Oatmeal Man

A few words about Gerald Ford, courtesy of Gil Scott Heron. It’s from a poem he wrote just after Ford pardoned Richard Nixon for any wrongdoing regarding Watergate. Ford always said that he wanted “to heal America”, but it’s hard to believe that Nixon, the man who tried to steal America, was wounded in anyway. Nevertheless, that’s what Ford believed and so he pardoned public enemy number one at the time.

Gil Scott Heron, the African-American poet who could turn a phrase with majesty during his best years in the 1970s, wrote a poem marking the occasion of the Nixon’s exemption from justice. Here’s a selected passage that puts the Ford legacy into perspective:

We beg your pardon, America.
We beg your pardon because the pardon you gave this time was not yours to give.

They said National Security, but do you feel secure with the man who tried to steal America back on the streets again?

And what were the results of this pardon?
We now have Oatmeal Man.

Anytime you find someone in the middle
Anytime you find someone who is tepid
Anytime you find someone who is lukewarm
Anytime you find someone who has been in Congress for 25 years and no one ever heard of him, you’ve got Oatmeal Man.

Oatmeal Man: The man who said you could fit all of his Black friends in the trunk of his car and still have room for the Republican elephant.

We beg your pardon America, because the pardon you gave this time was not yours to give.

From: The Mind Of Gil Scott-Heron. Copyright 1975 Brouhaha Music Inc.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gil_Scott-Heron

The story of Gerald Ford might be clouded in nostalgia over the next few days, but it wasn’t all that quaint in 1974. Ford was the quiet fall guy for the Republican Party. A scapegoat who would lose the 1976 election to Jimmy Carter and pave the way for Ronald Reagan.

That’s just my opinion. I could be wrong.

The Rich Get Richer; The Poor Get Shafted

Equality. It’s all about equality if we’re all going to get along in the 21st Century. And nothing says inequality as the latest statistics regarding wealth. According to a story released December 5, 2006, 40 per cent of the world’s wealth is owned by 1 per cent of the population. See: http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2006/12/05/globalwealth.html
That means the poor are getting shafted as they have been for centuries. According to the story, most of these rich-folk live in North America.

And while I would like to dismantle the entire system and change it faster than the Marxist-Leninists, I accept the proposal of Capitalism. Why? Because I would be fighting an uphill battle against forces that are stronger than I am. [I suspect the richest 1% control such forces]. Besides I always thought government acts as the broker between the rich and the poor.

But what about sharing some of the wealth? Isn’t this the very season we are supposed to reflect on the unfortunate and share it with those who have not? How about a guaranteed annual income? We can afford it in North America.

Christmas has become the penance of the Rich. It offers them an opportunity to share a little of their wealth in exchange for living guilt-free the rest of the year. Trouble is poverty, like satellite TV, is with us 24/7. And the poor, in case you’re wondering, are not only in Africa and South America, but right around the corner.

If this is the season to be jolly, I’m having a hard time justifying my modest happiness with so many poor around me. Nevertheless, there is hope if enough us raise a stink in our own communities and offer aid whenever we can. Clearly, we can go two ways as the new year approaches: maintain the status quo or start sharing the wealth. One path is conservative and the other is progressive. It takes leadership and a vision of equality and fairness.

That’s just my opinion. I could be wrong.

Dion and the Belmonts

If you keep doing what you are doing; eventually somebody will notice.
 
And so it was with Stephane Dion, newly elected leader of the Liberal Party of Canada thus ending the marathon race of the past 9 months. If they ever decide to do it again like this, the Liberals are out of their centrist minds. But that's fodder for a future commentary.
 
Dion played the race correctly just like the turtle versus the hare. He ran a steady pace and he sponged off at the correct time when the going got tough. He refueled at a water station when he needed it and he burned the carbs off gradually and slowly. Consequently, he won on the last mile: a sprint across the finish line when everyone else ran out of steam.
 
So what does this mean for Canadians?
 
Perhaps it's better to been seen as a calm and steady politician than an opportunist with a great intellect or an ex-hockey player with a great intellect or a former member of the Conservative party or a former Premier or a former food bank coordinator, etc.

Of course the real test will be during the next few months as Canadians get to know M. Dion and his style of politics. I think most people look for a vision in a leader and Canadians haven’t had one since the late 1960s. Dion has the imagination to put forward a calm, rational vision for Canada, but what will his handlers say. Politics in the 21st Century is all about message not about vision. Abbreviation is the order of the day and no one is allowed to use the C-word [commitment] without a carefully articulated, PR approved sentence. Promises are cheap talk most of the time as politicians pay heed to their friends in the background while asking for votes in the foreground.

Perhaps Dion will be different: there’s always hope and that’s the one thing Liberals need a lot of these days. Canadians too.
 
That's just my opinion. I could be wrong

Fit To Print

Years ago, when I was young and antiestablishment, I never considered the business section of a newspaper or broadcast of any value to me whatsoever. The stories of mergers and acquisitions and stock market activity bored me to death. Besides it was hip to be anti-capitalist in those youthful days in university.

But my tune has changed. I'm still antiestablishment, pro-worker, but I take heed and read the business stories from time-to-time. Often, the insight of business stories, that occasionally make headlines, are real indicators of what's going on in the world. They usually involve business deals that governments make without any democratic scrutiny or corporations that operate outside the system.

Case in point: China's deal to increase trade with India.

In a story released on November 21st by the Associated Press, China and India have agreed “boost trade by $40 Billion by 2010.” The deal covers “trade, finance, information, energy, science, technology, agriculture and education ties.” The key ingredient is the energy part. While details were few at the time of publication, you can guess that it includes Natural Gas and Oil.

China is clearly moving in the direction of distribution to India, one of the largest consumers of oil and oil-based products. Back in March of this year, for instance, Russia signed a deal with China to supply Natural Gas to China by 2011.

Just last week, China signed a deal with Iran for 3 million tons of LNG or Liquified Natural Gas annually, beginning next year. The agreement was made by the CNPC or China National Petroleum Corporation. This same corporation has also signed oil deals with Venezuela and Canada over the past 18 months.

So what are we to make of all this? Are the issues of the Iraq War really making the world go round or is it all just a distraction for businesses to make deals without the publicity?

If we want to stay informed, perhaps we should open the business section first, before we get to the headlines.

That’s just my opinion. I could be wrong.