I would have never thought I’d see the day but alas it has happened, the Canadian dollar carries the same value as the U.S. dollar. According to Yahoo Finance — at the time of this writing — the USD is at 1.00 and the CAD at 1.00.

What does this mean for Americans and Canadians? Basically, the short of it is that it’s going to be a lot cheaper for Canadians visiting America, and a lot more expensive for Americans visiting Canada.

This is such a bizarre concept for me and I’m sure many others, having long been under the notion that the Canadian dollar was much weaker and therefore we as Americans had a much stronger purchasing power. It just goes to show how badly the Bush administration has and continues to destroy the U.S. economy.

Countries around the world have been slowly abandoning the USD standard and more are adopting the Euro. Additionally, many economists have been forecasting a U.S. recession for some time. This US-Canada currency equality provides further evidence to support the recession predictions.

Consider this 5-year graph of USD vs. CAD:

The economic downturn is staggering. I wonder how far off we are from Americans putting their savings in other currencies like the Euro. Lord knows the wealthiest U.S. elite are already doing it.

Pope Benedict XVI refused a meeting request from Condoleezza Rice to meet this past August and discuss issues pertaining to Iraq and the Middle East in general. While the Vatican has said the Pope typically doesn’t receive visitors during the August holidays, one major Italian newspaper declared the meeting denial a snub against the Bush administration for two reasons.

The first reason is that back in March 2003 — just before the Iraq war began — Rice met with a special papal envoy from Rome and told them that the Bush administration didn’t care about the views of the late Pope John Paul II on the immorality of its planned military actions in Iraq.

The second reason is that the US has responded to a Vatican matter regarding the protection of Iraqi Christians under the new Iraqi constitution in an “unacceptable” fashion.

I for one think this is just awesome. Whether intentional or not, Pope Benedict has illustrated that the Bush administration cannot get whatever it wants and that there are individuals out there with the ability to keep the Bush administration in check, since the current lackluster U.S. Congress is unable to do so. I hope the Pope keeps a firm stand on this, and makes the Bush administration show some accountability for its actions for giving it the privilege of his presence.

President Bush said yesterday to a national convention of the American Legion in Reno, Nevada that if Israel’s arch-foe Iran were to get nuclear weapons, the entire Middle East would be “under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust.”

Bush also repeated accusations that Iran was materializing instability in Iraq by supplying weapons and training fighters. It seems someone is really trying to build a case with the American public for a war with Iran.

My issue with President Bush’s remarks is that they are misleading and incredibly short-sighted.

First off, even if Iran were to get nuclear weapons, possessing does not equal usage. Of all the countries around the world with nuclear weapons, only one has actually used them (outside of a testing capacity): the United States. That means that Russia, China, the United Kingdom, France, India, Pakistan, North Korea, Israel and South Africa (before voluntarily disarming) have never used them on another country. So where does Bush’s inherent rationale that Iran would use them if they had them come from?

Secondly, and this ties in with my previous point, Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has not called for Israel to be “wiped off the map” as reported in U.S. media. Contrary to propaganda popular belief, that remark was never made. It should be noted that the Bush Administration has repeatedly used this remark — falsely — as a basis for many of their threats against Iran.

Finally, Bush’s remarks about an impending nuclear holocaust in the Middle East should Iran get nuclear weapons are far less from what a real-life scenario would entail. Granted, Bush is probably correct that if one nuclear weapon were to go off the region would be set ablaze with hellfire and radiation. However, it’s not likely to remain contained to that region. Bush and his cronies need to read up a little on the IR concept of mutually assured destruction (MAD), which is the best nuclear weapon deterrent. Under this MAD premise, one nation setting off nukes means retaliation from other nuke states leading to the destruction of everyone. Thus, were Iran to nuke Israel, Israel and the United States would surely nuke back. As a result of the United States nuking Iran, Russia or China would likely get involved, and the downward spiral goes ever deeper. The lesson from all this: Iran knows that nuking another country will only get itself destroyed, so it’s not going to do it.

It’s unfortunate that the government uses such deliberate manipulation of information to pursue its own secretive agendas (read: attacking Iran). It is extraordinarily unlikely that Iran would ever launch a first-strike nuclear weapon against Israel. Rather, the more plausible explanation is that Iran is seeking to acquire a nuclear weapon so that it can use MAD as a deterrent against countries seeking to nuke it.

Earlier this month Republican presidential candidate Tom Tancredo reiterated that the way to stop a terrorist attack from occurring in the U.S. is by attacking the holy sites of Mecca and Medina in Saudi Arabia as retaliation. The Colorado Republican added that this was the only thing he could think of that could prevent somebody from doing what they may otherwise do.

“If it is up to me, we are going to explain that an attack on this homeland of that nature would be followed by an attack on the holy sites in Mecca and Medina. Because that’s the only thing I can think of that might deter somebody from doing what they otherwise might do.”

It doesn’t end there. I say reiterated in the first paragraph because in a 2005 radio address he made similar remarks, claiming that if an attack was determined to be a result of radical Islam that one could “take out their holy sites.”

“Well, what if you said something like — if this happens in the United States, and we determine that it is the result of extremist, fundamentalist Muslims, um, you know, you could take out their holy sites.”

This is a great example of the abhorrent leadership that is percolating throughout the United States currently. On the right you have innumerable conservatives pushing the anti-terror, pro-war agenda and trying to make us live in fear so that we may cede unprecedented control of our lives over to Bush and Co. And on the left you have unaccountable idiocrats who have had so many opportunities to halt the runaway Neo-Con train and have failed miserably time after time.

I don’t feel it prudent to delve into the logic behind why attacking Islam’s holiest sites is a bad idea, as this should be well beyond self-evident, but if for some reason you are lacking in reason let me know and I’ll be happy to revisit this.

Who’d have known that Dick Cheney was a fortune teller? Back in 1994, Cheney claimed that if we had invaded Baghdad during the first Gulf War we would have been all alone with nobody with us, “it would have been a U.S. occupation of Iraq.”

Isn’t it amazing how a person’s perspective can change when you put them back into power?

The Neo-Con fear-mongering propaganda machine is at it again, and this just may be its most outlandish claim to date. News Corp in Australia — you know, the fair and balanced organization run by Rupert Murdoch — is reporting that terrorists are using Second Life as a testing environment to practice for real life terrorist attacks. Apparently Aussie and U.S. law enforcement officials are so concerned that they’ve established their own virtual terror scenarios in order to gain the same experience as the terrorists.

Wow. Can you smell Cheney’s desperation for a case to attack Iran? This is just preposterous. I’m sorry, but saying that terrorists are practicing on Second Life for real-world terrorist attacks is like saying you’re no longer a virgin because you’ve had cyber sex.

The article goes on to discuss how governments need to improve their technical capabilities with tools such as Second Life in order to have the appropriate means to monitor what’s going on in the terrorist world — isn’t that why we have a CIA/FBI/Homeland Security Department?

I truly hope that my fellow Americans can begin to see around the lies of the Neo-Conservatives. I actually had a conversation with a co-worker today about the looming attack on Iran and the possibility of an America run by martial law. He was quick to try and dismiss what I told him as neo-liberal conspiracy theory, but after pointing out to him that I am not a liberal and showing him the evidence of the claims I was making, he began to take it a little more seriously.

The truth is out there, we’ve just been conditioned by the government and mass media not to look for it. Don’t be the ignorant American, otherwise by the time we collectively rise up to confront our runaway government it will be far too late.

In what looks to be its next move in the high stakes chess match against the United States, Iran is to purchase 250 Sukhoi-30 long-range fighter jets from Russia as part of a massive multi-billion dollar arms deal. Additionally, Iran will acquire several aerial fuel tankers that will effectively extend the range of the Sukhoi-30 fighters by thousands of kilometers — giving Iran the capability to launch long-range offensive strikes.

The Sukhoi-30 is a dual seat, multi-role fighter jet that has the ability to operate in poor weather conditions at great distances from home base. It has extensive combat capabilities including air patrol, air defense, ground attacks, enemy air defense suppression and air-to-air combat.

While the U.S. and Israel have voiced opposition to Russia against the sale of military equipment to Iran, Russia contends that it reserves the right to sell weapons to Iran provided they are of a defensive nature. A more likely motive than Iranian self-defense capability is no doubt the billions of dollars Iran will pay to Russia.

This move has the potential to severely complicate things for Dick Cheney and Co. who are hellbent on bombing Iran. In addition, it serves to highlight the continual souring of camaraderie between the U.S. and Russia, which all stems back to Bush’s plan to put a missile defense system in Eastern Europe. But I think the biggest thing we can get from this is the understanding that any conflict with Iran will be brutal and horrific, and that we must do whatever is necessary to ensure an armed conflict does not occur.

If you’ve spent anytime on a politically-oriented Web site lately you’ve likely seen the catch phrases “police state,” “authoritarianism,” or “totalitarianism” being discussed. Often times the debate is whether or not the United States — under the leadership of Bush and Cheney — is heading down the path to becoming a police state. However I’m not writing this to continue the debate, but rather to analyze it from a different perspective due to a situation I experienced commuting to work this morning.

I arrived at the NJ Transit station in Hoboken, NJ to catch a transfer to another train that would take me to my final destination. Upon arriving at the station and exiting my first train I saw two armed police officers standing in front me. The armed officers, both white males, stood like statues not flinching one bit, just giving out serious and determined death looks like they were on the hunt for someone that just killed their pet poodle. And when I say armed, I mean ARMED. The officers not only carried the standard police issued 9-mm handgun, that was just in their holster, in their arms they carried what looked to be M16 assault rifles (I was reluctant to snap a pic for fear of them confiscating my iPhone).

So you’re thinking two officers, big deal Jon. Wait, it gets worse. As I walked from my first train, which came in on track 3, to my transfer train, which was on track 13 (a distance of roughly 125-150 feet), I saw eight more police officers just as heavily armed, and with just as serious of a dead poodle problem. Now consider this all took place during the early morning commuting hours, before rush hour, so there weren’t even that many people in the station.

But wait, it gets even worse still. I’m sitting on the second train of my commute, writing this post and the police officers board my train! I’m not sure how many in number there are, so far I have counted 3 but they’re behind me between cars so there could easily be more (if only they knew what I was writing only 15 feet away from them). One of the officers traversed through the car handing our yellow security fliers stating: “Alert level — Yellow.”

Finally they have just exited the train in Newark, where an influx of people boarded the train, and it’s clearly evident that the police officers holding M16s spooked them a bit. They walked across the platform and boarded another train, likely to start the entire process all over again.

My question to all of this morning’s events is not is the U.S. becoming a police state, but rather is the U.S. already a police state? I felt like at any moment an officer was going to stop me and ask for my “papers” like I was in Nazi Germany, or that they would use some sort of RFID tracking to locate the “renegade blogger” on this train out to destroy the government with his words.

OK maybe one of those two is a little far-fetched. But the fact that concepts like that are actually being discussed means that such incidents aren’t too far outside of the realm of possibility. I’m sure the Germans during the 1930s never saw it coming until it was too late. Are we going to be students of history? Or are we going to become the Neo-Con Reich?

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has rejected an offer by American — and Oscar winning — film director Oliver Stone because he is part of the “Great Satan,” according to a semiofficial Iranian news agency.

Mehdi Kalhor, media adviser to the Iranian President, was quoted by the Fars agency on Sunday as saying “I sent a negative answer by Ahmadinejad to Oliver Stone.” He added that it is true Stone is a member of the opposition to the U.S. government, but nonetheless he is still part of the evil American machine.

“It is right that this person is considered part of the opposition in the US, but opposition in the US is a part of the Great Satan.”

The whole “Great Satan” verbiage dates back to the time of the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who referred to the United States as the Great Satan in the aftermath of the 1979 Islamic Revolution of Iran.

I think this is a stupid move on the part of Iran, especially given Ahmadinejad’s love for manipulating public perception through propaganda. Recall that he has sent letters to not only President Bush but also the American people, trying to achieve a mutual understanding. He has also challenged President Bush to TV debates, which obviously the White House has denied. Making a film with Oliver Stone would give him unprecedented access to the American public, because Big Media wouldn’t be able to censor it.

The only way for peace is diplomacy and negotiations, and with the Neo-Cons banging the Iran war drums this couldn’t be a more timely opportunity for tensions to get diffused.

Today on the My Word segment of his “The Big Story With John Gibson” show on FOX NEWS, John Gibson gave his two cents on what he dubbed the “Far-Lefties’ Radical Solutions to the Bush ‘Problem’”. Specifically, he brought up and criticized the blog Raw Story, and an entry that was posted which floated the idea of abolishing the vice president position from the system of government, so that no future VP could ever abuse the system like Dick Cheney has been doing.

In a show of massive ignorance, Gibson had the audacity to proclaim that “I realize this is a blog that not many people read.” Now, first off, forgive me for forgetting the names of the fallacies, but doesn’t this fall in line with attacking the person and not the argument? Secondly, Gibson’s attack is absolutely and totally unfounded. He claims that Raw Story has a low readership, yet Alexa and Technorati seem to disgaree. As of the time of this writing Alexa has Raw Story at a traffic rank of 5,857, and Technorati has Raw Story ranked 32 with a nice “Top 100″ image sitting right next to it. Who is the more trustworthy source for Internet traffic metrics, John Gibson or Alexa/Technorati?

Is Gibson really this disillusioned? I seriously wonder if the commentators on FOX NEWS are first brainwashed for months before they are allowed to go on the air, because the amount of horse manure that comes out of their mouths could provide enough fertilizer for all of the Great Plains.