by cameron | Sep 12, 2008 | US politics
I was thinking about this over breakfast this morning…
Why, in the last sixSEVEN years, hasn’t there been another terrorist attack on the USA?
Perhaps it’s because the Dept of Home Security are doing a bang-up job keeping America safe. However, knowing what we do about how effective America’s intelligence services are (not very), that seems a very unlikely explanation.
The alternative explanation might be that the terrorists don’t need another attack because they’ve already won.
Assuming there really is a guy called Osama Bin Laden, has he won?
Here’s some questions to ask yourself:
1. Is America’s reputation abroad stronger or weaker today than it was pre-9/11?
2. Is America’s economy stronger or weaker today than it was pre-9/11?
3. Is America’s internal political climate more or less divisive today than it was pre-9/11?
4. Does America have more or less enemies today than it did pre-9/11?
BONUS QUESTION:
5. What would most Americans say the reason for the 9/11 attacks was?
I’m guessing a poll would show most think “they hate our freedom” is the answer. FAIL. I suspect most Americans have learned nothing from the last six years.
Meanwhile Americans deaths in Afghanistan hit a new high, while the US bombs Pakistan.
Meanwhile Russia sends TU-160 Blackjack bombers to Venezuela, reminding me of the Cuban missile crisis.
Before the war, White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsay estimated the cost at $100 to $200 billion. So the White House got rid of him and “re-estimated” the cost at $50 to $60 billion. It’s going to end up costing over $3 TRILLION.
That’s $3 trillion of taxpayers money that would be going to healthcare, to creating alternative sources of renewable energy, or to developing better relationships with countries around the world. It’s $3 trillion that is, instead, making certain American weapons manufacturers, military contractors and construction companies, very wealthy, while the US unemployment level is at a five-year high and employment growth is the weakest since the Great Depression.
I submit to you that if bin Laden’s objective was to hurt America, he has already won.
by cameron | Sep 11, 2008 | Iran, US politics
Just a few things that have caught my attention this morning:
1. Ron Paul refuses to endorse McCain and instead tells his supporters to vote for a third-party candidate. I love this quote from him:
“It might diminish my credibility,” said Paul (when asked to endorse McCain). “I don’t like the idea of getting 2 or 3 million people angry at me.”
2. Democracy Now! host Amy Goodman gets arrested outside the Republican National Convention for doing nothing.
You have to watch the video and read the story. It’s horrifying.
3. British American Tobacco targets kids with their advertising.
BAT claim they don’t want children to smoke, but then get “caught in Malawi, Mauritius and Nigeria using marketing tactics that are well-known to appeal to youth: advertising and selling single cigarettes, and sponsoring non-age-restricted, product-branded musical entertainment.”
I’ve got a bunch of great interviews in the can ready to release to you, including a chat with the music critic who introduced Kurt Cobain to Courtney Love and a representative from the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights who told me American should nuke Iran. Apparently they don’t have any rights. And tonight I’m interviewing Robert M Price, a theologian and biblical scholar who agrees with me that Jesus probably didn’t exist. So stay tuned!
by cameron | Aug 29, 2008 | Australian politics, Christianity, environment, science
From the “Houston We Have A Problem” department… Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said on radio today:
“For me, it’s ultimately the order of the cosmos or what I describe as the creation.
“You can’t simply have, in my own judgment, creation simply being a random event because it is so inherently ordered, and the fact that the natural environment is being ordered where it can properly coexist over time.
“If you were simply reducing that to mathematically probabilities I’ve got to say it probably wouldn’t have happened.
“So I think there is an intelligent mind at work.”
So basically we have a Prime Minister who doesn’t understand 5th grade science using the term “mathematical probabilities” to defend his belief in God. I would love to know what he thinks the “mathematical probabilities” are for God? Who designed the designer? Even my kids worked that out independently at about age 6. “But Dad, if God made everything, who made God?” I should put my kids (who are now 7) in front of Rudd for ten minutes. They’d sort him out.
So why is having a creationist Prime Minister a problem?
What mostly concerns me is that someone who cannot or does not accept rudimentary science (in this case, Big Bang theory and the laws of physics) is someone with a major intellectual blind spot. This is someone who refuses to accept evidence and rational thinking and instead prefers a primitive mythology. Can someone like that effectively govern a country in the 21st century? If he doesn’t accept evidence and rational thinking in this instance, how do we know in what other subjects he prefers to ignore evidence? Foreign affairs? The budget? Does he sit in meetings with Treasury, here them say “well if we do x and then y will happen to the economy” and reply “well I don’t believe that, I think it’ll just work because God wants it to”? Is his approach to foreign policy based on logic and reason or his interpretation of God’s will?
It’s profoundly disturbing to me to know that our most senior government official believes in superstition and supernatural causes for the world around him.
I’d be interested to see what the reaction would have been had he said “I believe the Rainbow Serpent created the world”. Why is one primitive mythology superior to another?
by cameron | Aug 20, 2008 | environment, Melbourne, Podcast
This morning I was given an opportunity to interview Hilary Mine, Alcatel-Lucent’s Managing Director Australasia and North Asia, about the launch of the Alcatel-Lucent Broadband Environment Challenge 2008 they did this morning in Melbourne with Senator Stephen Conroy, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy.
The Challenge looks to award the Eckermann-TJA Prize ($10,000 provided by Alcatel-Lucent) for the best paper on broadband telecommunications applications and/or solutions that have the potential to deliver significant benefits to environmental sustainability.
Hilary and I discussed how the Challenge came together (this is its second year) and some of the ways that broadband might be able to contribute positively to environmental sustainability. Hilary mentioned that she telecommutes one day a week to show her senior team that it is possible and practical. I think more large Australia companies should be encouraging their staff to telecommute. As I mention in the show, we were talking about this stuff back at Ozemail in 1996 and it surprises me that it isn’t more commonplace yet.
More information about the competition can be found at www.tsa.org.au. Entries close Monday 6 October 2008.
To be completely up front (as you know I always am), this is a paid gig and my client is Alcatel-Lucent.
Subscribe now to the TPN update email (fill in the below box) to get a weekly list of all of the new episodes on TPN in one easy-to-read format!
Enter your email address:
by cameron | Aug 19, 2008 | geopolitics, US politics
I recently read this post by Richard Moore on the history between Russia and the West and I thought I should share it with you. It provides some interesting perspective on what’s happening over in Georgia at the moment. According to Moore, Georgie is just the latest in a long line of pawns being moved by the West to provide an excuse to ramp up another Cold War.
Here’s an excerpt:
The Cold War, an invention of the West, embodied two primary objectives. First and foremost, it provided an excuse for interventions all over the globe on the part of the US – ostensibly ‘protecting the free world from Communism’ – while in fact exploiting the hell out of what were deemed to be ‘underdeveloped’ nations. Secondarily, the Cold War amounted to a long-term attempt to destabilize the Soviet Union, which finally succeeded in 1990. The Cold War was perhaps the most successful of the historical series of attacks on Russia.
Russia, in concert with China, is beginning to eclipse the US-EU Axis in many areas, including manufacturing, control over energy supplies, productive economic activity, and monetary reserves. Only in military capability does the US continue to hold a #1 rating, and the actual military advantage slips day by day away from the Pentagon, as Russia and China develop their ‘asymmetric’ counter-measures.
This is the context in which US-NATO trained, armed, and encouraged Georgia to launch its brutal and illegal attack on South Ossetia, intentionally killing Russian citizens and peace-keepers, and intentionally targeting civilians generally. Nearly all of the casualties in the overall conflict were inflicted by Georgian forces at the outset of hostilities. The US and UK media refer to the total number of casualties, and imply that Russia is to blame for them. Such is the nature of our so-called ‘free press’.
Read the full post by Richard Moore.
It’s interesting to just quickly run your eyes over the list of headlines about Georgia in Google News to see how the Western press is depicting the events.
“Russians remain in Georgia”, TVNZ, New Zealand
“Deadline passes for Russian withdrawal from Georgia”, ABC Online, Australia
“US Says Russia Must Remove All Military Equipment From Georgia”, Voice of America
“Russia’s Might in Georgia Reflects Pattern, Rice Says”, Bloomberg
“Rice: NATO won’t let Russia succeed in Georgia”, San Diego Union Tribune
“Russia moves SS-21 missiles into Georgia: US defense official”, AFP
“US says Russia should withdraw from Georgia”, Reuters
“Despite Cease-Fire, Russia Stays In Georgia”, NPR
Any guesses who the bad guy is here?
Alternative headlines might read:
“Russia Continues To Defend South Ossetia Against Georgian Attacks”
But good luck finding that one.
by cameron | Aug 13, 2008 | Iraq, Uncategorized
In the comments section to my post on the Pentagon’s propaganda, Marcelo pointed me to this post in ConsortiumNews.com about how Bush and the American media are screaming about Russia’s invasion of Georgia is pretty interesting.
Apparently, context is everything. So, the United States attacking Grenada or Nicaragua or Panama or Iraq or Serbia is justified even if the reasons sometimes don’t hold water or don’t hold up before the United Nations, The Hague or other institutions of international law.
However, when Russia attacks Georgia in a border dispute over Georgia’s determination to throttle secession movements in two semi-autonomous regions, everyone must agree that Georgia’s sovereignty is sacrosanct and Russia must be condemned.
U.S. newspapers, such as the New York Times, see nothing risible about publishing a statement from President George W. Bush declaring that “Georgia is a sovereign nation and its territorial integrity must be respected.â€
No one points out that Bush should have zero standing enunciating such a principle. Iraq also was a sovereign nation, but Bush invaded it under false pretenses, demolished its army, overthrew its government and then conducted a lengthy military occupation resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths.
I wasn’t aware of all of the background to the South Ossetia War but this Wikipedia article contains some interesting information.
