How come the obscenity asterikseses don't blot out G. W. Bush's name? It works so well with VP Dick Cheney.

This should be a standard thing for the Tyee:

G. W. ****

Oops, I guess the asteriksesseses don't work for **** Cheney either.

Curiouser and curiouser, those asterisks.

This war on a concept must be viewed in the context of entrenching the plutocracy, which it does admirably.

I note they prefer the stealth method, those corporate plutocrats, when it comes to countries like ours. Outright warfare in the streets is not politically tenable, so it's through the back door we go. "Deep integration" is just one recent example. Martin is just so happy to be selling Canada one pound at a time, he can hardly keep his knickers dry.

I digress, I know, but the labored point I'm making is that with the threat of war constantly in the back of people's minds, it serves as a ghastly reminder of what might be, should we ever actively resist the creeping demise of our country so well under way at this point. Talk about an implied threat. So what if you can't open a bank account in this country anymore unless you have a credit rating? The implication is clear: it could be worse, they could be here at gunpoint, literally.

Thank God I'm nearly fifty, and won't live to see the worst of it (hopefully).

*scuttles back under favorite rock*

While extremism in the short run is being applied to islamic fundamentalists, what about their evangelical bretheren who press state involvement in moral area. Such as banning gay marriage and the war on drug. We need to keep up the full preservation of democracy and eventually ensure that peoples from across the planet have full equality and opportunity, and that no sect, cult, or fanaticism can take that away.

Nice comparison Dangrice: Blowing up babies to banning gay marriage and fighting drugs. You're with it.

George Lakoff's analysis is so clear and obvious. In a freer press environment, this kind of analysis would be common. Not so in 2005. As an obvious example of the change in "coverage", yesterday 14 young marines were obliterated by a bomb in Iraq. Coverage by major media? Virtually non existent. The single largest casualty event in the entire war. But no coverage. The agenda has changed. It's no longer news. Sadly (and surprisingly), even CBC radio didn't cover this tragedy. So as the "war" unravels into increased killing, it will no longer be "news" and as such, doesn't really "exist". Try telling that to the civilians and people of Iraq, the young, disenfranchised American boys who are sent to die, and their families. Good old doublespeak reigns supreme!

This is not true. Last night it was confirmed that it's still called a " Global War on Terrorism " nothings changed. This article is out of date.
Thr reason that they didn't go with with the label " global struggle against violent extremism " is probably because the word extremist could be used to describe almost anyone. The violent part would be ignored and the wacko's would be including christians and Republicans and whoever else they wanted to target as extremist as their whipping boy.
George Bush has yet again made another intelligent decision.
Hopefully the writer of this article will get updated to current events.

Are you saying George W. Bush is not a christian extremist who broke international law to wage war?

Mel; Yes that's what I am saying.

Then you are wrong.

"George Bush has yet made another intelligent decision," offers Ron Erwin.

Just to get it straight Ron, when was it that GW made the other intelligent decision?

Hey, take your time on that one.

Allan; When he decided to be President of the United States.

I thought it was the courts who decided? He did get elected properly the second time but there is a book coming our about irregularities in Ohio's voting.

Mel; In the 2000 , although very close was in fact won by George Bush. You may have noticed him on TV during those 4 years behind a pulpit with the Presidential seal on it.
The New York Times, a extreme liberal publication, did a recount themselves. Guess what, they found he won and reported it on page 113.
I know liberals refuse to believe he even won the 2004 election, but he did. We are much better off because of this. The alternative would have been fancy pant's Kerry.
God help us if that happened.

I think you mean "real war hero" Kerry.

If you think one form of fundamentalism and another do not have common roots, just because there means are different, you may want to re-examine your own ideas. The islamacist have taken it to the extreme with their attacks, but fundamentalism across the board is blinding.

How about gunning down abortion providers? Or high imprisonment rates among minorities because of a desire to expand moral beliefs. But there are extremist across the board, across the spectrum, and I threw out one example. Surely, the unibomber, and McVeigh fall into extremism as well.

But if its true, as Ron said, they backed down from mentioning "extremism", then I think partially vindicated. (Who knows, the CIA is probably monitoring our posts, and maybe they fed my little snipe back to GWB) A war on extremism could easily blend into a war on zealots of all stripes and cross the boundaries of fundamentalism.

So now G.W. is back to War on Tay-Roar. The Violent Extremism spiel had more than two syllables, dangerous territory for that man's mouth, and enough to render him Apocaplectic Now on account of sniffin' too much napalm in the morning.

Of course, he's still trying to say it's a war agin them bad onions who blowed up them trade towers real good, but his aim's off by about 50,000 miles.

The "war on terra" knows no boundaries. Or definitions, apparently.

The US refusal to be part of international organizations like the court says it all. When a country wants to be free from the rules it would apply to others you have to ask why. And really its just a case of optics anyhow. Its not like the US would recognize any decision that went against it. NAFTA and WTO decisions that go against the US tend to be ignored too.

I'll agree with you frank, we need to put more weight into international organizations. But I think there is also some huge deficiencies in the current ones.

The UN, for one, is toothless. It has a charter of human rights which, frankly, half its members don't abide by, and to make matters worst it allows tyrannies and dictatorships to sit on rights tribunals.

As for an international court, does anyone know which legal code it is supposed to run by?

Various Geneva conventions?

The George Bush thing has been nothing more or less than a massive way to pump hundreds of billions of public money into a few private pockets. PT Barnum's: There's a sucker born every minute" applies particularly well here and is the GWB Gang's credo.
(Although attributed to PT Barnum, it was actually a banker named David Hannum who uttered: "There's a sucker born every minute." But that is another story.
http://www.historybuff.com/library/refbarnum.html )
George Bush & gang has always operated under this maxim, and they have found (much to their delight!) that about 150 million suckers fell for their con game. The con goes on, as we speak........

Dangrice; there are several possible templates available for an International Tribunal or Court.

The Nuremberg trials in the late 40s are one. Crimes against peace and humanity originated there I believe. The crimes prosecuted there were not only not crimes in the jurisdiction where they were committed, they were compulsory.

Another is the International Law of the Sea. Established at the time of the looting of the New World, to combat piracy. An interesting feature of that is the idea that anyone can arrest and try a pirate. Even if the crime took place in international waters, outside of anybody's jurisdiction, and even if the crime was against somebody else not present in the proceeding.