The analogy of Bush's appointing Elliott Abrams to a senior position at the White House National Security Council would be Clinton, after granting a pardon to Marc Rich, making him a Commissioner of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

There is a big debate going on about the role of violence in the current anti-globalisation protests, and whether this hurts the anti-globalisation agenda. This debate seems to ignore the obvious point - the violent protesters are a small minority who are almost certainly predominently made up of government-paid agents provocateurs. Given the history of this sort of infiltration, it is amazing that people always assume that it can't be happening now.

Does the upper middle-class, risk-averse CIA have any hope of obtaining proper intelligence in areas where physical comfort and safety levels aren't up to first-world standards? Does this problem explain the complete incompetence of the CIA with respect to bin Ladin? Does the fall of an empire begin when decadence prevents the gathering of sufficient information to keep the empire intact?

"I just see myself
in a pot of boiling water with all these natives dancing around
me."

The current push to fly a manned mission to Mars may be connected with the problem of finding a safe place for the politicians and bureaucrats to meet to further their globalist schemes.

It would be extremely ironic, as George Bush tours Europe, if the United States and Europe were fighting each other in a proxy-war in Macedonia. Should the members of NATO be acting this way? On many fronts, Europe does seem to be the real enemy of the current American oligarchy.

The United States is a country of mysteries. Did Roosevelt know about Pearl Harbor? Who killed JFK? October Surprise? Iran-Contra? Election proceedings in Florida? Does anyone want to find out about anything? Now McVeigh is stepped on, and with him much of any chance to find out what really went on in Oklahoma City. Is it better not to know what's really going on? Of course, the common factor in all these mysteries is the extent to which the U. S. government participates in crimes against its own citizens. Instead of being killed for committing a crime, McVeigh is killed to supress investigation of a larger crime. Ironically, his execution becomes part of the government corruption he was protesting against in participating in the original crime.

An Edmonton radio station has invited the Bush twins to Edmonton for a pub crawl, legal in Alberta where the drinking age is 18.

Trying to make sense of McVeigh, I can only conclude that he wanted to get himself killed by the government he hates as: 1) part of his larger protest, and 2) protection for his accomplices (on the theory that once the government had blamed McVeigh and killed him it would hide all other evidence). Now that the supressed evidence is coming out (the leaks probably represent an internal battle within the FBI), the opportunity to protect his accomplices is going, and McVeigh may now feel his larger protest is best served by staying alive. As long as he lives he represents a constant reminder of what he did, why he did it, the morality of the death penalty, the suffering of the relatives of the victims, etc. Alive, he is a constant political irritant; dead, he is just another lone nut.

As a result of his many errors of judgment, Stockwell Day is in grave danger of losing his position as leader of the Canadian Alliance party. Everyone wants him to resign, even the most unlikely critics. Could he be fighting back?