To Spy or Not To Spy

Two of the most important news stories of the year were reported last week. On Tuesday, NBC reported that the US Defense Department was spying on peace groups in the United States. On Friday the New York Times reported on the National Security Agency’s eavesdropping on Americans since 2002.

The White House asked the Times not to publish the article. I’ll let you decide if it was in the public interest to sit on a major story for a year. For me and for people who are concerned about civil liberties, we are once again astonished by the conceit of the Bush administration, the Pentagon and the NSA to decide how to manage their supposed “war on terror.” Clearly, they are fighting internal dissent, not terrorism and they’re spending a lot of money to do it.

According to the Associated Press, a senior intelligence officer said that Bush has personally authorized eavesdropping in the United States more than fifty times.
Note the words “personally authorized”. It’s time for Bush to be held accountable for this crime against democracy. His administration consistently acts secretly and with a big stick. Behaviour of this kind is usually associated with dictators. Even Bush admitted that in today’s press conference. Bush was granted more executive powers by Congress, such as the authorization of spying, after September 11, 2001.

It’s all symbolic of a paranoid administration looking to suppress life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, unless it suits them. You don’t have to be a good Republican or Democrat to raise the red flag on the issue of spying, only a good citizen.

Let’s hope some patriot steps up and makes noise.

That’s just my opinion. I could be wrong.

The full NBC story is available at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10454316/

The New York Times story is available at http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16program.html

Building Blocs

I’ve always liked Gilles Duceppe, leader of the Bloc Quebecois, ever since the 2000 Television debate. During the broadcast he stated the clearest message of any leader, “if it’s good for Quebec we’ll vote for it. If it’s not good for Quebec, we’ll vote against it.” It was a simple and essential raison d’etre for a party that has a chance to win every Federal riding in Quebec next election.

The anger and frustration with the Liberals in the province is rabid. More Quebeckers tuned into the televised hearings of the Gomery Commission than any other viewer in the land. It was the reality TV of La Belle Province and it’s going to cost Paul Martin a bundle in votes on January 23rd.

I think the success of the Bloc and the question of independence is an interesting political phenomenon. Here you have a federally elected party taking full advantage of the system as it exists, yet standing up for separation, if and when it suits them, particularly during an election campaign. But voting for the Bloc, if you happen to have the geographic advantage of doing so, will only accomplish one thing: it will make you feel better.

It’s a safe choice and every good thinking member of the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois knows it. It’s a promise instead of a commitment. Just like in high school when Ken was too young to marry Barbie, so instead of an engagement ring he gave her a promise ring.

Trouble is, promises are sometimes broken; especially by politicians.

That’s just my opinion. I could be wrong.

Reinforcements

I suppose you need all the help you can get when you run an election campaign. Volunteers, money, office space and telephones are essential to a candidate’s success. You might seek advice from the people you trust, such as campaign workers, party members and veterans from previous elections.

In the province of Ontario, where the Conservative Party always finishes second in a Federal election, party members have gone a step further and looked to the United States for help. In this case, from the National Rifle Association.

That’s right: the NRA, one of the most powerful lobby groups in Washington.

Who’s behind all this? Larry Whitmore, director of sport development for the Canadian Shooting Sports Association. Whitmore wants to help the Conservatives win some “swing ridings” in Ontario. He’s asked a member of the NRA to give a seminar during the election in order to “teach us to be more politically active and effective at the grassroots level”.

While the NRA is mum about the contents of their upcoming lecture for members of the CSSA, the general comment from them is the need to share information for gun owners around the world, “with its message that freedom and liberty ought not to be infringed”. Indeed, is that the kind of message Canadians want to hear? Well, based on the campaign so far, no.

I’m no expert, but the last time I checked, freedom and liberty had nothing to do with guns.

That’s just my opinion. I could be wrong.

Yellow Journalism

Today, the NY Times published a story with the following headline, “U.S. Is Said to Pay to Plant Articles in Iraq Papers”. It was written by Jeff Gerth and Garth Shane. It’s the story of how the Pentagon was connected to an article called, The Sands Are Blowing Toward A Democratic Iraq. It was prepared by the United States military and translated into Arabic before being published in an Iraqi newspaper.

The article itself was written in the style of the region, calling on the will of Muhammad and offering readers a critique of the critics of the Iraq war. It suggested that the critics were wrong and that Iraq was on its way to a democracy.

The story was on ABC’s Nightline program where one interviewee played it safe and said, “You show the world you're not living by the principles you profess to believe in, and you lose all credibility,". No shit! It’s not about being credible, it’s about winning: pure, plain and simple.

The history of American Imperialism is full of examples of misleading information, like the sinking of two American ships in the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964, and the killing of babies in incubators during the first Gulf War. The former is commonly known as a false flag operations. The latter is propaganda, because it was proven by CBS on 60 Minutes, that a public relations firm, working for the Pentagon, made it all up.

So what does this mean?

Modern warfare requires a variety of weapons: real and imagined. It also requires rumour and myth. As Hiram Johnson put it many years ago: the first casualty when war comes is truth.

That’s just my opinion. I could be wrong.

NY Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/01/politics/01propaganda.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5094&en=3af8aaf9fa1cb0bc&hp&ex=1133499600&partner=homepage