Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts

When We Rise



When you speak of heroes I don't imagine soldiers in uniform on a battlefield, even though they risk their lives. 

And I don't think of firefighters, police, doctors, or nurses who are amazing every day by saving lives. 

And I scoff at the thought of that footballer you put on a pedestal and award a medal for having the right combination of genes and training.

No. They are not my heroes. 

When I think of a hero I remember the slaves that sang their way to freedom, the women that demanded suffrage, the voices that echoed around the world against segregation and apartheid, those that rallied against war, the patrons of Stonewall and the 76ers, and those that fight for refugees today. 

When you talk of heroes I think of all those that have risen up against tyranny, oppression, discrimination, bigotry and injustice armed only with their voices, their placards, their mortal bodies. 

Those are my people. 


They are my heroes. 

Lifestyle choices: the reality behind a PM's gaffe



The Prime Minister has come under fire for yet another verbal gaffe by referring to remote indigenous communities as being a "lifestyle choice". But what does this really mean, and is our much maligned PM a bumbling fool or is he correct? Definitely the first, but probably both.

The term "lifestyle choice" is fraught with danger. It is the favoured pejorative of the anti-homosexual campaigners, the phrase used to denigrate someone's core being and dismiss them as insignificant or to blame them for the discrimination they face, the illness they acquire, and the difficulties they encounter through life.

For that very reason the phrase should never be used by a public official as a political tool to wield like an axe for budget cuts. We are still dealing with human beings who need empathy and deserve solutions that will lift them up, not cast them aside.

Just for the moment I'm going to work with the intent of our misspoken PM, in context, and give him the benefit of the doubt that he rarely ever deserves, rather than joining the angry mob relaying the inferred and emotive response of the media and the left leaning public. 

So I say this with much thought and unrelenting candour: for some people, living in a remote community IS a lifestyle and it is a choice.

Just like the family working a drought stricken farm or moving to a mining town, just like choosing between suburban life or a CBD apartment; to marry, or not; to have children, or not; to practice religion, or not. Each of us makes numerous choices every day of the year that determine the lifestyle we lead. 

For some that decision to remain in a remote community without employment, with low quality housing and poor access to essential services might also be a choice. But we must also recognise that for others it is a rut, a crutch, or a death sentence from which they might desire to escape.

Just because you are born in a place, doesn't mean you need to stay there, even if you feel tied by family, culture, country, or the fantasy of the dreamtime, which is a religion in all but name. The choice to stay or leave still belongs to the individual.

Nobody should be forced from their home or land, yet there are many instances where the best interests of the individual require authorities to step in and force relocation. The octogenarian battling dementia can no longer live alone in their home of 60 years and is relocated to a nursing home; the children that are removed from an abusive family; the town of Wittenoom evacuated because of continuing asbestos concerns.

I am not suggesting that indigenous people in remote communities should be forced to relocate, but perhaps we can provide significant incentives to encourage them to seek better opportunities, for themselves and their children. Relocation assistance, jobs and housing could be the ticket to a better life if only the opportunity was available. Alas, the current system  is insufficient as an incentive to overcome the strong ties to country and the issues of intergenerational poverty that goes with it.

At the very least we should take Warren Mundine's suggestion of creating regional boarding schools where children can attend and then return to their communities for weekends. This can help ensure that appropriate education and health levels for children are attained while giving families and communities the long term opportunity to develop, become sustainable and even flourish. 

The future of our indigenous Australians in remote communities is currently bleak, but it can be powerful. We need a government that is willing to step up and work with communities to incentivise positive outcomes, rather than cast blame or legislate penalties for negative outcomes.

We all have a right to make our lifestyle choices, but society works best when the playing field is designed so that everyone can be assisted to make the choices that are best for them.



10 terrorist targets that are better than Parliament House

Our politicians are worried about their workplace being a potential target for a terrorist attack so they have beefed up security to make themselves feel better and our citizens safer, or at least the few thousand that work and visit each day can feel a little more safer than they otherwise would have going through the layers of security that already existed before the #TerrorHysteria invaded.

As much as many of us would enjoy seeing the demise of a few upon Capital Hill, we actually like our billion dollar flagpole and some of the people we elected to sit under it. So, with tongue firmly planted in cheek, I offer the dummies guide to 10 better targets for prospective terrorists to leave their mark on Australia.

Graphic sourced from www.smh.com.au



10. AFL/NRL clubs or stadiums
You can't get much more Australian than sport, and you won't get more Australians enlisting in the defence force to fight against your fundamentalism than if you target their beloved national religion. It's also one of the few places you can be assured of getting tens of thousands of innocent people in one location as well as live media coverage of your attack sponsored by alcohol, gambling, interest charging banks or burgers with crispy bacon. But be careful of which team you target; an attack on Collingwood might get you more thanks than vitriol, especially if you take out Eddie McGuire in the process.

9. Australian Christian Lobby
As its name implies this is a lobby group comprised mainly of conservative, fundamentalist pseudo-Christian fanatics. It has been often argued that they may be one of the most, if not the most, influential lobby group in Canberra. They regularly garner the attention of politicians from both sides of the House to speak at their functions and conferences, where issues like abortion, sexuality, marriage and the sanctity of the 'family' unit is never up for negotiation. Please, take them. We don't like them either.

8. The Tall Poppies
Basically we would like those on our rich list to be taken down a peg or two:
Rupert Murdoch - he still thinks he is Australian and is able to influence our politics even though he technically doesn't get a vote.
Gina Reinhart - amongst other things she is renowned for the fourth worst poetry in the universe, unless you believe the rumours that she is actually a Vogon, in which case she rises to third place.
Andrew Forrest - seems to mean well, but can't keep his pesky nose out of Gina's anal gland and seems to have an unbelievable simplistic solution to every social and welfare issue known to humanity. 

7. Catch the Fire Ministries
As one of the most deplorable and bigoted 'Christians' in Australia, particularly focusing his hate speech towards Islam and homosexuality, Pastor Danny Nalliah is deserving of a fatwa, a jihad, a crusade or an untimely death from venereal ebola. He is the founder and President of an evangelical pseudo-Christian church, leader of the Rise Up Australia party, self-proclaimed healer and resurrector of the dead and a moronic young earth creationist amongst many more failings as a modern hominid. Danny recently celebrated his 50th birthday by thanking his mother for not aborting him. If only we could go back in time and convince her otherwise.

6. Adolf Hitler
Speaking of time travel, instead of being a terrorist you could use your boundless energy, endless resources and merciless martyrdom to perfect time travel and go back to the 1930s to kill Hitler, thereby preventing world war 2 and the Holocaust. This would allow the Jews to remain in Europe, Israel would never be established, the Middle East would never have been unfairly conquered and divided and Islam could remain a peaceful religion without all that nasty baggage. 



5. Australian Family Association
Founded by fundamentalist Catholics, notably the infamous B.A. Santamaria, as the National Civic Council, the core premise of its existence is similar to the ACL in attempting to 'promote the family as the natural and fundamental unit of society'. Unmarried cohabitation, children out of wedlock, single parents, non-heterosexual relationships and access to IVF or adoption by anyone other than a married couple is offensive to them. Their most vociferous spokespeople have previously warned the public of the secret agenda to turn your boys gay, your girls into prostitutes and to legalise pedophilia and bestiality.

4.Australian Defence League
A nationalist and xenophobic rabble that was once anti-Semitic but found an easier and more popular target in Islam. Apart from racist and Islamophobic rants across the Internet, particularly through its social media accounts, the organisation has come under recent scrutiny after the revelation that members of the Royal Australian Navy involved in the divisive 'Operation Sovereign Borders' are also members of the ADL. 
Because of the apparent lack of a single hierarchy or formal structure of this movement it is a difficult target, but one whose annihilation would receive resounding secular and cross-party applause around the nation.

3. Political arsehats
Pauline Hanson, Cory Bernardi, Jacqui Lambie, Mark Latham and Christopher Pyne to begin with, but we could easily list a hundred more. Yes, they are only morons and hardly anyone takes them seriously, but that potentially makes them very dangerous, especially if they were to team up like a nightmarish pack of Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers.

2. Shock Jocks
Andrew Bolt: Convicted perpetrator of hate-speech, self-affirming bigot, general egomaniac and rabid conservative douchebag.
Kyle Sandilands: Moron. Enough said.
Alan Jones: a rabid conservative and, unfortunately, popularly divisive celebrity talkback radio host with a mouth like a 17th century syphillitic tavern wench with Tourette's. He tops this list because of his unmatched ability to excite the masses and potentially incite violence and atrocities against innocent people.  His demise can not come too soon, particularly if it is caused by being put in 'a chaff bag and thrown into the sea' as he once suggested be done with former Prime Minister, Julia Gillard.

1. Yourself
Seriously, if you want to make a public statement using martyrdom to promote your cause then just blow yourself up in a wide open space with no one else around. I am happy to post your message on YouTube and ensure that you are remembered as a complete douchebag along with everyone else on this list. Please accept that as a small token of my appreciation for making this world a better place by your absence.

The by-election that wasn't

This was not a by election, it was a wake up call for all of Canberra and each of the state governments. And the message is clear; ignore the citizens at your own peril. 




There are undoubtedly a few sore political heads in the wake of he Western Australian Senate re-election held over the weekend. Counting is still in progress, and will continue for some time. It will probably be a couple of weeks before we know who has gained the final seat but we can be fairly certain that we have two Liberals, one Labor, one Green and one PUP, with the two old parties competing for the final seat.


While each party will be claiming its own victories, putting whatever small spin they can manage into action, the rest of us need to take a step back and assess what might have actually happened. It is all guesswork obviously, we cannot make any conclusions on the motivations of voters, there are only assumptions.


So what went wrong and what went right? Let's look at each party in detail before we assume to understand the big picture.


Liberal v Labor


It is fair to say that a big swing against both parties is always expected when viable alternatives are present. We have seen it when the Democrats were in their prime and with the rise of Pauline Hanson or Family First. These are the real swinging voters, not simply disaffected followers of the two old parties. Many political boffins put the swinging vote as high as 20-30%, but I believe it to be about 15% as I prefer to exclude the recidivist protest voters, like myself, who never vote for either major party. 


The Liberals, particularly Eric Abetz, were premature to claim that the ALP had a greater swing against them than did the Liberals. The current state of play is that the swings are fairly close with the Liberals down 5.5 and Labor 4.8. 


What is more discerning is the combined results of the traditional allies. The Nationals felt a big blow losing a third of their base meaning the Coalition vote decreased by a total of 7.5 percentage points against the combined ALP/Greens vote, which increased by 1.6 points. Even if you assume that the right shifted into the hands of Palmer United Party it leaves the right with a zero change and the left with a slight increase.


Part of their woes also relied on the fact that the Liberals were busy attacking Labor and failed to deal with the real competition, PUP. In addition both lead candidates for Liberal and Labor were noticeably absent from the campaign. Whatever you may think of the average voter, one thing for sure is that they do not appreciate being taken for granted.


It is also clear that the ALP ostracised some of the left with the painful antics of Joe Bullock. Revelations in the last few days of the campaign would have seriously damaged the Labor vote and I suggest that a great many loyal ALP voters went below the line to support Louise Pratt while some others just moved elsewhere, mostly to the Greens. I predict that Louise Pratt will acquire the final seat based on a strong below the line vote from those voters.


Unlike some pundits, I don't think that this had anything to do with the state Barnett government, but no doubt the shark cull policy has attracted some support towards the Greens. 


The Greens


Regardless of your politics it is fair to say that The Greens ran one of the best campaigns of their history. Scott Ludlam was everywhere and he stayed on message. It paid out in big dividends with a full quota in their own right and left he ALP's Louise Pratt reliant upon the remainder, as well as strong preference flows, to potentially secure a second Labor seat. 


Scott Ludlam's tour de force was undoubtedly his Senate speech to the Prime Minister which gained viral momentum akin to Julia Gillard's misogyny speech. Tony Abbott now seems to have the record for being the subject of the most watched videos of any Australian politician, all negative.


Palmer United Party


PUP was always going to be strong and they have managed to capture the vast majority of protest votes against the coalition. They had the second biggest media presence and again ran a decent campaign appealing to their core constituency, whatever that might actually be - the jury is still out on that one. 


Many, including myself, have criticised Palmer for running ridiculous advertising messages promising taxation and other reforms that will be undeliverable and sometimes just pure mathematical fantasy. However, the popularity of the party seems to indicate that fiction is more trustworthy than fact to the politically uneducated. There is clearly an element of Australia for whom Palmer has found a heartwarming, but perhaps fickle, kinship.


Are you listening?


It is my conclusion that the result of this unprecedented Senate election was a direct message to the Abbott government; the voters of Western Australia are disapproving of the current two-party political system and especially of the Abbott agenda. 

However, while they disapprove of the Coalition, they remain uncertain of Labor as a viable alternative preferring to support a third way. 33.7% of Western Australian voters support the Liberals while 21.8% are behind Labor. Neither party has a mandate and only barely make a majority between them. 44.5% of the state prefer an alternative to the traditional parties. These are undeniably strong figures that should not be ignored. 

They should also ignore at their peril the clear fact that two strong contenders for alternative governance are emerging in the years to come. The Greens are clearly filling the gap left by the defunct Australian Democrats and PUP are following in he wake of One Nation to provide an alternative for the right.

We live in interesting political times.

The Australian Democrats

It's about time that I started writing again. My blog seems to be a good place to commence.

Recent events have brought the Australian Democrats back into my life, albeit from the distance of Twitter, however it seems that little has changed and that another split has unfurled.

While I watch and wait for the outcome I am reminded of this graphic that I hacked back in the day when the party lost key Senate seats and the final death knell was tolling.


V for Vendetta

The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta, held as a votive, not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous.




And the war begins ...

Xenophon's head up his own arse!

The impossible "war against paedophilia" is turning another idiotic page.

South Australian independent Senator Nick Xenophon's private member's bill would make it illegal for adults to lie to children about their age. According to reports,
The Bill will introduce three new offences. An adult misrepresenting their age online to a minor will now face a maximum 3 year jail term.

An adult misrepresenting their age in order to meet a minor will face a five year prison term and an adult misrepresenting their age with the intention of assaulting a minor will face a maximum 8 years prison term.
Clearly this is aimed at adult perpetrators posing as children - that's all well and good. What isn't clear is whether a 21 yo telling a 17yo he is only 20 is also a crime under the same offence. The ridiculousness of that situation is obvious.

Of course, the bill also fails to address those children who lie about their age in order to meet adults. Believe me, it happens a lot and some of them can get away with quite a few years!

Proposed laws like this are not only outright stupid, they are downright dangerous to the integrity of the justice system and a hindrance to the proper education and welfare of children.

What's next? Making it a crime for predators to lie about their intentions? Or will they make it a crime to lie about your weight or the size of your cock or boobs? I might support that if it applied across the board for all adults (lol - joking) :-p

Get real, Xenophon, you moron. Do something useful like allocate government funding for online awareness education for parents and children. Teach the kids how to use the Internet with respect and teach the parents about taking responsibility for their child's access!

Clima-facsism

Clima-fascism: A form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with anthropomorphic climate change, in which a mass-based grouping of committed environmental militants, manipulated by and working in an uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues its anti-humanistic goals through the manipulation and suppression of debate, without ethical or legal restraints [Courtesy of Open Your Eyes News]

its basis:

Fascism: A form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion [Robert Paxton]

RIP Jack - and please don't haunt me!

It is a day of many and mixed emotions when one's nemesis passes away. Where would Sherlock Holmes have been without Moriarty, Batman without Catwoman, Superman without Lex Luthor.

It is such a day for me, not that I consider myself to be a fictitious crime-fighter devoid of a super-villain; but the death of former Australian Democrats Senator, Jack Evans (see announcement below) does leave me feeling a little nostalgic, somewhat wistful and even a dab of sadness.

Anyone who followed my few years as an active member of the Democrats will know how I came to blows with Jack and his excremental offsider, Andrew Murray. Jack may very well have had good intentions to protect the party, but his vice-like grip did more damage than good and it blinded him to the facts. He was, unfortunately, more interested in retaining tight control more than upholding the democratic foundations of the party.

That was no more evident than by his actions during the WA Democrats fiasco in and similarly in several less public stoushes and faux pas' in the years since, culminating in his support for Murray during his ridiculous and damaging dummy spit of 2001/02.

Readers may wish to search through my very early posts on this site for an insight or review detailed documentation from Brian Jenkins and other online sources.

One day I might manage to upload all of my email records and other documentation from the AusDemocrats ... please contact me if you are a budding researcher interested in delving into the mire ;-)


Dear Friends,

It is with great sadness today that I have the duty to inform you that one of our greatest has passed away. Jack Evans died early this morning in Perth.

A former Senator, National President and National Campaign Director, Jack Evans was instrumental in the formation of the Australian Democrats, and was a significant figure in many of our greatest moments, including rafting the Franklin River with Don Chipp all those years ago.

Jack was a man of visions and ideas. He wanted to make things happen, and often they did. People would get caught up in his enthusiasm and share his vision and work hard to make it happen. He had a deep and commanding voice and chose his words carefully. He didn’t prattle on, but spoke with quiet dignity after listening to others opinions. Therefore – people listened, felt heard and had confidence in his ability to deliver.

He was a deal maker, pulling people together to make things happen. He was also very cautious and very much kept what he saw as the Party’s best interest deep in his heart. He was very protective of the Party when he could see people who’s intent was questionable or potentially problematic and some took this as obstructionist. He knew how to be a strategist and develop ways of achieving goals. Jack never spoke ill of people despite the criticisms he would inevitably receive and had a remarkable ability to tenaciously push through obstacles, disregarding personal cost.

There was nothing more he loved, it seemed, than talking about political ideas, about ways to address the big issues, about the way the Democrats could continue to make a difference. He remained absolutely committed to the ideals of the Party and those remaining have a responsibility to Jack to do their best to ensure those ideals are not lost from the political landscape.

He remained very private about his personal side, yet once one of his friends he was warm and gracious, always showing a keen interest in those around him.

People like Jack Evans are rare – I know he touched and inspired many Australian Democrats and others across the country. To those close to him we offer our deepest and most heartfelt condolences. We will all miss him.

Julia Melland
National President
Australian Democrats


And in a strange way, yes I will miss him too.

Andrew Murray on the other hand ... well, let's not go there.

Cyber safety research may miss the mark

The good people over at Australian eDemocracy alerted me to the recent report that the Federal Government will spend some of the $125.8 million cyber safety plan funding to engage an Edith Cowan University research team to "review current research on matters such as the nature and prevalence of cyber-safety issues, such as cyber-bullying, online predators and the disclosure of personal information."

They will also will also "explore views on the consequences of these risks, and what technical and behavioural measures can be used by children, parents and teachers to help reduce them."

All well and good, and I'm very supportive of the Government for undertaking this important action, however I have my reservations about the nature of the final report and the person heading it up, Professor Donna Cross.

On the Bullying. No Way! website, Prof. Cross is quoted thus:
“...much good work has been done by researchers to assess the prevalence of the bullying problem but virtually no research has been conducted to investigate empirically what can be done to address this problem.”
It seems she has found a way to get this important research funded by convincing the government that it is a cyber safety issue.

I disagree!

Bullying is a behavioural awareness and disciplinary issue that everyone can combat by working with perpetrators and victims, or potential victims, alike. It is a distinctly separate issue to cyber safety, which is a parental care and child educational issue requiring purely preventative measures and can not be combatted by working to rehabilitate perpetrators.

I fear that Prof Cross and her team at the Child Health Promotion Research Centre will lack the technological understanding and experience to complete this task in full. The question arises as to how this research grant was awarded to Professor Cross rather than any of the other tenders? If she was the best qualified for this work, then it is possibly a sad indictment on Australian commerce and academia.

Notably there is $2.3 million set aside for this research as well as a second project to develop a "repeatable survey instrument and methodology for data collection on the changes in behaviour of children, parents, teachers".

At the crux of the issue of cyber-safety is that parents, guradians and adults charged with relevant authority MUST take full responsibility in educating and supervising children's activity on any and every electronic media. The Bullying. No Way website (supported by Prof Cross' team at CHPRC) even tells us why:
“Many young people say that they wouldn’t report cyber bullying because most adults don’t know that they have a cyber life ... But parents have a moral, as well as a legal, responsibility to ensure that their children engage in safe and responsible behaviour – including online behaviour.”
Precisley the point that Communications Minister, Stephen Conroy, and his team just don't seem to get, which is why they are insisting on imposing Internet Censorship via a secret filter on all ISP activity to ban black-listed sites.

Where is the control if parents don't know what their children are doing, who they are conversing with or what information they are unwittingly revealing about themselves, their location and their activities?

We wouldn't let our children walk the streets alone at night, yet there are many who allow their children to do just that in a cyber world. The risks and dangers are the same. The responsibility remains the same. Allowing a child to roam the streets alone is neglectful and it is a crime; so it should also be with cyber-media access. So it is, and so it shall remain. No cyber safety policy or Internet filter will change that.

I am always right. Almost always

I came across a post titled I am always right. Almost always and I loved reading it because it brought home some dark truths that I grapple with consistently.

Unanswered questions like:
  • When does my opposition to fundamentalism become, in itself, a form of fundamentalism?
  • Can someone's freedom of expression impinge on my freedom from oppression?
  • Can I maintain my integrity by compromising my position in a negotiation or debate?
The latter was beautifully summed up in a previous post in 2006 which quoted Liberal Democrats (UK political party) leader, Charles Kennedy as saying:
"In politics you should position yourself behind what you believe in and articulate it. Then see if that's what the voters want, and if it's not what they want, well, that's democracy."
I think we can adapt to this to a broader philosophy on life.

I have always maintained that I will never compromise my principles - my integrity is my self. Without it I am lost in a sea of expressionless and unconscious beings in a "follow me" world.

That does not mean I am fixed and rigid in my opinions and perspectives, though it may appear that way. I know that I must be open to new information and willing to adapt to the truth when it is discovered, for my principles are based solely on my knowledge and experience to date, which may well be flawed or lacking the right perspective.

One exercise that I regularly undertake, and highly recommend to everyone, is to take your beliefs, one at a time, and ask yourself simply "why do I believe this?".

Often you will find the root of your beliefs in some distant childhood memory that, when given an adult perspective, seems ludicrous, illogical or irrelevant. At that point it is time to reassess that belief in light of the present information and understanding.

Only at that moment of extraordinary capitulation can we say we have grown wiser. I look for those moments daily and embrace them with joy.


Fry on the Internet

I love it when someone can say something so profound and in the simplest possible manner, that even dumb-arses like George W. Bush could potentially understand it. Case in point, this gem spoken at Apple’s Regent Street store in London yesterday:

“The internet is like a city - it has red light districts, all kinds of weird people, who want to con and steal from you, but my god, they’re exciting places to live and to be a citizen of it is a great privilege. Yet people are trying to control the internet like they would never dare with a city.”
Stephen Fry
, Actor/Presenter/TechEvangelist

With over 100,000 followers, @StephenFry is the 2nd most popular person on Twitter behind US President @BarackObama

I wonder if Stephen Conroy gets it ... yet?

NoCleanFeed and NO Censorship please, Minister!
*sigh*

The Billion Dollar Messiah

An obscene amount of dollars was raised and spent to "elect" the leader of the world's most "free" country. And all during a time of massive financial crisis that is likely to lead to the downfall of the greatest empire since Rome.

It is simply beyond irony.

An eye for an eye

“An eye for an eye would make the whole world blind.”
Mahatma Ghandi

The three convicted Bali Bombers have been murdered by a vicious, third world legal system at the behest of ignorant and depraved public opinion.

This is a sad and disappointing day for anyone who holds justice high above and disparate from vengeance; for those who foresee the deep and dark ramifications of gifting martyrdom.

And all the while war criminals like Tony Blair and George W. Bush, who are ultimately responsible for the documented deaths of more than 100,000 (potentially closer to 500,000), continue to walk the Earth as free men.


Difference Between the Obama and McCain Tax Plans

North American Patriot: The Real True Honest Fair and Balanced Difference Between the Obama and McCain Tax Plans

Its not so much the difference in tax policy that is astounding ... its the fact that they actually include people who earn more than $2,870,000 per annum.

Who actually earns that kind of money and doesn't have a full time tax accountant to reduce their liability to zero through dodgy tax minimisation and avoidance schemes??

LOL

America's growing enemy

Keep an eye on Venezuela.

According to reports like this and this, Chavez is being too much like a Robin Hood for the US and international bank boys to just stand by and do nothing.

He has already taken back the oil & gas fields, now they plan to ramp up production and hit foreign companies with a 50% tax on excess oil profits.

He also plans to nationalise the cement industry as well as the Argentinian controlled steelmaker and even take measures to ensure that the people of Venezuela have enough food for the future - no way!

And in the back of his mind is still the plan to introduce a Tobin styled tax on financial transactions.

How will they stop him? Rumours of impropriety? Another coup? Acts of terrorism? Assasination? Here's a start.

But there is also the growing concern about who should be the local sherrif of this region of the world. Perhaps The South American Defense Council?

At least that might explain why Venezuela and Brazil are spending big on arms. (Does anyone know why Greece is at the top of the list of big spenders?)

But despite all this, Chavez does appear to have some interesting friends ...
Belarus
China
Iran

Maybe it is a case of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"?

And if that isn't enough to make you at least question the US stance on Venezuela, try reading the works of Eva Golinger, namely The Chavez Code and Bush vs Chavez - Washington's War on Venezuela or start by reading this review.

Of course, you are also welcome to ignore this and simply take the view that Venezuela deserves everything it gets for its socialist, anti-American, communist-loving, anti-semitic, Simpsons-hating philosphy.

The Other War

Whatever happened to the other war ... you know, the one started by Ronald Reagan, and continued by successive US governments .. the other war against a faceless enemy that was designed to bring fear into the hearts and minds of every Joe and Jane Citizen ... the War on Drugs! ???

Now we know that the USA has used the "War on Drugs" to great effect in achieving its goals in Central and South America. So what would happen if the USA ran up against a rebellious state telling the local sherriff to nick off?

Well, one side would naturally have to make claims of a worsening trafficking problem to highlight the ineffectiveness of the insubordinate regime:
Cocaine Finds a New Latin American Home.

Take particular note of the "tracked" routes (see image below) used by traffickers ... one could easily be led to think that the Dominican Republic is one VERY tripped out place with all the drugs going there, but not seeming to leave! Not to mention that the drugs don't even seem to originate in Columbia anymore either.



Apparently the White House knows where the drugs come from (Venezuela) and knows where they arrive (Dominican Republic) but somehow loses track of them after that!

However, it is also quite evident by these "tracks" that the drugs are not going through any of the usual Central American countries anymore, which must, of course, be due to the incredible success of the long-standing partnership with the US Drug Enforcement Agency ;-)

Of course there's always the other, less popular or politically convenient, side of the story, which boldly claims that Venezuela Boosts Drug Seizures, Arrests Triple.

Now, they can't be both right, can they?

Given the USA's track record on propaganda, I'd bet my Aussie dollar along with a few thousand overinflated Bolivar against the dirty greenback anyday!