Disconnect

Yesterday YouTube coordinated the first candidates' debate online. Users submitted their video questions and candidates responded. Same bullshit, different medium.

In response to the standard Axis of Evil question, Barack Obama apparently demonstrated his inexperience by claiming that under his presidency he would speak unconditionally with leaders of America's greatest enemies in the world. Since the debate, other candidates, most notably his chief rival Hillary Clinton, have claimed that due to this answer he is unqualified to be president.

So what's the lesson here? Let's make it more concrete than international politics. Say you have a disagreement with someone you live with. Is the best option to sit and stew, damage your relationship irreparably and wait for a moment when you have more power so you can dominate your housemate? Or is the best option to have a frank and respectful conversation, admit your flaws, express your concerns and most importantly listen to what your housemate has to say.

Which is the most constructive? Which is likely to lead to the best outcome for all the parties concerned?

Most parents would likely be inclined to teach their children that the latter response is best. However it seems that the politicians, military leaders and business leaders that run Washington weren't paying attention when their parents taught them this lesson. Or perhaps the private schools that they attended taught power and domination relentlessly.

I wonder where Barack Obama went to school (private of course) because with that insightful and refreshing answer, he'll never be president.

What's in a Name?

Militant. How many times today have you heard this simple yet powerful word? I hear and read it all the time. "The militant group Hamas"; "Hezbollah militants declared"; "The militant leader of the Red Mosque is dead". I'm sure you can name a dozen more uses of the word.

I can understand if Israeli officials or George W. Bush cared to use this word, they want to discredit their adversaries and anyone that thinks differently than themselves. But just because elites and state "leaders" use it doesn't mean we all have to as well. But our sources jump to use it. I think this speaks to the dismal state of the corporate media, spoon-fed text by spin doctors from their Blackberries.

Does a militant have nothing of value to say? By taking up arms or standing up for themselves are they instantly discredited? If you call someone a militant won't the sheep bray along in unison with your reporting? Shouldn't we help cultivate other herds besides sheep?

I often find "militants" quite cogent and intelligent. I saw a recent interview with the lead cleric at the Red Mosque and was quite moved by his criticisms of the inequities of Pakistani society. Similarly, Hamas and Al Qaida make incisive political arguments and have straightforward goals and positions (really, they don't just hate us for who we are; shocking I know).

The word militant also demonstrates another point: no one is allowed to challenge the state's monopoly on violence. Al Qaida, the IRA, Hezbollah, Hamas, the Weather Underground, the Unibomber, Louis Riel, Guy Fawkes, Bolsheviks, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Tamil Tigers, Naxalites, the FLQ, Six Nations and more are all regarded as evil. Not for their methods, which pale in comparison to the state's ability to destroy and pillage, but for their challenge to the primacy of the state. Violence must only flow down the hierarchy and we all accept this truth. And given that the media are an integral part of the state, I guess I can't expect the word militant to disappear anytime soon.

It's high time we took back these words and challenged the media and the state's monopoly on truth. Let's label the RCMP militants or the CIA or the military. Wouldn't that confuse all those sheep in their comfortable fields?

The Planet of the Apes

Maybe humans will learn to live like these newly "discovered" cousins one day. I wonder what leopard meat tastes like? I hope that these interesting animals don't get killed by poachers, hunters, militias or mercenaries but expect they will be. Farewell to another species, so sad we never knew thee.

But then, as a Canadian, I should have never even known these primates even ever existed and should have cared much less than I do. Forget Central Africa, I should be thinking about the land on which I live. I should be hunting moose and deer along the escarpment and forests of the Golden Horseshoe (in the absence of leopards) and growing squash and pumpkins for the winter. I should be thinking about things that really matter.

Clear Enough?

I always almost start feeling like a fool. You see I'm the only one who suggests that planning our next trips to Mexico and India might be a little premature. People ignore me or laugh or change the subject. Makes you rethink your convictions. Thankfully something always brings me back and reminds me that I'm right and that the world is insane.

As someone more coherent and passionate than myself often exclaims: We're fucked!

Engineering 101

I just caught the end of a bullshit interview with our Minister of Public Safety, Stockwell Day. Day was the consummate performer: no real answers, half smiles and a flawless haircut. The subject under discussion was our "broken" national police force, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP).

The Conservative Government had just appointed a new commissioner for the "scandal-plagued" organization. No one can deny that the RCMP has problems. Their pension plan is in disarray apparently (much like our very own CPP?) and they helped to facilitate the torture of an unlucky Canadian in Syria. And apart from these highly visible stories are stories of executions and the constant harassment of First Nations peoples. And let's not forget that the RCMP are one of many security services that perpetuate and enforce through violence the rigid hierarchies of the Canadian state.

What struck me about the new appointment was that it followed the Americans' lead. William Elliott, the new commissioner, is a "bureaucrat with a political past". He is very close to the government and is likely to be very accommodating to Prime Minister Harper.

Does any of this sound familiar?

Following 9/11, George W. Bush declared that the US's security services, the FBI and the CIA had failed in preventing the attacks of that day (despite evidence that several FBI agents unsuccessfully attempted to warn their superiors about the plot months in advance). Bush's response was a complete overhaul of the agencies and the advent of the Department of Homeland Security. And where else to start but at the top.

Prior to Bush, intelligence agencies were arms-length from the federal government (useful when leaders don't want to know about contras and death squads around the world). But theoretically this meant that politics didn't influence "intelligence". In theory, to make good decisions politicians need straightforward facts. However in the run-up to the Iraq war, following the engineered discrediting of the CIA and FBI, politics stained all the intelligence on Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and the gleeful welcome American liberators would receive.

In the end it was a complete fabrication. But now the lies have become reality in the smokescreen of collective memory.

Is Steve Harper learning the lessons of his southern benefactor? Is Canada heading toward our own 9/11 or dodgy intelligence leading us to war? Is Harper about to guarantee himself a majority government? A political appointment is sure to help.

I warned you.