Trotsky Talk

High Ate Us

2007-03-12T19:19:00.000-04:00

"Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression, and violence and enjoy it to the full"

Leon Trotsky 27 February 1940 - Coyoacan, Mexico

With this entry, your esteemed and privileged author is taking an extended break, but will return from time-to-time to update links and answer mail. I have a number of personal projects taking too much time for me to prepare the weekly column. I appreciate your time and I invite you to read any of my archived columns going back to the fall of 2005. What a long strange trip our world has taken since then.

Please write me at trotskytalk@sympatico.ca I'm curious to know if your part of the world is moving in the right direction.

Peace!

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

It's Not Easy Being Green

2007-02-04T10:48:00.000-05:00

Oh great, the world experts on Global Warming and Climate Change have made it official: the planet is warming due to the activities of humankind. That’s easy to swallow but hard to believe, especially when it’s -15C outside your window. So now governments and politicians are trying to make it their “priority” in 2007. That’s nice, but where were you ten years ago or even 5 years ago? Running for office, naturally. And so it goes in 2007, politicians looking to make political fodder out of the latest issue: climate change.

That’s a hard task for a political platform if you ask me. On the one hand the politician has to appear as if he/she cares about the problem and to propose solutions that can affect environmental change. On the other hand, he/she can’t shake the economic and political machine that put him/her in office. The system of democracy makes the politician the servant to two masters: the voter and the financial officer. In order to affect the kind of environmental changes necessary to reduce the effects of Global Warming, one of the two parties has to give up its controlling share of the politician’s heartstrings.

Under current circumstances, I don’t see this fundamental change happening very soon. Our thinking is the same but everything else is changing. We as species can’t handle the big picture because we aren’t physically capable of seeing it properly. Our species is one that can only see what our eyes tell us. Right now, for instance, my eyes are looking a computer screen as I type out my thoughts for this week’s column. Can I see the effect of climate change? No, I’m busy trying to deal with what’s in front of me. [and that's how politicians work too]

The efforts of humankind to change the course of human activity requires imagination and a sense of purpose. It’s a process and not a quick fix scenario that our political leaders would have us believe. We need to fundamentally change everything and consider every choice we make by thinking of the long term effects to our children’s planet. But I’m confident that humankind can do the one thing it has been able to do for over 2 millennia: adapt.

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

To The Victor Go The Spoils

2007-01-28T13:24:00.000-05:00

We all know that war is hell. It ruins lives by displacing families, creating refugees and causing death and destruction. The continuing war in Iraq is also ruining their civilization and their history. Iraq has a lot of things of value including oil; artifacts from an earlier era often called the cradle of civilization.

Since the war started in 2003, the looting of precious artifacts from museums and archeological sites is out of control. According to a story I read in the Philadelphia Inquirer, 10,000 artifacts have been hijacked out of Iraqi museums. Most of these antiquities are ancient : remnants of our earliest ancestors. And while we may be shocked and awed by the cultural rape of the country, we should also know that it has been going on for thousands of years. That said, it’s crimes like these today that really indicate how little war has changed anything about a country’s civility. Yet George W. Bush has believed all along that Democracy will prevail and stabilize Iraq and all it’s neighbours.

War changes very little. It ruins and disparages cultures, buries creativity and leaves bruises on our civil society. Yet Bush and his neocon gang want us to be “patient”. Clearly, people around the world are impatient and want an end to this war asap.

Regrettably, the looting continues, the death count rises and the artifacts of a civilized society are bought and sold on the black market. What an embarrassing record for the history books.

That’s just my opinion. I could be wrong

It Takes A Licking But Keeps On Ticking

2007-01-21T14:12:00.000-05:00

So, the Doomsday Clock is 5 minutes to Midnight.

It was 7 minutes to Midnight in 2002. What's two minutes between disasters anyway? Are we closer to the end than we think? It all depends on who you talk to and the subjectivity of opinion. One person's security is another person's fearfulness. But The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists do point to some inconsistencies in the peace process and remind us that nuclear weapons are still the number one enemy of our civilization.

The no-nukes of the 1980s are silent today, but the weapons remain. As far as Global Warming and Climate Change is concerned, I have a little trouble including it in the mix that the Atomic Scientists say is a factor. They specifically state: " the perils of 27,000 nuclear weapons, 2000 of them ready to launch within minutes; and the destruction of human habitats from climate change, " is the reason they changed the clock to 5 minutes to Midnight.

The question is: which will come first? If the United States decides to invade Iran, then World War III will begin and once the nukes are launched it’s going to be over relatively quickly for all of us. If it's climate change, then the human race still has a chance to make amends and reduce the effects of pollution.

Someone once cursed "may you live in interesting times". And while I would heed the words of the Atomic Scientists, I can't help but feel that the human race has always been better than the fatalists, such as George Bush and Evangelists would suggest.

How interesting it is to consider the end of the world when we have so much to live for. Perhaps the clock is running a little fast.

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

See: http://www.thebulletin.org/

George Wordsmith Bush

2007-01-14T10:38:00.000-05:00

Last week's 20 minute speech by George W. Bush was so carefully worded, rehearsed and prepared, he looked like one of those robotic Presidents in Disneyland. Mechanical is a word that best describes his performance; stiff might be another one. But the mechanics of sending another 21,000 troops to Iraq sounded well greased with nary a squeak to be heard in West Point.

It's a pity that the move won't make much difference except in the body count. As far as the strategy is concerned, I'll leave that to the military pundits. In the end, it's the deeds that count, but for Bush it was all in the words.

Here's a rundown of the number of times he used the following keywords:

Al Qaeda = 9
America = 8
Civil War = 0
Death = 1
Failure = 2
Freedom = 6
Iran = 6
Iraqis = 35+
Liberty = 3
Peace = 3
September 11 = 1
Syria = 2
Terror or terrorists = 12
War = 2 [but only in the context of the War on Terror]

My nomination for best performance by a President of the United States? G.W. Bush.
Unfortunately, only one nomination in one category. Everybody else loses.

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

Iran's Oily Dilemma

2007-01-07T16:48:00.000-05:00

Whenever I read a story about oil, the Middle East and the United States, I can’t help but ask the question: Is it real or imagined?

Such is the case of a recent report out of John Hopkins University suggesting that Iran is headed for an “oil industry crisis”. Now how could this be? We’re talking about one of the leading oil producers in the world and this report by Roger Stern suggests that “if oil revenues decline the country could become unstable.” So the question really should be about the effectiveness of economic sanctions in light of Iran’s desire to go nuclear.

By the way, the United Nations Security Council voted in favour of sanctions on Iran’s importing of nuclear technology on December 23rd. The Stern report suggests these sanctions and the fact that Iran has failed to meet its OPEC quotas for the past 18 months, will put Iran into an economic squeeze. Consequently, says Stern, Iran could fall into political chaos.[how convenient]

So here’s the decision we have to make regarding the real or imagined threat and Iran’s oil supplies. Does Iran truly hold the fourth largest reserves or are they exaggerating the quantity in supply? If it’s the former, then the world is truly running out of sweet crude in the region. If it’s the latter, then Iran is playing a very dangerous political game with its fellow OPEC members.[who fashion the truth] But I for one, don’t believe they are going nuclear for their own energy needs. Clearly, they are moving forward on the notion that oil supply in the entire region has peaked and they are making the first in a series of moves to become an energy supplier.

But could this report from Stern also signal a plan for the United States to justify its actions over the next year? Could they be exaggerating the Iran crisis in order to scare off foreign investment and move in? Considering the aggressive and flawed behaviour of the Bush Gang since 2000, me thinks a plot is afoot.

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

Oatmeal Man

2006-12-28T12:31:00.000-05:00

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

2006-12-17T14:57:00.000-05:00

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

2006-12-10T12:39:00.000-05:00

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

2006-12-03T09:50:00.000-05:00

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.

What is a nation?

2006-11-26T11:26:00.000-05:00

The Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harper, suggests we reconsider Quebec as a nation within Canada. To understand the latest incarnation in constitutional language, we go to the experts for some linguistic assistance:

From the Oxford English Dictionary:

nation, n.

1. A large aggregate of communities and individuals united by factors such as common descent, language, culture, history, or occupation of the same territory, so as to form a distinct people. Now also: such a people forming a political state; a political state.

2. A group of people having a single ethnic, tribal, or religious affiliation, but without a separate or politically independent territory.

3. A North American Indian people. Also: the territory occupied by such a people, or (in pl.) by North American Indians generally.

Well, these three definitions help. But when it comes to Quebec's place in Canada, it's remarkable how politically incorrect a definition can be as it seems to be to Stephen Harper and Gilles Duceppe. The good news is that their definition is better than any Referendum question regarding Quebec Sovereignty.

In Ottawa, Harper introduced the following motion: [that] "this House recognize that the Québecois form a nation within a united Canada." Now wait a minute. Let’s consider this statement. I thought they already had a nation in Canada. To form one assumes that one does not exist and that the parts are there to be assembled into a nation. But Quebec has never suffered from an identity crisis. Their culture is strong and continues to be unique within the mosaic of Canada. So perhaps the PM is just playing with semantics.

Perhaps the question really isn't What is a nation? It's more like: What's in a word?

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

And just to add to the fun, from Roget's Thesaurus a few synonyms: body politic, colony, commonwealth, community, democracy, domain, dominion, empire, kingdom, land, monarchy, people, populace, population, principality, public, race, realm, republic, society, sovereignty, state, tribe.

Glow Ball Warming

2006-11-19T10:58:00.000-05:00

When it comes to the issue of Global Warming it all depends on who's Crystal Ball is better and forecasting the future of our planet. On the one hand we have the Federal Government and the rather underwhelming Rona Ambrose. On the other the Scientific community. Trouble is, both parties argue over the fundamental issues of proof and whether Global Warming is happening at all.

As pointed out in a recent broadcast by the fifth estate on CBC See: http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/denialmachine/index.html
the American and Canadian governments are playing a PR game now offering up their own brand of experts to either re-enforce the notion that out climate is changing or denying the exaggeration. When it comes to this kind of infighting you better do your own research, simply because it's going to get worse before it gets better in the battle for truth.

I side with scientists who are not affiliated with any government, corporation or private research group. Academics, we used to call them; interested only in getting to the root causes of environmental degradation and coming up with some startling facts. What I like best about their research, such as the stuff you can get by the experts at www.realclimate.org, are peer reviewed. That is, reviewed by scientists in the field, without a political bias, it is hoped.

But if a government abuses its science by hiring a PR firm to contradict the proven science out there, then we run into some serious difficulty as citizens. First, our money is being spent to put a negative spin on a problem that affects all of us. Second, our government fails to represent us and slowly favours the few usually in the guise of the highest corporate contributors.

So who's crystal ball will tell us the truth? The one with the fewest spin-doctors.

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

Nelson Mandela

2006-11-12T16:33:00.000-05:00

Two weeks ago former South African President P.W. Botha died at the ripe old age of 90. I’m sure that there were a lot of people hoping he wouldn’t have lived that long. He was a staunch, heavy-handed defender of the Apartheid system in South Africa and he was never going to release Nelson Mandela because he knew it would mean his own political end. To the rest of the world and the Black South African, Botha was the face of systematic racism. He understood the political expediency of being a white leader and he understood that it was his responsibility to maintain the status quo. Consequently, releasing Nelson Mandela was never an option and recognizing the African National Congress an impossibility.

They say that revenge is a dish best served cold and one would be hard pressed to not hear negative statements from President Thabo Mbeki and Mandela about Botha and the “Old Crocodile’s” toughness. But no. It did not happen. Nelson Mandela was quick to offer words of condolence and respect: [his death] should serve as a reminder of South Africa's "horribly divided past." Mandela added, “we also remember him for the steps he took to pave the way toward the eventual peacefully negotiated settlement in our country.” High praise indeed, from a man imprisoned for 27 years for his political beliefs, most of which were during Botha’s political career.

Nelson Mandela's words say more about Mandela than they do about Botha and it’s a pity we don’t have more people like him in the world. Our human history is full of tyrants and peacemakers and it’s remarkable how often the former defeat the latter. Perhaps Mandela is right: the power of forgiveness is the greatest of all.

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

Wake Up Tour

2006-11-05T15:58:00.000-05:00

The upcoming mid-term elections in the United States are going to be very important to the future of America’s grandchildren. The debt that the US has acquired by government “thrift” and a couple of major wars overseas, has put the country’s red ink as deep as $8.5 Trillion, according to David M. Walker, Comptroller of the United States at the General Accountancy Office in Washington.

Walker, who has been trying to bring the issue of debt to the election campaign, says that it isn’t a particularly sexy issue so most people are looking the other way. Well, maybe that’s what the Bush Gang wants: Pacify the population with phony rhetoric about the little successes while ignoring the big picture. Trouble is, the longer you ignore the problem the more difficult it will be to solve it. When it comes to debt, especially in the United States, you can’t find a bigger one. The debt is so high that the unborn grandchildren of the American family will be paying for it in a generation. Some legacy ain’t it?

Meanwhile, the housing market bubble, where families have taken out first, second and third mortgages to buy SUVs and High Definition TVs et al, due to low interest rates, is leaking. Based on my research, including a conversation with my economic expert in California, housing values are on the decline. That means the value of the house or condo, an American family has invested in is going to fall. If that’s the case then the value of the US dollar is going to fall. And that’s where fun begins as people start to sell off their declining assets and scoop up as much cash as they can to pay down their debts and keep their houses warm.

Regrettably, nobody is talking loudly about the growing U.S. debt and what it could mean for its economy and the world. Unless voters try to change Congress on Tuesday, the Great Depression will take on a whole new meaning. As the slogan for a famous oil filter once stated, “you can pay me now or pay me later”.

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

Peaceful Indebtedness

2006-10-29T10:29:00.000-05:00

A truly inspiring bit of news came across the wire a few days ago and its political significance should not go unnoticed. Muhammad Yunus, recent winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, wants to help the people of North Korea. He wants to take his winning economic strategy known as the microcredit program and introduce it to the poor. [According to Reuters, his Grameen Bank says it has loaned nearly $6 billion to 6.6 million people and has a recovery rate of nearly 99 percent.]

Now considering all the rhetoric about North Korea’s nuclear test and the so-called threat to the world, how radical is it when one man points the finger at the real problem and proposes a simple solution?

Yunus has outdone himself and offered a beautiful idea.

Said Yunus, "If they would like to have a microcredit program, I would like to have a banking program. The leadership is the not the whole of a nation.” Ain’t it the truth. North Korea, like so many nations in the world, doesn’t have the leadership its people deserve. Yunus continues, "If Beijing can take it as a political decision and adopt it as an official policy of the Communist Party of China, I don't see North Koreans would have any problem". Well, comparing modern China, a country with an interest in North Korea’s natural resources, with North Korea’s ruling elite seems a bit naive but at least he’s on the right path.

Yunus’s most interesting comment was "poverty is a very important aspect of peace". He’s correct: the elite class still believes that might is right; that the strong will always rise to the top. Which reminds me of what Jesus said “the weak shall inherit the earth”.

It’s nice to know that at least one prize winner is thinking outside the political box.

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

Hey Be Us Corp Us

2006-10-22T10:49:00.000-04:00

LeonT asked his old friend Vlad for a conversation over coffee. Here's the unedited transcript.

LeonT: Tell me Vlad, in the great democracy known as the United States, the President has signed a bill allowing for faster prosecutions and quicker sentences. Why would he do such a thing that seems to violate the spirit of the constitution?

Vlad: Ah, my friend you have stumbled upon the great unspoken and unreported contradiction in the American Government. As they become more desperate in this losing war on terror, they tighten civil liberties at home and guard against all opposition, be it at home or abroad.

LeonT: But why are they so reflexive in their actions instead of being the great liberators Vice President Cheney thinks they are in Iraq?

Vlad: Well, you have to go back to the early years of the American independence movement. At that time, the rich, white intellectuals led by Thomas Jefferson et al, set out to provide what was best for them as property owners. They wanted to liberate themselves from England and drew up the constitution as a template for the elite. This was done as a reflexive action to protect and preserve their status in the country. [and to avoid taxes] Bush and the Congress are doing the same thing but are twisting the laws of the land to favour the current elite.

LeonT: But why change a fundamental right to a fair trial and for busted individuals to know what they are charged with?

Vlad: Fear. It's the Bush gang's motivation for everything they have done since 9/11. And it's a straight forward formula. First, you scare the public into thinking there is an imagined threat against them. This is characterized by Al Qaeda led by Osama bin Laden. The collapse of the World Trade Center was the new Pearl Harbor. Second, you take the fight oversees to an unknown region and spend billions of dollars to control a so-called war on terror. When this starts to go badly, as it has done for 3 years, you enter a state of panic because the people aren't buying the first two arguments. For the Bush gang, the only way to be seen as successful is to limit civil liberties on prisoners and begin prosecuting them at home. This would make it “appear” that you’re winning. Besides it scares the shit out of anyone who questions authority.

LeonT: So, in other words, they are trying to change the game by changing the rules so that they, the elite, can come out on top.

Vlad: Exactly, just like they did in 1776 and every other change in the President's powers since 9/11.

LeonT: One last question for you, Vlad.

Vlad: Sure, I'll do my best to answer.

LeonT: When does it all end?

Vlad: When the Bush gang suspends the Constitution. Then the totalitarian state they want to avoid becomes their own.

LeonT: Are you sure?

Vlad: That's just my opinion. I could be wrong.

LeonT: I think I need another coffee.

Vlad: No; let's blow this pop stand and get something stronger.

The Nuke Club

2006-10-15T09:43:00.000-04:00

" I would never join a club that would have me as a member" - Groucho Marx

The International Nuclear Club has a new member, and as we all know membership has its privileges. The news that North Korea had tested its first nuclear bomb sent more shock waves around the world than the explosion itself. And naturally, the current club members are pissed off, because North Korea didn't go through the screening process necessary to become a member of the Nuke Club. Neither did India or Pakistan or China, but who's counting.

Ironically, it takes a certain amount of force to become a member of the Nuke Club. All you have to do is test a weapon, either above ground like the United States did in Nevada or underground like North Korea did last week. You also need to strike a tough political pose with your chin in the air and act defiant. You need to play it tough because the Nuke Club is made up of tough guys. Membership is exclusive to those countries willing to bully nonmembers into getting what they want. That's why North Korea wants in. [It’s also known as blackmail.]

But for North Korea, their bark is louder than their bite. The United States is exaggerating the risk, because they hate to be bullied. China has been loud in its opposition about the test, but soft on the need for economic sanctions. Why? Because China is very interested in North Korea's ore and in fact, are working on a deal to mine it.

Has anyone noticed the conflict of interest between members of the UN Security Council and members of the Nuke Club? North Korea is in bad shape economically speaking and the only way they think they can get aid is by blackmail and use of the nuclear threat. So economic sanctions aren’t the answer because it can get worse for the people of North Korea and Kim Jung il knows it.

And thus goes the hardball game played by the Nuke Club. It’s too bad they can’t sit down for a civilized game of Bridge.

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

The Mystery of Musharraf

2006-10-08T12:08:00.000-04:00

This week marks the seventh anniversary of Pervez Musharraf's rise to the leadership of Pakistan. He didn’t actually rise but take over and what is unusual about his coup d'etat, is the fact that he's still in power. Pakistani politics is rife with military coups over its history and Musharaff's military takeover of the country didn't really startle anyone in 1999.

But times have changed and with it, Pakistan's location became very important to the United States. This was particularly true after 9/11 and there lies the mystery.

When he first took power, Musharraf was often seen in full military uniform or khakis and rarely in a suit. It was an image he wanted to project to the people and the world as someone in charge; someone in control after all the fuss with India in what was commonly known as the Kargil Conflict of 1999. At the time, Musharraf was in charge of the Army and anyone who knows anything about takeovers knows that the army is a very effective tool in any coup d'etats. You need the tanks and soldiers and rifles to takeover and if necessary, "take out" the leader of the country. For Musharraf, this action came easily and bloodless, so nobody raised an eyebrow.

So now, Musharraf wears a suit, goes on American talk shows, writes a dubious memoir and tries to present himself as a diplomat and rational leader. How quaint.

But no matter how you slice it, he's still a thug and he owes a lot of favours to the men who helped him get power in the first place. Some of those men work for the government of the United States who have consistently given Pakistan billions in military and nonmilitary aid. The Bush Gang sees Pakistan as an important partner on the so-called war on terror but only because of its location. The US State Department was simply playing hardball for their own mistakes when they covertly backed the Taliban.

Is Musharraf actively suppressing the Taliban? Recent reports suggest he's failing to do anything about them. Is the secret service of Pakistan, the ISI, doing its share of covert fighting? Probably not. The warlords are still running parts of the Khyber, the Kurram and Waziristans.

What's forgotten in all of this is the role of the CIA and its relationship with the ISI. The two organizations are very close and very secretive and my guess is that they are holding Musharraf as a patsy for the US. In other words, he's cut a deal with Bush: back me up and I'll make sure you get your cut of the Afghan opium harvest every spring. Meanwhile, Musharraf has admitted that the Pakistani Air Force wants him out. So Musharraf is trying to serve two masters.

No wonder his book is titled, "In The Line of Fire".

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

The Bane of Blair

2006-10-01T09:27:00.000-04:00

The rather bizarre world of British politics came to a head this week as Prime Minister Tony Blair gave, what the press called, his last speech as PM. Yet, the change of leadership may not happen until 2007 long before an election is held. Which brings us to today's topic: why doesn't the British electorate have a say in this change of leadership? Alas, this is how British politics often works.

It's the classic internal struggle of ambition being played out in the Labour Party. [For more see Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare]

Gordon Brown the man who oversees the money, is now the favourite to succeed Blair and it looks like he's going to have his way. Clearly, he's rallied a few Labour Party insiders to pressure the current Prime Minister into quitting. This is how many corporations work too. It's a scenario that's often been played out: a worker or manager gets into a position that displeases the boss and a few others. The boss can't dismiss him, so he makes it difficult for the worker to do his job and over a period of time, that worker quits out of frustration. This is the saga of Tony Blair regardless of his success in the past.

Gordon Brown lacks charm and wit but he makes up for it with a strong sense of ambition and in politics that's all you need, especially if the public isn't involved. The British electorate doesn't seem too upset about Blair's long term departure and perhaps Brown knows it. Blair's popularity at home has been fading for several years. His commitment to George W. Bush seems stronger than his commitment to Britain and Brown knows that, too. That's one approach.

Or maybe it's Machiavellian in nature: [from Wikipedia]

Machiavelli's best known work is The Prince, in which he describes the arts by which a Prince can retain control of his kingdom. He focuses primarily on what he calls the principe nuovo or "new prince," under the assumption that a hereditary prince [in this case Tony Blair] has an easier task since the people are accustomed to him. All a hereditary prince [Blair] need do is carefully maintain the institutions that the people are used to; a new prince [in this case Gordon Brown] has a much more difficult task since he must stabilize his newfound power and build a structure that will endure. This task requires the Prince [Blair] to be publicly above reproach but privately may require him to do things that are evil in order to achieve the greater good.

Clearly, Tony Blair is too nice for that.

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

Deconstructing Harper

2006-09-24T10:23:00.000-04:00

[CP] OTTAWA -- Text of the televised address Monday by Prime Minister Stephen Harper to mark the five-year anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. The Prime Minister’s edited speech is in italics. My comments are in parentheses.

Good evening. Today is the fifth anniversary of the terrible events of Sept. 11, 2001.
With me are some Canadians whose lives have been touched by 9-11 in ways that most of us can't even begin to imagine. As we pay tribute to the 24 Canadians who lost their lives on that infamous day five years ago, their family members remind us that they were real people with real lives. [As opposed to fictional people with fictional lives?]

Lives that were cut short -- deliberately so -- by a murderous act of terrorism. [The case that 19 hijackers flew planes into American buildings led by a guy in a cave in Afghanistan has never been proven]

Like most Canadians, I have a vivid memory of that morning.
As my wife, Laureen, and I watched the second tower collapse on television, as the enormity of the events began to sink in, I turned to her and said: "This will change the course of history.'' [Interesting how quick you were to come up with that comment, considering you knew as much about it as we did.]

And so it has. [Oh really? Tell us.]

In the years that followed, terror struck Bali in Indonesia, Madrid in Spain, London in Great Britain. And security forces in many countries -- including Canada -- have foiled alleged terrorist plots before they could be executed. [Wait a minute; based on that logic the so-called terrorists are ahead 3 to 1]

And because of this war of terror, people around the world have come together to offer a better vision of the future for all humanity. [That’s probably true only you’re not listening to them.] For this vision to take hold, the menace of terror must be confronted. [Wrong! The people want peace, equality and economic equity. Not confrontation which has done nothing for us all these years.]

And that is why the countries of the United Nations, with unprecedented unity and determination, launched their mission to Afghanistan to deal with the source of the 9-11 terror and to end, once and for all, the brutal regime that horribly mistreated its own people while coddling terrorists. [That’s misleading, sir. The Afghanistan war was started by the United States in what they called, a pre-emptive strike against another attack. Tell that to the hundreds of warlords, drug barons and extremists that are fighting with us over Opium crops.]

It is the desire to make a better and safer world which compels our soldiers to put their lives on the line. There are Canadian heroes being made every day in the desert and the mountains of southern Afghanistan.These are the stories we don't hear -- the countless acts of courage and sacrifice that occur every day on the battlefield.
[Actually, Canadian media have been doing a good job with a balanced approach to so-called acts of heroism and the reporting of flag-draped coffins. War is hell and you can’t spin it any other way.]

Because of their efforts, the Taliban is on the run, not the charge. [Bush thinks if we run they will follow us.]

I would ask that, tonight, you keep in your thoughts and prayers the victims and families of 9-11 and all those ordinary people who have died or lost loved ones in related acts of terror. [Or wrongfully convicted and tortured. Let me introduce you to Maher Arar.]

I would ask as well, that you keep in your thoughts and prayers the personnel and families of the extraordinary people in Afghanistan and elsewhere who have put themselves on the line so that the world is a better and safer place for all of us. [You know one of these days they’ll get the government they deserve instead of US backed puppet regimes, such as the one in Afghanistan]

Good night. [and Good Luck]

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

Deconstructing Bush

2006-09-17T11:06:00.000-04:00

With the 9/11 anniversary passing, we take you now to the commentary track of the latest DVD of George W. Bush and his speech from September 11, 2006. Bush’s speech is in italics with the comments of yours truly, LeonT in parentheses.

If we do not defeat these enemies now, we will leave our
children to face a Middle East overrun by terrorist states and
radical dictators armed with nuclear weapons. [Holy Shiite Batman, we’re in for the fight of our lives. Start the Batmobile!]

We are in a war that will set the course for this new century and
determine the destiny of millions across the world. [ The war is already costing hundreds of billions of dollars only to control the last remaining oil reserves in the world. We are all going to be affected, one way or another]

Whatever mistakes have been made in Iraq, the worst mistake
would be to think that if we pulled out, the terrorists would leave
us alone, they will not leave us alone. They will follow us. [So let’s kill as many ants as we can over there and make sure we pick up our blankets and picnic basket.] The safety of America depends on the outcome of the battle in the streets of Baghdad. [What about the safety of Iraqis?...just asking]

I am often asked why we are in Iraq when Saddam Hussein was
not responsible for the 9/11 attacks. The answer is
that the regime of Saddam Hussein was a clear threat. [a clear threat to the interests of Exxon/Mobil, BP and Haliburton]

America did not ask for this war, and every American wishes it
were over. [America usually invades and asks later if they can stay. Every man, woman and child around the world wishes it were over. ]

So do I, but the war is not over, and it will not be over until either we or the extremists emerge victorious. [With all due respect, Mr. President, everybody loses!]

If we yield Iraq to men like bin Laden, our enemies will be emboldened, they will gain a new safe haven, and they will use Iraq's resources to fuel their extremist movement. We will not allow this to happen. [interesting choice of words: Iraq’s resources fueling extremist movement. I guess they all drive SUVs.]

Re: bin Laden, No matter how long it takes, America will find you, and we will bring you to justice. [Yea, right. You had him in July of 2001 in Dubai, in a hospital meeting with a CIA Op; yet the CIA did nothing. See: Le Figaro (Paris), 10/31/2001; Agence France-Presse, 11/1/2001; London Times, 11/1/2001]

God bless America.

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

Next week: Deconstructing Harper [Stephen that is]

9/11 plus 5

2006-09-10T09:45:00.000-04:00

Where were you on the morning of September 11, 2001?

I slept in because I was working the night shift. I got up after 0830 or so and started my day. My girlfriend at the time, called me and told me the news. I turned on my TV and flipped to watch the coverage. The rest, as they say, is history.

What I knew then and what I know now about the events of 9/11 has improved over the past five years. I've read books, websites, magazines. I've screened documentaries from independent producers and I've seen and heard a ton of mainstream media coverage. I’ve talked to people from different backgrounds because I wanted to learn more. I believe that we all must do our civic duty and get involved in the political process and part of that process is staying informed. I figure that if I stay informed then I know I can make a better choice or decision about a particular event. When it came to 9/11, a most significant criminal act, I not only wanted to know who committed the crime but also its meaning in the context of history. And history is extremely important when you consider 9/11.

But who can I trust?

Mainstream media isn't reliable as it used to be, because it's now under profit driven ownership. And they’ve been very soft on the official story. Public broadcasting, CBC and PBS for instance, is often self conscious about its coverage particularly if it comes close to offending someone or some institution. Their work has been good, but short of critical thought.

So I've tried to gather information from as many different sources as I can over the past 5 years about 9/11, be it mainstream or alternative media [of which there is plenty]. From there, I weigh the pros and cons of legitimate discussion. Some sources are better than others for their references and logic.

Barrie Zwicker has just released a well written book called, Towers of Deception: The Media Cover-up of 9/11. [New Society Publishers] It is an excellent discussion about the crime of 9/11. It's assertive without being caustic and logical without being academic. It's a personal story of one journalist's crusade to find the truth about 9/11 and to test his own notions of movements on both sides of the political spectrum. Chapter 5, for example, is a critical evaluation of the work of Noam Chomsky. It is a well-reasoned examination of one of the most popular thinkers on the Left and how he has failed to acknowledge the holes in the "official story" about 9/11. This chapter stands apart from the rest of the 360 page book [plus notes] and could easily be expanded into a full-fledged tome on its own. I strongly recommend this book and the sources Zwicker cites in it.

I used to feel that the 9/11 story was too big to understand; too complicated to grasp for us mere mortals. It's a complicated story; a mystery inside a riddle wrapped in an enigma. Consequently, to argue that 9/11 was an "inside job" is never easy. [Based on my research, I can only conclude that it was a false flag operation designed to control the last oil reserves in the world] But rather than preach from the pulpit, I think you must draw your own conclusions. Zwicker's book is a very good place to start because he puts 9/11 into its proper historical place. And History is the best teacher of all.

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

Poverty In Action

2006-09-03T11:28:00.000-04:00

They say that the litmus test of any society is how it treats its weakest members. The release of a report by the National Council on Welfare on August 24, indicates that Canada is not doing a very good job of providing for its weakest members.

According to the report, welfare incomes have fallen steadily since 1994 while inflation and more importantly the cost of housing, has increased. So it's true: the poor are getting poorer. Yet huge surpluses are being recorded by the provinces who administer welfare payments in Canada.

Case in point: Alberta. We learned that the province is expecting a budget surplus of $4.3 billion by the end of the fiscal year. This is better than most countries. Yet the poor get a raw deal on everything, simply because they don't have enough of the one tool that will help them: money.

What is money?

It's a tool that allows the user to purchase commodities and services and to pay for the basic needs of life, such as housing.

If we can't take care of our poorest civilians, then why can we afford armaments to Afghanistan? Why is it easier to arm Customs agents along the border than to help the poor?

Priorities.

Whenever I listen to government leaders discuss their positions on the political issues of the day, I measure their comments based on their priorities. It's remarkable how little we hear the words "support for the poor", and how much we hear about "tax cuts". The elected leaders of our nation don't have much imagination it seems or at least their priorities are skewed differently. And if they come from a rich background or have never been "poor", they fail to include support for our impoverished citizens in their list of priorities.

So, how about a guaranteed annual income? It's an idea that's been discussed for over 40 years in this country, with little to show for it. After all, it's only money.

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

Spike Lee's Lament

2006-08-27T10:00:00.001-04:00

This week the mainstream Media will be marking the anniversary of Hurricane Katrina. They will probably cover the story with plenty of images from the devastation that was an environmental massacre of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and the Florida panhandle. We'll probably see stories of recovery and loss; how FEMA failed to help victims and images of dead bodies floating in water. I expect these stories to be short of detail and full of sympathy for the victims. They'll tell us what we know but not what we've learned.

Spike Lee, the great American filmmaker and NY Knicks supporter, has just released a documentary film called, ''When the Levees Broke: A Requiem in Four Acts". It was produced by HBO and recently broadcast on The Movie Network in Canada and HBO in the United States.

To suggest that Lee's film is critical of government would be incomplete. The film is an indictment of the American system. The breakdown of the levees as symbols of the breakdown in government support all dressed in subtle forms of racism and chauvinism. It is the sum of all that is failing in America today, be it corporations, government or its class system. It doesn’t cast blame at any individual or organization, but over-all you get the sense that the American Dream has failed miserably.

Lee’s use of the first person narrative is a technique of story telling that is most effective for eliciting our own response. In a way, it’s a conversation rather than a lecture; living history versus interpretation. Every person interviewed had a story to tell from the Mayor of New Orleans who tried to act effectively to the single mother who lost her 5 year-old in the flooding. We hear from musicians, religious leaders, children, parents, soldiers and civil servants. What we experience is the collective pain and frustration of each one of them as Hurricane Katrina approached, landed and left with a wake of destruction.

Lee’s film is a lament for the American Dream and one of the most important of the year.

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

The Politics of AIDS

2006-08-20T09:15:00.000-04:00

The 16th International AIDS conference was in Toronto this past week, marking 25 years since the world first heard about HIV/AIDS and the disease that became de rigeur in the 1980s. But to think that government had anything to do with bringing this disease to the mainstream of health care would be incorrect. It was a grassroots movement that brought it to the forefront of health issues in the 20th Century. It was the Arts community issuing red ribbons at the Tony Awards in 1991; it was June Callwood, a Canadian writer and activist, who lobbied to open the first AIDS Hospice in Toronto. The Gay Community opened its collective hearts and took the disease seriously because people were dying. These simple initiatives were not led by government. They were led by working people who argued for government support. Ironically, they are still asking for it.

Now, 25 years later, Bill Gates proves that the battle against the disease is still not being done effectively by governments. It's being done by dedicated health specialists, volunteer caregivers and NGAs. Government, as always, is usually 6 months behind the rest of us and as a result drags its collective feet when it comes to leading the battle against AIDS. It's no coincidence that the slogan for the 2006 Conference is "Time To Deliver". Gates's donation of $500 million embarrassed most governments, including his own, in the fight against AIDS.

Clearly, the world is ready to move forward against this disease. But are governments going to lead or follow? As Margaret Mead once said, "A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." She was right.

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

Lamont vs Lieberman

2006-08-13T10:30:00.000-04:00

Last Tuesday Senator Joseph Lieberman lost a primary vote to Ned Lamont, a rich newcomer in Connecticut politics. I guess Joe failed to "connect" with the members of the Democratic Party who voted in this primary. But considering Lieberman's record over the past 2 years, it's no wonder he's failed the Democratic Party; he hardly represents them anymore.

From an outsider's POV, the vision of two distinct parties in the United States is blurry: one person’s Republican is another person’s Democrat. There's very little difference between the two and if there was, everybody would know it. But looking at the voting records in the Senate and House of Representatives, it's remarkable how often the Democrats support Republican legislation. One example would be The Patriot Act, that wasn't even read by elected officials when voted on. It passed easily because there was no opposition and there lies the deeper, political problem in the United States.

There's no elected opposition in the American system. It's a pseudo-mix of left versus right, intellectuals versus idealists and a lot of hot air in between. This has been the case since 2000 when Al Gore rolled over after the rigged Florida result. [Lieberman was running for Vice-President] That was the last gasp of opposition against the Bush gang. Since that time it's been a pattern of verbal rhetoric and soft resistance to anything the President has to offer. The Iraq War is another example of soft opposition as Democrats held their collective noses and voted in favour of increased funding and special powers to the President.

Ned Lamont, the new candidate for the Democratic Party in the Constitution State, is voicing opposition: "...America is no safer, Israel is no safer, Iran is more dangerous, Osama bin Laden is still at large, and our brave troops are stuck in the middle of a bloody civil war. I believe that those leaders who got us into this mess should be held accountable." With respect to Mr. Lamont, talk is cheap. It remains to be seen whether he'll remain consistent in his opposition. We’ll know by November.

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

Heart of Congo

2006-08-06T10:00:00.000-04:00

This week the Democratic Republic of Congo held its first elections in 40 years. This momentous occasion was the start of another chapter in the long, blood-filled history of this central African country. The success of these elections depends on voter turnout, which at this point is low, since most people were either afraid to cast their vote or were astonished by the notion of actually doing so. It's hard to say. Recent violence actually closed most polling stations some time ago. Monday’s vote was a second chance, in more ways than one.

The Congo is a confused state of over 250 ethnic groups, four official languages and a government that is, at best, ambiguous. While it has struggled against Imperialism, particularly from the Belgians, it has also fostered its own homegrown tyrants and oppressive leaders. To say that the Congo is in transition, would be an understatement. Millions of people have died in various ethnic wars and the hope for peace is a faint one.

For this election, fear has been the most powerful force in the regions. According to a story in the Associated Press, voter turnout is between five and 15 per cent. Most people aren’t even registering to vote and seats are allocated to the percentage of registered voters.

Perhaps Joseph Conrad put it best in Heart of Darkness, the famous tale of the trip into the region recognized as the Congo. We can no longer separate ourselves from the interior as Marlow did by traveling up the river. By stepping on the land we enter the real Congo. Perhaps this is the same route to understanding Africa as a whole. Like most people in the Northern Hemisphere, we can no longer be ambivalent to the situation.

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

Taking Sides

2006-07-29T09:25:00.000-04:00

As the war in the region known as The Middle East continues, it looks like some countries are beginning to take sides. If that's the case, perhaps we need some new thinking at our collective leadership. [In fact, that's what this column/blog is consistently about: new leadership offering an alternative POV.]

It's a dangerous time in the region. We've got Iran and Syria sympathizing with Hezbollah and we have the United States and Canada sympathizing with Israel. But who's going to side with peace? The body count of innocent victims rises daily and nobody speaks for them. The United States once again offers its Secretary of State as a broker in some mock peace-talks, but they are decidedly biased in favour of Israel. You don't have to look to far to see who's supplying weapons to that country and it isn't Russia or China. People in the region have known this for years.

If, as reported in the San Francisco Chronicle that Israel has been planning this war for years, then that means the US Pentagon was in there helping out in the interests of McDonnell Douglas and Aerospace Technologies. But still we never question the ineffectiveness of the United States whose shaky track record in peace negotiations has generally been a failure.

If Canada chooses one side over the other, then we're part of the problem, not the solution. Why can't Canadians use our expertise in the middle ground and choose peace? This is the real question for the Prime Minister and one that he must heed. Remember Pearson in the Suez? He brokered a deal that won him a Nobel Peace Prize and opened up the region to a huge economic gain.

I was rather disappointed to learn that 8,000 people attended a pro-Israel rally in Toronto this past week that raised $6 million to support the war. Pull out your calculator and it adds up to $750 per person. I’m afraid their money and loyalty is misplaced.

Clearly, by taking sides the opportunity for peace is lost. [Why do you think Rice & Co. failed on Wednesday?] The middle ground, what's left of it, is a much more progressive step and cheering Stephen Harper for taking sides is completely inappropriate. I would hope that geographic distance would provide us with a better view of the world; the big picture, as it were. By taking sides in this conflict, that point-of-view is considerably diminished.

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

Crazy 8 Summit

2006-07-23T10:55:00.000-04:00

Every summer our family used to get together for the traditional family picnic in the park. Among the many activities the adults planned for the kids and for themselves were games. The kids would amuse themselves with a lot of physical challenges, while the adults settled in for a game or two of Cribbage or Crazy Eights.

The object of the card game, Crazy Eights, is to get rid of all your cards to a discard pile. The first person to do so wins the hand. Points are added to every player who's still holding cards and the player with the fewest points wins the game.

With the G8 Summit this past week, I couldn't help but think of it much like the summer pastime. It was a meeting of eight leaders trying to discard their responsibilities into a pile. I'm thinking in purely political terms as each country shrugged off its responsibilities in the volatile region known as The Middle East. No mention of Africa on the agenda. No open talks about peak oil but plenty of rhetoric regarding Israel's invasion of Lebanon. Perhaps the view from St. Petersburg was too ideal.

The key to the summit was the guest list: leaders from Mexico, China, India, Brazil and South Africa. All of these nations have vital interests in the future of Oil, the biggest trading commodity among them. China complained about the rising prices, while Russia signed a deal to pump Natural Gas from Kazakhstan's giant Karachaganak gas field. And they all agreed, "on the 'urgency' of protecting the world's energy infrastructure from terrorist attacks." And thereby lies the current state of military activities around the world and specifically in the oil rich region the United States currently occupies like Iraq. [Wars are territorial, after all]

The G8 or Crazy 8, as I like to call them, also agreed not to expand membership. This exclusive club makes the strict rules of the game even at the exclusion of China, India and Brazil, two of the biggest oil consumers in the world and one small producer. Clearly, they were only interested in maintaining the status quo and to politically discard these nations to the pile. As usual, nobody wanted to be left holding cards at the end of the summit.

I didn't know Crazy Eights was such a high stakes game.

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

Hot Fun in the Summertime

2006-07-16T09:19:00.000-04:00

If you’ve seen a newspaper or TV or Radio Newscast in the past few days, the headlines have been brutal. All the “carnage” in the world, as stated by the Toronto Sun recently, is enough to throw your hands up in frustration. We’ve got aggressive moves by the Israeli army into Lebanon and Gaza, Hezbollah firing rockets into train stations; more fighting in Kashmir, Iraq and Afghanistan. Meanwhile the North Koreans are trying to prove a military point with missile testing. Since none of these moves is changing anything except the body count and the cost of doing business in these respective regions, when is it all going to end?

Plato once said, “the price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men”. So it seems to me that we, the people, have a choice. We can either go on summer vacation or start demanding more from our elected officials. Are we going to stand up and say enough already? Are we going to kick the stupid people out of office and get on with a more progressive, peaceful and equitable society with better relations around the world?

How frustrating it must be for the Mexicans who came out in droves to vote for their progressive candidate, only to be left off the voters list. Note the struggle by Palestinians living on the border with Lebanon, waking up to repeated bombing, the likes of which they haven’t heard in years. Meanwhile, in the exotic region known as Kashmir, the fighting heats up faster than the thermometer in a war that is a virtual stalemate.

Maybe it’s the heat and the humidity that causes all of us to lose the power of the rational mind. I think it was Pierre Trudeau who felt that we needed "reason over passion," three words that sound great together but lead to an occasional hiccup when looking at the politics of the world in the 21st Century.

Perhaps I need a summer vacation.

Maybe everybody does.

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

Missile Envy

2006-07-09T09:24:00.000-04:00

North Korea wants to play in the nuclear sandbox of the world with its own brand of missiles. And so this past week they "tested" them. Alas, that has made the regular kids a bit "testy". According to Condeleeza Rice, [the] "missile tests were a provocation that has raised concerns around the world." [I hate it when the US government speaks for the rest of us] Well, what exactly are we concerned about? The fact that North Korea is testing? or that the United States is trying to control the rules of play? I think it's more the latter than the former.

When it comes to the position of the United States, the world's Imperial power, they are steadfastly against any country playing with missiles, or in the case of Iran, nuclear technology. [Particularly if Spar Aerospace or Boeing doesn't get a piece of the action] It's America reminding the "world" who's boss. As George Bush has said, "you're either with us or you're with the terrorists" and that message has been the foundation of the US foreign policy for the past 5 years. The Bush administration soiled relations with North Korea back in 2000 after Clinton left office; [just ask Madeline Albright.] The State Department was ambivalent to North Korea under Colin Powell, and now, under Rice, they're grandstanding at this missile testing.

If North Korea is looking for a fight in the playground at recess, they better watch out for the school monitor, namely the Pentagon. They have more weapons of mass destruction at their disposal than the Koreans do, and to me, that is the greater threat. But the politics of muscle, especially military muscle, is an old game that continues to be played, albeit slowly. The grand chessboard, currently controlled by the United States, makes its moves carefully and strategically, for better or worse. When it comes to the match with North Korea let's hope their next move is for the better.

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

The Maple Leaf Forever

2006-07-02T09:18:00.000-04:00

Canada suffers from an identity crisis, but every July 1st the people seem to unite under one flag and one nationality. We stand and share the honourable notions of tolerance and freedom of choice. Trouble is, it never lasts beyond the party in Ottawa. But if we look at Quebec, we find a very strong sense of nationalism and cultural identity. In fact, most Canadians are probably jealous of Quebecers for being so darn proud of themselves.

In Canada, June 24th is commonly known as St. Jean Baptiste Day. In Quebec it is known as fête du Nationale [Quebec National Holiday] which has a different connotation. The former celebrated the summer solstice; the latter became historically significant in 1834 when Ludger Duvernay, wanted to form the Saint Jean Baptiste Society. It was designed for the Quebecois who were upset by a similar celebration for the Irish, namely St. Patrick's Day. [Cultural differences were very strong in those days] Quebecers wanted their own holiday and they got one.

By 1849 the group was officially chartered and recognized by the government. In 1908, Pope Pius X designated John the Baptist as the patron saint of Quebec, thus solidifying the day politically and religiously. In 1977, the government of René Lévesque designated June 24th as a "national" holiday. But the key event was on June 24, 1880. At a meeting of the Society, the first National Congress of French Canadiens was formally created. To mark the occasion, a new song was commissioned by the Society. It was called: "O Canada."

I hope the irony doesn't go unnoticed.

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

Sorry About That

2006-06-25T09:40:00.000-04:00

It's been the week of apologies from various Canadian governments as present day politicians try to make amends for the misdeeds of their political ancestors.

In Ottawa, Prime Minister Harper apologized for the dreaded "head tax" that was put on Chinese immigrants between 1885 and 1923. The verbal apology included financial compensation that many from the Chinese community have called an important "first step" in the process. Politically speaking, it was long overdue and it took years to draw attention to the injustice. To this end, it was an important victory for the grassroots of a community that "literally" built this country. In a rather staged yet ironic gesture, the government hired a train to transport 100 Chinese people to hear the speech from Harper in person. Last year, Paul Martin apologized by delivering financial compensation but he didn't say the words. Perhaps Mr. Martin's view of Canadian history is as blinkered as his vision for the future.

In 1988, Brian Mulroney, as Prime Minister, formally apologized to Japanese Canadians interned during the second World War. That, too, was a difficult pill to swallow for a government unable to understand the misdeeds of its political ancestors.

Meanwhile in Toronto, a soil-turning ceremony for the victims of the Air India tragedy marked a different kind of apology. Perhaps it was politically expedient or an actual act of compassion on behalf of the Feds, but I'm not so sure. The legal case against two of the plotters took years to get to court and then the verdict was not-guilty. To the family members of the 329 killed it was hard to accept and they immediately called for an inquiry. It started June 21st. The government made the right choice; a hearing may help bring some closure to the families.

Political actions such as government inquiries, do speak louder than words. But why does "sorry" seem to be the hardest one to say?

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

Yellow Card

2006-06-18T09:30:00.000-04:00

Nothing better than a Soccer tournament to bring the world together as the 2006 World Cup from Germany works its magic on the people. On the one hand a vision of unity, equality and simple definitions of "us vs them". On the other, Nationalism at its most potent and jingoistic; the colours of the flag proudly displayed on the faces of every supporter.

The so-called beautiful game reminds us in the West that there are a lot of different nations in the world all trying to succeed at a sport where anyone can win. [Mind you the Brazilian team looks awfully good.] It's a game with a huge field-of-dreams and the possibility for upsets as independent nations beat their historic invaders.

In a sense, then, the World Cup tournament is the great equalizer. It breaks politics down to a simple premise: if we beat you at soccer, it's a victory from which you'll never be able to recover. Payback for the misdeeds of history.

If only it were that simple.

This week the Pentagon issued a notice indicating that 2,500 men and women of the American military have died in Iraq since 2003. The financial cost now topping $320 Billion US. The Pentagon also stated that at least 30,000 Iraqi people have been killed with about 4,800 Iraqi security forces listed as dead. [I've got a feeling it's much higher]

In soccer, "injury time" is added to the match to cover substitutions and injured players who have left the game. According to the rules, the amount of [injury or added] time is at the sole discretion of the referee, and the referee alone signals when the match has been completed. When it comes to the war in Iraq perhaps we need to change the referee or get him a new watch.

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

CSIS and Desist

2006-06-11T10:35:00.000-04:00

The images said it all: members of Canada’s police and security services all in uniform standing in front of several Canadian flags presenting their story on the bust of 17 Canadians on a very wet June 2nd in Toronto.

The image was staged to say the least. It was presented to media in the form of collective strength; police and CSIS working together to combat terrorism in Canada. But if you heard the statements and press conference on radio instead of television, you really didn’t learn much at all. In fact, it was what officials didn’t say, that was of note. [nothing about targets or charges; plenty about fertilizer bombs] As I was listening, I was waiting for the two words that put all of this into a prism for most people. About ten minutes into his statement, Luc Portelance said the group was “inspired by al-Qaeda”. It was the punch line we were waiting to hear.

In a show of real muscle, over 400 officers were involved in the arrest. Sharpshooters were seen covering the courthouse in Brampton as the accused were arraigned. Practically every image I saw in a newspaper included an armed police officer in a bulletproof vest.

Later in the day, the FBI weighed in with its contribution stating that two men from Georgia had paid a visit to Toronto to discuss “training and tactics” with three of the accused. A good bust with a little international flavour thrown in for good measure. By Tuesday the story was all over the American networks reduced to its lowest common denominator as “homegrown terrorism”.

The Prime Minister weighed in as well, “We are a target because of who we are and how we live, our society, our diversity and our values; values such as freedom, democracy and the rule of law. The values that make Canada great, values that Canadians cherish." [Sounds like someone has the same speech writer as George W. Bush.]

But Mr. Harper’s assessment isn’t correct. Most young extremists are wannabes; losers in their own community who want to prove themselves. They don’t really value anything except being a member of a club, any club. While some of our youth try sports or community service, these people go for the gusto of suicide bombing and the expression of repressed anger based on a misappropriation of their own low self-esteem.

But when I see the theatrical presentation of our “security” forces I can’t help but be skeptical. It was too neat a presentation; well scripted and dramatic.

I look forward to Act II.

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

Terms Of Endearment

2006-06-04T10:57:00.000-04:00

Prime Minister Harper's announcement of fixed election dates and fixed Senate terms offered Canadians the usual mix of political compromise and irony. Ironic because Harper himself didn't think it worthy of a minority government to hold the House of Commons hostage with a threat of an election. Yet he made sure the debate on Afghanistan was reduced to 6 hours for the same reason, thereby scaring the heck out of the opposition who weren't interested in going to the polls so soon.

Clearly the Harper government is into cosmetic change rather than fundamental change in Canada's political system. Fundamental change would be proportional representation, but nobody in Ottawa wants to stick his or her neck out on that one. [except Jack Layton]. Proportional representation is far more indicative of a healthy democracy than fixed election dates, which only tie up our calendar. Besides, the marathon of politics, aka the Liberal Leadership race comes to a merciful end in December. It just wouldn't be fair to them. Besides I like the current system because it's always full of surprises. Can you imagine the time spent by the Federal parties raising money in between elections? Too many questionable partnerships if you ask me. [Maybe that's the real intention; election reform notwithstanding]

Meanwhile at the Senate, loyal Conservative party members are wondering whether a long-term commitment is in their future. I’m afraid that they’ll be disappointed. The Senate is Canada's answer to the country club where the rich retire to a life of privilege disguised as public service. [Where do I sign up?]

I like the notion of an 8 year term, but what about the process of appointment? That's where the change is required. It's the definition of patronage rampant in our political system, and a few other sectors in this country. Again, another cosmetic change for those who put value in such decisions. An elected Senate is the way to go, if you don't choose proportional representation and maintain the status quo as it is now for the House.

Eight year terms are good, but can you imagine an elected Senate with fixed terms? Perhaps that would be the best compromise of all and a Canadian one, too.

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

Black Mountains

2006-05-28T08:54:00.000-04:00

Montenegro, land named after its most poignant landscape declared independence last week. It was a bold move, but one that has been in the works for several years and considering the volatility of the region, a most important step in its history.

Montenegro offers outsiders, like myself, a glimpse of what the whole region could become, self sufficient. It has come about in a peaceful manner, for the most part, but could also stand as an example to the rest of the "Balkans" because of its linguistic and cultural mix. Montenegro consists of Croats, Serbs, Bosnians and Albanians. It has a cultural and religious blend that gives it strength and a declaration of independence, says much about the consensus of the country, politically speaking.

But I can't help but think that the region once known as Yugoslavia, is still suffering from the Marshall Tito legacy. He led the country from 1945 to 1980. When he died, the regions who were once cooperative, suddenly saw themselves as enemies and the ensuing civil wars achieved nothing except a huge body count. But with that initial anger and loss of leadership out of the picture, the region has finally settled down. I don't think Montenegro would be celebrating independence today, if Tito was still around. He was the glue to the entire region, at least to outsiders, only because of his longevity and his "soft" Communist approach to leadership. Tito was popular because he did the one thing many could not do and that was stand up to Hitler during WW II. Most Yugoslavs had a higher standard of living than East Europeans in the aftermath.

Twenty six years after his death, the region had to come to terms with itself, rightly or wrongly. Montenegro's independence seems to put the region's history into its proper perspective, at least as it was before 1918.

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

90 Seconds on Afghanistan

2006-05-21T11:16:00.000-04:00

Nothing like a flag-draped coffin to remind one of the futility of war. And so it was this past week as Canada’s first female soldier died during battle in Afghanistan. Ironically, it was on the same day as our MPs were discussing the merits of keeping soldiers there for another couple of years.

Stephen “Hard-Ass” Harper enforced the debate with the caveat that he would call an election if he didn’t get his way. This agressive move, full of political expediancy, scared the heck out of the Bloc Quebecois, a party not prepared to return to the polls after January’s slap in the face. Debate, if you want to call it that, was limited to 6 hours in the House of Commons. That’s about 90 seconds per MP. [only 294 voted] It was merely lip service of the very worst kind and not a very democratic way of having an intelligent discussion about Canada’s committment in a foreign land. The carrot was the offer of leading the NATO mission in 2008.

Quite frankly this move was merely a power-play by the Prime Minister to shrink the process and therefore restrict any serious debate. What can one say on an important issue in less than 90 seconds? Well, considering the notion of sound bites, you could do pretty well, but end up saying nothing. Another approach: stand in the House and say nothing for 90 seconds. Perhaps hold a peace sign over your head or tell the story of one of our fallen soldiers.

Canada does not need to be in Afghanistan. And while we get positive information about our mission there and the many people that have been helped, it’s basically a battle of diminishing returns. The tribal network that is Afghanistan isn’t going to change for anybody, no matter how often we use the word “democracy” as a way of life.

It is truly a waste of time, money and effort.

I think my 90 seconds is up.

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

Stacks and Stacks of Letters

2006-05-14T10:37:00.000-04:00

The 21st Century has brought us quick and immediate forms of communication, most of which are not on paper. Last week a personal letter made headline news. It was from the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad and it was addressed to the President of the United States. [It’s nice to know that the old formats still hold some clout in the world]

The letter, which was 18 pages long, was probably not completely read by its recipient. [Bush suffers from a form of ADD]. It posed a series of direct questions to Bush, including, “How can your [military] actions be reconciled with the values...and duty to the tradition of Jesus Christ?” Ahmadi-Nejad was making a direct connection between the religious beliefs of the President and the aggressive and violent actions of his government. He was also attempting to understand Bush’s actions regarding WMD in Iran. He also questions the history of Israel and the involvement of the US in the creation of that state. The letter also offers another important question “Why is it that any technological and scientific achievement reached in the Middle east region is translated into and portrayed as a threat to the Zionist regime? Is not scientific R&D one of the basic rights of nations?”

Let’s consider the geographic location of Iran: it is surrounded by countries that have nuclear weapons. To the north, Russia. To the east, China, Pakistan and India. To the south, Israel. So why can’t Iran have the same destructive toys to play with? The nuclear pissing contest between Iran and the United States is futile and one that could get us all killed if the Bush Gang lets loose and invades or bombs Iran.

Ahmadi-Nejad’s letter asks some hard questions and offers an alternative way of thinking. It is an important first step in diplomacy.

Clearly, George W. Bush needs to read his mail and write back soon.

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

The entire letter can be found here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5393215

General Gordon to the Rescue

2006-05-07T11:07:00.000-04:00

In 1966 a major historical movie called Khartoum was released. It was the story of General Charles Gordon, played by Charlton Heston, a British officer responsible for bringing stability to Sudan. His job: to defeat the Muslim army of Mohammed Ahmed el Mahdi, played by Laurence Olivier. Mahdi was leading his own Jihad against the British army. The film was a classic epic adventure for the Colonial period; great costumes, grandiose wide shots of battles featuring heroism of a sort that most audiences would like, cinematically speaking.

After trying to negotiate a settlement, the story advances with true religious zeal as the powerful Christian forces of Gordon take on the “fanatical” muslim forces and lose. The British government set Gordon up to fail because it’s easier to sacrifice one man than a whole nation to battle, expecially if you’re an Imperial power with resistance at home.

Forty years after its release, Khartoum echoes the current strife in Sudan, particularly in the Darfur region. Thousands of people have been displaced, the food is scarce and supplies are difficult to deliver because the military forces are engaged. Five major tribes are at war. In Darfur, its a matter of who lives there: Sudanese or Egyptian. Only 39% of the country is Egyptian and the growth of Christians in the south makes up 52% of Sudan.

The central message in Khartoum is that without clear policies, foreign affairs are destined for messy and tragic wars without honour or purpose. The existing state of affairs in the Darfur region appear to be a little better. Peace talks continue but perhaps we need that one, lone soldier ready to sacrifice his or her life for the greater cause.

Any volunteers?

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

Block Aid

2006-04-30T09:40:00.000-04:00

I was astonished to learn that the Native blockade in Caledonia, Ontario had entered its 60th day last week. The blockade must have been up for 30 days before anybody in the media noticed. Nevertheless, the protesters from Six Nations have shown great patience and conviction in their cause. They are currently protesting the construction of 250 houses in an area they consider sacred land. [What part of this country isn’t sacred to native people?] Since governments and developers have shortchanged aboriginal peoples in this country, blockades are erected as a symbolic form of protest.

When it comes to the definitive blockade, nothing beats the actions of farmers. Last Monday, farmers drove a long line of their tractors directly in front of the Canadian Prime Minister’s house. They stopped traffic, disrupted the PM’s schedule and made the front page of every newspaper West of Ontario. They were reminding the PM and the government that they needed more financial aid, just in time for the May 2 Federal budget. Farmers have traditionally protested in this manner because it’s simple and distinguishable on the horizon. No image of peaceful protest is better than the long line of red harvesters and green tractors moving slowly along the highway.

In Caledonia, an anti-blockade protest came to a head with 500 people marching on the highway. In a bizarre twist of allegiance, a police car was damaged and one arrest made. Perhaps that person should mix his politics with root beer instead of Molson’s.

The good news is that the great Canadian compromise of negotiating a settlement is continuing. And that’s what most protests are all about: a desire to be included in the decision-making process. The question is whether a consensus will be reached in Caledonia. It all depends on who has the biggest and hardest head.

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

Same Play New Cast

2006-04-23T09:03:00.000-04:00

Last week’s changes in the White House can best be described as a casting change in the long-running farce known as the Bush Administration. A new Chief of Staff doesn’t mean anything more than superficial change at the higher levels but it did send a scare into the West Wing. The surprise resignation of Scott McLellan as Press Secretary was a bit of a shock. His remarkable career in double-speak comes to an end.

Karl Rove may not be in the building but he’ll still be a major influence on policy. I would suggest that he’ll be working to shape the upcoming congressional election platform and perhaps place Bush in the proper, conservative context. That means he’s going back to directing, instead of acting.

Joel Kaplan is good at asking Congress for money and as the Bush gang goes deeper into debt over the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, he’ll be playing the part of Oliver Twist with his hand out. In 2000, when Florida fixed its eyes and its votes on Bush, Kaplan was reportedly part of the pseudo-protest known at the Brooks Brothers Riots. This was a gang of Republicans posing as outraged Florida voters who were sent from Washington to intimidate the staff conducting the recount. So Kaplan has gone from a background performer to lead actor in six years.

Josh Bolten is the George C. Scott version of a Chief of Staff. He’s aggressive, loud and likes to control the conversation. Clearly his appointment and the other inner-circle changes are cosmetic at best. But they do serve an important purpose: distraction.

Just when the heat about who leaked the name of Valerie Plame starts to increase, Bush shakes up his cast of characters and the White House herd, aka the Press Corps, follows his lead. Lewis Libby’s plea of not guilty in the Plame affair, was the more important story, last week, because he’s been charged with perjury during the Fitzgerald investigation. Last week it was reported that Libby said Cheney authorized the leak in 2003.
[See: http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0414nj3.htm]

Considering how the mainstream media was successfully distracted from the Libby story that could implicate Cheney and Bush, the White House wins again.

George W. should open his own casting agency.

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

Democracy: Italian Style

2006-04-16T10:33:00.000-04:00

Definition of the Italian political system, metaphorically speaking:

You have two cows but you don't know where they are.
While ambling around, you see a beautiful woman.
You break for lunch.
Life is good.

Italians take their politics seriously. So much so, that they often change governments on an annual basis. Last week, after 5 years of continuous service, Silvio Berlusconi was voted out of office. Romano Prodi was voted in, but he has to form a coalition of sorts, just to keep everybody happy and to keep the Left on the same political page.

Berlusconi, owner of Mediaset, a huge media empire, also owns a soccer team and half the judges in Italy. He makes Mussolini look like boy scout. Corruption, payoffs and bribes are a way of life for him and his Forza Italia political movement. For the people whose hands are being greased, the result was less than satisfactory. But for the rest of the people, Romano Prodi is their man of the hour. [Let’s hope his government lasts a whole lot longer]

Prodi’s politics are a little bland to the inexperienced eye, but he does have one thing going for him: he’s not Berlusconi. And that says more about the Italian electorate than the media will have you believe. Berlusconi was rude, difficult and a lousy manager of the economy. His government even changed the electoral rules last December in order to improve his chances in the recent election. He also sent Italian troops into Iraq and backed George W. Bush, the most hated man in Europe. Prodi, who defeated Berlusconi in 1996, couldn’t manage the impatient Communists and was voted out two years later. In 2006, he still has a lot to handle on the Left; we’ll just have to wait and see how effective he is this time.

How many cows does Professor Prodi have to sell to boost the economy and lower the debt?

Only the cows that want to come home.

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

Salem Witch Trial c.2006

2006-04-09T11:42:00.000-04:00

The trial of the so-called 20th hijacker Zacarias Moussaoui has been a rather familiar form of the Salem witch hunt. Here’s a guy that’s been in jail for 5 years without proper legal representation, under extreme circumstances in jail and now he “qualifies” for the death penalty. [This trial even has its own version of spectral evidence.]

Moussaoui admitted he was going to participate in the attacks of 9/11 but he’s been inconsistent in his often emotional statements. Perhaps his treatment in jail had something to do with it. As reported a few years ago by Seymour Hersh, [Moussaoui]...has been held in a windowless, six-by-six cell with the lights on 24 hours a day for eight months and has been denied free access to counsel.” Even his own lawyers admit that he suffers from some form of mental illness, perhaps schizophrenia. Last week, in a story on MSNBC, it was revealed that Moussaoui was wearing a stun belt that was controlled by U.S. Marshals. Like the accused in Salem, Mass. 314 years ago, the defendants suffered “fits, outbreaks of obscene babbling, and wild partying in the local woodland.”

Regardless of his diagnosis, Moussaoui isn’t quite the terrorist the prosecution makes him out to be that’s why he was allowed to testify. He looks and often acts the part with emotional outbursts to shock the jury. But in the words of Bill Maher, “he’s an open-miker”; a wannabe al Qaeda member. He has the desire but not the talent, that’s why he was arrested in the first place. Yet he stands to die for 9/11.

Revenge is a meal best served cold, it has been said. Perhaps that’s what this expensive trial is all about. We can’t get bin Laden but we can get one of his deranged disciples and if he’s punished, we all feel better. Just like it was in Salem in 1692; sometimes the appearance of justice is enough, regardless of the truth.

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

Straight Down The Middle 2

2006-04-02T09:40:00.000-04:00

Proportional representation is a blessing and a curse. In Israel, particularly following last week’s elections, it’s a little more of the latter. Ehud Olmert, the new Prime Minister, only won 28 seats in the Knesset and now seeks partnerships to maintain a coalition government. His toughest job is appeasing the right while being responsible to the people. But perhaps this is what voters wanted: a compromise.

For the first time in years, a new party was elected that wasn’t Labor or Likud, indicating to me that the people want a government down the middle, neither left nor right. It looks like Sharon was correct: progressive steps to end the fighting with Palestine, while building a Jewish state in its purist form was the solution. And like a famous Captain of a ship called Enterprise, Sharon isn’t around to make it so. Nevertheless the people have spoken and Olmert has his work cut out for him [literally and figuratively].

Benjamin Netanyahu looks like yesterday’s man. He tried to frighten voters into electing Likud based on a fear of HAMAS. But HAMAS has shown it’s hand and was not necessarily considered the evil empire Netanyahu made them out to be. Besides Olmert is being supported by the extremist Yisrael Beiteinu party regarding his policy for the West Bank.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who says nothing changes regarding HAMAS’s policy toward Israel, is in for a big surprise. Olmert may still act unilaterally to build a metaphorical wall between Israelis and Palestinians on the West Bank.

Israeli voters elected a more centrist party to lead them. Maybe they’re willing to negotiate with the Palestinians and that would be a blessing.

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

Peace Piece

2006-03-26T09:46:00.000-05:00

The release and return of the Canadian hostages, and one Brit, from Iraq was a great relief to some and opened up the notion of making peace in a war zone the topic of debate among the pundits. This pundit, if I may be so bold, wants to offer his observations on the story from another point-of-view, namely political.

Considering the risk that these men made to enter the very dangerous war zone in Iraq of their own free will and attempt to bring peace to the region speaks more to the inadequacies of the American government intervention than it does to the notion of peace in Iraq. Even though the missionaries were trying to do the work of Jesus, I think they were also circumventing the political process in their own small way. Why? Because their government wasn’t acting on their behalf or doing the job very well.

You have to remember that governments often pretend like they’re acting on behalf of the citizens who elect them; closer scrutiny would indicate otherwise, most of the time. The Iraq war, for example, is led by the Bush administration whose responsibility includes the preservation of corporate interests in the region, and the security of the last remaining oil reserves on earth. While Bush also invokes the power and blessings of God at every opportunity, he serves a different Master.

Consequently, some honourable organizations, like the Christian Peacemakers whose loyalty to the word of God is more practical than symbolic, felt the need to participate at a level in which their government was failing. Peace, the first casualty of War, is the last item on the agenda of the American Government.

The Christian Peacemakers in their own radical way, offered the Iraqi people a different avenue to peace. And they should be recognized for their courage while attempting to subvert the US agenda.

It’s a lousy job, but somebody has to do it.

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

Bush League

2006-03-19T09:57:00.000-05:00

Last Thursday, March 16, three important stories came over the wire regarding the United States. The first story was about preemptive military strikes, the second was about a new human rights council and the third about money.

The first item was the release of George Bush’s National Security Strategy offering the world his first strike policy. Said Bush, “under long-standing principles of self-defense, we do not rule out the use of force before attacks occur even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack.” This notion was offered, again, regarding Iran, a new target for the Pentagon, and a dangerous one. Bush’s security strategy is neither strategic or secure. If the United States invades Iran, it will start World War III.

The second story, released the same day, was about the United Nations vote to establish a Human Rights Council to replace the Human Rights Commission. In a vote of 170 to 4, it was approved. Guess who voted against it? The United States! [the other three were Israel, Marshall Islands and Palau.] This new council is to be elected by members of the UN and therefore be more representative of the General Assembly. It has term limits of 3 years per member [47] and improved regional representation. “The seats would be distributed among regional groups: 13 for Africa, 13 for Asia, six for Eastern Europe, eight for Latin America and the Caribbean and seven for a block of mainly Western countries, including the United States and Canada.“ (Reuters). The first duty of the new commission is a review of the human rights records of the new council. By voting against the Council, the United States voted against such scrutiny.

The third story has to do with money. Congress approved a bill to borrow more money for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to a total of 67.6 billion dollars. This will add to the debt of the United States, now just short of 9 trillion dollars.

Said Bush upon the release of his strategy report, “...history has shown that only when we do our part will others do theirs. America must continue to lead."

You call this leadership?

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

Understand Afghanistan

2006-03-12T10:05:00.000-05:00

Where does one begin an essay about Afghanistan? Historically speaking, jump in at any decade and the story is basically the same: this is a country in a region that is easy to march into but difficult to leave. It’s been invaded by the Greeks, the British and the Russians. And now Canada's military participation which was handed the lousy job of maintaining order in the streets of Kabul.

There are 34 provinces either controlled by the local warlords or the military or the Taliban and what most people don't understand is that the country is probably easier to rule under such a system. [Perhaps Aghanistan can adopt and adapt a version of Canada’s confederation.] The country has vast areas of desert in the south and mountains in the north. There are very few major roads and the climate doesn't suit much agriculture except the opium fields planted in the fall and harvested in the spring.

Control the opium fields and you can control the country, to a certain extent. [At least that’s what the Americans are trying to achieve.] Trouble is, as the Canadian Army has discovered, everybody wants a piece of the action. But like the Soviets who left in 1989, after 8 long years, the Canadians will be hard pressed to leave in 2006. Their shared mission is disguised to look like a UN peacekeeping assignment, but it's not. Canada wanted to please the United States in 2001 after the WTC attacks during the early days of the so-called War on Terror. Jean Chretien committed troops to Afghanistan because it was easy and typical of a Canadian compromise. It was easy to say yes in those days and again easy to march into Afghanistan. Alas, our new PM, who has stated clearly that he will not budge from our commitment to the war there, doesn't know what to do. That's because it is extremely difficult to leave a battlefield where peace is just a five-letter word. Just like it was for the Russians, the British and the Greeks. The question for Canadians is: how many soldiers will die before we, too, give up the assignment?

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

Best Documentary Feature

2006-03-05T10:07:00.000-05:00

I first heard the expression "military industrial complex" when I started University. It was probably quoted by a history professor or more likely, a sociology prof. I didn't really understand it but it rolled off the tongue nicely if I wanted to impress my friends with what I learned in school. Why We Fight is a new documentary that looks at the history of the United States since 1945. It’s produced and directed by Eugene Jarecki. It's premise is simple: that the economic life of the US is driven by the need for a "war economy". And since the United States is at war in Afghanistan and Iraq, Why We Fight is a timely reminder of how the American military drives the economic, social and political life of the country.

I highly recommend this film. It's a coherent and serious study of the military industrial complex as stated by Eisenhower in his farewell address in 1960. The interviews feature scholars, experts and journalists on both sides of the political spectrum. We hear from Gwynne Dyer, William Kristal, Richard Perle, Charles Lewis, Gore Vidal and John Eisenhower, son of the late President. But more importantly, we follow the lives of two New Yorkers: Wilton Sekzer and William Solomon.

Sekzer is a Vietnam Veteran and retired New York Police Officer. Solomon is a 23 year-old man who has no job, no money and no diploma. The contrasting lives of these men truly reflects the pulse of the "complex". Two men who believed that fighting for one's country is an honourable and just choice. Two men who join the army because their President said it was necessary to maintain freedom from tyranny. Sekzer, who lost his son at the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, experiences a range of emotions: personal loss, anger, revenge. He was a man who believed what his President told him, until the United States invaded Iraq. Sekzer truly learns that war is futile and that he was exploited for his blind loyalty.

Solomon is a lost soul. He has few friends and no direction in life. But he finds encouragement at the local US Army recruitment office and is quick to sign up because they guarantee him an education and a job flying helicopters.

In this documentary people are seduced by simplistic rhetoric, jingoism and false hope from a continuing government commercial with slogans that offer superficial status. Why We Fight is the deconstruction of that penetrating message. Go see it.

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

Haitian Fight Song

2006-02-26T11:30:00.000-05:00

Haiti suffers from a culture of ambivalence in the West, and it’s unfortunate.

Ask anyone on the street to name something notable about Haiti and most of the answers will include poverty, corruption and voodoo. That’s because the country is often on the list of the poorest nations in the world, economically speaking. Haiti is also known as the source of manufacture for baseballs [and softballs] used in the United States.

Inspired by the French Revolution, Haiti and the United States have a lot in common: both were former colonies that declared independence. Haiti, the former French Colony, became independent in 1804 after many years in revolution. The United States declared independence from Britain in 1776. Unfortunately, Haiti was overpowered by the US and used as a port for the movement of slaves. It was also exploited for its trees, which ruined the soil and natural landscape. By the 1970s, American companies set up factories in Haiti for the manufacture of baseballs because they could exploit the labour force; the majority of whom were low paid women.

Geopolitically speaking, the country is located between the proverbial rock and a hard place. To the East, Dominican Republic, a rich country full of tourists and the U.S. Army. To the West, Cuba: public enemy number one to the United States. Haitians have been squeezed out and worn out over the last 100 years.

Politically speaking, Haitian history is loaded with massacres [1937], corrupt leadership [Duvallier et al] and violence in the streets of Port-au-Prince. In 1991 when Aristide was elected, he was undermined by the Americans who sought to “enhance democracy”. Things have not been the same since. To be honest, it's a mess. The literacy rate is just above 50%. The AIDS epidemic is rampant and the weather has played a major role in ruining the land. Hurricanes often wash everything away except the poverty and the national debt.

What’s remarkable about the people of Haiti is their persistent desire for an egalitarian state. Their national motto is Union Makes Strength. [L'Union Fait La Force]

Perhaps we should let them get on with the job.

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

Cheney's Misfire

2006-02-19T10:24:00.000-05:00

Last week a joke started to circulate: I’d rather go hunting with Dick Cheney than go driving with Ted Kennedy. It’s funny for all the wrong reasons.

What does it say about our society when all we can talk about is accidental shootings, blue dresses and car accidents, when the real crimes go unnoticed? To think of the broadcast minutes and column inches dedicated to Dick Cheney’s accident with a rifle as compared to his secret activities in the White House bunker on September 11, 2001 is astounding. Why do we neglect the real issues that affect millions of people instead of one unlucky SOB on a quail hunting trip?

It all stems from our inability to understand complex issues. We, as a species, simply can’t handle the notion of high death rates in Africa from AIDS and the declining reserves of fossil fuels. Seventeen years ago these ideas were questioned in a book by Robert Ornstein and Paul Ehrlich, titled: New World New Mind [Doubleday,1989] It tells the story of the human animal from a biological and cultural point of view. It offers readers a chance to understand the consequences of progress while suggesting that our brains are a mismatch for our environment. The human mental system, they say, “is failing to comprehend the modern world.”

Last year Ronald Wright took a similar, anthropological point-of-view in his excellent book, A Short History of Progress [Anansi Press]. In it, he laid out the history of various civilizations from their rise to their fall and eventual extinction. His analysis of the people of Easter Island is particularly stirring because there are very similar trends with our civilization.

So, what are we left with when all we can remember is blue dresses, car crashes and hunting accidents? How do we deal with the rioting over religious cartoons? In the words of Albert Einstein, “only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. “

As long as we can get our coffee in the morning and our next edition of 24 on Monday nights, the rest of the world will simply have to take care of itself.

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

Emerson's Folly

2006-02-12T11:53:00.000-05:00

On January 23, 2006, during Canada’s Federal Election, Liberal Party candidate David Emerson won the riding of Vancouver Kingsway by 43% of the vote. He won the same riding in 2004 as the Liberal candidate. Last week, he was named to the Cabinet of the Conservative Government under Stephen Harper. Emerson switched parties two weeks after being elected as the Liberal member for the riding.

Canadian politics has taken a turn for the worse when a man stands for election behind a platform for two months, and suddenly, unexpectedly switches parties and gets a Cabinet job. The people of Vancouver Kingsway must be astonished. The rest of the country should be outraged.

Stepping into politics is never an easy decision. The job requires an attitude and commitment to public service like no other. To win one of 308 seats in the Canadian Parliament takes money, time, effort and a promise to serve the constituency under a political banner. In Emerson’s case: Liberal.

If the people of Vancouver Kingsway wanted to elect a Conservative candidate to the House, they could have. His name was Kanmon Wong and he too, made a commitment to enter public life with money, time, effort and a promise to serve. Yet he was not the people’s choice. Their choice was David Emerson, Liberal Candidate.

Emerson is not fit to sit as a member of the House of Commons. He lied about his ambitions and did not fulfill his ethical responsibility to the Liberal Party, but more importantly he has failed the people of Vancouver Kingsway by switching to the winning side two weeks after the election.

He was reelected which means he already had the confidence of most of the voters in the riding. He was a proven winner in the eyes of the people. Most of the voters said he worked hard and did his best for the riding while in office.

With this dramatic switch to the Conservative Party, Emerson put his own ambitions over those of the people who elected him. He has put a black mark on the principals of truth and shaken the foundation of our democracy.

No wonder people have given up on the system.

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

Straight Down the Middle

2006-02-05T10:52:00.000-05:00

The struggle for democracy has a political and social history that is long. The same could be said of the bloody history of terrorism. The two forces often clash but occasionally, if the timing is right, they come together for better or worse.

On the one hand, we have the Palestinian HAMAS whose roots go back to the 1967 Six Day War. On the other, the hard line Likud Party of Israel which was formed ten years later. HAMAS is named on many anti-terrorism lists in other countries, including Canada. We know this because they have used suicide bombers to attack Israel creating a thorn in the side of the PLO and leaving too many innocent people dead. [The only thing that has changed is the body count] But after last week’s election, which was generally reported in the Press as “clean”, HAMAS has entered the democratic world as a legitimate power; soon to form a government for the first time.

Meanwhile in Israel, Ariel Sharon remains in hospital; his political days now coming to an end due to illness. With elections in that country coming up in March, it looks like hard-liner Benjamin Netanyahu of the Likud Party, will return as Prime Minister. So now the stage is set for some of the most dramatic political and social developments in the Middle East in years.

It will be a clash of the semitic Titans with large amounts of rhetoric and unfortunately, violence. The two parties hate each other with a passion, while the rest of the world shakes its collective head with despair.

Will there ever be peace between Israel and Palestine? One look at their long history and the answer is an unqualified “No”.

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

Martinizing

2006-01-29T09:55:00.000-05:00

So, Paul Martin does the right thing and steps down as leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, thus opening the door for a newcomer, or at least, slightly new. Martin is closing the door on what I would consider to be, the end of an era dating back to Lester Pearson. In fact, you can draw a political line from Pearson to Pierre Trudeau to John Turner to Jean Chretien to Paul Martin spanning the modern age from 1958 to 2006. In this sense, the Liberal Party has come full circle. The question today is: What's next?

The party needs new thinking, new branding and a young [under 60] leader. It needs a vision that includes Quebec and offers voters real change from the rich-only elitism of the past. Unfortunately, I'm not expecting any miracles. It depends on what the party members want and whether the old guard wants to give up it's hold on the Red Machine.

Who's going to run? Look for Frank McKenna, the dashing former ambassador to the United States. The lively Brian Tobin from Newfoundland and some former Chretien cabinet ministers such as Allan Rock and John Manley, even though he has said no, as possibilities. [More about McKenna in a future column]

But wouldn't it be nice to see someone completely new? Such as Michael Ignatieff or Carolyn Bennett? And what will the fairest of the land, Belinda Stronach choose to do? If she runs, she may not win but will set the table for a future victory down the road.

The Liberal Party of Canada’s origins, going back to 1867, centered on reform. It was a party that wanted to do away with elitist politics and put more power into the hands of workers and farmers. They were opposed to imperialism and patronage. They were also in favour of free trade under Laurier, who also consolidated the Quebec vote. By the time Pearson came along, Liberals were the most progressive, national choice on the ballot.

Under a Liberal government Canada has evolved in its thinking about all sorts of social and economic issues, often for the better. Now it’s time for anyone who calls themselves “Liberal” to do the same.

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

Kick The Bums Out!

2006-01-22T10:20:00.000-05:00

Canada is one of the most difficult countries to govern, anywhere. We have regional, cultural and economic differences that have provided us with a rich history and a lot of long sleepless nights for our leaders. Tomorrow is election day and as the campaign finally draws to close, the government is going to be replaced. Change is in the air and it will translate into votes for the Conservative Party who are bound to win.

After all, we're Canadians: we kick governments out every ten years or so. We clean our elected house as often as we clean the attic when we tire of old clothes and choose to dispense with the clutter of our past.

This election reminds me of the 1993 vote. After 8 long years under the leadership of Brian Mulroney, Canadians decided they had enough and "kicked the bums out". The result was a huge majority for the Liberal Party under Jean Chretien and only 2 seats for the Conservatives. Now, 13 years later, we're going to do it again, but probably with a little less severity. Martin isn’t as “hated” as Mulroney was in 1993. Kim Campbell was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time: part of a stale political franchise in need of a makeover.

When it comes to the political Left, Jack Layton and the NDP are afraid of winning. Layton's careful answers are well thought out, progressive and an important compromise that blends the center-left coalition of ideas but he fears success. I’ve never heard him say that he wants to be Prime Minister.

Stephen Harper can't wait to move into 24 Sussex Drive, home of the Prime Minister since 1948. He plays it cool, but he wants it badly and he doesn't appear to be afraid of winning. Although his politics are right-wing, he’s been playing the part of a levelheaded “thinker” during the campaign. While the rational approach makes for boring television, it plays well with the voters who, only 18 months ago, thought he was George W. Bush in red and white boots.

Paul Martin is afraid of losing. It's written all over his face because he's been in a panic mode since the first Gomery Report was released regarding the "sponsorship scandal". Like Campbell in ‘93, who was paying for the arrogance of the Mulroney years, Martin is going to pay for the past mistakes of his predecessor, Jean Chretien, even though there's little to prove his government did anything legally wrong.

Plus ça change... (plus c'est la même chose)

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

Just You; Just Me; Justice

2006-01-15T10:25:00.000-05:00

Last week the military trial of a Canadian “war criminal” began in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The defendant’s name is Omar Ahmad Khadr and he’s 19 years old. He was captured by the American Army in Afghanistan four years ago. He is charged with the death of an American Medic during a battle in Kabul, among other crimes. Muneer Ahmad is his civilian attorney.

Military law is different from conventional civilian law because it operates under different rules. Khadr has been assigned 4 military attorneys, whose principal has never tried a case like this before. They can consult with Khadr’s civilian lawyer but he may not be granted any status during the tribunal. The prosecution, which has already determined that Khadr is a “terrorist” in public statements, will have 7 military attorneys.

Military law serves a different purpose. It operates outside the scope of conventional law and the judges, also from the military, act as jurors. The tribunal is used as a means to establishing rules of law under war. But the United States is not formally at war: that has to be granted by Congress. Khadr’s trial before a U.S. military tribunal offers a different criteria to determine guilt and appropriate sentencing. Evidence can range from factual proof to hearsay; classified evidence to enforced confessions. Speed is the order of the day, not due process. The defense has time restrictions imposed on it by the judge which inhibits the gathering of evidence in support of the accused.

The appeal process is also a challenge. The accused would have to petition a panel of review to reexamine the decisions made during the tribunal with the final decision being made by the Commander-in-Chief, AKA The President of the United States. Even if Khadr is found innocent of the charges he may not go free. Donald Rumsfeld has said that suspects like those in Guantanamo Bay, could not count on being released after a tribunal.

Now considering all of the rhetoric about the supposed “war on terror” from the Bush gang to the comments from Col. Moe Davis, the chief prosecutor in this tribunal, it is doubtful that “justice” will serve Khadr.

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

Whole Earth Catalogue

2006-01-08T11:32:00.000-05:00

In 1968, astronaut William Anders took a photograph of the earth from the Apollo 8 spacecraft. It was the first picture of our planet as it rose over the horizon of the moon. The picture was worth a thousand words; it showed how fragile our planet was against a stark, black background. It’s been called the most influential photograph ever taken.

Last week Canadian Astronaut Marc Garneau, a Liberal Party candidate in the Federal election, invited Gilles Duceppe, the leader of the sovereigntist Bloc Quebecois, to a trip into space to appreciate the earth’s unique place in the universe. Said Garneau,
“I’d really love to go for a fourth trip into space with ...Mr. Duceppe...I am convinced that after such a trip Quebec Sovereignty will no longer be an issue. Space travel affects us that much.”

In Toronto, where local groups are rallying for gun control and increased social services in the Black community to fend off future violence, Taj Nelson, a reformed youth worker said “we all need to be in this together. “ He talked about the importance for the public to understand that young people are very interested in getting out of crime and criminal activities. “These kids are intelligent and have talent, but have too much time to themselves and need choices.”

Garneau and Nelson were sending the same message: we’re all in this together. The fact that Duceppe laughed off the remark by Garneau and Toronto’s politicians barely registered beyond the law and order response to gun violence, proves to me, that our political leaders are out of touch with the people. The current Federal election campaign, which is as flat as a Zamfir recording, has no edges to offend or lead or challenge us. It’s polite, superficial and passionless. Tomorrow’s televised pseudo-debate will prove my point.

What happened to the big picture? Where’s the vision for a country that should strive for more equality between the rich and the poor?

Maybe we all could use a trip into space.

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

Further reading: http://www.abc.net.au/science/moon/earthrise.htm

Viva Bolivia

2006-01-01T11:14:00.000-05:00

Evo Morales will be a popular name in 2006. The first indigenous leader of Bolivia, he won last month’s election with 54% of the vote. His message was simple: give Bolivia back to the Bolivians. His inauguration is scheduled for January 22nd and I hope he makes it. He talks about decriminalizing the cultivation of the coca leaf, nationalizing Natural gas production and revising the laws on private property. He also wants to write a new constitution.

Sound familiar? It should because Juan Peron said similar things in 1973 when he won a popular vote in Chile. Alas, he was assassinated by Black Ops, probably linked to the CIA. Peron spoke of nationalizing the banks, natural resources and taking ownership of property, mostly in the hands of American conglomerates such as Texaco.

The political story of Morales is a classic. He grew up in poverty, worked his way into the coca growers leadership and helped form a cooperative movement of farmers, labour unions, indigenous communities and the poor. He had the economic record to back him up: a 2003 study by the IMF said the Bolivia had 63% of its population living in poverty. He’s a socialist to the core and that can be very bothersome to American corporate interests in the region, including those British, French and Spanish gas companies doing business there.

Morales is also being shrewd when he allies himself with Chile and Venezuela, not to mention the always important visit with Fidel Castro, after all he needs the money. But he’ll have to tread carefully. By stating that he’s “Washington’s worst nightmare” says more to Americans than it does to Bolivians. That said, he does have the support of the people and a very stable government behind him, so the near future looks bright.

But stay tuned to the rhetoric from the United States. Even the Washington Post doesn’t think Morales will last very long. This is typical of attitudes in America: pleased that he won but a socialist is still bad news for the rest of the world. How ironic it is to read about a democratically elected leader chastised by the very country that considers it the highest democracy in the land.

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

To Spy or Not To Spy

2005-12-19T18:54:00.000-05:00

Two of the most important news stories of the year were reported last week. On Tuesday, NBC reported that the US Defense Department was spying on peace groups in the United States. On Friday the New York Times reported on the National Security Agency’s eavesdropping on Americans since 2002.

The White House asked the Times not to publish the article. I’ll let you decide if it was in the public interest to sit on a major story for a year. For me and for people who are concerned about civil liberties, we are once again astonished by the conceit of the Bush administration, the Pentagon and the NSA to decide how to manage their supposed “war on terror.” Clearly, they are fighting internal dissent, not terrorism and they’re spending a lot of money to do it.

According to the Associated Press, a senior intelligence officer said that Bush has personally authorized eavesdropping in the United States more than fifty times.
Note the words “personally authorized”. It’s time for Bush to be held accountable for this crime against democracy. His administration consistently acts secretly and with a big stick. Behaviour of this kind is usually associated with dictators. Even Bush admitted that in today’s press conference. Bush was granted more executive powers by Congress, such as the authorization of spying, after September 11, 2001.

It’s all symbolic of a paranoid administration looking to suppress life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, unless it suits them. You don’t have to be a good Republican or Democrat to raise the red flag on the issue of spying, only a good citizen.

Let’s hope some patriot steps up and makes noise.

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

The full NBC story is available at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10454316/

The New York Times story is available at http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16program.html

Building Blocs

2005-12-12T18:25:00.000-05:00

I’ve always liked Gilles Duceppe, leader of the Bloc Quebecois, ever since the 2000 Television debate. During the broadcast he stated the clearest message of any leader, “if it’s good for Quebec we’ll vote for it. If it’s not good for Quebec, we’ll vote against it.” It was a simple and essential raison d’etre for a party that has a chance to win every Federal riding in Quebec next election.

The anger and frustration with the Liberals in the province is rabid. More Quebeckers tuned into the televised hearings of the Gomery Commission than any other viewer in the land. It was the reality TV of La Belle Province and it’s going to cost Paul Martin a bundle in votes on January 23rd.

I think the success of the Bloc and the question of independence is an interesting political phenomenon. Here you have a federally elected party taking full advantage of the system as it exists, yet standing up for separation, if and when it suits them, particularly during an election campaign. But voting for the Bloc, if you happen to have the geographic advantage of doing so, will only accomplish one thing: it will make you feel better.

It’s a safe choice and every good thinking member of the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois knows it. It’s a promise instead of a commitment. Just like in high school when Ken was too young to marry Barbie, so instead of an engagement ring he gave her a promise ring.

Trouble is, promises are sometimes broken; especially by politicians.

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

Reinforcements

2005-12-05T19:47:00.000-05:00

I suppose you need all the help you can get when you run an election campaign. Volunteers, money, office space and telephones are essential to a candidate’s success. You might seek advice from the people you trust, such as campaign workers, party members and veterans from previous elections.

In the province of Ontario, where the Conservative Party always finishes second in a Federal election, party members have gone a step further and looked to the United States for help. In this case, from the National Rifle Association.

That’s right: the NRA, one of the most powerful lobby groups in Washington.

Who’s behind all this? Larry Whitmore, director of sport development for the Canadian Shooting Sports Association. Whitmore wants to help the Conservatives win some “swing ridings” in Ontario. He’s asked a member of the NRA to give a seminar during the election in order to “teach us to be more politically active and effective at the grassroots level”.

While the NRA is mum about the contents of their upcoming lecture for members of the CSSA, the general comment from them is the need to share information for gun owners around the world, “with its message that freedom and liberty ought not to be infringed”. Indeed, is that the kind of message Canadians want to hear? Well, based on the campaign so far, no.

I’m no expert, but the last time I checked, freedom and liberty had nothing to do with guns.

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

Yellow Journalism

2005-12-01T20:02:00.000-05:00

Today, the NY Times published a story with the following headline, “U.S. Is Said to Pay to Plant Articles in Iraq Papers”. It was written by Jeff Gerth and Garth Shane. It’s the story of how the Pentagon was connected to an article called, The Sands Are Blowing Toward A Democratic Iraq. It was prepared by the United States military and translated into Arabic before being published in an Iraqi newspaper.

The article itself was written in the style of the region, calling on the will of Muhammad and offering readers a critique of the critics of the Iraq war. It suggested that the critics were wrong and that Iraq was on its way to a democracy.

The story was on ABC’s Nightline program where one interviewee played it safe and said, “You show the world you're not living by the principles you profess to believe in, and you lose all credibility,". No shit! It’s not about being credible, it’s about winning: pure, plain and simple.

The history of American Imperialism is full of examples of misleading information, like the sinking of two American ships in the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964, and the killing of babies in incubators during the first Gulf War. The former is commonly known as a false flag operations. The latter is propaganda, because it was proven by CBS on 60 Minutes, that a public relations firm, working for the Pentagon, made it all up.

So what does this mean?

Modern warfare requires a variety of weapons: real and imagined. It also requires rumour and myth. As Hiram Johnson put it many years ago: the first casualty when war comes is truth.

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

NY Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/01/politics/01propaganda.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5094&en=3af8aaf9fa1cb0bc&hp&ex=1133499600&partner=homepage

Prince's Trust

2005-11-29T18:37:00.000-05:00

Prince Edward Island is one of the most beautiful and picturesque provinces in Canada. It is also one of the most politically astute island communities in the country. Yesterday the electorate had a plebiscite on electoral reform. It was combination of the traditional "first past the post" system with proportional representation. Voters would essentially vote twice: once for the candidate and then for a runner up based on the percentage of votes in the pool. Seventeen members would have been elected in districts across the Island in the standard system. Ten more seats would have been awarded by the popular vote.

The people voted NO to this type of electoral reform. The spin from the Premier's office was that they weren't "ready" for the change. The Yes side, and they did have two camps arguing the case, said the government wasn't selling the proposition very well.
You have to understand that PEI’s politics is not run-of-the-mill. Everybody participates. The voter turn out in provincial elections is usually around 80 percent of eligible voters. That's a higher participation rate the Federal vote and considerably higher than most provinces.

The residents of PEI enjoy the process. They talk amongst themselves and they argue politics over the dinner table and picket fences. Perhaps the change in the system isn't strong enough or the people of PEI are satisfied that they are being heard by their government. Meanwhile, in the rest of Canada, the notion of proportional representation is popular. It even made the platform of the Federal NDP and has been discussed in Ontario. For some reason, the Conservatives are mum on the issue, which seems strange because it would favour them immensely.

One thing is certain: some Canadians aren't ready for electoral reform.

Pity.

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

My Sharona

2005-11-24T19:29:00.000-05:00

It’s been an interesting week in the political life of Ariel Sharon, Prime Minister of Israel. He quit the Likud Party that he founded 30 years ago, called an election and has the confidence to run as a candidate with a whole new party. Sharon’s confidence is as big as his waistline, it appears, as he tries to fend off the opposition under his own resources.

I suspect the death of Yassir Arafat has a lot to do with the decision. Sharon’s chief adversary is dead and now he can rule the country without wasting resources on the Palestinians. Another factor is the strength of his popularity in Israel. Clearly, he wouldn’t have called an election or quit the party if he didn’t think he could win. No leader in a parliamentary democracy ever calls an election unless victory was assured.

Note the name of his new party: the National Responsibility Party. [I wonder if we can start a Canadian version?] Seriously, Sharon has quietly turned the political corner this year. His objectives to finding a peaceful relationship with the Palestinians must be taken at face value. Perhaps he truly does want to be remembered as the great peacemaker in the Middle East. He’s certainly very popular and generally liked by the electorate, but unlike Willy Loman, “is he well liked?” We’ll find out next March.

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

Size Matters

2005-11-21T18:37:00.000-05:00

The City of Toronto has been under the architectural scrutiny of its municipal council in the past couple of weeks. Two extremely tall structures were denied construction because the local residents were against it. Suddenly, the community has won a couple of victories over bad design and poor location. I guess some of the people of Toronto have seen enough of skyscrapers for now. [tall condos have already ruined the waterfront]

Alas, this has not been a pleasant week for the ideas of two developers, including one Harry Stinson, the brash entrepreneur who buys up downtown lots and former bank towers only to convert them into a studio apartments for the “traveling set”. He wanted to put a new 91 story building right downtown near City Hall. The community rejected the plan.

Similarly, a 75 story tower was proposed for the site beside the Royal Ontario Museum in the posh University and Bloor neighbourhood. It too, was soundly defeated in a community meeting the week before. The people spoke up. The city councilors listened and the shovels never made to the ground. But some business people, politicians and the Globe and Mail newspaper think it was a mistake. They complain about the lack of downtown residents to liven up the city. They suggest that tall buildings are symbolic of a great city like Hong Kong or New York.

I always thought that great cities were made up of neighbourhoods. Places where people raised families and shared cultural ideas. Communities where ethnicity was accepted at face value and encouraged for its European ties and great food.

All politics is local, someone once retorted. While the view from an office tower is very pleasant at sundown, the real vision is on the streets with the people on the ground.

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

Chocolate Boisclair

2005-11-18T19:28:00.000-05:00

André Boisclair is the new leader of Canada’s premiere separatist party, the Parti Quebecois. He’s young, handsome, gay and a former cocaine user. He was raised in Outremont, known as the richer side of Montreal, went to the finest schools in Canada and the United States and now leads the party built by René Levesque.

Once again, another intellectual takes the Quebec stage and tries to do the right thing. This has been the case since Levesque was first elected in 1976: Quebec independence. Even though he stalled during the leadership campaign, Boisclair owned-up when he won it by declaring an independence vote in his first term. Trouble is, he has to be elected Premier first then the question will rise up again like Dracula and try to quench its thirst with a Yes vote for sovereignty association or some constitutional configuration.

At this point, it’s all in the future, but at least Boisclair will have the time to write a clear question requiring a Yes or No answer. In 1980, Levesque and the Yes side were soundly defeated. In 1995, Jacques Parizeau, and the Yes side were narrowly defeated. Could a third attempt finally push the independence question over the top?

It all depends on how people feel about themselves at the time. The question of Quebec independence relies on an individual’s circumstances, economically and socially speaking. The power lies in feeling you’re a part of something better. This is usually experienced at massive rallies in hockey rinks. But once you step into the ballot box, it’s a solitary experience. You might panic and vote No or you might hold your nose and vote Yes or you might spoil the ballot in disgust.

The new leader has to make supporters feel that they’re not voting in isolation. Self-determination is a highly intellectual and liberating process. It’s up to Boisclair to remind his constituents and the people of Quebec that supporting independence will make them feel better.

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

Minority Report

2005-11-14T20:34:00.000-05:00

Canada’s loyal opposition is in the hunt for an election. Stephen Harper, Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe are anxious to go to the polls, hoping to find the oasis of democracy to quench their collective thirst for a vote.

Well, the people aren’t so ready, having little faith in the leaders, their platforms and their rhetoric. But the real issue facing the opposition is who’s going to be the election scapegoat? Not one leader wants to be burdened with the fall of the government because it will not bode well during the campaign. Some voters will lay the blame on them and vote Liberal. Others will simply stay home. [that much can be predicted]

So Messrs. Harper, Layton and Duceppe try to spread the blame by introducing a motion to suggest a January vote. The government, led by Prime Minister Paul Martin, isn’t interested because they know that the party that pulls the plug in a non-confidence vote will take a political beating.

It’s one of those, “shit or get off the pot” scenarios, too and it all proves the point that our federal leaders lack any vision of what this country should be and where it should be going. All they discuss is how to manage the country, not to any specific idea of what Canada should look like in the future.

Keep an eye out for these confusing messages about management. They’re often disguised as a vision, but they’re not. Alas, the days of Trudeau, Levesque, Pearson, Douglas, and Diefenbaker are long gone. They were passionate men with a vision, whether you agreed with it or not, offering voters a real choice. The only choice the people have now is whether or not to vote.

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

Liberty Balance

2005-11-11T11:08:00.000-05:00

This past Wednesday, Tony Blair suffered a major defeat, according to the press, after “losing” a decision that would have increased powers to the police. The legislation has to do with the fight on terror, British style, and to allow police to hold “terror” suspects, without charge for 14 days. Blair, in his wisdom, wanted to change that number to 90, but his government was out voted and the number was reduced to 28. This means that police can arrest a person they suspect has broken the law for four weeks without charging them with a particular crime.

The United States has a similar law, passed 45 days after September 11, 2001. It’s called the Patriot Act. Although approved by congress, most of the senators and representatives didn’t read it. Similar legislation exists in Britain, but it looks like their MPs take the time to think about the implications of such laws.

The mainstream media missed the real story by emphasizing the political implications for the Prime Minister of Britain. What they need to report on is the increasing number of laws passed over the last 4 years that restrict civil liberties. The Patriot Act, so named in the best Orwellian language, was only noted briefly by the press because the shock of the terrorist attacks on NYC was still fresh in their minds. What better than to quickly pass highly restrictive legislation when everyone is looking the other way. [some might call this a weapon of mass distraction]

Benjamin Franklin once said, “they that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Clearly, our notions of how safe we feel are completely subjective, be it walking down a dark alley at night or boarding an airplane. How certain can we be?

In Britain they need 28 days to be sure.

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

Let Them Eat Cake

2005-11-07T18:40:00.000-05:00

The violence in the streets of Paris continues as tempers flare and the government sends in the police to make arrests and control the outcome. The spark of the riots was literally due to two students who died at a power station in Clichy-sous-Bois, north of Paris. They were electrocuted after trying to escape a police chase. Apparently, the police are not claiming responsibility for their actions. Regardless, it’s often a simple misunderstanding that starts major conflicts because some people are already feeling angry.

In France, the land of fine cheese and wine, political protests are part of its history. The revolution beginning in 1789, had a similar start. It was a reaction to the changing face of the country: a call to rule by the people instead of the monarchy. Other causes included the changing economic face of the nation and the growing separation between the rich and the poor.

Today, it’s a similar scene: a growing resentment of the ruling order, a rising number of poor people and, most importantly, the struggle of the ethnic class. Like the outdated feudalism of the 18th Century, the people, especially those who are Muslims, are looking for equality. They want economic fairness and racial equity within the existing system. The riots of the past couple weeks are symptoms of the greater problem.

Civil disobedience is a better method of political protest. In fact, a recent march of 1,000 people last Saturday proved to the world a growing number of local residents want change. It took some courage to march through the very territory where all this is happening. On the other hand, one can understand why the pent up anger is fueling these riots but that doesn’t excuse the perpetrators.

France has a long history of practical, political ideas. What it needs now is a little reason over passion.

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

November 7th marks an important birthday. In 1879, Leon Trotsky was born Lev Davidovich Bronstein. He died in Mexico in 1940.

The World According to Gomery

2005-11-03T21:28:00.000-05:00

In 1995, when the Quebec referendum was held, Jean Chretien put everything he could into a political campaign to save the federation known as Canada. It worked, barely, as the No side won a victory as thin as a razor blade, in a vote against sovereignty association. [That vote was held October 30, 1995]

Chretien, in order to keep the federation united, took on the personal responsibility of running a program to promote the national government in Quebec. The purpose was two-fold: maintain a federal presence in the province and boost the local Liberal Party's failing support. In other words, fly more Canadian flags.

Unfortunately, the plan backfired. Instead of boosting federalism, Chretien hired the wrong people, all of whom wanted to work the system to their advantage. They were caught by an audit in 2004, for misuse of public funds, kickback schemes and a lot of free lunches. The Gomery Report released this week, followed months of hearings into the fiasco. Over 1,400 pages of testimony and documentation revealed the mess, commonly known as the "sponsorship scandal".

While it's still too early to judge who is guilty, I find it ironic that Chretien’s efforts to maintain good relations with Quebec came back and bit him on the ass.

He carried the weight of every federalist Canadian on his shoulders for several weeks in 1995 and Chretien couldn't let it go. He did his best to maintain a federal presence in Quebec and he failed. The pundits will probably say that it’s the greatest political failure of his career.

Future leaders should pay heed to the warning: don't mess with Quebec because it’s a fragile relationship that often needs a little TLC, instead of more flags.

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

Libby's Beans

2005-10-31T18:28:00.000-05:00

“Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.” Sir Walter Scott

Lewis “Scooter” Libby resigned last week amid charges of perjury, obstruction of justice and making false statements. As a member of the Bush gang’s inner circle, he’s probably just a fall guy for Dick Cheney. Somebody has to go, so why not an underling in the White House; a man who’s position is high enough in the government to look like the person who exposed a CIA agent [Valerie Plame]. But if Libby is all that he’s cracked up to be, then he has to be as smart and savvy as the guy he worked for, Richard Cheney.

So, doesn’t it stand to reason that the real culprit is the Vice President? Think about it: Cheney is the man who, it’s generally agreed, runs the White House. He had the means and motive to spoil one critic of the Iraq War, directly. You have to remember that 24 months ago, the war had already started. Bush gave out his rationale for invading Iraq and the Patriot Act had been passed. Clearly, Cheney is the brains behind the operation and the one who was pissed off at a dissenter, namely Joseph Wilson.

Are the members of the Bush gang vindictive? You bet they are and they choose their targets poorly. By naming a CIA operative, a capital offense, they snapped back like the passive aggressive behaviour of badger. The Press rolled over on Afghanistan and Iraq so they were under control. But a former ambassador in a simple op-ed article gets nailed because he pissed off a member of the gang.

As far as Libby is concerned, the charges are clear: he lied to a Grand Jury. He should have heeded Mark Twain’s advice: If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything.

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

Accounting Error

2005-10-27T22:10:00.000-04:00

“I wish that the American people knew more about what is happening with respect to the toll of this war, because I think it's a lot bigger and a lot more troubling than most people know. “ Mark Benjamin, UPI reporter, 2004.

The American count of dead soldiers, turned 2000 the other day, marked by more violence in Iraq and a strange sense of continuity in Washington. Once a war starts, people get used to it. If they didn’t then war would never happen. Alas, we’re not quite there yet.

Our disconnect with the dying people of Iraq is our worst enemy, not some terrorist. This faceless enemy type of propaganda has been going on for centuries; it’s essential to the success of any war, especially an illegal one. In fact, the technology of warfare has taken the human element out of it altogether. We no longer fight on battlefields, hand-to-hand, face-to-face. Consequently, we can’t make a human connection with the so-called enemy.

Perhaps we can connect in financial terms. The running total cost of the Iraq war is over $203 Billion and counting. All that money being syphoned from the U.S. taxpayer faster than you can say, “no new taxes”.

The number of Iraqi dead stands around 30,000 and it’s no longer reported on the 6:30 News. Much like the descriptions of the Vietcong, the other side isn’t human; a mass of aliens out to “get our boys”, [those bastards!] No face on the enemy, means continuous war. Sadly, we’ve grown accustomed to it.

That’s just my opinion. I could be wrong

The Quiet Life

2005-10-24T20:17:00.000-04:00

This past weekend I was in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada attending an education conference. It was a long time between visits but I was happy to be returning considering how little the city has changed: it’s a “big”, small-town, as it were.

I met my longtime friend Dan, who brought me up to date on his life, keeping busy producing his own documentary films and working as a nurse in a group home.
I like our visits because we never seem to be affected by time; every visit feels like it was just yesterday when we last met. It’s good to have friends like that because they help bring you down to earth.

We got to talking about the notion of personal introspection and the need for human beings to "think." We agreed that the technologies of cellphones, computers, television and iPods, have really taken all that time away from us, historically speaking. Said Dan, “in the old days when were gatherers, once we did our daily chores we sat in the jungle and thought. We weren’t distracted by technology the way we are today.”

This got me to thinking about our society’s infatuation with the digital toys and our neglect of the world’s environment. I realized this as I drove through the Ottawa Valley passing farm after farm. We’ve lost touch with our organic connection with the earth. We don’t grow the food we eat and we don’t participate in the nurturing of the planet. We consume and let someone else handle the planting and the harvesting.

Consequently, I think it’s important for us to pause and pay our respects to the farmer and people of the land. We seem to take them for granted yet they are intelligent business owners who have strong intuitions and acute senses, particularly their sense of smell. While I wouldn’t be able to trade my city life for the country that quickly, at least I gave it some thought and I’ll try to do so in the future.

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

Saddam's Trial

2005-10-17T21:06:00.000-04:00

This week the trial of Saddam Hussein begins in Baghdad, the place where it all started for him, over 20 years ago.

It’s going to be interesting to watch, assuming we get the chance. There was talk that it would be broadcast on television, but that wasn’t confirmed at the time of this writing. Regardless, the thing to watch for is spin: political and legal.

The American government will try and make themselves look like victims rather than antagonists, considering their support for Saddam from 1980 to 1988 during the Iran/Iraq war. Don’t be surprised to hear George W. Bush talk about a “fair trial”. That’s doublespeak meaning Saddam won’t get one.

It all depends on what Saddam is asked, rather than on what he says. Will the prosecution ask him about the 8 year relationship with the United States? or will they stick to his crimes after 1988? It seems likely that the prosecution is going to stick to the 1982 massacre at Dujail, where 150 Shiites were executed and 1,500 imprisoned without trial, at least to start. Where it goes from there, is anybody’s guess.

One of the things we don’t know, is whether Saddam is coherent. He’s been in jail for nearly 2 years, essentially in solitary confinement with few visits from members of his family. Don’t be surprised to see him portrayed as mentally unstable or senile by the media. Again, more spin.

The fact of the matter is this: the former dictator committed crimes against his own people, directly or indirectly. It will be up to us to understand the complicity of the American government in his rise as dictator. This information is key to understanding the history of the region, the US government’s invasion in 2003 and the corporate and political partners. Nobody ever gets to the top without some help.

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

A Noble Nobel Prize

2005-10-13T19:05:00.000-04:00

Last week the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Mohamed el Baradei and the International Atomic Energy Agency. Once again the politics of peace and nuclear weapons inspections made the news, but only for a short time.

A colleague asked me if the choice was a slap in the face of the Bush gang, since the IAEA repeatedly said that Iraq had no weapons of the mass destruction. This was clear in February 2003 when the United States tried to justify the invasion because Iraq had nukes and germs and chemicals to throw around. I remember el Baradei’s address to the UN Security Council: it was clear, concise and direct.

“As I have reported on numerous occasions, the IAEA concluded, by December 1998, that it had neutralized Iraq's past nuclear program and that, therefore, there were no unresolved disarmament issues left at that time. Hence, our focus since the resumption of our inspections in Iraq, two and a half months ago, has been verifying whether Iraq revived its nuclear program in the intervening years.

We have to date found no evidence of ongoing prohibited nuclear or nuclear related activities in Iraq.”

The US government made a choice regardless of what the IAEA reported. “Facts are stupid things” Ronald Reagan once said, and the Bush gang wasn’t interested in facts, only invasion. Their performance at the UN in 2003, starring Colin Powell, was a distraction, designed to give the Pentagon more time to mobilize its forces for the invasion. They were going in regardless of the truth, and in spite of the United Nations.

Should we be surprised by the Empire’s motives and moves? No. The United States government is the last imperial power in the world. They conquer when they need to support the crumbling economy of the rich.

It’s all about turning millionaires into billionaires. And I don’t mean sardines!

Bush 10, Bloomberg 1

2005-10-10T11:30:00.000-04:00

Fear is on sale in the United States, once again.

Last Thursday, George W. Bush said “10 serious al-Qaeda terrorist plans have been detected and disrupted by the U.S. and its allies since the devastating attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.”

The Mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg said that the city’s subway system was the target of an attack in the next few days. This according to the FBI and the Chief of Police, Raymond Kelly. Naturally, they won’t disclose details and the Press won’t ask them.

Much like the fish monger who sells fish, these guys are selling fear.

The fear mongering goes up when the popularity polls are down and support for the war in Iraq erodes. But what’s really going on here? More weapons of mass distraction perhaps? Consider a story in the news regarding Karl Rove, the President’s manager. He’s been requested to testify in the Valerie Plame case without immunity. It could mean another embarrassment for the Bush Gang.

George W. is a bad salesman. He’s comparing the fight on terrorism with the fight against Communism. Will the real Joseph McCarthy please stand up? [Are you now or have you ever been a terrorist?]

Meanwhile, Bloomberg increases the number of uniformed and plain clothes policemen on the New York subway. You could consider him the soft speaker with a big stick. The constitutional freedoms are eroding in the United States, as the fear mongers push their products on a populace that seems willing to buy, in bulk.

I wish people were more skeptical of their leaders. They should remember the old consumer chestnut, “caveat emptor”, that is, “buyer beware” when it comes to the products their leaders sell.

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

Oil Slick

2005-10-06T17:30:00.000-04:00

Yesterday, a special conference was held in New York City, called, Petrocollapse: Social isolation or solidarity? Now there’s a question you won’t hear anyone ask on CNN or Meet The Press.

It was an all day affair featuring some expert speakers all talking about the age of the end of Oil. [I could not attend, unfortunately] While I wouldn’t usually mention an event without some political “hook”, this one seems important for several reasons.

First, it was a public meeting. Public meetings are community builders and the issue of peak Oil is political. The participants/experts have nothing to hide. When was the last time an individual was invited to participate in an OPEC meeting?

Second, it was not covered by the mainstream media corporations. So the only way to find out about this important information, was to attend or hope that somebody produced a podcast of the conference. [I understand they were working on it]

Third, they asked the hard questions about Oil reserves, economic fallout when the reserves dry up and the implications for people around the world. This was the “first” peak oil conference of its kind in New York. I hope there is another one, soon.

One of the participants was Michael Ruppert, a journalist, ex-LAPD detective and founder of fromthewilderness.com. [Click on alternative news for more info] He released the text of his address to the meeting and the news is not good. He outlines the history of peak oil going back to a CIA report in 1977. He includes a short analysis of US government legislation all designed to limit debate, centralize power and mobilize the military for the coming economic crisis. The mismanagement, says Ruppert, will lead us to an economic crash. “It is a crash that has actually been encouraged for some time through reckless fiscal policy, soaring deficits both in Washington and in our balance of payments accounts, the unbridled and inexcusable inflation of the housing bubble, expansion of consumer credit and a negative net savings rate to name a few. “

I hope that I’ve peaked your interest in peak oil.

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

For more information on the conference, try: www.Petrocollapse.org/

Louis's Endgame

2005-10-03T08:45:00.000-04:00

When I was obtaining my degree in university, many years ago, I minored in Sociology. The first year looked at the sociopolitical and economic systems in the world. Second year consisted of media analysis and the third year was simply titled, Social Change. All of these classes were from a radical perspective. [My first year prof was a draft dodger from the United States]

In third year, my professor for social change was Louis Feldhammer. A passionate left winger who liked to smoke in class. He didn’t suffer fools gladly. In fact, on the first day of classes he asked anyone who wasn’t interested in hearing his POV, to leave and try another instructor. I think two people actually walked out, but they may have been in the wrong room.

I always looked forward to Louis’s class. He had a dry wit and cynical attitude about the world, but it was a refreshing change from some of the idealists in the university system. Louis told it like it was, but had some trouble when we asked him about Ireland. This was over 20 years ago, when the violence in Belfast was high and the Londonderry bombings were at their worst. At that time, there seemed no end in sight to the conflict.

If Louis was in a good mood, which was rare, he would dispense with his lesson plan and take questions. He spoke of Poland and the revolutionary changes going on in Warsaw. He always talked about the Ronald Reagan’s “Hollywood America” and occasionally had a comment about Quebec independance.

One day, someone piped up and asked him to talk about Ireland. Louis shrugged, rubbed his eyes, lit a cigarette and said, “I simply can’t talk about the Irish question. It’s too complicated and it runs too deep, personally speaking.” He never spoke of it again and we never asked him.

I wonder what Louis thinks of the latest development regarding the IRA’s disarmament program, now officially in place. I suspect he would be happy and relieved, but still a healthy skeptic. The peaceful developments in Ireland, over the past few years, have been remarkably sensible. The two sides have been patient and brave: a lethal combination in times of war, but an even stronger force in times of peace.

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

Black Gold, Texas Tea

2005-09-29T17:10:00.000-04:00

Oil is one of our most prized resources. It has brought us everything from the invention of plastic, the development of drugs and the freedom to drive anywhere we choose.

Oil as a commodity has brought war, political corruption and corporate expediency to the world. On Tuesday, Lukoil, the largest Russian Oil company, opened its first office in Beijing, China. This event, which won’t make the headlines over here, sets the political and economic agenda of the next few decades. China is the second largest oil consumer after the United States and they’re doing something about it at home and abroad.

For example, China expressed interest in buying up Unicol’s share of Exxon Mobil, but that deal was squashed just before close. China has a deal with Nigeria, signed in July, that consists of 30,000 barrels a day in exports from the African nation. Lukoil’s deal includes the shipment of oil from Kazakhstan to the China Sea by pipeline. They hope to be operational by the end of the year. China also signed a deal with the province of Alberta for a piece of the action in tar sands development in western Canada.

Meanwhile, in North America, gasoline prices rise, refineries close and the Gulf platform drillers try to recover from two of the worst hurricanes ever. It can only mean that an energy crisis is coming and it’s going to be worse than the one we had in the mid-70s. Since we depend on oil to drive the economy, as it were, the economic bubble is about to burst, especially in the United States. Just ask Alan Greenspan, the king of understatement, who recently admitted that the Federal deficit is too high and certain borrowers and lenders could be exposed to significant losses. He should have told us to stop living beyond our means, pay off the credit cards and sell the SUV.

But to understand the oil business is to understand our world politically and economically, but it’s not easy. There’s a lot of manufactured confusion out there.

George Bush, Condoleezza Rice and Dick Cheney all come from big oil. Ironically, they probably understand the coming crisis better than most people. Even Bush asked his fellow Americans to start conserving gasoline the other day. [That was remarkable]

So, if the gang in Washington, DC is quivering in their boots, the rest of us may be shivering in our beds this winter.

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

Generally Speaking

2005-09-26T09:46:00.000-04:00

It is remarkable how important one’s allegiances are when you become the Governor General of this country.

Tomorrow, Canada is going to get a new GG, Michaelle Jean. She was born in Haiti, grew up in Montreal, took up a career in journalism and has worked for Radio-Canada and the CBC. She’s also fluent in five languages, and holds a French passport. Yet for some Canadians she’s not good enough.

Once again a deeper issue rises to the surface: racism.

Canada is a tolerant but quietly chauvinistic country. The appointment of the Governor General always brings this feeling to light. Adrienne Clarkson, the outgoing GG, received criticism when she was appointed in 1999. In fact, she was constantly condemned for spending too much money and going on goodwill trips abroad that weren’t appropriate for her position, regardless of their success.

The controversy started for Jean when it was discovered that she and her French born husband, were in sympathy with Quebec separatism. Later, she had to renounce the political position she once had ten years ago in order to be “approved” for the GG appointment. Yesterday she had to renounce her French citizenship in order to get the job. [According to the rules, you can’t have dual citizenship]

Why is it that a country that celebrates its multiculturalism still insists in the purity of the Queen’s representative? Some of us have trouble with the notion of a new Canadian taking a very traditional job within our political system. The older generation prefers an older British-looking male for the role, while the younger set prefer a person of today.

Surely we can rise above this chauvinistic attitude and celebrate the appointment of Michaelle Jean for what she brings to the position.

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

Audit This

2005-09-21T17:45:00.000-04:00

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is entering its 39th day of a lockout of its 5,500 employees. When the lockout ends, and it will mercifully end in the near future, we’ll need to take stock and assess where the CBC is now and where it will go next.

We need a fresh beginning and the best way to start is an audit of the CBC.

An audit is a process with strict standards and conducted in the service of Canada’s parliament. The office of the Auditor General reports to the House of Commons, not to the government or any political party. The Auditor General seeks to reveal the financial activities of public institutions. As they say “independent information, advice and assurance to help hold the government to account for its stewardship of public funds.”

The CBC is one such public institution.

According to the Financial Administration Act, most Crown corporations are audited every 5 years. This is called a “performance” audit. A “financial” audit, is performed annually, just like any self-respecting corporation in the public or private sector. According to the Auditor General's Communications contact, a special "examination report [read performance audit] will be issued shortly'. They will also include the lockout time frame into the next financial audit, which is due in May of 2006.

An audit of the CBC can provide management, workers and the public with valuable information about its operations. From this understanding, the CBC can move forward in a progressive and non-combative manner. For far too long the “Us vs Them “ mentality surrounding negotiations seems outdated and outmoded as a means of settling contracts. The climate created between upper management and the union is one of anger, distrust and bitterness.

Once this lockout is over, the CBC’s upper management VPs must resign, because they’ve failed to provide the kind of direction worthy of a public broadcaster. The leadership of the CMG must be respectfully retired, because they are burned out.

It’s time to move into the 21st century with new people. We need a common goal to serve the public and not the dollar; to service ideas and not chase ratings. Only by making a completely fresh start with younger, qualified and energized people, will the CBC be able to continue to do its job effectively. Otherwise it’s business as usual, and that's unacceptable.

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

Educating Korea

2005-09-19T12:06:00.000-04:00

The story of North Korea’s cooperation to “abandon” the development of nuclear weapons marks real progress and an end to the strong-armed tactics by the Bush gang in the region. The deal was negotiated by several countries including China, Japan and Russia. Remember, North Korea is part of the "axis of evil", according to President Bush.

Meanwhile, Starbucks has announced a 5 million dollar promotion fund for education in China. According to Howard Schultz, chair of the company, “ it mirrors what we did in the past 25 years in America in creating profitability and balancing that with a social conscience." I’ve often found that the odds are always tipped in favour of the house, when it comes to corporate social responsibility. Starbucks, the great American invader, needs more outlets. Apparently, they only have 140 stores which really means that the Chinese just aren’t being served! [This looks like a bribe to me.]

North Korea has to have a deal: its bureaucracy is starving the people and isolating it from the rest of the world. China is slowly becoming the leader in world economics. North Korea is a neighbour of China and good neighbours need to get along in order to keep the peace and open for business. Maybe Starbucks will set up a 5 million dollar education fund in Pyongyang.

Bush has to reconsider his “axis of evil” notion of world politics. When he said it in 2002, Saddam was still in power in Iraq, and North Korea was being sold as an evil empire with missiles capable of hitting the American midwest. The case against Iran is still under construction by the Pentagon.

So, no more tea in China, no more nukes in North Korea and all is right with the world. Time for a frappuccino: after all, it’s the American Way.

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

Poll to Pole

2005-09-16T15:52:00.000-04:00

The BBC has recently released a poll of more than 50,000 people in 68 countries. It was conducted by Gallup and called the International Voice of the People Poll 2005. Considering the size of the sample and the BBC’s desire to put world opinion on the front page, this is an important story.

Are the people still hoping to rule the world some day? This poll by the Beeb says it all depends on where you live and how much control you have over your life. Sixty-five percent say that their country is "not" run by the will of the people. Over half say that their country’s elections are "not " free and fair. And most notably, those polled preferred more intellectuals or religious leadership with fewer military and business people and journalists at the top. Key to the third item was the inclusion of journalists. [Ouch!]

Key to the second item was the American result: Fifty per cent of US citizens trust religious leaders and 40% would give them more power. Are you sure you want a guy like Pat Robertson for President? Wait a minute, you already have a religious leader!

I like polls like these because they prove “We the people” never get the governments we deserve. We judge politicians on what they say rather than what they do and we often have memory lapses on election day. Perhaps we should heed the poll and ask for higher standards next time.

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

The BBC series, based on the poll, is called: Who Runs the World? For more information try:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/09_september/15/world.shtml

The Ghost of Tom Jakobek

2005-09-14T17:22:00.000-04:00

Politics...It asks for the highest type of men, and there’s nothing in it to attract the highest type of men. So we have to work with what we get, and we get things like this.

[From The Lady in the Lake by Raymond Chandler, 1943.]

Tom Jakobek was a long time elected member of Toronto’s City Council. He served as a Councilor from 1982 to 2000. Among his many responsibilities, he served as Chair of the Budget Committee beginning in 1990. The position as Budget Chief is considered the third most powerful position at city hall. He ran unsuccessfully for the office of Mayor in 2003 after working for East General Hospital, in Toronto, as its Vice-president.

This past week, it was revealed that Jakobek, while Budget Committee Chair, had taken money, under the table, for a computer leasing contract with the City of Toronto and a company called MFP Financial Services. After an extensive hearing and investigation costing 19.2 million dollars CDN, Jakobek was accused of “flagrant, strategic lying.” He was called to the stand many times to explain a $25,000 payment he received from Dash Domi, a salesman with MFP, who secured the lucrative computer contract with the city.

Jakobek’s political ghost has come back to haunt the people of Toronto. When he was active in municipal politics, he did the glad-handing, baby-kissing and community picnics without much flare. To many, he was a stubborn chair of the budget committee, often losing control of meetings and his temper. Yet, he kept getting reelected every 3 years as a City Councilor in the Beaches neighbourhood of Toronto. Perhaps he mastered the craft of municipal politics: perform a good service for the riding, make sure your election literature has good photograph of it, and hope voters forget your performance at council meetings.

Now we know why voters become apathetic and the right people never step up to perform their civic duty, there’s nothing in it.

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

Exit Strategy

2005-09-13T17:22:00.000-04:00

Today is the 29th day of a lockout imposed by CBC management on its 5,500 workers across Canada. The CBC is Canada’s public broadcaster operating since 1936, with three principle streams: radio, television and on-line. It has been a qualitative and intelligent source of information for Canadians and people around the world. It has survived strikes, budget cutbacks and lockouts since its inception.

The Canadian Media Guild [CMG] represents the workers. This is the first work stoppage in the 53 year association with the CBC.

But like the Bush gang’s invasion of Iraq, CBC’s upper management decided to lock out its staff, before they could strike. This is a kind of unexpected preemptive move, designed to get the upper hand in future negotiations. However, resistance has been stronger than anticipated. The union has proven itself a powerful force by seeking and getting the support of Canadians, politicians and other unions from the civil service to the steelworkers.

Clearly, the Neo-con managers at the CBC underestimated their opponent. They sought to divide and conquer the workers and failed to recognize the CMG’s collective strength. Now that CBC workers are into the 29th day of a management imposed lock out, the question becomes: what is management’s exit strategy? How will they demonstrate good will, leadership and vision, after the staff has been mistreated this way? This could used as the CMG’s ace that wins the last hand of poker.

The CMG, which has the support of its members, needs the best deal possible because the workers have had enough. I can faithfully say, based on my participation on the line, the locked out staff will not reject any contract. I wonder if the management negotiating committee knows this? It could be used as Management’s ace that wins the last hand of poker.

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

The Life of Brian

2005-09-12T19:15:00.000-04:00

Peter C. Newman, long time historian and writer of all things Canadian, is about to release a book featuring the wit and wisdom of Brian Mulroney, one time Prime Minister of this great country and a Baie Comeau street-fighting man through and through.

Newman’s book features selective portions of 7,400 pages of interview transcripts he conducted with Mulroney over a period of several decades. Apparently he interviewed him 98 times. Newman and Mulroney go back to 1961, when they first met and hit it off. Can you imagine talking to this guy, this long? Excerpts appeared in the Globe and Mail this morning as penned by Roy McGregor.

The book should receive the Stephen Leacock award for humour because it sounds like a hilarious collection of outrageous commentary from Canada’s most hated PM. Said Mulroney on his place in history, “By the time history is done looking at this and you look at my achievements as opposed to any others certainly no one will be in Sir John A’s league; but my nose will be a little ahead of most in terms of achievements...you cannot name a Canadian prime minister who has done as many significant things as I did, because there are none.” That’s funny, I can name three. [Frankly I thought his chin would be a little ahead of most politicians]

That is what this book will probably be: a version of I did it My Way. To say nothing of the support from loyal party members, the business elite and his own family. I hope Mulroney takes a dose of humility along the way. I may be naive but nobody gets to the top by themselves. You need political support, financial support and a vision. After all, that worked for an ambitious Corporal many years ago.

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

The Politics of Katrina

2005-09-11T14:13:00.000-04:00

This past week a lot of pundits were suggesting that the sluggish response to the people of New Orleans was based on race. I would suggest it echoes the continuing story of the American Civil War. In many ways, America is still a battle of North vs South, rich vs poor. The poor always getting the short end of the stick, be it disaster relief or affordable housing.

The black population of New Orleans are victims of history.

For 300 years, the African American has been treated like a second class citizen in their own country; the post-Katrina rescue efforts only confirm this notion. Yet to suggest that if the hurricane struck north of the Mason-Dixon line, FEMA would have moved faster, and the White House would have acted sooner, is probably correct, but not because of race. It’s because of chauvinism. America is still fighting the Civil War, not on the ground, but in attitude and until the wounds of 1864 are healed, and clearly they’re not, it’s always going to be this way. The elite, privileged North determining what’s best for the South, who are mostly Black, poor and disenfranchised. As Bob Dylan once said, “I saw a black branch with blood that kept dripping”.

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