G20: Black Bloc

G20: Black Blog. My post is actually in the comment section. The Blogger system would not allow me to copy and paste it into my blog. My post is actual an abstract from something I wrote. The orginal was too long to post in the comments section. G20: Black Bloc.

A Note on Accountability

When we decided to re-emphasis accountability, as it is not a new concept, of our politicians and other leaders I think it's important to remember that the point was to get at the truth of what they thought was going on at the time of their decisions, what they thought the reaction to their decision would be, and what the full reasoning behind their decisions (which is in part based on the first of these three) and compare it to what they were saying when everything to begin and to based any punishment (not to say automatically there should be a punishment) on the difference between the two. It was not to be used as a release to lash out because we don't now like the result of their decisions.

Truths: 9/11 (2001) and Iraq

The truth about the Iraq war and 9/11 (2001) is that Bush is neither a mastermind genius nor an idiot. The truth is that 9/11 (2001) did occur and it wasn't a government conspiracy and anyone that says so is being insensitive to the families of those thousands of people that lost their lives that day and those that are having health affects in New York because of it.

The truth is that no government could stand by and not take an action. The truth is that only explains Afghanistan. The truth is Alada (excuse the spelling) and other terrorist groups have training camps in Afghanistan. The truth is if Bush made the argument to invade Iraq on the grounds on these training camps the argument may not have stuck with the American population as well as the non-factual argument of WMD (language appeal), but in the long-run the questioning of the purpose of Iraq would not be as intense as it is.

The truth is that democratic populations need to question the language used to convince them of things: WMD. How many more wars need to occur before we clue into this? The truth is the actions of States (including the invasion of Iraq) would have probably be the same regardless of whose was the President. The truth is the bubble of the WMD language broken upon finding out there was no actual WMD.

And the truth is, may our troops be home sooner than later.

U.S.A Credit Issue

I was watching the CBC News and it was covering a story on a couple in the U.S.A that had $20,000 in credit card debit alone. They missed a payment and instead of having interest of 18.99% it went up to 34.99%. It seems to me what the financial companies should be doing if they are concerned with preventing a recession, due to them over extending themselves, is instead of increasing fees and penalties to those that cannot afford what debit they already have (assuming these companies want the debit to be managed instead of people going into bankruptcy) is teaching those how to managed their debit. This includes helping them set a payment schedule for all their payments (rent/mortgage and debts as well as (lowering or at least) keeping their interest rates the same instead of increasing them at least until their debit/payments become manageable. This will result in the financial companies being able to make their revenue because people will not go into bankruptcy or otherwise default on their loans; it will go towards preventing a recession as these financial companies will be able to continue to invest in the economy and thereby continue to make revenue (to invest in themselves and so forth).

Schools paying for Grades

Today I heard in the students in (poorer) some areas are getting paid for grades. They are even paying them to do (standardized) tests. Even if these standardized tests are not required (to say, students can be exempt by their parents) and used to size-up how students are doing I must say my compulsion is to say students should not be paid for doing these tests. Do not get me wrong I fully understand that if students are not encourage by some means to write these tests then the chances are that only those that feel that they are going to do well will write as well as only those students from families that see education as realistic away to achieve (financial) success: this often means low-income families may see post-secondary as unreasonable because of the expenses. However, what about paying for achieving grades?

I can certainly see how this may motivate students. Is this practice fair: are students simply getting paid for the higher grades (e.g. As, Bs) or are they getting paid for achieving better grades each time (even if its by percentage increase)? Is there a specific amount that a student will earn if they get a C-, C, C+, B, A? Personally, I think paying them for achieving better each time is the best approach because it encourages them to improve themselves rather than just doing a minimum work. Granted some students are only would try to do the minimum and as such would not like this approach (or should I not even take part), but is the minimum behavior really is what we want to be encouraging: that is, do we what to encourage minimum as being counted as achieving more? More to the point of this fair ness issue is that there are some students regardless of how hard they try will only be able to achieve so high in terms of grades or for some reason it is unreasonable to expect them to be A or B student (such as those with cognitive or mental health problems).

U.S. Housing Market

It was suggested to me today that possibly, part of the housing market problem is that people are finding that housing is less expensive in certain parts of the U.S.A., and as such they are intentionally stop paying their mortgages so that the bank assumes responsibility of the house which leaves people unattached to buy a less expensive house. The underlying thought being that if they tried to sell the house in the market, instead of letting the bank foreclose, that they would lose money in the investment.

I cannot say that I agree with this assessment. The reason for this is that doing this sort of practice (I mean forcing the bank to foreclose due to not paying the mortgage) would, I imagine, drastically lower the person’s credit thus making them in the eyes of other banks an unwise investment. At saying this, it is not unreasonable to think that as houses in a specific area of the country become lower that housing markets in other parts of the country would have to lower theirs to compete. In return, from the banks perceptive, causing the problem to become worse as the value of the house would decrease from before they took on the responsibility and/or in terms of markets statistics five or more years ago, for example.

U.S. Market Declines

It would be nice if these market watchers would finally say what can be done: assuming they can do something other than spouting material that can only lead to market upheavals. What good can come about robotically saying "danger, danger, [Mr. Robinson]" if the advice of how to handle it does not follow. For example, there is much talk about the mortgage housing crisis in the U.S.

I think it would be wise for these market watchers to point out, that this may be a suitable time for those whom have been renting and have been successful at making rent payments on time look into buying as the actual prices of houses are at a lower point (thus reducing monthly mortgage payments): as banks are trying to fill vacancy’s resulting from evictions (i.e., prices are lower because there are more houses available on the market--competition. As much as this is a down-side (the bank originally bought/owed the house in that they lent more money than they are selling in the new priced market); once housing becomes actually affordable (according to the lower prices) then customers may begin to start investing (which will hopefully increase the prices to a point that is profitable for the over-all market in the long-run: after a period retrieving lost revenue—breaking even in the middle- to long- run).

The problem that caused the mortgage housing crisis was the prices of the houses in combination of people ability to pay the mortgage (of the high price) even if the mortgages where long-term (which presumably was suppose to make the monthly mortgage payments affordable)—i.e., the long-term financial strain of mortgages of high-price houses. When you think about it the reality market has itself to blame because they did not demonstrate self-regulation on prices of houses which resulted even in long-term mortgages to be a financial strain on the investors.

Invasion of Iraq: Questions and Suggestions

Part of Iraq has been invaded by Turkey. Personally, I am waiting to hear the U.S.'s response in the media. If they do nothing they are sending a sign that Iraq is open to invasion by its neighbors. If they respond with military force they will need to wait for Iraq's permission less risk losing face on Iraq is not under the U.S.'s thumb (i.e., Iraq is not a independent country). If they wait and either Turkey stays after attacking the rebels or if the rebels are able defend the territory in Iraq and control the area what will the effects be economically for the West especially in terms of oil?

Will the U.S. try to intervene diplomatically? What will a proposed solution be? The rebels could want their own territory could an independent state within Iraq be suitable? Would the rebels agree to it? Would the rebels agree to it in exchange for not attacking Turkey? Would Iraq agree to it; after all, it would be Iraq soil the rebels would be settling in? Would Iraq agree to it in return for military alliance with rebels not only for the rebels not to attack the rest of Iraq but also protected the rest of Iraq against invasion, for the same in return? How about oil and access to the territory for the Americans?

Finally, if Iraq succeeds at defending-off (military action or otherwise) Turkey and the rebels (or at least making an alliance with the rebels) does this mean its time for the Americans to leave Iraq and only assist the Iraq government? Does this event prolong the American stay? Does this put fuel on the fire of the argument to stay in Iraq? What is the impact on Canada staying in Afghanistan: does event have an impact on relief of Canadian soldiers by the Americans (i.e., will the Marines get re-directed back to Iraq)? What impact does this have on the election politics of Canada's mission in Afghanistan?



http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/02/23/turkey-iraq.html

American Election Format (from a view of a Canadian)

From the articles below this is what I can gather. The current elections going on are for the election of the number of delegates to the Presidential Candidate election for each party. They are open for all members of each State's electorate, not just party members. However, the voter must ask for a ballot only one party (to vote for one Candidate). The number of delegates each Candidate then gets depends on the popular votes (%) of each State. For example, if a Candidate gets X% of the vote then he/she recieves that same percentage of delegates to their party's national convention: lets say a particular State has 100 delegates allotted to them and a Candidate receives 35% of the vote within the State; this means they will receive 35 delegates. Then at the party's national convention these delegates vote to decide who will be the Presidential Candidate for their party in the next Federal election. These delegates do not have to vote for the Candidate the Candidate they have said they would. The Candidates themselves have a certain amount of say in who will 'actually' be the delegates that will vote for them (in an attempt to assure that the delegate will actually vote for them).

It then seems that their will be another election in which each State will vote to elect a "slate of electors". Each party will have a "slate of electors" up for election. It appears all the slate gets elected or none of the slate does; in other words, the electorate (i.e., the States' voters) must choose between the parties' slates in their entirety. This "slate of electors" (along with Slates from other States) then votes on who will be next President of the United States of America. However, the electors of these slates do not have to vote for the Candidate of their party, but in some circumstances/States can be punished for doing so. Moreover, a legislature of a State is not bind by the popular vote of the election of the "slate of electors" (it is tradition to do so); in other words, a state legislature could intervene and create a "slate of electors" that does not reflect the popular vote.


References/citations:

"Delegates count, but how do you count them?"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23034102/

"Provisional ballots to decide N.M. winner"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23047568/

"FAQ: How does the election system work?"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22544471/


---------



I am hoping that am doing justice (I mean what I am writing is correct) in explaining the American's voting system. I can appreciate the attempt to have the elected Presidential Candidate from each party being n’ sync with the electorate choice (plus it is a good election form that those that invented the system saw--meant to please the voters from the start) as well as like the symmetry/parallel/linkage between the party and the general election process. Although, it seems to me as Canadian a little 'over-the-top' as well as we are so use to Candidate selection being an internal party matter, and then a general election by the electorate (choosing between parties and not just their leaders (whom if the party gets elected their leader becomes the Prime Minister—if he/she gets elected in their riding otherwise it would be up to the party’s elected Members of Parliament’ to decide on a Prime Minister). Technically, if this ever actually occurred, it would be the majority of the Members of Parliament (as usual technically speaking) to elect a Prime Minister; who in return appoints his cabinet ministers (think of them as part of the Administration/government, but elected in their ridings as a Member of Parliament).

U.S. Presidential Candidate Races

It sounds according to the news we get in Canada that the Republicans' Presidential Candidate Races are side shows next to the Democratics. I find this interesting because if this is the case, two things need to be talked about more than they have. First, is that this side-show status of the Republicans may be an indictor of how tried the American public is of a Republican politics and the trouble the Republican ideologies have gotten their country into in terms of the economy and world politics (i.e., Iraq, middle east, etc.). The second, if these events are an indictor of how the Presidential elections are going to be, then it will either be the first African American or female President elected.

In relation, to the first of these regardless of who finally gets elected as President their administration is going to be left with these concerns. I think it is important to understand the question should not be whether or not going into Iraq was needed or justified, but what do to now: it is obviously too late to turn back-time. After the election I am predicting two things if the Democratic win (1) there will be movement in the markets (nothing to worry about—simply resulting from the uncertainty of what the new Administration will do—things should clam down right away, and (2) there will be breath of relief around the world (and in particular in the U.S.). However, following this breath, there will be this wall of ‘what now’? It will dawn on people that the U.S. simply cannot get up and leave Iraq or the Middle East. The reason for this is for the effects on the economy of the U.S. and the world (i.e., lost oil, increase in price of oil, etc.)—in particular of concern to the Americans is how a downturn or increase in costs at the world economy level will affect them. I cannot help wonder if the Middle Eastern governments and people of those countries will react to changes in U.S. According, to the news we get in Canada it will be welcomed by the people themselves, but a silence is around the expected government reactions (but on the other hand I do not expected foreign governments to comment of each other elections or domestic issues, at least to the media).

As for the second of these I think what surprises me the most, is there is so little talk in the media (or at least from the American channels we get here) about the real probably that next President of the U.S. could either be African American or a female. The reason for this, at least, for myself is I was brought up in a generation that while great strides in human equality was expected to occur and brought-up to think as everyone as equals there was an undertone that this day would not arrive anytime soon (at least not in the lifespan of anyone alive at the time). I regret there is not more discussion of the demographics of the votes for Clinton and Obama in their Candidacy races and whether or not things are expected to change come Presidential election time: granted some of this may depend on whom the Republicans elect as their Presidential Candidate. There is only a little talk about their voters’ demographics: Clinton—women; Obama—young people, minorities, middle-class whites.

I would be interesting to hear more discussion on whether or not Hillary Clinton will benefit, in terms, of votes because her husband was President? Personally, I think it will hinder her if anything because those that did not like her husband’s Presidency will not vote for her to be their candidate. On the other hand, I wonder if she is getting any sympathy votes because of her husband cheating on her? I think if she does become the Democratic Candidate, it could be the case, then her husband being the former President will hurt her not only because those that did not like his Presidency may stay away from her (granted this is guilt by association), but I do not think she will benefit much because of innocence by association (people voting because they liked her husband’s administration): the reason for this is I think most of them, whom would vote down this line, would do it anyways because they might be loyal Democratic voters (in other words they liked his Presidency because he was a Democratic and they will vote for her because she is a Democratic). I also wonder how much in the eyes of the American electorate are her successes (while her husband was in office) credited to her husband, or will she be seen to stand on her own two feet by the American electorate if she wins the Democratic Candidacy.

I would also like to know why Clinton and Obama? Who encourage them to put themselves up for Candidacy? Did either choose to enter because the other did (or because of the difference of views the other holds): in other words, do these two people represent a split within the Democratic Party’s ideology/ideologies?

Republic of Lakotah / Lakota

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Lakotah

Does anybody know what, if any, connection the Republic of Lakotah has with the herbal treatment? Is it simply a company that uses Lakotah as its name? Is it the U.S. government recognized tribal governments of the Lakotah people(s)? Is there a legal battle(s) for name use? Does revenue from the Herbal treatments go towards funding the "withdrawal" from the United States? I mean, does anybody know the answers to these questions, for interest sake?

I was also reading on a blog or website (sorry, cannot retrace to relocate it) that had a comment on it that suggested that this might be an attempt by the Lakotah people to get independence status as indigenous people in Canada have done (i.e., an independent nation within a nation). I do not believe this to be the case, as in Canada it was the Federal government and the government recognized tribal governments that made these deals, and so far to my understanding the U.S. government has not recognized the authority to govern by those wanting to withdraw. Furthermore, from everything I have read the claim of those wanting to withdraw has been that the Lakotak people have never really been apart of America as America voided the treaties by not adhering to them. While an argument could be made this is a tactic that they are trying to force the American government to live up to what the Lakotah people perceive to be the treaty agreements; it seems to me, based on what I have read, they want out of the United States of America's Federation.

http://www.republicoflakotah.com/index.htm

NATO Allies are doing Their Fair Share

I was watching CBC yesterday and they showed a clip of a White House official commenting on the U.S.A increasing the amount of Marines into Afghanistan. The official was stating that his/their concern was that the NATO allies might consider this as an opportunity to relax their involvement. Before I continue I would like to say it would not surprise me to find out that the U.S.A, before accepting the invitation to occupy Afghanistan, consulted with members of NATO as they did with the United Nations with Iraq and presumably also with Allies in NATO. At saying that, who are they to say such things when they began the occupation of Afghanistan; regardless of whether or not an individual agrees with the occupational efforts or purposes. I can remember at the beginning when the U.S.A was trying to get as much involvement from its Allies by offering economic incentives such as through the oil industry. I can remember when the U.S.A tried to argue that Canada was not doing its parts in terms of Iraq; when we were entering Afghanistan to pick-up their slack as well as enforcing United Nations sanctions on Iraq which indirectly leads to the preventing of weapons and other supplies heading into the arms of those the Americans are fighting against. When will the American government learn not to put their own feet in their mouths?