Die PH Zug eröffnete 2009 das Zentrum Mündlichkeit.

Das Zentrum definiert sich als interdisziplinärer Dienstleistungsort für Auftraggebende aus dem Schulfeld, der Bildungspolitik und der Scientific Community. Es geht um die Verbindung von Wissenschaft und Praxis.

Das Zentrum hat mit fast4meter im Oktober 2009 eine Vereinbarung für Zusammenarbeit abgeschlossen. Themen: Storytelling,  Erzählkunst

Bereits gibt es ein erstes Projekt: die Durchführung eines Erzählfestivals in Zug am 24. September 2010

Telekommunikations- und Medienunternehmen auf dem Prüfstand war die Unterzeile des Panels “Bist Du nur populär oder verdienst du schon”, das am 29.10.2009 während der Medientage München statt fand.  Das Panel wurde von Oliver Wyman ausgerichtet.

Einführung:
Daniel Milleg, Partner Oliver Wyman, München

Podiumsdiskussion:
Dr. Rainer Deutschmann, Senior Vice President Mobile Products, Products & Innovation, Deutsche Telekom, Bonn
Dr. Martin Enderle, CEO Scout24, München
Sönke Martens, Director Corporate Development, XING, Hamburg
Dr. Ulrich Schmitz, Leiter New Business/Technology, Elektronische Medien, Axel Springer, Berlin
Konstantin Urban, Managing Director Holtzbrinck Ventures, München

Moderation:
Michael Geffken, Autor & Leiter Journalistenfortbildung, VDZ Zeitschriftenakademie, Potsdam

Zentrale Punkte:
Daniel Milleg von Oliver Wyman zeigte in seiner sehr guten Präsentation und gelungen Einführung unter anderem Stärken und Herausforderungen von Telekommunikationsanbietern, Medienhäusern, Endgeräteherstellern und Sozialen Netzwerken & Online Portalen.

Die Herausforderung bei Telekommunikationabietern bestehe beispielsweise in effizienter Kundenbindung. Die bisherige Kundenbasis der Telekommunikationsunternehmen könne jedoch schon gut monetarisiert werden. Die Medienhäuser haben mit sinkendem Print- und Anzeigengeschäft zu kämpfen, haben jedoch den Vorteil, das sie Kundenzugang und exklusive Inhalte besitzen. Das Problem der Endgerätehersteller sei, das viele Geräte austauschbar sind. Die Sozialen Netzwerke & Online Portale sind zwar populär, sie haben jedoch oft erhebliche Herausforderungen bei der Monetarisierung.

Für die nachfolgende Podiumsdiskussion sah Daniel Milleg drei entscheidende Fragebereiche:

1. Szenarien für die Popularitätsentwicklung
2. Hebel für die Generierung von Umsätzen durch Popularität
3. Potential innerhalb der Wertschöpfungskette für weitere Player

Kooperationen und Partnerschaften halten die meisten Beteiligten für wichtig,u.a. auch Dr. Rainer Deutschmann. Eine wichtige Ausnahme ist Konstantin Urban, er hält dieses Thema für nicht ganz so wichtig.

Dr. Martin Enderle  erläuterte das der Wert eines Netzwerkes mit jedem weiteren Mitglied steigt. Der Fachbegriff dafür lautet übrigens “Netzwerteffekt“, eine in der Betriebswirtschaft  bekannte und gut analysierte Erkenntnis.

Dr. Ulrich Schmitz ist der Meinung es nie leichter war als heute ein StartUp zu gründen – dank Facebook & Co.

Sönke Martens erläuterte zum Panel-Thema “Bist du nur populär oder verdienst du schon”, das XING schon Geld verdient habe bevor man populär war – man habe bereits sehr früh positiven Cash-flow gehabt. Kooperationen stiften seines Erachtens dann Sinn, wenn dadurch ein User-Benefit geschafften wird. Zudem hält er die Triebkraft Ego in Social Networks für sehr wichtig.

***** Hier klicken, um News von DigitalStrategyBlog.com kostenfrei per E-Mail zu erhalten *****

Feeback zum Artikel gerne über die Kommentarfunktion oder direkt an “mail [ AT ] markus – caspari.de”.

Was ist das nur für eine Welt geworden? Erst heute Nacht erreichte mich wieder eine Meldung von einer Herzensfreundin – sie möge nicht mehr leben. Und das wegen einem Mann.

Belogen – abgewiesen – erniedrigt – KONSUMIERT.

Ich bin traurig, und frage mich, was ist passiert, dass Menschen echte Werte nicht mehr leben wollen.

Warum werden sogar Menschen, Partner, Gefühle, NUR NOCH KONSUMIERT?

Menschen haben nur noch einen Zweck zu erfüllen und müssen was bringen. Spielt der andere nicht mit, so sucht man sich einen neuen Wegwerfartikel. Im Internet auf Datingseiten werden Menschen zum KONSUMGUT – shopping der Gefühle, je nachdem welche Kästchen man in den Suchmasken aktiviert. Jederzeit verfügbar, mit Leichtigkeit zu bekommen und leicht zu ersetzen….

Wir wachsen nicht mehr an den Herausforderungen, die sich für uns in einer Partnerschaft stellen, sondern gehen ihnen aus dem Weg. Immer ist der andere schuld anstatt wir tief in den Spiegel blicken, den uns unser Partner hin hält, um so zu verstehen was wir selbst falsch machen. Wir erleben mit neuen Partnern viel lieber immer wieder alte Muster, als in einer ernsthaften Beziehung neues zu erleben, mit dem Partner zu wachsen und gemeinsam neue Welten zu erleben ohne sich selbst dabei zu verlieren.

Nicht immer können wir den Weg bestimmen, den wir im Leben gehen müssen, aber immer wirst Du es selbst sein, der entscheidet, WIE Du ihn gehst!

…und vergesse auf Deinem Weg nicht Dich selbst und die Liebe zu Dir, denn nur wer sich selbst liebt und respektiert kann auch von anderen geliebt und respektiert werden!

Die Gemeinde Aschheim hat Partnerschaften mit den Gemeinden Leros, Jedovnice und Mougins abgeschlossen. Um diese Partnerschaften kümmert sich neben der Gemeindeverwaltung ein eingetragener Verein, der Gemeindepartnerschaftsverein. Er gewährt unter anderem Zuschüsse, wenn Bürger aus einer Partnergemeinde nach Aschheim kommen oder wenn Aschheimer Bürger in eine Partnergemeinde fahren oder fliegen und dort die freundschaftlichen Beziehungen pflegen.

Gelinde gesagt erstaunlich ist, dass die Höhe der Zuschüsse nicht der Vorsitzende, der Vorstand oder die Mitgliederversammlung des Vereins bestimmt, sondern dass der Gemeinderat per Beschluss festlegt, wie viel der Verein, der ja nicht etwa eine Unterorganisation des Gemeinderats oder eine Abteilung des Rathauses ist, im Einzelfall als Zuschuss gewähren darf.

Systemische Sicht des Seitensprungs

Da ich ja auch eine systemische Ausbildung habe, möchte ich euch auch diese Sicht hier mit-teilen – nur zur Info – ihr müsst sie nicht als Gesetz betrachten – aber ist vielleicht ein zusätzlicher Denkanstoß.

………

unterbrochene Hinbewegung

Wenn ein Kind in frühester Kindheit (bis zum 3. oder manchmal sogar bis zum 6. Lebensjahr) über längere Zeit von einem Elternteil getrennt ist, kann es eine sogenannte unterbrochene Hinbewegung entwickeln.

Die Dynamik dahinter ist – das Kind braucht Liebe und Aufmerksamkeit – geht auf einen Elternteil zu – wird abgewiesen – oder erreicht diesen eben nicht (Alleinerzieher) – und „lernt“ im Laufe der Zeit, dass es sowieso für sich selbst keine Liebe und Aufmerksamkeit gibt – und dass es niemanden nahe kommen kann, weil sich alle von ihm abwenden.

Im Erwachsenenalter zeigt sich eine derartige unterbrochene Hinbewegung dann oftmals in permanent wechselnden Partnerschaften, oder das man sich immer wieder Partner sucht, die „nicht verfügbar“ sind – sprich wo anders gebunden – oftmals in einer Ehe mit einer anderen Person.

Und glaubt mir, ich weiß, wovon ich schreibe

Wobei sich dann allerdings auch meist wieder Partner anziehen, die eine ähnliche Problematik haben.

D.h. sobald eine von zwei Personen dieses ihr Thema der unterbrochenen Hinbewegung löst – kann es durchaus sein, dass diese dann ein neues Problem bekommt, weil sie dann Nähe zulassen könnte – wenn es denn so etwas geben würde – was meist in der aktuellen Beziehung eben nicht der Fall ist.

by matttbastard

Update 11.24: Received word that the petition is back up at www.defendrobert.com Please feel free to sign if you haven’t done so already. All signatures have been preserved from the original site.

Update 11.22: Just received the following from the group that originally started the petition:

[T]he petition is down, apparently the domain that was hosting it received thousands of calls regarding it and they had enough.

[...]

In any case, we have the progress coded, and as soon as my friend is able to get a domain, it will be right back up—[no] signatures lost…so that’s a good thing.

Update 11.20: link appears to be broken atm (h/t opit). Will update once it’s been restored [edit 11.24: updated with new URL].

Please take a moment to sign the Petition (CLICK HERE, LINK CORRECTED 11.24)

Your names on this petition will be included with a letter to the Prime Minisiter along to his hundreds of MP’s demanding an end to the use of tasers and demand answers to our questions.

It is our duty as citizens of this nation to ask Canadian Government to act now with an immediate moratorium on taser use by enforcement agencies in Canada.

[...]

We are shocked and appalled the way RCMP officers attacked and killed Mr. Robert Dziekanski on October 14 2007 in Vancouver airport.

We need answers from our Government!!!

Is it a standard procedure for RCMP (fully loaded with other restraining devices and bullet proof vests) to surround and attack citizens with a taser without obvious threat ?

Is it a standard procedure for RCMP to create misleading public announcements as to what happened ?

Is it a standard procedure for RCMP personnel not to provide basic CPR to a helpless dying individual ?

How are citizens of this nation with emotional distress or panic attacks currently protected from being tasered ?

Canadian citizens are in danger now, it is clearly evident that enforcement agencies are now using deadly taser devices as a convenience tool and are breaking the rules of law.

We should not wait until enquiries and probes get completed with recommendations by various agencies, including RCMP.

It is our duty as citizens of this nation to ask Canadian Government to act now with an immediate moratorium on taser use by enforcement agencies in Canada.
———–
Please visit Facebook group http://uwo.facebook.com/group.php?gid=17541660393
for further information along with discussion forum.

h/t Beijing York

Recommend this post at Progressive Bloggers

by matttbastard

Via the Dawg, the lying liars lied to each and every one of us:

The Harper government knew prison conditions were appalling long before The Globe and Mail published a series of stories last April detailing the abuse and torture of prisoners turned over by Canadian soldiers to Afghanistan’s notorious secret police, documents released this week show.

The heavily censored documents also show that at the same time as senior ministers were denying evidence of abuse, officials on the ground in Afghanistan were collecting first-hand accounts from prisoners of mistreatment.

[...]

In addition to routine reports by diplomats citing widespread torture and abuse, Canadian officials were also delivering first-hand accounts showing how grim the prisons were.

In one, Linda Garwood-Filbert, the newly arrived leader of a Correctional Service Canada inspections team, asked for better boots in February, 2007, months before the published reports, because she was “walking through blood and fecal matter” on the floor of cells as they toured Afghan prisons.

No explanation of why the floors were covered in blood is given.

[...]

Another report noted that the warden of the main prison in Kandahar, where many prisoners handed over by Canadians soldiers were held, had been fired after charges that he raped juvenile detainees. Cosmetics and hashish were found in his office. He was exonerated because an Afghan military judge said it was “impossible for a drunken man in his 50s to commit an act of rape,” reported a Canadian official in a cable to Ottawa.

Other reports detail conditions far outside internationally acceptable norms. At one Kandahar secret police prison, all inmates are shackled in leg irons around the clock. Some have been kept that way for more than a year.

skdadl nails it in comments over @ POGGE:

I think we call this the banality of evil. I have to walk through blood and fecal material, so I need better boots. This is the road to Nuremberg, folks. And this is being done in our name. Everyone happy to sit here quietly and be a “Good Canadian”?

Also see Designated Protest Zone, Impolitical, The Vanity Press, and pretty much everyone on the ProgBlogs roster.

I need a drink–and to reread Eichmann in Jerusalem.

Related: Amnesty International report on how countries participating in the NATO-led ISAF mission in Afghanistan (including, obviously, Canada) have been (knowingly) complicit in the transfer of detainees to Afghan security officials, despite evidence that doing so put prisoners at risk of being tortured.

Update: File Alison @ Creekside and The Beaver under ‘WIN’:

Are we ready to deal with this yet? Could we please get some grown-ups on this?

Look, we have a lot of serious and difficult issues to deal with in Canada : important stuff like fixing our debt to First Nations, stopping the sell-off of Canadian companies and the flow south of our resouces, getting serious on the environment, to name just a few.

Canada is already a signatory to the Geneva Conventions. We simply don’t have time to go back and re-fight and re-argue all the battles for the some semblance of civilization we have already won.

And we certainly don’t have time for any government that hasn’t figured that out yet.

You goddamn right.

Recommend this post at Progressive Bloggers

by matttbastard

This just in: hypocritical Giuliani advisor Peter Berkowitz is a blithering dolt, and Andrew Sullivan is still shrill.

Related – Amnesty International USA: objectively insane (as per the WSJ op-ed pages).

Recommend this post at Progressive Bloggers

by matttbastard

Via Stageleft – The Globe and Mail:

Canadian officials are taking the unprecedented step of asking a judge to install closed-circuit video cameras inside a terrorism suspect’s family home, arguing national security necessitates the scrutiny.

Hang on, rewind my selekta:

Canadian officials are taking the unprecedented step of asking a judge to install closed-circuit video cameras inside a terrorism suspect’s family home, arguing national security necessitates the scrutiny. [emphasis mine]

K, closed circuit video cameras. Inside a private residence. No conviction.

Got it.

Wait, there’s more:

Canadian officials accuse [Egyptian asylum seeker Mahmoud] Jaballah of playing a “communications relay” role in a major terrorist massacre – al-Qaeda’s 1998 African embassy bombings. His potential access to fax machines, computers and telephones inside his family home, where he lives with his wife and five children, deeply worries the government.

Mr. Jaballah, who was never charged with a criminal offence, spent nearly all of 1999 to 2007 in jail. Attempts to deport him to Egypt, a country known to torture fundamentalists, failed on humanitarian grounds.

Hold up, hold up now – DJ rewind:

Mr. Jaballah, who was never charged with a criminal offence spent nearly all of 1999 to 2007 in jail.

K, closed circuit video cameras. Inside a private residence. 8 years in jail, no charges.

Now I’ve got it. We are no longer in Canada; we’re living in a hysterical realist 1984 pastiche.

Stage nails it:

I’m all for punishing terrorists but don’t you think that before we lock people away and/or put surveillance camera’s [in] their houses that they should be found guilty of something first?

Just remember, (uncharged/unconvicted) evildoers:

Recommed this post to Progressive Bloggers

by matttbastard

They have the power of the Holy Spirit; we have drunken monkey mercenaries.

(I’m really surprised the US State Dept doesn’t immediately cancel its contract with Blackwater in favour of an arrangement similar to ours–bad publicity and $1000 per day per contractor vs all the Mai Tais a monkey can drink? I know a bargain when I see one.)

Recommend this post at Progressive Bloggers

by matttbastard

Hard to draw any other conclusion: Harper has handed the vital Afghanistan portfolio to bumbling incompetents and set them loose on the public – without first having them do their homework. Apparently, as Impolitical bluntly puts it, “the Harper government thinks we’re idiots [emph. added].” Forget lemons into lemonade; Bernier and Oda are trying to turn horse dung into snack cakes (yum yum!)

And Coderre is supposed to be the one engaging in superficial political theatre?!

Update: Steve V. has more on Conservative theatrics and hypocrisy.

Recommend this post at Progressive Bloggers

by matttbastard

Some more news that I missed fully getting into last week due to impudent meatworld impositions – remember that document that was exposed last Thursday? The one showing that the Tories had undertaken a secret (then, after having their plans exposed, not-so-secret) consultation process to examine “how law enforcement and national security agencies [could] gain lawful access to [telephone and internet] customers’ information”, all without the inconvenience of having to obtain a pesky warrant?

Well, apparently it was all just a big ol’ misunderstanding:

Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day announced late [Thursday] that the federal government will not force Internet service providers to hand over customers’ personal information to police without a warrant — a move that will surprise critics who have been expressing alarm this week that the Harper government appeared poised to intrude on the civil liberties of Canadians.

“We have not and we will not be proposing legislation to grant police the power to get information from Internet companies without a warrant. That’s never been a proposal,” Mr. Day said. “It may make some investigations more difficult, but our expectation is rights to our privacy are such that we do not plan, nor will we have in place, something that would allow the police to get that information.”

[...]

Mr. Day said the consultation document was circulated without his knowledge or consent and emphasized that all groups, regardless of their perspective, should have a chance to voice their opinions on the contentious issue.

“That document never would have gone out if I had seen it,” Mr. Day said. “This particular document just somehow went out without my approval.”

Don’tcha just hate it when that happens? Apparently the buck stops somewhere else in the Public Safety office. Maybe the same place where they hide the YouTube manual.

As for this–”[w]e have not and we will not be proposing legislation to grant police the power to get information from Internet companies without a warrant”–Michael Geist is not buying the lukewarm CYA routine:

“The consultation itself seemed to indicate there was only one framework under consideration — and that was disclosure without court oversight,”

Hey, c’mon, cut Stockboy some slack. Our erstwhile Public Safety Minister claimed to have never even seen the document prior to its release. Dude’s merely in charge of a major cabinet portfolio; he’s not Uri fucking Geller.

Regardless, as Geist pointed out on his blog this past Friday, this unexpected about-face has created an ironic political situation:

The politics of this move are particularly interesting as it leaves the Conservatives favouring court oversight and Liberals – with their support of the Jennings private members bill – opposing it.

Related: Teary-eyed Canadian law enforcement officials are disappointed and confused by the flip-flop. Hey, I was disappointed and confused when Stockboy was handed the Public Safety portfolio on a silver fucking platter. Someone who believes that man walked side by side with dinosaurs 6000 years ago should not be allowed to wander the streets without wearing a crash helmet, let alone run the RCMP (as his record thus far has proven).

Recommend this post to Progressive Bloggers

by matttbastard

x-posted @ Comments From Left Field

Have been uber-busy this past week and haven’t done nearly as much reading as I usually would, so I initially missed this spot-on post by Marc Cooper re: this past week’s Congressional Kabuki. Worth reading in its entirety, but for me this is the money quote:

The Democrats harrumph and posture and vow to impose deadlines that will be fillibustered or vetoed. But again, why should they care? They have little to lose, knowing that the longer the war stretches into the campaign cycle, the better it is for them. They have just as few of their own kids fighting and dying in Iraq as do their Republican colleagues. They throw their hands into the air and shrug. “Whaddaya want us to do anyway, bud? We ain’t got the 60 votes,” they say in explaining their impotence.

True enough. But all they need is 50 to stop funding the war. Fifty votes and two balls.

It seems to me, after this past dismal week (a four day long insult to the collective national intellect), the debate on the war Iraq is actually over. The administration has made it abundantly clear that it’s not going to budge. The vast majority of congressional Republicans have signed on for the ride. The Democrats’ yammering about non-binding resolutions and imaginary benchmarks and fungible dates has become part of the white noise.

Not much more to talk about. The only question left is who will actually move now to stop the war?

Related: Runner-up goes to Tom Engelhardt, who also gets it (and was cruelly ignored as well by yours truly until today):

The Congressional Democrats are too weak (and divided) to change policy — and let’s be honest, even if they did, this administration would undoubtedly pay no attention whatsoever to anything they mandated. The Republican candidates for President (minus the maverick Ron Paul, who isn’t really a Republican at all) have bowed down low before presidential Iraq policy, as if before a pagan idol in the desert, in search of the “base vote.” Democratic candidates for President (Bill Richardson and Denis Kucinich excepted) are running “tough” (which means running scared and cautious) on Iraq. If, in 2008, the war actually proves good for business at the polls for Democrats, then, to their consternation, they’ll find they’ve just inherited a disastrous war, that they’re likely to be blamed for losing it, and that they’re in charge of Hell, not the Oval Office or Congress.

[...]

Given this line-up of forces, how could it have been anything but “words, words, words” in Washington, even while it was death, death, death in Iraq?

What those words do, however, is fill all available space, reinforcing a powerful sense that Washington’s importance in the scheme of things is the one unquestionable reality on our planet. The rest of the world hardly registers, except in the mode of frustration.

Is there a single ounce of humility anywhere in Washington? Can we even imagine that, somewhere on Earth, someone doesn’t think about us?

[...]

To grasp the Petraeus moment, you really have to re-imagine official Washington as a set of drunks behind the wheels of so many SUVs tearing down a well-populated city avenue — and all of them are on their cell phones. They hardly notice the bodies bouncing off the fenders. For them, the world is Washington-centered; all interests that matter are American ones. Nothing else exists, not really. Think of this as a form of imperial autism and the Petraeus moment as the way in which the White House and official Washington have, for a brief time, blotted out the world.

There are weeks like this when I regret the fact that I no longer imbibe.

Recommend this post to Progressive Bloggers

by matttbastard

x-posted @ Comments From Left Field

Via pogge: Canada’s government appears to be just as scornful of civil liberties as that of our southerly neighbours. CBC News reports on a document it has obtained, detailing a consultation process undertaken by the Conservative government to see “how law enforcement and national security agencies can gain lawful access to [telephone and internet] customers’ information.” ‘Lawful access’ without first obtaining a court order:

The information would include names, addresses, land and cellphone numbers, as well as additional mobile phone identification, such as a device serial number and a subscriber identity module (SIM) card number.

The consultation also seeks input on access to e-mail addresses and IP addresses. An IP address is a number that can be used to identify a computer’s location.

The document says the objective of the consultation is to provide law enforcement and national security agencies with the ability to obtain the information while protecting the privacy of Canadians.

The document says that under current processes, enforcement agencies have been experiencing difficulties in gaining the information from telecommunications service providers, some of which have been demanding a court-issued warrant before turning over the data.

“If the custodian of the information is not co-operative when a request for such information is made, law enforcement agencies may have no means to compel the production of information pertaining to the customer,” the document says. “This poses a problem in some contexts.“

However, the Tories haven’t exactly been allowing much daylight to illuminate their efforts to circumvent the rule of law enable law enforcement agencies to efficiently and expediently obtain sensitive information “while protecting the privacy of Canadians” – to the justifiable consternation of many Canadian privacy advocates:

Michael Geist, chair of internet and e-commerce law at the University of Ottawa, said the process is not being conducted publicly as two previous consultations have been, in 2002 and in 2005.

The consultation has not been published in the Canada Gazette, where such documents are normally publicized, or on the agencies’ websites.

Interested parties have been given until Sept. 27 to submit their comments, which is a short consultation time, Geist said. Several organizations and individuals contacted by CBCNews.ca only received their documents this week.

More pointedly, a number of parties that took part in the previous consultations, including privacy and civil liberty advocates — and even some telecommunication service providers — have not been made aware of the discussion, he said.

“It’s really disturbing particularly in light of the fact that they’ve had two prior consultations on lawful access in the past, so it’s not as if they don’t know the parties that are engaged on this issue,” Geist said.

[...]

Canada’s move is in contrast to one by the United States, where last week a federal judge overturned a part of the Patriot Act that allowed the Federal Bureau of Investigation to secretly obtain personal records about customers from internet providers, phone companies, banks, libraries and other businesses without a court’s permission.

As is to be expected when dirty laundry (or a stench reminiscent of that which on occasion permeates Denmark) is unexpectedly aired, the government has quickly backpedaled. A spokesperson from Public Safety Canada now claims that the Tories were “not trying to keep the consultation secret and would post the document on the internet” today and that “[t]the deadline for submissions would also be extended, although no decision on a date has been made yet.” [Update: Michael Geist reports that the consultation is now online, with a new submission deadline set for October 12, 2007]

pogge calls bullshit:

No, they’re not trying to keep it secret, exactly. They’ve just tried to keep it as quiet as possible in the hopes that no one would notice until it was too late. Because, as the article points out, Canadian law enforcement agencies are asking for powers that go beyond even what their American counterparts have. And it appears that the game is being rigged to give them what they want.

As an aside, The Briefing makes the observation that “[t]he proposed changes effectively mirror the previous Liberal government’s “lawful access” bill that died on the Commons floor when the last election was called. Along with compelling service providers to provide information to police upon request the “lawful acces[s]” bill had also called on them to implement technologies to allow the government to intercept internet traffic.” As Geist noted earlier this year in his blog, (opposition) Liberal MP Marlene Jennings tried to resurrect “lawful access” this past March in the form of a private members bill.

Proving once again that, Blue or Red, the political elites in Ottawa have about as much respect for the privacy and liberty of the citizenry as their counterparts in Washington, London or Canberra do.

Update: Mentarch has compiled an exhaustive round-up of coverage, well worth your perusal.

Recommend this post to Progressive Bloggers

by matttbastard

x-posted @ Comments From Left Field

Bloomberg’s headline says it all:

‘Petraeus’ Credibility Buys Bush Extra Time For Iraq Strategy‘

And the rave reviews are in from “the two groups of lawmakers whose support Bush needs to keep his strategy going: wavering Republicans and a small band of supportive Democrats.”

Republican Senator John Warner of Virginia, who last month called on Bush to begin withdrawing some troops by the end of the year, called Petraeus’s testimony “powerful, compelling and credible.” Warner is a former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Representative Jim Marshall of Georgia, one of 10 House Democrats to vote in July against setting a timeline for withdrawal, called Petraeus’s testimony “powerful and persuasive.” And Senator Ben Nelson, a Nebraska Democrat, also said after the testimony that he remained opposed to a congressionally mandated pullout.

Powell. Goes. To. The. UN.

Recommend this post to Progressive Bloggers

by matttbastard

Contra Bobo Brooks , the biggest literary shout out OBL gave wasn’t to anti-capitalist boogeyman Noam Chomsky. Instead, according to Sharon Weinberger @ Wired’s Danger Room, former CIA operative and current Jamestown Foundation Terrorism Analyst Michael Scheuer (who, it should be noted, is no ‘Battle of Seattle’ veteran) was the lucky recipient of the Osama Book Club seal of approval:

Those who want to know “the reason for your losing your war against us, then read the book of Michael Scheuer in this regard,” Osama says.

$10 bucks sez the promotional department at Potomac Books is seriously mulling the use of that blurb when the next edition of Imperial Hubris is published. I echo Weinberger’s tongue-in-cheek speculation: “Will Osama do for political books what Oprah has done for memoirs”?

Recommend this post to Progressive Bloggers

by matttbastard

Former War Critic™ Michael O’Hanlon has perfected his shark-jumping technique. The Fonz must have recently secured an advisory position at the Brookings Institution.

Related: Steve Benen has more on GOP 101.

Update 09/07 Related: Speaking of sloppy numbers…

Recommend this post to Progressive Bloggers

by matttbastard

OMG ponies!!!1:

After talks with Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top American commander in Iraq, and Ryan C. Crocker, the ambassador to Iraq, Mr. Bush said that they “tell me that if the kind of success we are now seeing here continues it will be possible to maintain the same level of security with fewer American forces.”

No, you can’t has a pony:

President Bush’s senior advisers on Iraq have recommended he stand by his current war strategy, and he is unlikely to order more than a symbolic cut in troops before the end of the year, administration officials told The Associated Press Tuesday.

[...]

Bush appears set on maintaining the central elements of the policy he announced in January, one senior administration official said after discussions with participants in Bush’s briefings during his surprise visit to an air base in Iraq on Monday.

[...]

Options beyond a symbolic cut this year include cutting the tour of duty for troops in Iraq from 15 months back to the traditional 12 months, one official said. If adopted, that change would not come before the spring.

Butbutbut what happened to teh ponies?

The Government Accountability Office has released its congressionally mandated report on the Iraq’s progress towards meeting 18 separate security and political benchmarks. The Iraqi government met 3, partially met 4, and did not meet 11 of its 18 benchmarks.

Contrary to claims made by Gen. David Petraeus that sectarian violence has decreased dramatically, the GAO report is unable to report any progress on this front. Moreover, it notes that “average daily attacks against civilians” has remained unchanged:

It is unclear whether sectarian violence in Iraq has decreased–a key security benchmark–since it is difficult to measure perpetrators’ intents, and various other measures of population security from different sources show differing trends. As displayed in figure 4 (see above), average daily attacks against civilians have remained unchanged from February to July 2007.

More from Libby & Cernig, who shows us that, big fucking surprise, Freddy K. is already playing Calvinball.

Recommend this post to Progressive Bloggers

by matttbastard 

Judging by Gen. Petraeus latest ’teh surge is too working’ interview, I don’t think the White House is going to be editing the Petraeus report that heavily.  Not that this should come as a surprise.

Recommend this post to Progressive Bloggers

by matttbastard

Here we go again:

US President George W. Bush branded the Islamic Republic “the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism,” citing its backing of Hamas, Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Shiite fighters killing US troops in Iraq.

“And Iran’s active pursuit of technology that could lead to nuclear weapons threatens to put a region already known for instability and violence under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust,” he told the American Legion veterans group.

Larisa nails it: “Welcome to the next new war.”

More from Kyle, Larry Johnson and Shakes.

Related – Study: US preparing ‘massive’ military attack against Iran; Will Bunch says the foundation for an attack has been laid and Congress is preemptively marginalized.

Recommend this post to Progressive Bloggers

by matttbastard

This is interesting – Bloomberg reports that former Carter admin National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski has endorsed Barack Obama:

Obama “recognizes that the challenge is a new face, a new sense of direction, a new definition of America’s role in the world,” Brzezinski said in an interview on Bloomberg Television’s “Political Capital with Al Hunt.”

[...]

“There is a need for a fundamental rethinking of how we conduct world affairs,” he added. “And Obama seems to me to have both the guts and the intelligence to address that issue and to change the nature of America’s relationship with the world.”

Strangely enough, despite the ringing endorsement from “America’s most notable foreign policy realist“, Obama is being advised on foreign policy by unrepentant liberal interventionist Ivo “Concert of Democracies” Daalder of the Brookings Institution. That, coupled with Obama’s now-infamous close relationship with Joe Lieberman, has me reconsidering my somewhat reflexive antipathy towards Senator Clinton (and questioning Brzezinski’s judgment).

Update: Hilzoy’s take on the Brzezinski endorsement.

Recommend this post to Progressive Bloggers