Saturday, June 26, 2010

Some Canadians Rise up Against the G20


In the run-up to the G20 Summit, Canadians in Toronto riot and protest at the perceived dictatorship of the G20, whereby a few politicians representing large financial interests have the say over most people in this world. Are the people of the G20 countries really being heard? Are the G20 and G8 outdated gatherings? Should a new model be used which reflects the will of the people from G20 countries? Should politicians be forced to take polygraphs on annual basis to root out corruption (similar to the way Canadian police candidates are screened)?

Canadian Democracy Weakens Under Pressure

Violence at the G20 Summit

Building Violent Canadian Struggle?

Taiwanese Democracy Under Threat


A new free trade deal with China and Taiwan threatens to undermine Taiwanese democracy, through gradual absorption of Taiwan into China through increased trade.

Taiwanese people face the issue of increased economic prosperity at the expense of losing their independence.

The FDA did a study on this very issue, concluding that Taiwan is better off to protect its values and identity than succumb to increased economic prosperity.


FDA Report on Taiwanese Independence

China Threatens to Engulf Taiwan

Global Economic Model Doomed to Failure?

The global economic model being pushed by the G8 and G20 is premised partly on perpetual economic growth. Is this shortsighted approach consistent with sustainability? Is perpetual growth compatiable with environmental sensisitivity?

Is perpetual economic growth realistic in light of increasing scarce resources and economic competition?

Do the people of the world support the perpetual growth model or is it just the large corporations and politicians of this world who support it?

Questions Regarding McCrystal's Accepted Resignation

Did McCrystal realize the futility of the US war effort in Afghanstan? Did McCrystal realize that the US agenda in Afghanistan has nothing to do with the Afghanstan people or the promotion of democracy? Did McCrystal realize that the US is already defeated in Afghanistan and that it is better to get out of the losing effort early than later?


Questions about McCrystal's Departure

Tuesday, June 22, 2010

Obama's Brief Moratorium on Offshore Drilling Denied Legally


Obama's six month moratorium on new offshore drilling was blocked by a US Judge on grounds that the moratorium was not sufficiently justified by the Obama Administration. Viz., the Obama Administration did not satisfactory demonstrate that other offshore drilling operations were at similar risk as Deep Horizon.

Obama is caught because he has already allowed new offshore drilling at the start of his presidency, and therefore he needs just cause to impose a moratorium later in his presidency. If he had imposed a moratorium at the start of his presidency, there would be less an issue.

More Chaos for Obama's Afghanstan War


US General McCrystal Criticizes the Obama Administration

Obama's Afghanistan War Imploding

December 2010 Interview of McCrystal

US Logistics Funding Afghan Taliban

Friday, June 18, 2010

2010 Dutch Government Coalition Talks Moving Towards Left


Dutch right wing parties have failed to form a coalition, leaving the possibility of purple coalition between Labour, the VVD, the Green Left and the social liberals of D66. A purple coalition would support pro-immigration policies and a more united, democratic Dutch society.

In a recent FDA audit on the 2010 Dutch immigration policies, the Greenleft and Labour Party both had more than satisfactory immigration policies. Though the Party for Freedom and Democracy had a barely satisfactory immigration policy. The Social Liberals who were not part of the audit, have a pro-immigration policy.

2010 FDA Dutch Immigration Audit

Dutch Ring Wing Coalition Abandoned

US Federal Government Liable Partly for Deep Horizon Oil Spill

Where is the liability of the US Federal Government for the Deep Horizon oil spill? It was the US federal government who first authorized offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, and the US Federal government was aware fully of the environmental consequences of offshore drilling.

The Deep Horizon oil spill disaster would have never happened, if the Obama Administration did not allow offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and/or had been strict regarding the enforcement of the Environmental Protection Act pertaining to offshore drilling.

The Obama Administration campaigned on maintaining the existing moratoriums on US offshore drilling, and then in March 2010, the Obama Administration withdraw those moratoriums for US offshore drilling except for Alaska, and then now in June 2010, Obama has reinstated the moratoriums on US offshore drilling. Flip flop flip. Where is the leadership? Where is the accountability?

Thursday, June 10, 2010

Dutch Election Results

Preliminary results:
Liberal Party (VVD) 36 seats
Labour Party (PvdA) 30 seats
Party for Freedom (PVV) 24 seats
Christian Democratic Appeal (CDA) 21 seats

With no party winning a clear majority, the prospect for how to form a new coalition government remained uncertain,

In order to find the minimum 76 seats needed to govern, the VVD could seek a coalition with the PVV and the CDA or form a government with the PvdA and other smaller parties, such as the Liberal Democrats (D66) and GreenLeft, both of which won 10 seats.

* Coalition which includes the Labour Party, GreenLeft, and/or the Liberal Democrats would bode well for the future of Dutch Society. (These parties all had pro-immigration policies, and emphasized the importance of Dutch people working together and respecting Dutch democratic values.)

Based on the immigrations policies of the CDA, in which the FDA graded the party a failing grade of 30%, it is fitting that the Dutch people reduced their support for the party. (In the 2006 CDA won 41 seats, a reduction of nearly 50%.)


Basic Principles of the Dutch Liberal Democrats:

"Rely on the strength of its people, reward performance and share the wealth, striving for a sustainable and harmonious society, think and act internationally, and protect fundamental shared values.

D66 wants a safe, prosperous and functioning Netherlands. Netherlands with an opportunity for all. To work and to live. That requires courage, decisiveness and ambition. An international perspective. Duurzaam en innovatief. Sustainable and innovative. We need the best education, a safe environment, protection of our nature and an economy with more opportunities and that more people contribute. Where we are not the account of the crisis lay in forthcoming generations."

Process to Form Dutch Coalition

Tuesday, June 8, 2010

Dutch Immigration Policies Split


FDA ranking and grading of the immigration policies of the 6 main candidates from the 2010 Dutch Election:

1. Femke Halsema (GreenLeft) 75% B+
2. Job Cohen (Dutch Labour Party) 70% B
3. Emile Roemer (Socialist Party) 70% B
4. Mark Rutte (People's Party for Freedom and Democracy) 50% D
5. Jan Peter Balkenende (Christian Democratic Appeal) 30% F
6. Geert Wilders (Party for Freedom) 20% F

The lower the grade, the less satisfactory the candidate is. The higher the grade, the more satisfactory the candidate is.


Rational for scores, ranking, grades:

Balkenende’s immigration policy is Euro-centric, Dutch-centric, anti-immigrant, inconsistent with Dutch western values such as freedom of expression, encourages brain drain from other countries, in denial of cultural and ethnic diversity of the Netherlands, and overall reactionary and controlling.

Specifically the Balenende’s policy promotes stricter immigrant integration, stricter requirements for family reunification and marriage migration, stricter requirements for migration, and supports of restrictions against Dutch Muslims.

The score of 30% derived from Balkenende’s partial understanding of democratic values and some of the limits to Dutch immigration, and the importance of social cohesion.

Cohen’s policy is all embracing, and demonstrates an understanding of the ethnic dynamic of Dutch society. Also, the policy upholds Dutch democratic values and values of human dignity, equality, and solidarity.

The score of 70% as opposed to a higher score derived from lack of policy specifics.

Roemer’s policy is based on democratic values, anti-brain drain, and demonstrates a respect for immigrants, which is lacking in Balkenende’s policy.

The score of 70% as opposed to a higher score derived from lack of policy specifics.

Rutte’s policy is anti-immigration, anti-immigrant, and Dutch-centric, and yet at the same time, anti-integration and anti-immigration bureaucracy. Consequently, Rutte received a score of 50%.

Wilder’s policy is backward in terms of the cultural and ethnic diversity of the Netherlands, and an appeal to a nationalistic, ideal Dutch state. His score of 20% reflects his ideal vision.

Haselma’s policy has the most developed immigration policy which is in the better interest of the Dutch people. The policy is anti-integration, respects Dutch democratic values, value based, tolerant, and looks at immigration policy from the immigrants’ standpoint.

The score of 75% reflects the overall broadmindedness of Haselma’s policy. A higher score would have been awarded if her policy had more specifics.


Conclusion:

The evaluation of the Dutch immigration policies resulted in a 50-50 split between broadminded immigration policies versus a narrow-minded immigration policies. The split reflects the division Dutch society and Europe as a whole is facing regarding immigration.

In terms of the well-being and better interests of Dutch society, and from the standpoint of immigration, it would be positive if Femke Halsema (GreenLeft) , Job Cohen (Dutch Labour Party), and/or Emile Roemer (Socialist Party) were elected to the 2010 Dutch government. On the contrary, if none of these parties or their policies on immigration are part of the next Dutch government, then it does not bode well for the future development of Dutch society.

FDA 2010 Dutch Immigration Audit

Does Democracy Hinder Economic Growth? Discussion

Democracy Discussion

Saturday, June 5, 2010

US Rationale for Use of Drones Revealing


Despite increasing criticism of its drone program for the resulting civilian casualties, assassination equation, infringement of countries' sovereignty, and play station mentality (emotional detachment), the US defends its use of drones on grounds that the US has the right to do "everything that [it] can to protect Americans [and] to advance [its] strategic interests".

Moreover, a CIA representative is quoted as saying that the "without discussing or confirming any specific action or programme, this agency's operations unfold within a framework of law and close government oversight. The accountability's real, and it would be wrong for anyone to suggest otherwise."

Was the US government protecting American citizens by allowing an expansion of US offshore drilling (in March, 2010), and excluding the Deep Horizon from the Environmental Protection Act as the Obama Administration did in April of 2009?

Is the US protecting American citizens by fueling terrorism against Americans through its drone program?

Is pursuing American self-interest (strategic interest) at the expense of other people's lives, really in the interest of the American people?

Is democracy like drones a mere means to advance US strategic interests like in Afghanistan?

Are there any redeeming values in the American establishment when its direction and policies are based fundamentally on self-interest?

US Drone Attacks Defended

Thursday, June 3, 2010

Afghanistan on Par with the US Oil Slick (Taliban & BP Easy Targets)

Statement of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan Regarding the Convening of the So-called Consultative Jirga in Kabul.

The holding of the so-called National Consultative Jirga under the name of peace is a part of the failed efforts of the invading Americans and their surrogates in Afghanistan.

The idea for convening of the so-called National Consultative Jirga was basically raised by Richard Halbroke, US envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan at the start of the current year. But the holding of the Jirga was postponed twice due to the security and political problems that the invading Americans in Afghanistan and their stooges are facing. However, now at this juncture of time, when all invaders and their henchmen are writhing under the victorious and lethal strikes of the Mujahideen of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, they have launched drive for convening this phony jirga to provide stuff for consumption by the American and world public but at the mean time, along with peaceful slogans of the jirga, they resound their intent of launching vast offensive against Kandahar.

The holding of jirgas is an integral cultural and traditional characteristic of the Afghans. They have solved many of their problems through this prideful institution. However, this is only possible when the jirga is convened by the Afghans, on the wants of their Afghan willpower and is aimed at solving the problems of the Afghans themselves.

While paying respect to these prideful traditions of the Muslim and honor-loving Afghan people, the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan believes the convening of the so-called consultative jirga in the land of the Afghans, ironically, by the demand and order of the foreigners is a contempt to the historical traditions of the Afghans. Therefore, the Islamic Emirate elucidates its stance versus the convening of the jirga as follows:

1. Afghanistan is under occupation of the foreigners in the present conditions. The participants of the jirga are those who have already been short listed by the Americans and after that, their list has been handed over to the Kabul Administration. Basically, every effort by the invading foreigners including the convening of the jirga which is now being carried out on the demand of and under the shadow of the foreign troops is, in fact, aimed at securing the interests of the foreigners. Such efforts are not expected to prove as a source of happiness and prosperity for the oppressed Afghans.

2. The colonialist war in Afghanistan initiated by America under the name of fighting terrorism has already lost its credidbity. People inside Afghanistan and outside in the whole world, constantly launch demonstrations against this illegitimate war. Karzai and his administration have no footing in the country. On the other hand, the growing and effective strikes of the Mujahideen, particularly, the Al-fatah victorious operations have sent jittery into the ranks of the American colonialism, so they want to spuriously show to their troops and people that they are making efforts to establish peace but the Taliban do not want a peaceful solution, nor the representatives of the Afghan people ( in the so-called Consultative Jirga) are ready to accept the conditions of the armed oppositions. Thus they want to show that the current war in Afghanistan is a war of necessity for America, not a war of its choice. So, the Jirga is meant to confuse the minds of the masses and throw dust into the eyes of the people. Obviously, the Jirga will provide yet another pretext for America to continue the war in Afghanistan, rather than bringing about peace in the country.

3. The foreign invading forces and their surrogates utilize this consultative Jirga only for propaganda stunt and wrongly give it the name of national consultative jirga, painting it as a representative body of the Afghans. However, all the participants of the Jirga are persons affiliated with the invaders and their powerless stooge administration in one way or the other. They are on the payroll of the invaders and work for their interests. Neither they are elders of the people, nor they represent the Afghan Mujahid people.

4. The main problem of the Afghans is the presence of foreign invaders in the free land of the Afghans. This so-called consultative jirga has no power of decision to compel foreign invading forces pull out of the country but it is convened with an aim of ensuring conditions for the continuation of presence of the invaders in Afghanistan. It has not been convened to ask the invading forces to leave the country. Therefore, the participants of the jirga are actually supporters of the foreign interference, not the true envoys of the people.

5. The foreign invaders and their powerless henchmen already did launch efforts under the name of Emergency Loya Jirga and Regional Peace Jirga but proved to be no remedy for the pains and grievances of the Afghan nation. Throughout the history of Afghanistan, jirgas have been convened for making decision. As such, they played a decisive role in resolution of problems. Generaly, Jirga, in its essence, is a decision-making institution, not a consultative body.

6. The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan considers the supporters and participants of this so-called consultative jirga, as the main cause of the current tragedy of Afghanistan. The Islamic Emirate will confront the illegitimate and unlawful decisions of the Jirga by continuing the Islamic Jihad; will struggle for establishment of an independent Islamic system; will force the foreign invaders to accept a true and pragmatic solution of the issue and will, thus, put an end to the painful tragedy of the people., if God willing. " It is not a hard task for Allah (SwT) to perform. "