Trotsky Talk

High Ate Us

noreply@blogger.com (LeonT) — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 23:19:00 +0000

"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

noreply@blogger.com (LeonT) — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 15:48:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (LeonT) — Sun, 28 Jan 2007 18:24:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (LeonT) — Sun, 21 Jan 2007 19:12:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (LeonT) — Sun, 14 Jan 2007 15:38:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (LeonT) — Sun, 07 Jan 2007 21:48:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (LeonT) — Thu, 28 Dec 2006 17:31:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (LeonT) — Sun, 17 Dec 2006 19:57:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (LeonT) — Sun, 10 Dec 2006 17:39:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (LeonT) — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 14:50:00 +0000

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?

noreply@blogger.com (LeonT) — Sun, 26 Nov 2006 16:26:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (LeonT) — Sun, 19 Nov 2006 15:58:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (LeonT) — Sun, 12 Nov 2006 21:33:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (LeonT) — Sun, 05 Nov 2006 20:58:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (LeonT) — Sun, 29 Oct 2006 15:29:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (LeonT) — Sun, 22 Oct 2006 14:49:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (LeonT) — Sun, 15 Oct 2006 13:43:00 +0000

" 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

noreply@blogger.com (LeonT) — Sun, 08 Oct 2006 16:08:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (LeonT) — Sun, 01 Oct 2006 13:27:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (LeonT) — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 14:23:00 +0000

[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

noreply@blogger.com (LeonT) — Sun, 17 Sep 2006 15:06:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (LeonT) — Sun, 10 Sep 2006 13:45:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (LeonT) — Sun, 03 Sep 2006 15:28:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (LeonT) — Sun, 27 Aug 2006 14:00:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (LeonT) — Sun, 20 Aug 2006 13:15:00 +0000

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.