Thursday, October 30, 2008
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Economic Chaos. Potential War with Iran. Energy Prices. Recession. Russia. Pakistan. Iraq.
What do these all have in common? A pretty grim picture.
Let’s examine the links between these things. You may want a scorecard for this.
Consider the following facts:
1. Oil had peaked at $147 (7-11-08), and now is at $71 (as of 10-21-08). That’s a 52% drop in three months.
2. World stock markets have tanked in the past four weeks, with trillions of equity and investments being lost.
3. Iceland faced default on its national debt. (
6. The now multi-trillion-dollar bailout did nothing to help the market or the consumer.
10. Afghanistan is heating up, and there is little chance of improvement there.
What does this all mean?
In a word, war.
The effects will be immediate: World War III, which really started on 9/11, will turn very hot very fast.
So here’s the situation: With the markets in meltdown and unemployment and home foreclosures still rising, the American people are getting angrier and angrier. They feel they were ignored by the trillion-dollar bailout and have let the elected government know it. However, the meltdown, which has its foundations in the utter mistake of relying on credit to move an economy, will only get worse, because the American government is either unwilling or unable to see the real root problem, let alone do anything about it. Frantic, the government will search for a means to kick-start the economy, get people working again, and get things under control. Martial law could be useful here, according to some people.
Of course, that’s all based on the lie of
An attack on a Muslim country AGAIN by
So where does that leave the Bush Administration: plunging straight ahead towards the cliff.
If a 9/11-style attack happens first, be it either real or a false-flag, the Bush regime will immediately try to blame
Can this go nuclear? Easily, because you have three nuclear powers in the equation (United States, Russia, Israel) and possibly a fourth in Pakistan, whose role has always been tedious and on edge, and following them would be a fifth in India, with their own nukes, and possibly a sixth in China unless they exercise the good sense to stay out of it. So not only could it go nuclear with between three and six of the nine world nuclear powers (
Naturally, such a war, if it stays conventional (might we be so lucky!) would be seen in Washington as a means to get the economy going through a war machine as we did in World War II. But this is not 1939, and the reasons for and the rules of war have changed. It used to be over land and resources. Now it’s over money and energy.
In Main Street America, however, two factors will come into play. One is the current anger over the situation. It is very conceivable that Americans, already angry over losing their homes to foreclosures and retirement accounts to the corporatist American zaibatsu on Wall Street, may simply refuse to go along, defying all federal efforts to federalize the economy the way they did in 1941-42. But that’s not very likely, because of the other part of the equation, which is the newest front in warfare, which in cyberspace. A full conventional war will be accompanied by a full cyberwar, and the American government’s attempts to limit information to their official sources ala 1984 will just aid their opponents. How much the American people buy into the propaganda remains to be seen and goes back to the wussification mentioned above. The average American is not ready for and does not understand what a cyberwar is, what it does, or how it affects them. Nor are they informed enough to look outside the corporate media sources of the
So, what has to be done prevent this mess? Well, for one,
But above all, there must be an organized and concerted effort to pressure our leaders to exercise proper leadership, not to just beat the drums of war because of campaign dollars or market profits for cronies, but instead to work with the world to forge peace as a means to develop prosperity, to turn around the negative attitudes and get nations to work on peaceful mutual interests and trade.
That effort starts with the grassroots of the world, from the bottom up, to get the leaders, elected or not, to do the right thing, not only for their own people, but for all people.
It starts with US.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Inland GOP mailing depicts Obama's face on food stamp
As made by the Chaffey Community Republican Women:
Nuts, isn't it (even if they did get the Kool-aid color wrong!)?
To what depths will the GOP sink?
UPDATE 10/20: apparently it came from a left-skewer blog--at least that's what the CrayoLA Times reports...
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Beforehand, though, if Obama drops the cool veneer and layeth the smacketh down on McCain, it's all over. The key question will be if McCain brings up Ayers or ACORN, both of which are traps for McCain.
Otherwise, all Obama has to do is tell McCain directly, "Look directly into my eyes and tell me, and the world, that you have a plan that will rebuild America, create jobs, produce goods for export, fix our infrastructure, and get us out of the Middle East both economically and militarily." Then he just sits there and looks straight at him in a game of optical chicken. McCain will either give a bullshit answer, he'll turn away, or he'll lose it and go ballistic. In any case, Obama wins.
After that, the only possible chance would be for Sarah and/or Bristol Palin to pose nude in Playboy, but since Larry "Hustler" Flynt is proceeding with a Sarah Palin send-up porn flick, even that might not be enough.
UPDATE: McCain came out flailing and attacking. He fell into the Ayers and ACORN traps as expected, and in general looked very bad. Obama clearly won.
On the way out, McCain couldn't find the door, just like Bush did once, and wound up, once again, trailing Obama, to his great displeasure:
BTW, this photo was taken from a Yahoo News slideshow on the debate. If it's a photoshop job, blame Yahoo. If not, blame McCain. His campaign makes me react that way, too.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Alaska Independence Party favors a public vote on whether Alaska should remain a state, return to a territory, be a commonwealth, or become an independent nation. They were allegedly promised this vote in 1958 and it never happened.
Todd Palin, the "First Dude" of Alaska, is a member of the AIP. For this, his wife gets criticized on the campaign trail, because people seem to think secession is unpatriotic.
I'm no fan of Sarah Palin. She is not politically qualified to be VP. But this criticism over the AIP is just wrong.
Allow me to quote the most famous secessionist in American history:
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
So, are these critics of Sarah Palin also saying that THOMAS JEFFERSON was unpatriotic???
America was formed on secession from Britain, remember???
Think about it.