Taking a good, hard look at Obama's Decision

My post yesterday was, admittedly, a little flippant.  Giving a bit of a pat on the back to Stephen Harper, and suggesting that Barack Obama's political future is now questionable.

What I didn't do, however, was really look at that decision.  And ask myself, "why"?

The majority of Americans do not support the effort in Afghanistan.  Obama didn't put troops there, the easy thing would seem to cast blame towards George W. Bush for a misguided effort, to pull troops out, and to convert the "war" to an ongoing surgical effort to seek out terrorists and to attack and kill them on an "as needed" basis.

He would look wise and still hard on terrorism, and the U.S., in the midst of an economic crisis and deficit that makes Canada's government look like Warren Buffet, would let out a collective *sigh*.

So, then, why?

Well, I think I alluded to the answer yesterday.  Commenting on Carl Berstein's notion that money has infected Washington, making it sick.

AIG is still operating, the same greedy pigs who pushed the U.S. to the brink of bankruptcy, are, more or less, still working making good money, and again, we can ask "why"?

I think the answer to both questions are the same.

Back during the election, I suggested Obama was getting as much AIG money as McCain.  It turns out, more or less, the money wasn't going so much to him as to Democrats, and, they actually received more than the Republicans.  I guess AIG can read political wind better than they can read falling real estate prices.

From "Opensecrets.org":

Over time, AIG hasn't shown an especially partisan streak, splitting evenly the $9.3 million it has contributed since 1989. In the last election cycle, though, 68 percent of contributions associated with the company went to Democrats. Two senators who chair committees charged with overseeing AIG and the insurance industry, Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) and Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), are among the top recipients of AIG contributions. Baucus chairs the Senate Finance Committee and has collected more money from AIG in his congressional career than from any other company--$91,000. And with more than $280,000, AIG has been the fourth largest contributor to Dodd, who chairs the Senate's banking committee. President Obama and his rival in last year's election, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), are also high on the list of top recipients.

AIG has been a personal investment for lawmakers, too. Twenty-eight current members of Congress reported owning stock in AIG in 2007, worth between $2.5 million and $3.3 million. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), one of the richest members of Congress, was by far the biggest investor in AIG, with stock valued around $2 million.

So. 

What does this have to do with Afghanistan?  Well, just as AIG was, apparently, "too big to fail", perhaps the war effort, and the defence companies supporting it, are "too big to fail", if you get my drift.

Also from Opensecrets.org:

2008 Election Cycle Contributions by the Defence Industry:

Total Contributions:  $23,716,058
From Individuals: $9,945,166
From PAC's: $13,770,892
Donations to Democrats: $12,169,983 (51%)
Donations to Republicans: $11,514,710 (49% )

What do we make of this?  Well, one thing about a corporation, it has no soul.  No emotion.  It is an artificial "person", whose sole purpose, truly, is to make profit for it's shareholders.  And, so, with that in mind, some pretty significant reality is disclosed by these numbers:

a) The large corporations, from the Investment Industry to the Defence Industry are spending significant money on political contributions;

b) They don't seem to show a preference for what "ideology" is receiving the benefit of those contributions.  The same industries are supporting the Democrats and Republicans, more or less equally.  In fact, the two industries that would most clearly, at first blush, seem to align with the "right", actually gave more money to the Democrats;

c) This money is flowing, clearly, not because of any political leanings of the CEO's, but because that money being paid creates real value to those industries.  They earn money because of those contributions.  Otherwise, they wouldn't make them.

So.  AIG is still running, and the War in Afghanistan is still going.

Any questions?

There is a "them" and "us", and it isnt' the "left" and "right".  Those are just convenient labels to distract us, like rubes at a three card monte game.  We cheer for our "team" and jeer the other "team", and get complicit in the game by pretending that ideology and party politics actually means something, when, really, it's all about who has the money to pull the strings.

Think about THAT for a moment.

Strange Days.. Obama is Getting Hawkish, and Harper Stands Firm on Troop Withdrawal

We live in interesting times.

Barack Obama announces not only that troops won't be "home for Christmas", but that a further 40,000 U.S. soldiers will be hitting the ground immediately in Afghanistan.

And Stephen Harper and Canada are not joining the plan for increased troops, in fact, Harper remains committed to the withdrawal of combat troops by 2011.

And the typically liberal press in Canada seems unsure as to how to deal with it.

Do we comment on Barack Obama "snubbing" Stephen Harper by not inviting him into the dance?  Does that make him more or less of a "neo-con"?   How can we put a negative spin on Harper standing firm on troop withdrawals.  To this point, they are more or less dumbfounded it appears.

The "hawk" Stephen Harper, the so-called "puppet" of George Bush's militaristic endeavors, is choosing to stay the course and prepare Canadian troops for a withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Good on him.  It's probably going to create some concern from the far right who have a vision of some sort of "nation building" in Afghanistan - some perfect world where we annihilate all the "bad guys" and come home as conquering heroes.

Problem is, it's not going to turn out that way - and, I fear, Barack Obama has just sowed the seeds of his demise.  A quick one term act is my prediction as the U.S. will find itself, no doubt, leaving Afghanistan in much the same state as it arrived.  With a more or less chaotic government and a broadly uncontrolled state, where power and money rule, and the poor continue to be abused, variously, by religious fanatics, drug lords, and corrupt politicians.

Why?  Well - there was a good interview on CNN last night (oddly enough they found time to pull themselves away from the "Tiger Woods" crisis to comment on the war) where an imbedded journalist made an excellent commentary on the probable failure of the American effort.

As he commented, the country requires stability.  And stability requires an "involved" population, and in that part of the world, a strong, capable and honest security force.  The difficulty, much of the population is illiterate and living in clear third-world conditions.  How then to transform disjointed, illiterate, and untrusting tribesmen into a modern, competent security force capable of policing the country and bringing their citizens the stability they need.

It's not going to happen.

And it's not for want of incredibly dedicated and brave soldiers from all over the world, particularly Canada.

It's simply that the task is beyond any realistic expectation of success.  For a good explanation of this "Unwinnable War", see the article by former U.S. Army Officer Andrew Basevich, "The War We Can't Win".

Sadly, the people of Afghanistan will have to evolve to a secure state - and that will probably take generations yet.

The only realistic course of action is to provide some humanitarian aid, to support improved infrastructure and education in that country, and to wait it out. 

Stephen Harper sees the reality of it. Unfortunately, Barack Obama doesn't - and it will probably limit his Presidency to one term, as the U.S. citizens do not take "losing" a war lightly.  Even when it was unwinnable in the first place.

The Beach Boys - Wouldn't It Be Nice

Ok.. how does it go, "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery"?

Kez, on her blog, "Random Musings of a Tormented Mind", simply posted:

Just a little musical interlude because pretending I am 14 again without a care in the world takes me away, temporarily, from all the goings-on of the world.

I like that.  As I commented to Kez, last weekend, my wife and I attended "Pirate Radio", and I particularly enjoyed the soundtrack - full of 60's rock (betraying my age).  One of the tracks in the movie struck me with some whimsy, and in a somewhat meloncholy sense, I commented to my younger wife, about the sense of much of the 60's music of a world which was bounding with hope for a better future.. maybe somewhat naive, it's still a nice change from our current cynicism.  You know.. back when 79% of our citizens voted.

So, in that vein, I'm going to copy Kez's idea, shamelessly, and share a song that let's me pretend that the world is simpler and "nicer" than it really is.. from one of the greatest albums of all time.. "Pet Sounds" by the Beach Boys:

The Beach Boys - Wouldn't It Be Nice

When the Stars Align.. in a Very Weird Sort of Way

Odd thing when the stars align to create a picture almost on their own, don't you think?

Last night, I can't sleep.  So I turn on the t.v., quite randomly, and turn the channel to the Craig Ferguson show. (You know, the English guy who used to be Drew Carey's boss).  Anyhow, his guest is Carl Bernstein, of all people. (You know, the Pulitzer Prize winning reporter in Washington, who broke the Watergate story with Bob Woodward). 

So.

Getting to my point.  During their short discussion, Bernstein posits that Congress in the U.S. is sick.  That the U.S. has serious problems to contend with, however, they are hamstrung by partisan back-biting, and by the need to constantly fund-raise that real progress can't happen.

Think about that for a moment.  Think about it in Canada.  Think about the recent Afghanistan hearings.  Did you ever get the impression, at any point in time, that anything was going on to help Canadians, even peripherally?  And my criticism isn't limited to the Liberals.  The Conservatives weren't exactly "opening their pockets", allowing for clear scrutiny over what did or didn't happen in Afghanistan. 

No - what was going on, and what continues to go on, is political partisanship, game-playing, by all parties concerned.  Everyone is angling for that extra vote, that extra seat - and the effort to win the game is the whole game.  The business of tending to the needs of the citizens is almost an after-thought.

More stars aligning.

I started a poll on this blog a couple weeks ago.  It's still there, the question being:

To what extent do you believe the Conservative Party of Canada is fundamentally different from the previous Progressive Conservative Party?

My own theory?  No - nothing is significantly different.  The party started with a daring idea, about a party which didn't simply seek to appease the needs of central Canada, but was bigger and better than that.  A party that sought the "right" answers, for all Canadians.

The result of the poll?

Well, almost 1/2 (47%) "Completely" dissagreed with my premise, and felt the party is fundamentally different.  Another 37% "Somewhat" disagreed with me, suggesting the party is somewhat different.  Only 15% agreed with my premise.

My take?  Well, who knows?  I see a budget that is grossly inflated.  I see a party meddling in business, funding bail-outs.  I see a party bending over backwards to appease Quebec, giving them "nation" status.  I see a party seeking to obtain government authority to spy on it's citizens without court oversight, and authority to share than information with other countries.  I see a party that has made clearly partisan efforts to undermine the effort to increase the reliance of political parties on private funding from special interest groups but seeking to take away public funding - almost pushing Canada to the brink of a policital crisis a year ago today.

And then more stars aligned.

I read the conservative blog, "Celestial Junk" this morning.  No shrinking violet, no closet Liberal this, CJ writes today:

I'm becoming ever more disheartened with the CPC. They have become just another party of Ottawa hacks where winning a majority becomes the holy grail ... where any principle, any previous stand, and any greater idea is sacrificed on the altar of pure politics. In my opinion, Stephen Harper has led the CPC into this style of skulduggery simply because he's willing to do anything ... and I mean anything, to get that magic majority.

I fear CJ may be right.
 
I fear that Carl Bernstein may be right.
 
I fear that the premise of my poll, regardless of the outcome, may be right.   
 
Canada is facing some real challenges, and I suspect those challenges will increase.  I see a massive problem on the horizon with Health Care, with support for our elderly, and I do not have great hope for a concerted, intelligent effort at finding solutions.
 
Witness the Afghanistan inquiry.  Is it really appreciably different from the Somalia inquiry under the Chretien government?  I don't think so.
 
For those Conservatives who suggest that the current party is "different" from the previous PC government - well, with all respect, I think you are either wishful thinkers, or are wearing party blinders.
 
This government, and all government, is caught up in the falacy that the "ends justify the means".  That "to do good, you must get elected."  And then once elected, "to do good, you must stay elected."  And over time, the "good" you seek to do, gets drowned out by the need to either get elected or stay elected.
 
And the citizens watch and become more disengaged.  Voter turnout, until quite recently, has been reasonably strong - between 70 and up to 79% in 1963.  More recently?

2000 - 61.2%
2004 - 60.9%
2006 - 64.7%
2008 - 58.8%

So.  Stephen Harper wins the past two elections,based upon dismal voter turnout.  Somewhat of a dubious honor, no?
 
We need a fundamental change in government, and Stephen Harper isn't giving it to us, unfortunately.  We don't need to keep stacking our Senate, our boards and our courts with partisan supporters.  We don't need to send out questionable "flyers" using free government mailouts attacking Liberals as implied anti-semites.  We don't need to use government funding as partisan photo-op events with embarassing giant cheques.
 
We need leaders.  We need a party willing to lose with it's convictions, as opposed to abandoning them to win.
 
We need a "different" sort of conservatism, and, sadly, the current incarnation of the CPC is not it.
 
Fortunate for us, I suppose, the Liberal party is worse.

Richard Colvin.. Politically Correct"Bandwagon Jumper".

Good article in the Globe and Mail today by Christie Blatchford - I certainly can't do better than her regarding her analysis of the Richard Colvin affair, so I simply encourage all to read it here.

The essence of the article is that Richard Colvin is another in a long list of political "bandwagon jumpers".

You know the type. They see a potential "scandal" brewing, and, scandals these days typically being of the "politically correct" variety, they jump on the bandwagon as quickly as possible, and, with a little luck, they appear to be pulling the wagon, not just jumping on for the ride.

But Christie Blatchford gets it right.  Colvin wasn't concerned regarding "torture" of transferred detainees at the "operative time".  He was a "born again" convert, and when he saw matters brewing, he jumped in so quick that the Liberals and the NDP have been lionizing him as a "whistle blower".

I prefer Blatchfords characterization.

A "So-Called Whistle Blower".

Some of the major news events of our times so clearly epitomize this sort of "politically correct" induced furor, and this is no exception.

Remember Michael Vick?  The media were up in arms.. quickly jumping from the "disadvantaged African-American" bandwagon, to the "we love puppies" bandwagon.  And they all patted themselves on the back as they advocated for serious jail time for the football player because he abused animals.

Animal abuse is very politically incorrect you see.

The current effort regarding the Colvin affair is no less pathetic.

And it's a "two-fer" for sure.

You see, not only can we defend the terrorists.. (very de rigeur  these days), but we get bonus points for being "anti-torture", and sidle up to Amnesty International - feigning embarassment as a nation (even though we aren't alleged to have torured anyone).

Are you throwing up in your mouth just a little bit yet?

Ok.  So here's the thing.

Back in the day, when racists ruled, their ignorance was, well, based upon ignorance.  They made assumptions of people without consideration of the reality of those assumptions.  That's how stereotypes work.

Now, we have another growing ignorance in society, and it's "politically correct ignorant".  The same sort of ignorance, where people make decisions based upon the cover of the book, without considering the complexity of the reality.

You know..  let's ignore the reality of troops on the ground, fighting for their lives and the lives of their comrades, who have to make difficult and sometimes brutal decisions - without the luxury of stopping time and considering the impact and the propriety of those decisions from an armchair in Vancouver or Toronto.

Let's ignore the reality and make assumptions.  That because Rick Hillier is in the military, he is violent and abusive, and, therefore, when he carefully analyzes the Colvin memos and commens that they are completely without substance - we call him a liar. 

And when Richard Colvin, sidling up to Amnesty International, and complaining (mostly after the barn door had already been closed) against potential torture, provides us with absolutely NOTHING of substance to back up his "concerns", well, he must be right, he must be honest, because, he's talking against torture.

Reallllly?

Well, in my mind, there's only one way to describe those who attack Hillier and support Colvin.  They are the same sort of people who used to tell those "different" from them to drink from a different fountain and go to the back of the bus.

We call them bigots.

The Latest Afghanistan Debacle.. What We Have Learned

With all the political one-upsmanship going on, it's easy to dismiss the current Afghanistan hearings as a pointless farce.  In fact, no great friend of the PC Government, even Chantel Hebert of the Toronto Star reports today that the hearings are going nowhere.

As Hebert states this morning, the hearing is "is flying blind and about to run on empty."

I say, don't dismiss it so quickly.

There are some serious lessons to be learned here, which I suggest bear keeping in mind for future reference, as follows:

1.  In the current world construct, Muslim extremists have changed the face of war.  No longer will the dissaffected or the power hungry seek to don uniforms and seek to overcome their opposition by reference to Sun Tzu's "Art of War", they will, like cowardly rats, enmesh themselves within the general population and seek to win through a chaotic war of attrition.   You may kill a thousand of them, but if there are another thousand taking their place, eventually, you will tire and just give up.  That is their hope.  And if you don't give up, they are counting on the fat and happy population of the citizens picking up the tab for your labor to give up.

This is Afghanistan.  And their plan, ingenenious in it's simplicity as it is cowardly and without compassion or concern for their own citizens around them, has worked.  Soon, Canada, and other allies, will leave Afgahnistan, and it will likely revert, more or less, to the country it has been for centuries, and will still be for centuries to come.

2.  For those countries who might, in the future, consider providing military assistance to a country oppressed by a murderous regime, be warned.  You will not receive thanks or reward.  Your soldiers will die.  You will be forced to spend billions of dollars to  carry out your duty, and you will be second-guessed, by the Monday morning quarterbacks of the U.N., and Amnesty International, and desk-jockies at home, who will seek to criticize everything you have done - under the 20/20 vision of hindsight.  And the criticisms, while in truth most often being simple political stunts used to discredit the existing government, will still put the soldiers and their officers in the line of fire. 

The criticisms will come, mostly, from those who have never held a gun and been asked to kill another human being at the direction of their government, or watched their own close friends die, in some cases, feeling their last breath of life leaving them as they are held in your arms.

As with fighting a war against terrorists, you will see a politician as your friend today, and seeking to shoot you in the back tomorrow.  Because the battle to gain power knows no friends, and knows no decency.

3.  The message, clearly, is to ignore it.  When countries "over there" run into difficulty, when their citizens are being murdered for doing things like, oh, believing in a different god, for having the wrong colored skin, or for just being the wrong gender, the message is, turn away.  Forget about places like Somalia, and Bosnia, Darfur, and Afghanistan.  Put up strong walls around your own country - send them some token money for food and clean water - but forget about military assistance.  The price is too high, and the rewards too fleeting.

When fighting an enemy who will set up rocket launchers in children's schools and in hospitals, enemies who train their insane posse of misfits to cry "torture" at every opportunity, concepts of "human rights" and "civilian casualties" will be used as extremely effective tools to undermine our troops ability to effectively protect themselves or others, and, as we've seen, will be used to put them up to derision and ridicule.

Better to turn away.

4.  Finally, and most clearly, Michael Ignatieff has shown himself to be the ultmate hypocrit.  The man who stood shoulder to shoulder with George W. Bush, cheering on his misplaced plan in Iraq, the man who said, there is a time and place for torture when necessary, is happy to turn his back on his own words and to attack those who put their own lives on the line to help others. 

Yes.. this hearing has been no trivial waste of time, and it's lessons should not be quickly dismissed.

So, as we move forward with these lessons in mind, we know NEVER to place our troops in a foreign country where terrorist rats are besieging their own citizens, and NEVER, EVER put any faith in anything that Michael Ignatieff writes, says, or does.

Lesson learned.

And the Wild Rose wants to be our latex salesmen..?

Like George Costanza, running from the bathroom with his pants around his ankles.. we bring you the so-called "strategists" from the people that are proposing to be the "fiscally responsible" alternative to the PC Government in Alberta.

According to the Globe and Mail on Tuesday:

So. The Party who is touting itself as the party to bring fiscal responsibility to Albertans, has had a "high level stategist" basically shown to be completely unable to operate a local promotion company.

The weeks following the Dalai Lama's visit to the city in September have been filled with furious recriminations and threats of lawsuits among those who contributed to the event, only to find out later they would not be paid the hundreds of thousands they are owed.

The fallout led Tuesday to the resignation of a high-profile member of the upstart Wildrose Alliance Party, which is challenging Alberta's ruling Progressive Conservatives, and worries about Calgary's future ability to host high-profile speakers.

The two-day Dalai Lama event enthralled Calgary, featuring an appearance by former South African leader F.W. de Klerk and concerts by k.d. lang and Bryan Adams. Pictures of the Dalai Lama wearing a white Stetson made local newspaper front pages, while the Tibetan leader's speech attracted 15,000 to the Pengrowth Saddledome, each paying ticket prices between $25 and $75.

Tickets for the full two-day event cost several hundred dollars.

But more than two months later, some performer expenses have not been paid, including for Mr. de Klerk, the former South African president who helped abolish apartheid. In total the event has left $300,000 in unpaid bills after Carter McRae Events, which was hired by the University of Calgary to co-ordinate the occasion, told a supplier that the event “lost money,” leaving it “completely insolvent.”

Right.

Operating a staff of nine, apparently, was too much for this Wild Rose "strategist", and after 12 years, the business is broke, with over $700,000.00 in unpaid bills.

Think about THAT when the Wild Rose Alliance suggests handing over our $35 billion budget into their, apprently, incapable hands.

My comment to Danielle Smith?

Glass houses. Stones. You know the drill..