THANK YOU, MR. IGNATIEFF, FOR YOUR POSITIVITY ON OIL SANDS – ALBERTANS AND CANADIANS APPRECIATE IT!!

Canada’s Federal Liberal party leader Michael Ignatieff has come out with some very sensible views on oilsands – an issue on which his predecessor (Stephane Dion) had championed a revenue-neutral carbon tax which, oilpatch observers were worried, would have inflicted disproportionate damage on Alberta's carbon-based economy, and consequently on Canadian economy.

Dion’s party fared poorly in Federal elections last year and along with him went out of the door his thought-less policy too.

In an interview to a radio station on 16th Jan, Ignatieff admitted that any policy that comes from Ottawa can't jeopardize the oilsands - which is one of the only industries propping up the Canadian economy right now. "When you're in St. John's airport and you see a guy in cowboy boots and a cowboy hat getting on the plane you know what the oilsands mean to the entire Canadian economy," Ignatieff reportedly said.

The present Liberal leader admitted his party made mistakes with energy policy in the past, including the national energy plan. He said his goal was to develop environmentally and socially sustainable policies for the oilsands.

While speaking to a newspaper last week, Ignatieff went on to insist the federal government must consider offering the oil and gas sector a stimulus package in its Jan. 27 budget, comparable to the multi billion-dollar bailout of the Ontario-based auto industry. "The West should be rightly angry if we assisted only Central Canada," Ignatieff told the newspaper. "We can't put money into the auto sector in Central Canada without considering the legitimate concerns of the B.C. forest industry and the Alberta oil industry. There has to be regional fairness in the stimulus package."

Ignatieff’s views clearly go above partisanship, beyond petty politics; they are patriotic, pro-Canada. Ignatieff’s pan-Canada outlook got further articulated when he said that while oilsands has its environmental challenges, oilsands are a lucrative tool, both financially and politically, that increases Canada's stature around the globe and allows the country to stand its ground on several policy fronts against the U. S.

The above bodes well for not only for Alberta but the whole of Canada. His views are now more or less along the lines of views held by Alberta’s Premier Ed Stelmach, and Canada’s Prime Minister Steven Harper. These statements will no doubt be providing much needed hope to the people of Canada who can now justifiably look towards political stability in Ottawa.

Canada’s federal budget will come up for voting on Jan 29, and Harper’s minority government needs support of at least one opposition party to survive the voting. Harper has indicated that he will listen to Ignatieff’s suggestions on the upcoming budget with an open mind.

If Harper can accommodate some of Liberal party’s suggestions, he can undoubtedly rest assured that Liberals won’t let his government fall. That will mean stability in Ottawa, and political stability is what encourages the potential investors, including the big oil companies, who are currently sitting on the fence in wait-and-watch mode.

It is important to note that the sudden slow down in investment in oilsands projects was not prompted by slumping oil prices alone; in fact, it is farcical to believe that any short-term drop in oil prices should have disrupted many oil companies' investment plans, as it did; oil companies which are run by people of decent dose of competence base their decisions on the WHOLE life span of the project. The life span of oilsands projects range from 20-40 years, even more.

It does not require much intelligence to grasp that given the aggressive production cutting stance taken by OPEC countries (plus drop in non-conventional oil production), and stimulus packages announced by the G-7 countries, China and India, the aggregate demand of oil will start picking up by Q3 of this year. Coupled with the impact of production cuts, by the end of 2009 price of oil is expected to be any where between 60-100 dollars per barrel, probably more likely upwards of $70. The price of oil will remain on an upward looking curve thereafter.

So, the price of oil was not so much of a concern for the likes of Shell, TOTAL or Statoil et al. It was the uncertainties on policy level of both Canada and the new US administration regarding oilsands that impelled these companies to adopt more circumspect approach. Unless these companies are sure of policies on oilsands – of both Canada and US – and sure of a stable government in Ottawa ,which has a balanced view on oilsands, the oil companies would remain on the fence.

It may be mentioned for the benefit of those not familiar with Canadian politics that leader of an opposition party, known as NDP, had gone on record to say that given the chance his party will stop all oilsands projects. Such intellectually-challenged people were willing to cut their noses to spite their faces. Their political aspirations got better of whatever amount of intelligence they have to ignore the vital importance of a resource, like, oilsands to Canada as a whole – on economic and political fronts.

However, Liberal party’s aforementioned views on oilsands will certainly help Harper’s folks in formulating bi-partisan policy on environment, including policies relating to carbon capture. Once there is clarity on Federal environment policy, again, that will provide necessary confidence to the investors to finalize their investment decisions in regard to oilsands projects.

It is hoped that taking cue from Ignatieff, leaders of other Canadian opposition parties will set aside petty-minded politics and rally together to do what is in the best interest of the country. They will do well to remember there is much to gain, nationally and politically, in a prosperous Canada rather than in an economically and politically weak Canada.

"TEAM OF RIVALS' MIGHT NOT BE THE BEST RECIPE FOR OBAMA

It is interesting to read that people are finding similarities in names of rumoured appointees to President-elect Obama's cabinet and what former President Abraham Lincoln did during his cabinet formation process. Induction of some of Lincoln's rivals in his team has been called "team of rivals".

In Obama's case his Democrat race rival Hillary Clinton's name is doing rounds for Secretary of State's position. In fact, Mr. Obama has already chosen one of his rivals - Democrat nomination race rival Joe Biden - as his running mate.

It seems Mr. Obama derives lots of inspiration from former President Abraham Lincoln and it is possible that he may be thinking seriously about co-opting some of his 'rivals' in his cabinet or for some important position in his administration.

However, one hopes that the similarities between Mr. Obama and Mr. Lincoln would end at team formation level only.

What I am alluding to is that Dei Gratia there would be no similarity between the two with regard to end of their political careers. Media reports indicate that a certain section of American society is not able to reconcile to Obama's victory for American presidency.

Let me illustrate this point. MSNBC ran a report on Nov 15 titled "Obama election spurs race threats, crimes - From California to Maine, 'hundreds' of incidents reveal racism in America". Two sections of the report particularly caused some unease and concern. One stated - "One (incident) was in Snellville, Ga., where Denene Millner said a boy on the school bus told her 9-year-old daughter the day after the election: "I hope Obama gets assassinated."

The other stated - "Potok (Mark Potok, director of the Intelligence Project at the Southern Poverty Law Center, which monitors hate crimes), who is white, said he believes there is "a large subset of white people in this country who feel that they are losing everything they know, that the country their forefathers built has somehow been stolen from them."

One hopes that Mr. Obama will be provided impregnable protection by the concerned security agencies and he will be able to usher in the 'change' that he wants to bring in the country.

Back to his "team of rivals". Mrs. Clinton for Secy of State is in my opinion not a good strategy for simply the following reasons: Did Senator Clinton really do something notable in foreign policy matters? What is her claim to fame in terms of diplomatic achievement, and what did she do in her career, including when she was First Lady, to justify that she has some special acumen for full-time diplomatic assignment?

Media reports say that John Kerry of Massachusetts and Republican Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, also are thought to be under consideration for Secy of State position. John Kerry?!! Does he have the necessary rapier-like sharpness and the grasp to justify even shortlisting? In 2008 he appears too dull and out of depth to merit any consideration.

Of all the names, Bill Richardson seems to be the best candidate of them all. He has undertaken 'real' diplomatic assignments; he has good grasp of energy issues too. He seems to be slightly less sharper though than he used to be 8 years ago.

I wonder, is there no one else in whole of US who could be talent scouted for this position, say, someone like Condi Rice? If the eventual appointee has to be from someone who endorsed and/or campaigned for Obama, in that case Richardson seems to be the best bet.

If at all, Mrs. Clinton could be assigned to overhaul the health care system because the campaign rhetoric of both Clinton and Obama on health care issues were almost same. For this assignment any baggage of Bill Clinton will most likely not be an impediment for Hillary - neither during the cabinet nomination process, nor during discharge of her job. To be honest, Bill can be a real nuisance. He is too shrewd to be corralled.

Let us hope Obama's well wishers and able advisers will guide him to zero in on most appropriate choices to fill his cabinet positions. As well, President-elect Obama and his family will be suitably protected from all potential dangers and hazards. The world is waiting with bated breath for Mr. Obama to step in to White House and help usher in changes the world desperately needs.

MR. OBAMA, PLEASE HANDLE INDIA (AND KASHMIR ISSUE) WITH CAUTION!

This is a open letter to President-elect Barack Obama on the above subject.

Dear Mr. Obama,

Hearty congratulations to you on your election to the presidency of United States of America!

Many, including me, heard your comments on your first press conference with great interest. The media is also reporting about your team formation process and the 'deliberate haste' that you are proposing to exercise. So far so good.

However, there are some media reports that suggest that you are considering to bring in former President Clinton to act as a mediator for resolving Kashmir issue. You are reported to have said during your luncheon meeting with Clinton in New York recently, “We should probably try to facilitate a better understanding between India and Pakistan and try to resolve the Kashmir crisis so that Pakistan can stay focused not on India, but on the situation with those militants (on Pak-Afghan border).”

The news is also rife that Gen David H Petraeus, who took over as commander of the US Central Command on October 31 and visited Pakistan and Afghanistan soon after that, has reportedly nominated Ahmed Rashid and Shuja Nawaz, author of the recently published book on Pakistani Army called "Crossed Swords", as members of a brains trust to advise him on a new strategy towards Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Ahmed Rashid (along with Barnett Rubin) in an article in Foreign Affairs called for a “grand bargain” in which the Pakistani state trades a course correction on its western front with a more sustained international effort at resolving the Kashmir dispute with India. Former Pak president Pervez Musharraf justified abandoning the Taliban regime in September 2001 as a legitimate price Pakistan had to pay in order to keep up its support for militants in Kashmir.

But the outgoing US administration rightly found it difficult to accept such a trade-off, especially, after the brutal murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl which highlighted the fact that there are no walls that separate the terrorists operating in different parts of Pakistan.

Mr. President-elect, the foregoing, which I tried to keep as brief as I could, is meant to provide a background so that I could make a sincere request to you: In your administration's eagerness to deal with anti-American forces in Afghanistan/Pakistan please do not push anything on India regarding Kashmir.

Mr. Obama, American interests will be best served if your administration can get Pakistani military to forswear involvement in politics for all time to come. Once that step is taken in earnest, the policy of building alliances with or tolerating terrorists in Afghanistan, Kashmir and Pakistan itself would naturally come to an end.

Instead of achieving the above, if your advisers get launched on the so-called “grand bargain” trajectory, it will be like trying to address the surface rather than trying to hit the root cause. And, in the process the strong partnership which got built between US-India during the last four years can potentially get undone.

Mr. President-elect, India has unhappy memories of some of your foreign policy advisers — Anthony Lake, Strobe Talbott, Robert Einhorn and Richard Holbrooke. Please tell your State Dept folks to DELINK Kashmir from any US strategy on Afghanistan. It doesn't require much brain to understand that support to any terrorist elements, be it in Kashmir or in any part of the world by any govt (in this case Pakistan) is totally unacceptable.

What I am trying to say, if your policy advisers tell you that to incentivize Pakistan (read Pak military & ISI) to help US in winning against Taleban, US has to mediate and 'solve' Kashmir issue (in some way that would please Pak), there is nothing more foolish, illogical, unethical, unprincipled than this.

If YOU didn't subscribe to anything Bill Ayers purportedly said about radicalism, how can you let your judgement be clouded by any "grand bargain" strategy which predicates itself on pleasing one set of radical elements (i.e. the militants in Kashmir) to almost beg support from a govt (Pakistan) to serve US interests.

If you don't handle the Kashmir issue from moral, logical grounds you may end up screwing up an excellent alliance that got built up between US and India - an alliance which has far more strategic spin-offs for US than one could imagine.

My suggestion to you would be that before embarking on any US-Pak-Afghan policy that potentially impacts India, please have a chat with your running mate, Joe Biden. He will have a lot to contribute in finding a strategy that on one hand will get US its desired outcome, but at the same time it will not seek to bulldoze India in some uncomfortable situation which will have immense potential negative knock-on effect.

You may also like to consult Karl Inderfurth, one of your foreign policy advisers.

I hope you will handle India (and Kashmir issue) in a 'deliberate' and sensible manner. Please remember it takes a long time to build a mutually advantageous alliance; and it takes a far shorter time to weaken and/or destroy that alliance!

With warm regards.

IF OBAMA WAS 'INFLUENCED' BY REV WRIGHT THEN McCAIN COULD BE A 'COMMUNIST'!

The McCain campaign is running an ad which purportedly seeks to convey that since Senator Obama attended Rev Wright's church for number of years, surely he must have been 'influenced' by Wright's ideology. The ad seeks to sow race based division to get the white votes for the Republican ticket.

Now, let us see what McCain himself says about what he went through during the Vietnam war. He says that he 'carries scars on his body' which he claims were inflicted on him by the North Vietnamese when he was a prisoner of war. People know that he was a POW for five and half years.

Let us think about it a bit dispassionately and logically. It is common knowledge that North Viets, who were communists, tried all they could to brainwash their prisoners with the communist ideology apart from whatever level of torture they would decide to inflict on the POW's to extract information. McCain, in fact, did eventually sign a confession to his supposed crimes against the Vietnamese people and holds that it was only extracted after weeks of pain inflicted by his tormentors. In a more recent interview Mr McCain explained the signing of the confession as his failure.

Therefore, it stands to reason that McCain must have undergone a sustained brainwashing regimen during the five and half years of his captivity. Mind you, brainwashing in captivity is carried out based on proven psycho-neurological methods. These methods, as would be obvious to any layman, are designed to cause far more effective and permanent change in thinking pattern of a person (in this case the POW's) as compared to any speech delivered in an open and religious environment (of a church) where the fundamental focus is on God, Jesus, Bible and the associated teachings.

People very well know how effective the indoctrination processes are in a regimented camp, or in a school or in captivity situations. Classic example in modern days are the Muslim radical suicide bombers who are indoctrinated in a closed environment. McCain never denied that he was brainwashed. And, the military records are also not public about what kind of debriefing he received from US military after his release from captivity.

So, what makes the American feel so safe to believe that McCain is not a communist in his thinking?! One may argue that he is a Republican, and hence he cannot be a communist. But people forget that so many American double agents who worked for former Soviet Union (and may be working now for Russia) appeared totally western in thinking and never betrayed any communist leaning whatsoever.

It is also important to bear in mind that the brainwashing methods adopted by the communists were so effective that it used to become part of the psyche of a person, and worst part of it is that the brainwashed person would never know that he has got changed as a result of brainwashing. That person's changed thinking gets revealed at most unexpected moment, at a moment that would be most damaging to the system to which he is assumed to be loyal.

A minor manifestation of that can be exemplified. When McCain said he wanted more troops in Iraq, as long as it takes, to 'defeat' the enemy, in fact, his sub-conscious was dictating the rhetoric rather than the logical faculty of his brain. The fact of the matter is that in his sub-conscious he carries the emotional scar of a shot down pilot and a prisoner. So, in his overt behaviour McCain likes to see the 'enemy' pummelled to pulp whether or not it is dictated by the ground realities.

Likewise, his every reasoning will be clouded by the emotional scars, and may be by the brainwashing that he might have had at the hands of communist North Viets. It will not be surprising to see McCain making bizarre decisions. His recent rushing to publicly announce that he advised the Georgian President that US will protect Georgia against the Russian 'invasion' is a classic example of that.

On the other hand, what is the extent of any likely effect on a person, who is sitting as a part of a congregation, of any talk delivered to the crowd essentially in a religious environment ? Moreover, the sermons vary every week unlike the brainwashing in a torture chamber where the indoctrination dose is thousand times heavier and dangerously focused to cause maximum alteration of a POW's mind.

What I am driving at is this: if McCain would say that he is not a communist because he could somehow sustain all the brainwashing at the hands of the communists since he had the mental strength, what makes him (and his party) to believe that Obama did not have the mental strength to prevent him to be affected by Rev Wright's so-called anti-white speeches?

In summary, if someone would be so foolish to believe by the McCain ads that Obama was 'influenced' by Rev Wright's speeches, in that case such a person should also be willing to believe that McCain could also have been 'influenced' by the brainwashing by the communists and, hence, the 72 year Senator could be a 'communist'.

One hopes that the American society will not get divided by the poison filled tactics of McPalin who are getting desperate and increasingly seem to be losing their mental balance. Again, a dangerous sign how disastrous and damaging these two can prove to be for US's interests when under pressure. God save USA from these psychopath-like hackers of American societal fabric.

UNBIASED ASSESSMENT OF McCAIN-PALIN RHETORICS

I heard both McCain and Palin's Nov 1 campaign speeches. I heard with an open mind, and memorised the key points. Mentioning them below, and the questions that immediately came to my mind in their context is written in Red within brackets alongside:

McCain: "Obama is a re-distributor of wealth; I will help create wealth." (Q: How does McCain propose to do that? No hint of that from Mc, or any explanation about his strategy)

McCain: "Obama will increases taxes on you; I will reduce taxes." (Q: What did Mc mean by 'you'? Did he mean all the middle class folks standing in the crowd? Is Obama going to tax every middle class earner, or, just the people having annual income more than $200,000? Will Mc's tax reduction be significant for middle class, or will it benefit the rich more? Mc does not shed any light on this aspect)

McCain: "Obama's tax policy will impose taxes on 50% of small businesses, like that of Joe-the-Plumber." (Q: Is the 50% figure accurate? On what basis Mc said 50%? Do 50% of all small businesses in US really earn more than $200,000 annually?! Btw, Joe-the-Plumber is not a small entrepreneur, nor does he plan to buy one, and Joe's annual income is not even $80,000; so, how is Joe-the-Plumber going to be impacted by Omaba's tax policy?)

Palin: "Joe-the-Plumber got Obama to state in very simple terms what he (BO) is going to do - Obama is going to re-distribute wealth, like socialism". (Q: Is increasing taxes on higher income brackets, and decreasing taxes on middle class 're-distribution' of wealth? Can this be characterised as socialism? Graduated tax rates, i.e., higher tax rates on higher taxable income is something very common in various G-7 and other OECD countries. Is Canada or Japan or Germany or Italy a socialist country?! Then what is Palin talking about when she says Obama is going to spread 'socialism?!)

McCain: "Palin and I will drain the Washington swamp." (Who or what is Mc referring to as 'swamp' in Washington? Does he mean - economic mess, trillion dollar deficit, collapsing health care, and so on? Well, all this happened and/or got exacerbated during the last 8 years of Bush tenure. And, McCain supported Bush 90% of times; so, which swamp will he clean? Does he mean to say that he will clean himself - his own brain? Isn't it all contradictory?)

In summary, from the analysis of campaign statements of McLin coming just 3 days before the election, I am not finding anything in their rhetoric that tells the American people about their plans, about what they are going to do. Instead, their whole rhetoric simply revolves around how 'bad' is Obama and his plans.

To any thinking, discerning, rational voter the above would immediately convey that McCain-Palin have nothing substantive to offer which will really help the larger sections of the population (i.e. middle-class). In fact, if one reads their statements carefully, quite often they are found to be deriding themselves (e.g. 'draining the Washington swamp').

If one takes in to account the inaccuracies/gaffes committed by McCain and Palin and juxtaposes with the above analysis, one would come to the inescapable conclusion that these Republican candidates are totally incompetent, unqualified, intellectually deficient for the posts they are running for.

On top of that if you place the recent indictment of Palin in 'Troopergate' incident, her connections with black magic, McCain's recent actions with regard to handling of US economic crisis, you will shudder (unless you are a blind and irrational McLin supporter) to visualize America's future in the hands of these two incompetent persons.

The question is: would the American people like to see the beginning of America's decline by electing McPalin? Well, this is a decision only the American people can make. Hope they will pause and invest their full wisdom before making this decision!

WHY SENSIBLE REPUBLICANS ARE DESERTING McCAIN?

CNN ran a ticker on Oct 29 which screamed "Shays takes swipe at McCain". In the body of the news it wrote: "New England's lone House Republican appears to have publicly broken with his party's standard-bearer, saying John McCain has not run a clean campaign and is likely to lose his bid for the presidency.

'I just don't see how [McCain] can win,' Connecticut Rep. Chris Shays told the Yale Daily News earlier this week. 'He has lost his brand as a maverick; he did not live up to his pledge to fight a clean campaign'."

The report further added: "Fellow Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl and former GOP presidential Candidate Mitt Romney also have reportedly said they think McCain is likely to lose. Jon Kyl denied making the comments, though the Arizona Daily Star later produced audio indicating he did."

Other Republicans breaking ranks include Former Maryland Sen. Charles Mathias, former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld, and former Secretary of State Colin Powell.

Why are these Republicans feeling so disgusted with McCain? Shays has already highlighted some of the reasons. General Colin Powell so eloquently gave his assessment of McCain and his campaign on Meet the Press program recently. In essence, these Republicans got pissed off by McCain's brainless and falsehood based approach to his campaign.

One inherent problem with the 72 year Senator from Arizona has been that he is intellectually dwarfed. On top of that he made some silliest of comments and choices. McCain's choice of Palin speaks volumes of his lack of sound judgement. His remarks about American economy during recent economic turmoil clearly indicated what a big stupid he is.

A nincompoop does not have to have horns to show to the world that he is a nitwit. His/her words or actions convey that. This is exactly what has happened with McCain. He asked about Obama's so-called association with Ayers when Obama was 8 years old. How on earth could anything be more nonsensical than this?!

He made similar foolish assertions day after day; one can go on and on with the list of gaffes the Republican candidates committed. Most recently on Oct 29, Sarah Palin mentioned about Obama's association with some Palestinian person named Rashid Khalidi. But she forgot to mention to the public that Republicans had provided about $500,000 to Khalidi for one of his studies. The Chairman of the committee which decided to fund Khalidi's study was none other than McCain himself.

So one lie after another, one stupid association after another thrown at Obama to paint him in bad light, annoying robocalls, lack of grasp of issues which really affect average Americans - all these snowballed to put off the sensible Republicans so much that they felt compelled to publicly denounce McCain and predict that the republican candidate is doomed to be defeated.

To make matters worse, the over-ambitious, straight-faced liar Palin gave enough clear indications to the media that her sight is set on 2012 presidential election. She has gone 'rogue' as the McCain insiders have already started calling her.

Only a miracle can save McCain-Palin ticket from defeat on Nov 4. But Palin has already invoked God to help her. But does divinity help liars, or poison filled persons, like, Palin? One hopes not. One hopes God will provide some response to Palin for unnecessarily dragging Him in the elections! And, His response may not be just a light rap on the wrist.

WILL FREE-MARKET SUPPORTERS PLEASE SHUT UP!

John McCain, the Republican presidential candidate, is trying to paint his Democrat rival as a socialist by saying that Obama's so-called "spreading the wealth" phrase essentially aims to kill capitalism in US. What McCain is trying to do is to scare American voters in whose psyche 'capitalism' resides at a sub-conscious level.

Not that every American understands the nuances of capitalism, free market theories or what socialism actually means but probably every American equates uncontrolled free enterprise with capitalism and somehow thinks that it is synonymous of democracy. And, when the Arizona senator creates the sceptre of socialism in his speeches he is trying to touch that part of American psyche and create a fearful revulsion in the voters' minds.

It is a good tactic for McCain, and it may work to some extent. But if this guy really believes in "Country First", he should understand that the so-called free-market mechanism without any oversight has brought US to this economic cataclysmic state. First, let us quickly recap what one of the staunchest supporter of unregulated free-market said the other day.

Alan Greenspan, who was Fed Chairman from 1987-2006, while deposing in front of US House of Representative's Government Oversight committee on Oct 23 acknowledged under questioning that he had made a “mistake” in believing that banks, operating in their own self-interest, would do what was necessary to protect their shareholders and institutions. Greenspan called that “a flaw in the model ... that defines how the world works.”

He went to admit that the "flaw" in the assumptions he used over the past 40 years were that banks and other financial institutions were best able to protect the interest of their shareholders.

The financial crisis even prompted the Republican Greenspan, a cheer leader for free markets, to propose that government consider tougher regulations, including requiring financial firms that package mortgages into securities to keep a portion as a check on quality. He said other regulatory changes should be considered, too, in such areas as fraud.

Now, let me mention some relevant excerpts of what the Prime Minister of India, Dr. Manmohan Singh, said at the Asian-European leaders' meet on Oct 23. Singh, a noted economist himself, stated:

"The international financial crisis has resulted from three failures:
(a) A regulatory and supervisory failure in major developed countries;
(b) A failure in risk management in private financial institutions;
(c) A failure in market discipline mechanism
These are not my views but those of the distinguished Managing Director of the IMF, with which I agree. We must analyse objectively how and why these failures have occurred with such ferocity. This is necessary to put in place a new set of rules which will prevent recurrence of such failures. The sad truth is that in this age of globalisation we have a global economy of sorts but it is not supported by a global polity to provide effective governance."

What the aforementioned people - Greenspan and Dr. Singh - are essentially trying to say is: stop the chest thumping stentorian pro-free market assertions; recognise the inherent greed in human psychology and put in place mechanisms that will prevent such financial melt-downs.

What is said above does NOT by any means usher in socialism, nor does it mean that capitalism is moving towards ultimate death, all this means is - for God's sakes don't remove the referees from the hockey game and allow the players to regulate themselves, the result will be chaos on the ice!

I am not sure McCain, who is intellectually challenged, will understand all that is stated above. On his part, the Republican candidate, who has his back to the walls, will clutch on to anything by which he can scare the voters away from the Democrat nominee. 'Scare the voters' tactics has been used by Republican in the past, they are trying this again.

Do the American voters see through the Republican tactics? I don't know for sure. But one hopes for America's sake that they do. Because, if they don't they will end up with a Prez and a Veep who are a disastrous combination of senility, dis-ingenuity, shamelessness, pathological abhorrence for truth, one-upmanship, utter lack of intellectual ability and gargantuan incompetence. God help America!

WHY McCAIN IS NOTHING BUT A SENILE JOKER!

These days I am getting free entertainment by watching snippets of 72 year John McCain talking on some TV channel or the other. His comments make me laugh and I am enjoying every bit of it. And, yeah, I also pity the Arizona Senator for his growing senility.

Let me tell you about the snippet that made me laugh a lot. McCain speaking on a TV channel on Sunday repeated in his 'hushed' voice "We must know the true relationship between Mr. Obama and Bill Ayers". As soon as I heard this sentence I burst out in laughter. Why?

Because Senator Obama met Ayers when he (Obama) was only 8 years old. And Mr. McCain wants to know the 'true' relationship between the two?!! Do you mean, McCain wants to know what was the true relationship between the two when Obama was just 8? The whole of US knows that Obama didn't meet Ayers until years later they both happened to be on the same Board . Incidentally, on this Board there were some strong pro-Republican folks also.

So, what makes me laugh is what 'relationship' detail is the 72 year senile McCain looking for ? You know, the straight face and seriousness with which he (McCain) asks such idiotic questions makes me feel more amused. The most bizarre aspect of this is that the Arizona Senator thinks in his mind as if he had just stated something brilliant.

I feel sorry for the depletion that has taken in McCain's mental faculties. As it is he was intellectually challenged (he was in the bottom 10 of his military training cohort), and now he is fast skidding on the slope to ultimate senility. I have already mentioned in one of my previous posts about his vacuous, dumb smile. If you visualize the two together - his foolish smile and his idiotic remarks - you can not but burst out in laughter.

Another remark that proves beyond any shade of doubt what a numskull McCain is. This one is about so-called 'distribution of wealth' alleged to be proposed by Senator Obama based on which McCain labels the Illinois Senator to be 'socialist'.

This again is another foolish comment because the 72 year old senator does not seem to have any idea as to what makes one socialist and what constitutes 'socialism'. It is very clear that as McCain finds himself trailing more and more, and as his running mate Palin publicly disagrees with him over and over on campaign strategies, the Republican presidential candidate is going further berserk - mentally.

So, if you want some relaxation after a day's hard work, simply watch the senile McCain trying to say something profound with utter seriousness. Don't try to look for any meaning in what he will be saying because there won't be any substance in them, just enjoy the inanity of his pronouncements and laugh.

By the way, comedy script writers the world over are taking a break because they are not having to exert much to create something funny, they are getting all the material free of cost courtesy 72 year intellectually challenged McCain. These people surely don't want Nov 4 to come soon!

POWELL CORRECTLY ASSESSES McCAIN AND HIS CAMPAIGN

Former Secretary of State and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell made some very insightful comments on Oct 19 which every American voter must keep in his/her mind when he/she goes to vote on Nov 4.

Powell's comments stem from rational analysis rather than from blind irrational approach to analysing any issue. For example, Powell criticized his own Republican Party for what he called its narrow focus on irrelevant personal attacks over a serious approach to challenges he called unprecedented.

How very correct Powell is! US is facing such serious economic turmoil, and at that time instead of proposing how McCain could help in meeting the challenge, he is going negative on his rival. The Republican ticket is only busy in focussing on 'how bad the other is', instead of focussing on 'why they (McCain-Palin) are better'.

In an election when one candidate goes completely negative on his rival, you know what it suggests? It suggests that that candidate has nothing better to offer, that's why he is only talking about the other candidate. Are the American voters going to buy the negative tactics of McCain-Palin? Not if they think carefully and rationally like Powell.

Another illustration of Powell's rational thinking: Powell said McCain’s choices in the last few weeks — especially his selection of Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska as his vice presidential running mate — had raised questions in his mind about McCain’s judgment.

That's right - McCain's judgement is indeed questionable. McCain failed to comprehend the disaster that befell Wall Street. He first said US's economic fundamental's are strong, then he backtracked and again said something gibberish.

McCain's assessment of strategy that US should follow in Afghanistan is/was totally erroneous. McCain's position on Iran is/was totally flawed. His position on how to deal with anti-US elements hiding in Pakistan-Afghanistan border is absolutely incoherent and confused. In sum total, McCain's judgement is hopelessly weak, disjointed, mis-informed and questionable.

Powell also rightly condemned McCain-Palin efforts to falsely connect Obama with Muslims. The former 4-star General set the record straight by stating that Obama was a lifelong Christian, and also denounced Republican tactics that he said were insulting not only to to Obama but also to Muslims.

Not only are McCain-Palin are tacitly approving the spread of this nonsense that Obama is a Muslim, they are damaging the very fabric of American society which prides itself on racial harmony. Do McCain-Palin have any idea of how much damage they are causing to United States? Do they not realize that they are destroying the peaceful integrated societal structure US citizens enjoy by sowing the seeds of hatred by talking of so-called terrorist connection of Obama (BillAyers ads).

I am sure every sane minded and rational American must be feeling outraged by McCalin tactics and must be praying that let Nov 4 arrive fast so that the Americans can get good riddance from this obnoxious, narrow, mean, nefarious minded Republican ticket. Amen!

"McCAIN EQUATES OBAMA WITH SOCIALISTS" - WHAT A FOOLISH STRATEGY!

One of the cable news reported that after grouping Obama with socialist European leaders in his weekly radio address on Saturday morning, at a rally later in the day McCain accused his opponent’s campaign of waging an “attack” on "Joe, the Plumber" and small businesses across America.

How confused McCain is! What is he trying to convey to his audience? How is Obama a 'socialist'? And, by the way, is any debate on socialism or capitalism relevant at this point in time when US is facing the worst economic turmoil since the Great Depression?

First, the day President Bush's administration decided to buy stakes in top 9 profit making Banks of US (Citi Group, Bank of America etc), it marked the end of so-called free market reign in US. Because, the buying of stakes in the banks is indeed partial nationalization of the said banks.

The above move of US administration came after the European nations of G-7 group had already implemented that strategy starting with Britain. In reality all these European nations have also partially nationalized their banks. But are these industrialised G-7 nations crying about socialism having entered their systems? No, they are not.

If partial nationalization smacks of socialism, then surely Mr. Bush has converted in to a 'socialist'! Mind you, he is an avowed Republican.

So, what is the sense in raking up 'socialist' word in the current context? Gordon Brown of Britain, Angela Merkel of Germany, Silvio Berlesconi of Italy, these leaders are not perturbed, even remotely, about 'socialism' supposedly creeping in. Because, socialism is not creeping in - either in Europe or US.

Then, what is McCain's plank of logic when he is using the 'socialist' word in an attempt to scare people away from Obama. And, therefore, where in God's name will there be any logic in trying to connect Obama with any past or present socialist leader of Europe? What will be its relevance? (Is there any socialist leader in Europe at present?)

This then begs the question: Does McCain know what is he talking about? The 72 year Senator doesn't seem to have any idea of how UK, and the G-7 European countries are trying to tackle the present economic crisis. How pathetic! This again goes to show the hopeless shallowness of McCain's knowledge about foreign affairs - an area in which he touts his 'deep' knowledge.

Now, the 'Joe, the Plumber' issue. By now every American knows that Joe is neither a plumber nor his annual income is more than $100,000. So, to cite Joe-the-Plumber case to build any argument regarding Obama's proposed tax strategy is utterly meaningless.

Moreover, how many small businesses make more than $250,000? Ans: Less than 1-2% of all small businesses. Therefore, Obama's proposal to tax people earning more than $250,000 is surely not going to impact the small businesses segment. Hence, it is clear that Mr. McCain has got it wrong here as well.

So, what is the conclusion? The conclusion is that the middle-class segment of USA is not going to be taxed more under Obama's tax plan. On the contrary the American voters need to remember is that Obama proposes to provide monetary help to the middle class segment.

So, how is Obama a socialist? And, how does his tax plan even remotely seem to sneak in socialism? Btw, is it a crime to provide relief to that segment of society which is in dire need of help, namely, the middle-class?

In all the Presidential debates not once did McCain mention the word 'middle-class'. He seems to be totally averse to providing help to this largest segment of American society. And he claims that he going to do good for the people at large, how sickening is that!!

One hopes the US voters will see through the charade of this Republican candidate and provide him a befitting reply by planting a footprint on his posterior on Nov 4.

DO McCAIN-PALIN THINK AMERICANS ARE DUMB?

I am getting worried about the tone and tenor of the campaign strategies currently being employed by McCain-Palin ticket. The Republican advert about Obama being associated with Bill Ayers, the robocalls, the FBI investigation in ACORN - all this is sickening!
First, let us take this Ayers thing...I have listened to the actual story as per which Obama purportedly met Ayers when the Illinois Senator was just 8 years old. In recent times Obama was on a Board which had Ayers also as a member. But the fact is that this Board had other members too who are known Republican supporters. So, are these pro-Republican people also so-called 'terrorists'?
Dave Letterman pointedly asked McCain during his show on Oct 16 about Arizona Senator's hobnobbing with a guy called Liddy who was a radical/terrorist element. McCain clearly got flustered and gave some utterly incoherent answers.
Anyway, the question is: if Obama is dangerous just because he sat on the same table with Ayers, then by the same token McCain is also a 'radical' and 'dangerous' person because he interacted with Liddy. In fact, McCain's association with Liddy is said to be far more closer than what Obama had with Ayers.
So, the thought comes to one's mind is: what do these Republican candidates take the American voters to be ? Do McCain-Palin think that American people will buy their distorted, twisted propaganda? Do they think that the American voters are so dumb that they will not be able to distinguish truth from blatant lies?
So, what should the American voters do? The American voters must think rationally and analyse each Republican commercial advert that they hear, each word that the Republican candidates utter in their rally speeches. If they do so, the people of America will come to the incontrovertible conclusion that both McCain and Palin are totally incompetent to be President and Vice-President, respectively.
Intellectually both McCain and Palin just don't have in them to hold the above mentioned positions. McCain fumbles on every topic, including foreign affairs, for which he claims to be highly knowledgeable. McCain doesn't even know which Muslim sect lives in Iran. There are so many other examples of his disgusting gaffes.
Worst of all, McCain has no understanding of economic issues either. His increasing age seems to be making his mental faculties slower, weaker by the day. His comprehension seems to be clearly handicapped by rapidly decreasing number of neurons of his brain. The result: he just reads out something from the paper placed in front of him, or blurts out something that he had memorised without understanding what the question was, or whether what he said made any sense.
If you watch closely McCain's conversation, you will notice that he often smiles abruptly. And, if you watch closely you will find that that smile is totally meaningless. The smile resembles typically that of an idiot, or a moron, or an imbecile. A vacuous, foolish smile.
One hopes that the American voters will make the correct judgement on Nov 4, and will give a resounding slap to McCain-Palin by voting against them in huge numbers.
One thing is for sure: this Republican ticket is probably the worst in American history. Therefore, they should be consigned to where they actually belong to - political trashcan!

USA's Pathetic Mediocrity

The more I listen to the Republican candidates for US presidential poll, I wonder what has happened to intellectual level of US - I mean, the Republican party could not find anyone better than John McCain and Sarah Palin!!
If McCain is an ageing blunderbag, Palin is a pathologically moronic shrew. Both of them intellectually challenged, and shamelessly dismissive about their outstanding mediocrity.
Day after day the duo spews balderdash on most of the topics they speak on. Worst, they resort to disgusting inaccuracies, and talk any nonsense while responding to media questions.
One wonders, are they panicking, or they are simply not capable of doing better? The opinion polls are suggesting day after day that gap between McCain-Palin ticket and Obama-Biden pair is increasing.
What I said in the foregoing is not based on any bias against McCain and Palin. A dispassionate, impartial, logical examination of their utterances bring out the inescapable conclusions mentioned above.
But do the voters of US realise this? Are they evaluating the candidates based on their competence or they are sticking to one ticket or the other based on the party affiliations? Should the voters not weigh in their minds as to who is more capable in handling economic crises, and who is more composed and organised in thinking etc etc?
There is a month between now and the election day. Will the Republican strategists come out with some kind of magic to change the horrendous perception most of the logical and sane minded voters of US have of the intellectually drained McCain-Palin ticket? If they can do it, it will indeed be something better than what Chris Angel Mindfreak achieves in his acts.
I am not sure about others, at least I will be watching the developments with great interest. I will come back with more.