Fighting for Change in the US

One of the biggest problems in the US is its outdated and overly corrupted political system. But how can it be that politicians get away with lies and deceptions? Well, a lot has to do with the mainstream media; they make a lot of money, but are often way too soft on injustice in society; it just isn't their main priority. Up until now this has kept many (including me) confused of what to think about the US, and in particular about their politics.

For a long time it has seemed strange to me that such a huge country has only two political parties, while my motherland (Netherlands, 16 million people) has so many. Most importantly, all Western countries have a significant Labour party. But why does such a party not exsist in the US? Are Americans that different from us?

Too much power seems to be in the hands of politicians sponsored by big corporations. The allowance for campaign contributions is (still) a legal form of corporatocracy. Many corporations contribute even to both parties, Democrat and Republican. When will Americans see the necessity of stopping this form of bribery? If these companies find it so valuable to sponsor politicians, why not tax them more?

Of course this is not going to happen soon. But Jonathan Rintels suggests his own way to change; an open media. Blogging and podcasting are important forms of open medias. Together we will have to fight to get and keep this media open, but sofar it's all we've got.

The Blog | Jonathan Rintels: Fighting for an Open Society | The Huffington Post

BBC Interviews “Wrong Guy”

Have fun with the following:

On May 8, a man named Guy Goma showed up for a job interview for a technology-related position at the BBC. A mix-up led producers to believe Guy Goma the job applicant was in fact Guy Kewney – a technology website editor who was scheduled to appear for a live interview. Well, it turns out they had the wrong Guy. Guy Kewney watched the interview from the green room where he was waiting to go on. The BBC later apologized to viewers and invited Guy Goma back for a follow-up interview (source: Democracy Now).

After LOL I'm wondering if he actually got the job he applied for. Anyone?

Retired CIA Analyst Ray McGovern Takes on Rumsfeld Over Justification for Iraq Invasion

In the broadcast of Democracy Now! (May 5th, 2006) Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld comes under fire from retired CIA analyst Ray McGovern at a speech in Atlanta.

Near the end Rumsfeld began taking questions from the audience. Ray McGovern, who spent 27 years as a C.I.A. analyst, asked the following:

RAY McGOVERN: And so, I would like to ask you to be up front with the American people. Why did you lie to get us into a war that was not necessary and that has caused these kinds of casualties? Why?

DONALD RUMSFELD: Well, first of all, I haven’t lied. I did not lie then. Colin Powell didn't lie. He spent weeks and weeks with the Central Intelligence Agency people and prepared a presentation that I know he believed was accurate, and he presented that to the United Nations. The President spent weeks and weeks with the Central Intelligence people, and he went to the American people and made a presentation. I'm not in the intelligence business. They gave the world their honest opinion. It appears that there were not weapons of mass destruction there.

RAY McGOVERN: You said you knew where they were?

DONALD RUMSFELD: I did not. I said I knew where suspect sites were, and we were --

RAY McGOVERN: You said you knew where they were, “near Tikrit, near Baghdad, and northeast, south and west of there.” Those were your words.

DONALD RUMSFELD: My words -- my words were -- no, no, no, wait a minute! Let him stay one second. Just a second.

RAY McGOVERN: This is America, huh? Go ahead.

DONALD RUMSFELD: You're getting plenty of play, sir.

RAY McGOVERN: I'd just like an honest answer.

DONALD RUMSFELD: I’m giving it to you.

RAY McGOVERN: We're talking about lies and your allegation that there was bulletproof evidence of ties between al-Qaeda and Iraq. Was that a lie or were you misled?

DONALD RUMSFELD: Zarqawi was in Baghdad during the prewar period. That is a fact.

RAY McGOVERN: Zarqawi, he was in the north of Iraq, in a place where Saddam Hussein had no rule. That’s where he was.

DONALD RUMSFELD: He was also in Baghdad.

RAY McGOVERN: Yeah, when he needed to go to the hospital. Come on, these people aren't idiots. They know the story.

DONALD RUMSFELD: You are -- let me give you an example. It's easy for you to make a charge, but why do you think that the men and women in uniform every day, when they came out of Kuwait and went into Iraq, put on chemical weapon protective suits? Because they liked the style? They honestly believed that there were chemical weapons. Saddam Hussein had used chemical weapons on his own people previously. He had used them on his neighbor, the Iranians. And they believed he had those weapons. We believed he had those weapons.

RAY McGOVERN: That's what we call a non-sequitur. It doesn’t matter what the troops believe. It matters what you believe.

MODERATOR: I think, Mr. Secretary, the debate is over. We have other questions, courtesy to the audience.

This small clip just shows the incapability of Donald Rumsfeld to come up with a real argument to defend his position that he did not lie. Indeed, the chemical weapons excuse story is a non-sequitur.

Also interesting was the fact that mister McGovern was actually not allowed to ask the very question he did. When he entered the hall he was given a small blurb about Rumsfeld:

I was met with this little blurb on Donald Rumsfeld, and as I read it, I had to chuckle. It says, “There’s going to be a question-and-answer period, but please adhere to these guidelines. Refrain from using the word ‘lie’ in relation to the war in Iraq. Do not question the secretary’s personal responsibility for torture. And please don’t discuss first use of nuclear weapons against Iran. If you violate these guidelines, you'll be immediately removed from the auditorium, flown to an undesignated prison location somewhere in Eastern Europe and tortured. Thank you for your cooperation. The World Cannot Wait.” A wonderful, wonderful group. Those were the folks that spoke up and tried to brace Donald Rumsfeld with the lies and their charges of him being -- and he is, arguably -- a war criminal. And we shouldn't shy away from saying that.

Read the full story here: Retired CIA Analyst Ray McGovern Takes on Rumsfeld Over Justification for Iraq Invasion
Or watch streaming media: Click here

Dutch Minister of Defense Henk Kamp predicts more trouble in Afghanistan

Minister of Defense Henk Kamp agrees that the situation in Afghanistan is more dangerous than about half a year ago. "It is really dangerous in Urusghan". Also Dutch Prime Minister Jaap de Hoop Scheffer prepares us for more victims in the Afghan war.

According to Minister Henk Kamp the main reason for having Dutch troops in Afghanistan is Al-Quada.

"It all started with the attacks in New York (WTC) and Washington. Just imagine what happened there. Thousands of people died when the office buildings (WTC) collapsed. Therefore we are having all these problems in the world, and we (Dutch troops) are helping to ease the situation"

It is interesting to see that Henk Kamp's main argument for siding with the US is the planned attacks in New York. Of course this was a horrible experience, but let's not forget the thousands of people that have been killed in the meantime. Especially Iraq deals with a monthly loss of around 3.000 casualties. Yes, monthly (read the Lancet: "Mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq"; PDF file) . More killing in Iraq will likely result in more attacks.

"The Netherlands is increasing its troops (in Afghanistan) from 1200 to 1400, the maximum The Netherlands is willing to employ there. If more are needed the NATO will have to deliver those extra troops. "

Interviewer: "Is there a moment that it becomes too dangerous?"
HK: "Yes, we hope it will not happen and I can't give you a mark; every problem will result in a different answer, but in theory, when we think we can not succeed, we will consider leaving."

US government's nuclear scare

The US Government's concern with Iran worries me. No, not Iran, the US Government worries me. Iran's nuclear program was already established in the 1970s. So why all the fuss now?

Well, you'll have to understand the equation first.
The US has nuclear weapons.
- WHAT? The US has these dangerous weapons?
Yes, they do. They've had them for years, and although they signed a treaty to get rid of these arms (Non-Proliferation Treaty), they are still there; and no sign of exposing them now. Even worse, the US threatens other countries that they will use these nuclear weapons against them. This makes many people very concerned.

Many scientists believe that Iran is years (if not decades) away from developing nuclear weapons. At least in the short term nobody has to worry about Iran. But the US is a different case. They have them, have used them before, and have recently threatened to use them again.

The world should be very concerned; many think the US is the main threat to world peace. The "long and lost war" in Iraq and the current Iran-US conflict both shows how just how real that threat is.

Read also Haroon Siddiqui's column in the Toronto Star for a good analysis of what's playing, and a warning for all Canadians:
TheStar.com - We should not play Bush game of chicken on Iran

Ottawa fears losing control of Afghan mission, says Steven Staples

Stephen Staples's analysis:

These two decisions, not lowering the Peace Tower flag and denying access to the media, are best understood when taken together. Add Harper's insistence on vetting the outspoken Gen. Rick Hillier's speeches, and a pattern emerges.

This is a government worried that the mission in Afghanistan could get out of their control and become a huge political problem for the Conservatives — especially as pressure builds in anticipation of a decision to renew the mission before it ends in February 2007.

Read the whole story here:
TheStar.com - Ottawa fears losing control of Afghan mission, says Steven Staples

Musicians side with their fans

Some Canadian Musicians (yes, capital M) have become critical of the constant lobbying of the major labels to "protect" copyright laws.

Canadian Music Creators Coalition: A New Voice

Stephen Harper's policies flagged

I was confused. Many people don't like the new policies regarding the government’s refusal to lower flags on Parliament Hill for fallen soldiers, yet cannot figure out why Stephen Harper would continue to favour such a policy.

I've tried. I've really tried to figure out the reasoning behind it. But the Conservatives are not giving me any answers. Of course it is not too difficult anymore once you look at how our southern neighbours deal with these issues. And why?

It all has to do with the propaganda machine. Canadians who go to war alive but return dead is simply bad news for politicians. As my friend pointed out, many politicians "don't give a shit" about soldiers.

But I do. And it's not hard to figure out the Conservative's hidden agenda. Defense minister Gordon O'Connor thinks it's "most appropriate" to keep the public away. And he's right; in the view of the Conservative Party it is most appropriate to "protect us" from such issues.

But the public has a different opinion. The latest Ipsos Reid poll found that sixty-six per cent of those polled believed that the decision to ban the media from the homecoming of the flag-draped caskets of Canadian Forces personnel is a "muzzle" as opposed to concern for families.

Don't you like it when a single issue, as clip and clear as this one, defines a party so well? The Conservative Party has a lot to learn. We're in 21st century were also real people have a voice. People like the father of the dead soldier.

globeandmail.com : Dead soldier's father has critical words for PM

The Seal Hunt - Bad for Seals and Businesses

That the seal-hunt can also hurt business is shown in this letter to The Start:

Why should sealers be allowed to earn a few extra dollars while small local businesses take it in the pocketbook because of tourism boycotts all year long? It doesn't seem fair.

Read the whole story here:
TheStar.com - Bad for seals and businesses, too

Thank you, Mr. Glentworth!

Jackie Miller: "Armchair navigation is never helpful in these types of situations,..."

What's wrong with Jackie Miller?

Investigation into this accident need an open view. ALL speculations can be helpful, especially those from Mr. Glentworth, who after sailing for 30 years in the same northern waters, retired from BC Ferries last September.

BC Ferries is eager to give their own version of the event when it suits them but does not want to answer some simple legitimate questions. Do you think the media will keep quiet with an event of this magnitude? They want to cover the story, everybody wants to know what went wrong. And I believe everybody deserves to hear what went wrong, especially those 99 passengers that were on the ferry that night. The longer basic information is kept hidden from the general public, the more speculations will appear.

The most important thing is that we get to the bottom of this debacle. What happened? Was it a human error? Mechanical error? Or something else? How else can we trust BC Ferries again?

I think we should feel fortunite with the possible explanations by Mr. Glentworth; he is one of the first ones who has given insight on what could have happened. It adds to the public debate, essential for a well-functioning democracy. Jackie Miller should be thankful.

canadaeast.com - CP National News

B.C. ferry passengers deserve an apology

"I'm just mad - we never even got an apology yet. Where was the captain? Why didn't he apologize, publicly or anything?"

Good to see I'm not the only one who is anoyed by the secrecy of BC Ferries. We are not getting any information. Does it really take a year to figure out what went wrong? What does BC Ferries have to hide?

CTV.ca | B.C. ferry passengers still reeling from crash

David Hahn's Bad Handling of BC Ferries Tragedy

Why did David Hahn announce at first that "the rescue of ferry passengers was miraculous"? Maybe even more important, why is it that Canada.com is putting these types of errors in the top of their story, without checking the facts? And it's still on the net too.

Read the erroneous story (full of BC Ferries spin) here:
Canada.com : Rescue of Ferry passengers miraculous, says head of BC Ferries

Just a sample from the top of the story:

The orderly rescue of dozens of people from a sinking ferry in the dead of night early Wednesday off B.C.'s north coast was nothing short of miraculous, the president of B.C. Ferries [David Hahn] said Wednesday.

"Anytime you have a major incident and you have no one hurt or killed in this type of thing, I think you always think it's a miracle," David Hahn said. "You always think, thank God, and you (are) thankful for the crew. That's what they're trained to do. They've done their job once again."

Most probably two people died in this tragedy. Reporting has sunk so low...

David Hahn, CEO of BC Ferries, handled this tragedy terribly. Without being sure about the status of all passengers he went ahead and gave a statement that all passengers were safe. Anyone who had listened to the news and can count beyond 99 understood there was a discrepancy in the list, that accounted for 99-101 passenger. Never mind, David Hahn has a PR job to do. Bring the best positive story for BC Ferries; praise the wonderful work of the workers and lets not worry about the discrepancy of two people. I even heard the Coast Guard come up up with a similar statement on CBC TV that same morning. Something like "Oh, we just have to be sure that nobody was left behind. Just a formality".

Well, they were wrong. And this behaviour might have jeopardized the two lives.

There are issues where from a business POV positive spin is the best you can do to resolve it; Dead people is not one of them.

Halifax student not sorry he printed cartoons

This 17 year old high school student from Halifax get's it right too. Officials from his private high school don't return calls....

London Free Press - National News - Student not sorry he printed cartoons

globeandmail.com : University paper defiant after running cartoons

Why is it that a University paper gets it right (publishing the cartoons) but the mainstream media is silent when they should not be? There are at least two reasons I can come up with. The press is afraid and feel intimidated by what has happened in other countries, in short: they are cowards. They also "don't want to offend" from an economical POV: printing the cartoons might mean cancelled subscriptions. They chose to stay silent, and play the "responsibility" card for PR reasons. Economics and cowardness have contributed to the sad state of North America's mainstream media. And this cartoon row shows it once again.

Thanks Toronto!

globeandmail.com : University paper defiant after running cartoons

Boycott Chapters and Indigo bookstores

Here's a bookstore chain that will not display the latest edition of the Western Standard. Why? Because in the latest issue The Western Standard has chosen to print the infamous cartoons depicting prophet Muhammad.

The last time I got offended at Chapters was having to go through all the hyped gossip and entertainment magazines to find one of my favourite magazines, the Economist.

Well, no Chapters for me anymore. I agree with other to boycott Chapters, Indigo and all the others that consider not selling a specific issue because a few cartoons "might offend some reader". I have been offended double: no Western Standard and the junk magazines are still there!

BTW I would never buy the Western Standard :), but that's not what this is about, is it?

See the CBC: CBC Saskatchewan - Sask. bookstores won't display magazine with Prophet cartoons

Cartoon row highlights deep divisions

Here's a good analyses of what's going on. I'll comment on it later, because there's something else too:

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Cartoon row highlights deep divisions

Is Islam full of hate?

Ok, the Islam doesn't like it when others depict the prophet Mohammad, but do these cartoons justify this?

The dispute spread to London for the first time. More than 500 people, led by the extremist group al-Ghuraba, formerly al-Mujahiroun, marched to the Danish embassy in Knightsbridge carrying banners calling on Muslims to "massacre" those who insult Islam and chanting: "Britain, you will pay, 7/7 on its way.
Full story in The Guardian

Or this?

"If there had been a Muslim to carry out Imam Khomeini's fatwa against the renegade Salman Rushdie, this rabble who insult our Prophet Mohammed in Denmark, Norway and France would not have dared to do so," Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah said.

"I am sure there are millions of Muslims who are ready to give their lives to defend our prophet's honour and we have to be ready to do anything for that," said Nasrallah.
Full story on IRIB

The World According to George Bush - The Independent

Don't miss the World According to George Bush.

Telus indicted over cell phone records

"It took nearly five months and two legal orders for Telus Corp. to start handing over cellphone records to the RCMP to help track a possible serial killer stalking Edmonton-area prostitutes."

Read the whole atricle in the Globe and Mail:
Telus indicted over cell phone records

Why Bertuzzi and Heatley should stay home

It's sad when "incidents" like this happen. But it's even worse when a punch from behind is OK for the olympic team.

Personally I believe Mr. Bertuzzi should never have been allowed back on the ice. Nevertheless he's playing again and, as the New York Times announces today, Canada Selects Bertuzzi [for the Olympic Games in Torino]. The Times also comments on the picking of Dany Heatley. Although there is something to be said that his "incident" happened outside the rink, anyone with a second-degree vehicular homicide criminal record should not represent Canada at the Olympic Games.

And I thought that Wayne Gretzky was a man of decent principles...

See also a few other blogs:

Leave Bertuzzi at home

Bertuzzi VS Heatley