matter is that the US populace had it coming.

Place Hagee and Wright side-by-side. At the very least, they must be placed in the same category. At the most, Hagee should be decried as a acidic hate monger for his statements about Jews, Muslims, Catholics, and almost every other definable group that he feels doesn't meet up to his moral standards.

Wright, on the other hand, is also horribly offensive, widening racial divides instead of healing them. But his words were born from a generation of fire hoses, civil rights marches and battles for equality. Wright was shaped by this, and it shines through in his passionate sermons now.

Hagee has nothing like this to define or somewhat justify his views, actions and words. He is simply a bitter, hateful man.

And yet, who gets plastered over the news hourly, gets debated, slandered and insulted, called un-American and racist? Wright, and by extension, to an extent, Barack Obama.

Who gets the attention or blame for Hagee? Certainly not Hagee, as he pulled in over a million dollars last year, making him one of the highest paid evangelists out there. And it sure as hell isn't John McCain, who is getting the freest and easiest ride I think I can remember from any political candidate, while Obama gets killed at every turn for the slightest miscue.

Things like John McCain confusing (or not even understanding) the different Sunni and Shia branches of Islam and trying to connect Sunni al Qaeda with Shia Iran goes completely under the radar, unnoticed. But Obama not using the proper word to denounce the un-sought endorsement of Louis Farrakhan dominates a debate for a good 20 minutes.

To go even further, McCain not only didn't denounce Hagee, as Obama was nearly pressured to do to Wright before he gave the speech of a generation on race relations, he sought after and graciously accepted the endorsement, even going so far as to say, "I’m very proud to have Pastor Hagee’s support."

Can you imagine the firestorm if Obama had said that about Farrakhan, or even about Wright, whom he said he disagrees with, but loves like a family member? If he had of done so, I think we all know without a doubt that Barack Obama would not be competing for the Democratic Presidential nomination, he would be sitting at home in Illinois.

The media has never been, never will be, and honestly is not expected to be fair and impartial. That is a perfect worldview in an imperfect world. What they are expected to do, is at least give some semblance of neutrality and integrity, and report issues, statements and controversies somewhat equally. Hell, I'd even take a 90-10 split right now.

I do think it is going to get much harder on McCain, as he is still in his honeymoon period as the nominee, and Hillary and Barack are still cutting each other apart bit-by-bit. Once Hillary can finally put her ego to bed, we can move on with Obama-McCain, and hopefully something, anything will be brought up about Hagee, his not understanding Sunni v Shia Islam, breaking campaign finance laws that he helped to craft, following in lockstep with the disastrous policies of George Bush. and so so many other things...and lest we forget the Keating 5.

Compare and Contrast Hagee v Wright, and the media coverage and slant of McCain v Obama, and tell me who you think is getting the fair treatment so far in this cycle...

Straddling the Fence on Smoking

I live in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, and I am a smoker. I also work in the city, in an office, with tight little old-style streets outside.

The reason I'm sharing this is not so that all several of you that have clicked through my thoughts on here can come and shower me with praise. I mean, that would be great, but I'm not expecting anything. The reason is because on March 31, 2008, Vancouver essentially became a city where smoking in public is no longer allowed.

They haven't made smoking illegal, or anything like that, far too much tax revenue is derived from cigarettes to make them completely unavailable. This is a point I'll come back to, because it's central to the whole idea of what we're talking about here.

The new law put in place stipulates that the following are now illegal, and I'm quoting right from the Government of BC's website here :

- Smoking in all indoor public spaces and work places, with exemptions made for the ceremonial use of tobacco by Aboriginal people;
- Smoking within three meters (15 Feet) of public and workplace doorways, open windows or air intakes;
- Tobacco sales in public buildings including: hospitals and health facilities, universities and colleges, athletic and recreational facilities, and provincial government buildings; and
- Display and promotion of tobacco products in all places where tobacco is sold that are accessible to youth under 19.
- Unless prohibited by municipal regulations, smoking will still be allowed on the outdoor patios of restaurants and bars, as long as that patio area is not substantially enclosed.

In Canada, between 63 and 79 per cent of the price of cigarettes is tax (CBC). The government, both provincial and federal, collect huge tax revenues from smokers, and yet make it nearly impossible for them to use the product they are collecting for.

Such blatant and opportunistic hypocrisy would almost be laughable, if it didn't negatively impact so many people's lives in such a way. I’m all for not displaying cigarettes, not selling them in government buildings, and not having smoking rooms inside bars and clubs, but a 15 foot restriction is simply unworkable and ridiculous.

I have always prided myself on being a polite smoker, someone who has this habit, but doesn't annoy others with it. Someone who blows smoke away from whomever I happen to be with, whether they are a smoker or not. Not smoking around kids, especially babies, and not smoking inside. This is the kind of behavior we need to be focusing on.

I in no way want to make smoking out to be safe or friendly. It is horribly addictive, harmful, and secondhand smoke is most certainly very damaging. I do want to point out though that it is a choice that we smokers in the world make, and it is perfectly legal, and available every ten feet, in every little shop.

It's like offering out something in one hand, then trying to swat the person away with the other hand when they try and take it.

The Government of BC and the Government of Canada need to get real on this issue, and stop playing both sides of the fence by looking tough on tobacco and smokers, while the entire time collecting millions from us. It's all political, just like everything else, but this goes a little bit far in my opinion.

We haven't even started to look into other substances also taxed to the gills that are very harmful, such as alcohol. The costs of medical care for those affected by their cigarette addiction is certainly higher than that of alcohol abusers, but nonetheless, it is the same idea. The government sells, promotes and taxes a very harmful substance, and then tells people they shouldn't really be buying it or using it in the first place.

If say, smoking was outlawed tomorrow, a huge black market would spring up, and there wouldn't probably be too much of a noticeable shift in supply. It would just be much harder to acquire, and harder to use, and would drive smoking rates down dramatically. Obviously this isn't going to happen, but it's about the only way that Gordon Campbell, Stephen Harper and their respective parties pass the hypocrisy test.

We've seen the effects of prohibition before, with alcohol, and obviously it's not a viable, real solution, but all I'm asking is for the ruling parties to stop acting so righteous about the whole issue as 80% of the price I just paid for my daily pack is bulging out of their coffers.

Now, excuse me, I have to go and stand in the middle of the street to have a smoke, as in this part of town, it’s about the only place that's 15 feet from a door, window or vent.

I certainly feel like I'm safer and society is better off by having millions do the same, don’t you?