Iran In Latin America!

In this article, Obama has just signed a bill, passed by congress, to counter Iranian influence in Latin America. Although the official text of the bill is secret, one piece of this article sums up the validity and aim of this bill: "senior State Department and intelligence officials have indicated there is no apparent indication of illicit activities by Iran". That quote, along with the bills aim of bolstering security and surveillance at the Mexican and Canadian borders, and within Latin American countries, the text provides for a multi-agency action plan to provide security in those countries, along with a "counterterrorism and counter-radicalisation plan to isolate Iran and its allies", gives the impression that this bill is simply more veiled attempts at increasing domestic surveillance and spying in the American homeland, and increasing militarisation of Latin America under the auspices of global security. We should be reminded by the lessons of history that this is simply not the case, as the decades-long drug war and it's legacy of death, destruction, and rampant human rights violations has taught us.

Policy of a Sheep

Back in April, I had posted here about the Mujahideen-e-Khalq, or MEK, being trained on US soil for insurgency operations aimed at destabilizing Iran. Last week, Stephen Harper's Conservative government dropped the MEK from it's official list of terrorist groups. This is one more step the Harper administration has taken to align itself with a US and Israeli approach to foreign policy concerning the Middle East; a policy that is increasingly hostile to Iran, intent on blocking any Palestinian attempts at a Two-State Solution, and complicit in war crimes committed by Israel. Look at the facts:

-Canada recently severed diplomatic ties by closing it's embassy in Tehran, and expelling Iranian diplomatic staff from Ottawa.
-Canada supported Israeli military action against the Gaza strip during Operation Pillar of Defense (which could have been avoided altogether).
-Canada voted against a UN resolution to upgrade Palestine to non-member observer state status in the United Nations. Canada was joined in the dissenting votes by the United States, Israel, the Czech Republic, and the powerful nations of the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, and Panama. One hundred and thirty-eight nations voted for the measure.

These policies have been a large divergence from the traditional peace-keeping, friendly role that Canada has played in world security, and instead now Harper has taken us on a path aligned with an aggressive, neo-liberal policy perpetrated by the United States. 

Iran Article

Here is an interesting post on the current Iran nuclear issue:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-09-28/guest-post-netanyahu%E2%80%99s-red-line

Save the Beef

With the new E-coli beef recall just initiated in Canada, does anyone ever consider why our beef gets infected with this bacteria as much as it does? I give you the answer:

Industrial farming! Where cows never tread or eat grass, instead they walk all day in their own shit and are fed corn and grain. What part of this picture looks even remotely healthy enough to consider adding to your diet?

One Hard Step Closer To Iran

Canada, or should I say the Conservatives, have suspended diplomatic relations with Iran and expelled all Iranian diplomatic personnel from Canada, as well as closing the Canadian embassy in Tehran. In the increasingly polarized world that is divided between East and West, I'm sad to see the Conservative government getting behind the American and Israeli led smear campaign inflicted on Iran. The fact that Baird even speaks of the Geneva convention, when our neighbour to the south, have constantly been breaking it with threats of military action against Iran. And I further disgusted that they receive praise from Netanyahu, who's government and military is constantly guilty of war crimes and defying declarations by the United Nations and the World Court.

Let me reiterate that there is no direct physical evidence that Iran is attempting to build a nuclear weapon, and that many intelligence agencies have stated they do not believe Iran is and will attempt to do so. I'm curious if there is an ulterior motive in the closing of the embassy in Tehran. Embassies are also used by intelligence agencies to gather intelligence of the government and military of the country they are stationed in. Could this possibly be a way to pull down the blinders a little more on this issue? Will the government, in the future, after Iran has been bombed and no nuclear weapons found, say "we weren't sure and deemed military action worth the risk of preventing a nuclear armed Iran"?

I do agree with Canada's stance on Iranian support for Assaad. I don't agree with it, nor do I agree for support for Hezbollah. I also do no agree with a Zionist-dominated Middle East, nor with a Middle East dominated by cruel regimes supported by US foreign policy. If we are to speak of Human Rights, it is our responsibility to also look at the ones around us who are constantly violating them.

Asian Strategic Posturing

Here's a perfect example of strategic posturing, which can be easily seen when you take two events and fit them together:

First, you have a news article about China and India, two of the world superpowers, agreeing to increase military and strategic cooperation with one another. This move solidifies the two countries' positions in the Asia-Pacific region, and is sure to draw attention from the United States.

Next, two hours later, another news article about US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton calling on ASEAN (Association of South East Asian Nations) to present a united front to China on disputes over the territorial disputes in the South China Sea.

And what does this all mean? China and India are continually increasing their strategic and political position in Asia, and America position in the same area is becoming weaker. In terms of Western economic and strategic dominance of Asia, this cooperation is a nightmare scenario. Both nations have the economic influence to sway position in the Middle East. China and India have been continually dealing with Iran despite the trade sanctions imposed by the US and Europe, one example of how the two powers could present an obstacle to US foreign policy. And in all fairness, China and India have shown just that towards the Middle East, while the US continues to support dictatorships and drop bombs.

Another Straw On the Horse's Back

If the horrible austerity measures being piled on Greece by the European Central Bank, the European Comission, and the IMF weren't enough, now they want to impose a six day work week on the Greeks! Boosting unemployment is going to help them get out of debt?

Example of Privatisation

I am currently watching the documentary "the Corporation", and in it I've found a piece that sums up a horrible case of privatization that the World Bank continually inflicts on the developing world. This case is from Bolivia:

This is exactly how the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, which are both run by the US, impose a neo-liberal agenda on developing nations that have fallen into debt. Money is lent with conditions of privatizing certain resources or markets, which are then invaded by multinational corporations, many times with dire consequences for the local populace, as in this case. More often than not, the governments of these countries are corrupt dictatorships that are supported directly or indirectly by the US.

The current target for this is Greece, which is in such bad financial shape that the Eurozone and IMF is imposing such crippling requirements on the Greek people for a bailout that the future generations will surely be financially crippled, such as a 22% cut in the minimum wage, reduction in pensions, raising the retirement age, and reduction of seniors benefits. And the requirement that proves the point of this post: a $50 billion target for proceeds from the sale of public ports, airports, roads, and energy infrastructure. Who's to say what's next?

Romney's Speech

Here, courtesy of Democracy Now!, is an excerpt of Romney's acceptance speech at the Republic National Convention. I want to pick it apart. First of all, his comment of ensuring freedom of religion can be translated to imposition of religion, due to his stance on pro-life, thus an agenda to eliminate abortion based on religious fundamentals.

"President Obama promised to begin to slow the rise of the world's oceans. And to heal the planet. My promise is to help you and your family."

Between those two comments about Obama's enviornmental policy is bouts of laughter, laughter at the enviromental problems we face. It makes me sad to see this ignorance towards environmental destruction and the obvious global deterioration of fragile ecosystems. It's obvious from this quote that Romney's administration, if elected, would entail more environmental deregulation and emphasis on non-eco-friendly energy sources such as coal and oil. He wants to create jobs, apparently, and the Republican record of the approach to this problem is always deregulation and a golden key for corporations.

"America, he said, had dictated to other nations. No, Mr. President, America has freed other nations from dictators."

Like Iraq? To call Iraq free now is would be sorely irresponsible and ignorant. I would challenge Romney to live the life of a common Iraqi for a month and endure the constant bombing and sectarian violence that plagues the country. He makes more hard line comments about foreign policy toward Iran, which I am highly critical of. And saying Obama has thrown Israel under the bus. I wish this was actually true, because it would mean the end of sole support for a racist regime continuously guilty of war crimes.

There was even a comment on relaxing sanctions on Cuba. The old enemy and barrier to American neo-liberalism in Latin America can expect more harsh treatment from the great superpower under Romney. What can also be expected is further arms racing and clashing with Russia, when Romney reverses the "abandonment" of Poland and re-starts the missile defence shield that Bush initiated during his term. And it's not to defend against Iran, that's an outright lie. The purpose of the missile defence shield in Poland is to nullify Russia's nuclear weapon deterrent, thus removing a barrier to American lead NATO foreign policy. This is inherently dangerous, as Russia will have no choice but to invest in further nuclear arms missile and delivery system research to protect their deterrent to American aggression, thus placing the world further under the shadow of total destruction from nuclear weapons. And there the irony is: the threat to the world by nuclear weapons is not from Iran, it's from American foreign policy.

From Romney's speech I can walk away and simply say this man is Bush 2.0. His rhetoric on freeing people from dictatorship, his hard line stance on Iran, his plans for missile defence, his plans for further antagonism of Russia, his environmental stance, and his economic policy on deregulation is parallel to Bush's policies during his two terms. I believe Romney is dangerous, and will surely be an inhibitor to civil rights advances and the progress towards world peace.

If That Wasn't Enough...

My last post highlighted the problem with the amount of power the military industrial complex holds. If that wasn't enough, Romney wants to give it even more: (click on the picture to enlarge)

Courtesy of Bloomberg Insider's Convention 2012 Issue

His proposed defense budget increase is $400 billion more than Obama's, taking it to nearly $1 trillion annually! I'm curious as to what he plans using this build up for, which will certainly be near Cold War levels.

The Military Industrial Complex

As US arms sales tripled in 2011 to $66.3 billion, I give you Dwight Eisenhower's farewell speech at the end of his presidency in 1961, warning the country about how the military industrial complex presented a threat to the liberties and freedom of America. Fifty years later, his fears are very realized. The US maintains, by a huge margin, the largest military in the world. It runs a drone strike program in many nations that kills people without trial. It sells weaponry to governments with questionable human and civil rights records. All of these points are made possible by extensive lobbying and influence by the "defense" contractors that make up the military industrial complex.

Did You Know?

With the upcoming election in the United States months away, it's about time to dig up some dirt on the contenders. Barrack Obama was the first African American to hold the position of president. Eric Holder is the first African American to serve as Attorney General of the United States, under Barrack Obama. This represents a major leap in racial equality, which I am all for. Am I all for Barrack Obama or Eric Holder? NO!

During his law practice at Covington & Burling, an international law firm that has a number of large multinational corporations as it's clients, Holder represented the Chiquita Brands International in a criminal case and later civil suit for the funding of paramilitary death squads in Columbia. In this case the paramilitary group in question is the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC), which was at the time, and still is, on the State Department's list of foreign terrorist organizations. I take a quote from an article written here:

"In 2003, an Organization of American States report showed that Chiquita’s subsidiary in Colombia, Banadex, had helped divert weapons and ammunition, including thousands of AK-47s, from Nicaraguan government stocks to the AUC. The AUC – very often in collaboration with units of the U.S.-trained Armed Forces – is responsible for hundreds of massacres of primarily peasants throughout the Colombian countryside, including in the banana-growing region of Urabá, where it is believed that at least 4,000 people were killed. Their systematic use of violence resulted in the forced displacement of hundreds of thousands of poor Colombians, a disproportionate amount of those people being black or indigenous."

Holder helped broker a deal between the Justice Department and Chiquita. The deal would include no prison time for Chiquita officials, even though they pleaded guilty to this crime, but would force the company to pay $25 million in fines over five years. Chiquitas annual net income in 2011, 2010, and 2009 is $57 million, $57 million, and $90 million, respectively[1]. 

So there you have it, on Obama's team includes a man that defended financial support of terrorism and the murder of innocent civilians, not to mention the defense of corporate corruption and ethical malpractice. And he's the head of the US Department of Justice...

A Quote On Corporate Environmental Mistreatment

I want to quote a passage concerning corporations I found in a book I am currently reading:

"when I look at corporations, I see a dangerous abberation of our own making. The corporate animal exists only in the two dimensions of paper, yet it feeds on the wet and wild three-dimensional living world. Unlike any other user of the earth's resources, corporations have evolved untouched by the inexorable pressures that have forced each species to coexist with every other.Their growth is cancer-like, but instead of withering on the destruction they cause, corporations escape death by lifting their heads and moving on to another unsullied energy-rich habitat.
      This cannot continue.
      In a not-too-distant future, the natural systems we all depend on will be crippled. They will fail to sustain life. The predatory growth of corporations has eaten gaping holes in the planet's nervous system, fragmented the essential ebb and flow of energy, and ignored the closed-loop nature of our existence.
      Diversity is natures's ace in the hole. Whether it's a forest of trees, a species of salmon, or a herd of caribou, nature has made certain that the organisms are not all the same. If a certain strain of virus or bacteria develops a taste for caribou, the diversity among the species ensures that at least some of the caribou will survive. But corporations value uniformity-uniform species of trees, uniform pools of Atlantic salmon. This seems the height of folly. It assumes that any and all pathogens are under our control. They are not. And if the corporate world continues to defeat the world's natural systems of diversity, one day we will pay an exceedingly high price."

-Alexandra Morton, Listening to Whales pg. 297-298

Nationalisation

Based on a debate I just had with a family member, I wanted to comment on the increasing nationalisation of industries in South America, such as Argentina's nationalisation of oil giant YPF, and Bolivia's nationalisation of the local unit of Red Electrica. This has been an increasing trend in South America, a major player being Venezuela under Hugo Chavez. I am not a proponent of state socialism, I believe there should be minimal government control and the workers should own production in a total free market, BUT I do believe that state socialism (totally transparent and properly managed) is a satisfactory way to transition into my vision of free markets.

And the argument that state nationalisation of industries is somehow a move to control the populace or bad intentioned can be argued by looking to Scandinavia. In Norway, the state owns key industries such as oil, hydroelectricity, aluminium production, the largest Norwegian bank and telecommunication provider, and is arguably the best managed country in the world. This can easily be seen in their Human Development Index, which is the highest in the world. There is also significant state ownership in key areas of the Finnish economy. If handled properly with a sense of morality and non-alignment, socialism works.

At the moment I am traveling for a few months, so posts will be few, as following politics or putting my head into it is hard when you're at the beach.

But I am following the Greek situation, just waiting for the anti-austerity parties to form a coalition and give the finger to the European creditors!

Sarkozy Gets Sacked

Well it's official, Sarkozy is out! The first socialist president in seventeen years, Hollande wins it with 51.7% of the vote. This is sure to shake up the Eurozone debt problem, since Hollande is not pro-austerity. Already announced, his first meeting is with Angela Merkel, where I'm sure the Fuhress will be lecturing him on the need to weaken Southern Europe's sovereignty in the name of "economic stability".

And it's also important to note the voter turnout for this election: an estimated 80%! That's democracy at work!

I'm waiting to hear the results of the Greek Parliamentary Elections, which are looking to shake things up even more.

Dissenting the Iran Issue

In an article here in the BBC, more dissenting views on attacking Iran are beginning to be heard in the Israeli power circle. Yuval Diskin, the former head of the internal intelligence service, Shin Bet, has said that he thinks Netenyahu and Barak are misleading the public. Al Jazeera even goes further with a quote Diskin made: "I really don't have faith in a leadership that makes decisions out of Messianic feelings." This is quite a profound statement. Accusations of religiously motivated military policies are very rare within Israel, as religion in that region is such an intense and sensitive issue, and the Israeli leadership goes to great lengths to avoid being portrayed in a crusading way.

I'm very excited by the developments in this issue during the past month, where we've seen a number of high level officials in the Israeli intelligence circle express their dissatisfaction of the policy towards Iran. In my post here, the Chief of Staff of the Israeli military said he did not believe Iran was pursuing a nuclear weapon. Last month, the former head of Mossad said "bombing Iran is a stupid idea". Both of the men mentioned in this paragraph have also stated that they believe the Iranian leadership is "very rational". This is also my view. To believe that the Iranian leadership is not knowledgeable in the theory of Mutually Assured Destruction is pure nonsense.

The biggest fact of this whole issue is the fatwa (religious decree) issued by Ayatollah Khamenei that prohibits the acquisition, development and use of nuclear weapons. I'll emphasize that the Ayatollah is the boss, not Ahmadinejad. And as history shows us, when Islamic Fundamentalists make statements about their religion, they mean it.

Spanish Unemployment

As reported by Al Jazeera, Spain's unemployment just hit a record 24.4 per cent!

I'm wondering how Merkel plans to bail out 1.1 million people...

Nuclear Easing

As reported by Al Jazeera, Israel's military chief has stated he does not believe Iran will produce an atomic bomb, and even went as far as to describe Iran's leadership as "very rational". Now, this begs the question: if the Israeli military chief and the Prime Minister have two completely opposing views of this situation, who do we believe? I'm going to choose the general, who's statement is backed by much more fact and rationality than that of Netenyahu's.

Really, the solution to this entire issue is close on the horizon, after Iran's Ambassador to Russia said Iran is considering Moscow's proposal of halting it's nuclear program in order to avoid further sanctions. Now seeing this, I would say that diplomacy has prevailed and the US can declare "mission accomplished" on stopping a potential nuclear weapons program. But instead, we get this response from the State Department:

In Washington, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland dismissed Sajjadi’s remarks, saying the Iranian is “not a central player” in international talks over Iran’s nuclear program. “Frankly, what’s most important is what Iran says and does at the negotiating table,” Nuland said at briefing with journalists.

Frankly, I believe it's the US that is stonewalling progress on this issue, which leads me to believe that their objective lies not with stopping the nuclear program, but with total regime change, which would effectively cut the cord on funding to Hezbollah and Hamas, reducing opposition to Israeli-US dominance in the Middle East. Although on that topic, we may have a new emerging figure, Egypt (see stories here, here and here)

I'm going to end this post with a little mentioned fact: Israel is one of four countries in the world that refuses to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The others are Pakistan, India (who just tested an ICBM and nobody cared), and North Korea, who had signed but withdrew.

Military Death Sentence

An excerpt from the 2011 Amnesty International report on death sentences and executions:

"Of concern during 2011 was the increased use and pursuit of the death penalty by military 
courts and tribunals, including against civilians, in countries such as Bahrain, Democratic 
Republic of Congo, Egypt, Lebanon, Palestinian Authority (in the West Bank and Gaza), 
Somalia and the USA."

A nation who considers it it's duty to deliver Democracy to the world is in league with countries such as Somalia and Bahrain when it comes to matters of justice. By seeing this, and among other things, it's fair to say that in the US, the word "free" is quite a loose term. This trend of military trials can only be described as backwards steps towards legal justice and fair representation. It is also important to note that in 2011 the US was the only country in North America to carry out an execution. In fact, they carried out forty three.

Happy 4/20 Day!

I am a firm supporter of the legalization of marijuana. I believe the criminality of this drug is an injustice to taxpayers of nations which view it as such. It has been found in many studies that interdiction and law enforcement is expensive and not effective in stemming the supply of drugs. One example is here, in a study by Lawrence W. Boyd, Economist for the University of Hawaii. In the study he shows that between 1994 and 2003, the price of marijuana decreased by 12%, indicating an increase in supply. He also states that decriminalization would save approximately $4 million in enforcement; an additional $4-5 million if completely legalized. It is clear that the "war on drugs" has failed. Instead of allowing the DEA to run vicious counter narcotics operations in Latin America, it's nations are now discussing the decriminalization of drugs in their countries, a move that would certainly stem the outbreak of violence that has plagued the region in recent decades. I'll even branch out and mention Afghanistan, where the US invasion has drastically increased opium and marijuana production since the start of the war in 2001. This is an example of how US policies have continually failed to counter increases in the supply and demand of narcotics. The argument that decriminalization or legalization increases consumption can be countered simply by looking at the Netherlands, where marijuana has been legal for . In this study, it shows that lifetime prevalence of cannabis in adults aged 15 to 64 is 22.6%, slightly over half of the prevalence in Canada.

41.5% of Canadians have tried marijuana, and 66% support legalization, representing a majority of the population. In a October 2010 Gallup poll, 50% of Americans were in favour of the legalization of marijuana, up from 36% in 2006; quite a different position from that of their government. Well, except the law arm of the Drug Enforcement Agency:

The DEA's Administrative Law Judge, Francis Young concluded: "In strict medical terms marijuana is far safer than many foods we commonly consume. For example, eating 10 raw potatoes can result in a toxic response. By comparison, it is physically impossible to eat enough marijuana to induce death. Marijuana in its natural form is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man. By any measure of rational analysis marijuana can be safely used within the supervised routine of medical care." [1]

Here is a 2007 study commissioned by Drug Policy Forum of Massachusetts, which provides two strong points for the advocacy of the decriminalization of marijuana:

   -The report estimates that decriminalization of marijuana in Massachusetts would produce 
   an annual savings in law enforcement resources of approximately $29.5 million.
   -This report also reviews evidence from other states and countries on the effects of 
   marijuana decriminalization on marijuana use. This evidence provides no indication that 
   decriminalization leads to a measurable increase in marijuana use.

Quoting Harpers Environmentalism

Yet another point of Harper's destruction of Canada's reputation:

"We cannot allow valid concerns about environmental protection to be used as an excuse to trap worthwile projects in review without end."

He busted this one out at the Summit of the Americas. I'm sure that won over the Latin American leaders. I present a counter-quote to this ignorant, short sighted statement:

"The broad basic problem is whether or not the government should condone and encourage the industrialization of Alberta at the expense of the rivers, the air and the countryside of our Province through a lack of policy and foresight, or should we endeavor to promote industrialization in an orderly manner which will bring the greatest possible benefits to all the people in Alberta without necessitating the improper exploitation of our greatest natural resources--which are the air we breathe and the water and the soil." - Former MLA Norman A. Willmore.


This broad quote should be taken from a provincial context and applied worldwide, for it's widsom and rationality are desperately needed to save our Earth from potential destruction by our own hands.

Epic Fail Of The Americas

And yet another one of Harper's failures to Canada. At the Summit of the Americas he intended to sell Canada as a promising place to do business, but instead clashed with Latin and South American leaders on two of the most important issues to them: the legalization of drugs and the inclusion of Cuba in the summit. Instead he took the position that the United States has stubbornly stuck to for the past fifty years.

In the past decade Canada has showed a very liberal and progressive attitude towards drugs. Marijuana is widely used by the population, studies show roughly 50% of Canadians have tried the drug. Decriminalization has been proposed by many politicians, notably in the Liberal Party. I support full legalization. It's clear the War On Drugs, which has been raging for decades, is a complete failure, and has done nothing but cost the lives of thousands of people in Latin America by violent means. And Harper is aligning himself with these policies, alienating the Latin American community on progressive policies that could possibly solve the horrible problems of narco violence in their countries.

And why are we adopting the stance of hostility towards Cuba? Unlike the US, Canada does not have an imperialist foreign policy that Cuba is defiant of, so what reason would Harper have to not support Cuba being allowed to attend a summit who's geographical criteria clearly allows it to be in?

This is just another point of how Harper is systematically destroying Canada's reputation. Some of the most progressive and reformist leaders expressed their frustrations with the summit: Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner and Evo Morales walked out of the summit, and Rafael Correa boycotted it. It pains me to see how our relations with these countries, who are beginning to free themselves from the chains of right wing, neo-liberal policies, are being strained by the irresponsible leadership that Canada is being subjected to.

Romney's Campaign Finances

Now that Romney is the defacto Republican Presidential Nominee, I want to present some facts about his campaign contributions. These facts will clearly outline how overwhelmingly generous the financial sector has been to Romney, obviously expecting he will be favourable to their interests.

Romney supports SuperPAC (political action committee) funds, which allow corporate, union, and individual campaign contributions without legal limits. These SuperPAC funds allow corporations to financially hijack political campaigns with their vast wealth, which grass roots contributions cannot hope to compete with. Below is the example of the Restore Our Future SuperPAC, which supported Romney's campaign. Here are four of the eight of the largest contributors (overwhelmingly financial companies and figures):

   -Robert Mercer, Renaissance Techonolgies (Hedge Fund Management) $1 million.
   -Julian Robertson, Former CEO Tiger Management (Hedge Fund) $1 million.
   -Paul Singer (also a larger Bush campaing contributior), Elliot Management (Hedge Fund) $1 million.
   -John Paulson, Paulson & Co (Hedge Fund) $1 million.


Restore Our Future also accepted $890,000 from Federal Contractors, despite a 36 year ban on campaigns receiving donations from Federally contracted companies. Obviously this ban is in place to prevent corruption in awarding Federal contracts, i.e. naval bases, as seen in the linked article.
 
Romney is rich. His net worth has been estimated as $190 to $250 million. He is quoted as saying "Ann (his wife) drives a couple of Cadillacs, actually".

Here are the top contributors to Mitt Romney's campaign:
   -Goldman Sachs: $535,680
   -JP Morgan Chase & Co: $375,650
   -Morgan Stanley: $323,800
   -Credit Suisse Group: $299,160
   -Citigroup: $282,765
   -Bank of America: $277,850

After all the bank bailouts have dumped onto the backs of the American taxpayers, are they seriously going to elect a man who is being crowd surfed on the hands of banks and hedge fund managers? Just from looking at these campaign contributions and Romney's receipt of corporate money via SuperPAC funds (and the fact he's Republican), one can easily see this man will favour big business. He's even quoted as saying "I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I'll fix it". He absolutely should be concerned about the very poor, as more and more Americans are slipping into that category. According to the US Census Bureau, as of 2010 46.2 million Americans (15.1% of the population) are living in poverty. And now as every US taxpayer is on the hook for $138,066 of federal debt, the picture is grim.

Financial Humour

Here's some excellent humour via Zero Hedge; a strikingly accurate account of the global financial situation.

MEK

As a follow up to my previous post on the Convenience of Terrorism, I present a BBC Newsnight episode from January 17, 2007 (part one, two and three) on the terrorist organization Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK). The most interesting part is part two, where a letter, from what the US State Department quoted as "coming from the approval of the highest authorities in Tehran", sent through the Swiss, offered the US government Iranian support to stabilization in Iraq, transparency on it's nuclear program and an end to support for Hezbollah and Hamas. In return Iran wanted an end to US hostility, abolition of sanctions, and a request for the US to disband MEK, which it could have easily done due to the hundred thousand plus troops that were in Iraq at the time, the location of MEK's bases.

In the interview, Lawrence Wilkerson (former Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell) says the letter was blocked by Vice President Dick Cheney, using the "we don't talk to evil" stance. This has been proved to be complete rhetoric and hypocrisy, as the events of my previous post are evidence of. It's evidence of my theory that the US government doesn't care about terrorism, simply because the blocking of this peace proposal ensured the ongoing violence between Israel, Hamas and Hezbollah, and continuing action by the Iranian Quds Force to support sectarian violence in Iraq. They only care about it when it suits their plans. I ask: how many more people have to die because of this short sighted attitude?

It's also evidence that the US's present rhetoric about Iran's nuclear ambitions are false. They had, and refused a peace agreement that would have provided total transparency of Iran's nuclear programme. The US government wants regime change. They want a government, like they did in 1953, that will serve US interests in the region. That's what they want.

The Convenience of Terrorism

As reported here by Democracy Now, investigative journalist Seymour Hersh uncovered a program by the US Government to train an Iranian opposition group at a secret site in Nevada. And this group is listed as a terrorist organization by the State Department! One look at the group's name, Mujahideen-e-Khalq, and it's not hard to see why they would put it on that list.

As stated on Democracy Now's website: "The training included intercepting communications, cryptography, weaponry and small unit tactics". In other words, they were trained to carry out insurgency and terrorist operations. An NBC article implicated MEK in the murder of Iranian nuclear scientists, and was backed by US officials: "All your inclinations are correct", said one.

Now normally I would say that this is another case of Americans having historical amnesia, but the fact that this training program took place during the Bush Administration destroys that theory. To me this looks plainly obvious that they simply do not care about terrorism. Their last experience training jihadists to fight an enemy in a country they are presently fighting a war in came back to bite them in Kenya, Yemen, and New York City. It was this policy of training radicals that ulitmately led to the deaths of nearly three thousand American citizens, starting the new "War On Terror", only to have the president that declared it training more terrorists! On American soil! I can't find an example of when this was ever done before. Who's to know what connections these Jihadists had or made during their time in the US or what implications they could have on terrorist attacks on US soil.

Let's be realistic and say that the American government is not stupid. People can call Bush an idiot all they like (I believe it's all an act), but we cannot discredit every official in that Administration in the same manner. If we cannot blame stupidity on this act, then we must go to the next conclusion, which is to say that terrorism is obviously not a national priority, as they led everyone to believe. The deaths of some American citizens (even three thosand) does not have any immediate economic or military consequences to the power structure. Bush demonstrated that, instead, it is a very useful tool, allowing the government to manipulate and marshall the population to war wherever they like. And it was known that these wars would, and did, actually increase terrorism instead of stop it.

So keep your eyes open for the initials MEK, because like they did thirty years ago, Jihadists don't look out for anyone's interests but their own.

UPDATE: see my above post for more info on this.

5 Points of the Spanish Economy

Zero Hedge posted an article about the increasing dangers the Spanish economy presents to the Eurozone and the world economy in general. Here are the five major points they present in the article:

1. Spain´s national debt is 50% greater than the headline numbers
2. Spain´s housing prices will fall by an additional 35%
3. Spain has "zombie" banks with massive loans to developers and homeowners
4. Spain´s economy has not stabilized and will continue to deteriorate
5. The EU will not have the firepower or political will to bail out Spain

They go into more detail on each point, but it´s plain to see that this is much different than the rosey situation that the mainstream media paints, trying to make us believe that the world economy is recovering and everything will be peachy. In fact it´s far from the truth. The Greek bailout will be one of many, and need to be repeated with Italy and Spain, US debt is at fifteen trillion dollars (with talk of further quantative easing in the near future), and Japanese debt is at 200% of GDP.

The markets are incredibly volatile right now, and at the mercy of the media, who can initiate market drops or rises by reporting rumors at will. I´ve sold off my long term securities simply because it´s smarter to play the dips right now, rather than holding them for an uncertain future. And when the crash comes I´m going to have my finger poised over that "short sell" button.

Did You Know?

Cuba ranked 51st in the 2011 Human Development Index, beating Saudi Arabia by 5 spots and Russia by 15. It's infant mortality rate (rated by the CIA World Factbook) is the 39th best in the world, beating Canada by a slim margin and the United States by a huge one. The literacy rate is 99.8% of the total population, compared to 99% in Canada and the US. Cuba is the second highest for education expenditures as a percent of GDP, beating every country in the West.

Now just imagine where the country would be if it hadn't been subjected to an ongoing, decades long, crippling economic embargo by the United States. I don't agree with communism or central planning, but it's clear to see that the socialist aspect of it does work.

Whistle Blowing the Afghan War

I just read a report (here), published in January by US Army Colonel Daniel Davis, a veteran of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. This is the 84 page unclassified version of the report, the classified version having been delivered to the US Army Command and the US Congress. It provides quite a different view on how the war is going, compared to the view of the mainstream media. It is important to note that this report was released before the killing of sixteen civilians by as US soldier in March, so it is fair to say the situation there has since become worse.

One of the large points of the report is to point out that US troop surge, counterinsurgency and training of the Afghan National Army has failed to reduce violence in the country, and has acutally seen it increase. It is summed up in this statement in the report:

"If I have tens of thousands of additional ISAF boots, and I kill hundreds of INS leaders, thousands of his fighters, capture huge numbers of caches, take away his sanctuaries, and deny him freedom of movement, how could he then significantly increase his level of attacks as the Taliban did in the first half of 2011?"

Another interesting portion of the report is about media delivery by mainstream organizations, highlighted in pages 26 - 29. Davis' viewpoint is that media corporations will deliver stories in a pro-US, biased light in order to please the Pentagon, in order to secure contact with high level command figures. He also provides examples of reporters and correspondents that were shut out by media on government request for questioning the progress of the war.

The scariest part is his assesment of what the ISAF would need to win the war outright:

"In order to pacify the contested parts of Afghanistan militarily it is my assessment it would take upwards of 300,000 combat troops, stationed in sufficient density in critical areas, in order to eradicate the Taliban element of the population and keep a close enough eye on the population to prevent others from becoming Taliban fighters."

He also goes on to say that this is also a mistake, since the mere presence of a force that large would increase the feeling of foreign occupation and thus align the populace away from the ISAF. It's obvious to say that a troop deployment of this size could never take place; there simply is not the international or US popular support needed to make it happen.

He also explores events of the Iraq War, notably the Anbar Awakening in 2007, when the Sunni population turned against Al-Qaeda. Davis, as also noted in Mark Urban's book: Task Force Black, does not attribute this to US involvement, instead (backed by accounts of insurgent fighters) ascertains it was simply a result of the Sunni population being fed up with the brutality inflicted on it by Al-Qaeda, therefore turning against the Jihadists, to the delight of US forces in Iraq. Events like this have not happened yet, and I am also of the opinion that until they do, the ISAF cannot win the war in Afghanistan. More on the topic of the local populace is noted on page 73.

In Davis' conclusion is a great quote, one which gives me hope for future change:

"Honestly, after all I’ve seen over the past decade and a half, I felt a moral obligation to do so. I believe that with knowledge comes responsibility; I knew too much to remain silent."

It is my opinion that the war in Afghanistan will be a defeat. While being supported by Pakistan, the Taliban will enjoy a safe haven in the border regions, where they will be able to conduct operations from and replenish their losses, and will simply wait out the ISAF until domestic support for the war will no longer tolerate it's soliders being killed and wounded, and foreign troops will then be withdrawn. And in the same fashion as the post-Soviet withdrawl in 1989, a brutal civil war will follow in Afghanistan, as the Taliban attempts to regain control of the country. It is when this process will start, however. I do not see the American government adhering to the 2014 withdrawl date, especially if the next president is Republican.

The Public Opinion Of Fast Tracking

According to a CBC poll about whether the Conservative's government proposal of fast tracking envirnomental reviews for resource development projects, as outlined in their 2012 budget, should be implemented. I strongly disagree, as noted in my last post, which was a response to the Conservative budget. And it appears that a huge majority of Canadians are with me. The current results are:

14% in favour
85% against
1% undecided

I hope the Convservatives realize that as a democratically elected, representative government, they have an obligation to represent the majority public opinion, which is opposed to this proposal. If they don't, I hope this favour rating becomes a mirror of the next election:

14% Conservative
85% NDP
1% Liberal

UPDATE: I also will add an opinion poll on the approval of the Federal Budget as a whole. I voted, and so far the results are:

9.83% Yes, totally
23.1% Yes, for the most part
11.67% No, I'd like to have seen more cuts
5.85% No, I'd like to have seen more spending
22.51% No, for the most part
27.04% No, not at all

So the majority of Canadians disagree. I'm happy about that.

Steal This Budget!!

I have several beefs to pick with this patheticness of a budget the Convservatives just vomited onto the Canadian populace. I'll handle this on a point by point basis.

1. The increase to the retirement age. I'd like to thank the Convservative government for forcing my family and I to now have to work for two more years to collect a pension. This is a blatant slap in the face of the people. It cannot be argued that this is addressing a manpower problem. Part of this budget allows people to work for five years longer than the minimum retirement age while deferring their pension. That's a solution! If people want to work longer, then legislate that employers cannot forcibly retire people until 70 years of age! There are two points to help foreign skilled immigration, those being refunding the $400 application fee for the skilled worker program, and adding job categories to the recognized foreign qualifications list. Those are solutions. If there's a shortage, bring people in when needed. There are millions of people out there who would love to come to Canada, so why not let them? Keep our economy healthy and stocked with skilled people who can be more easily managed. Raising the retirement age keeps people in jobs two years longer, occupying positions that could go to new university or high school graduates entering the workforce.

2. The reduction in cross border duties. The Convservatives want to create jobs? How does this help create jobs? If anything, this move will reduce jobs in the retail and manufacturing sectors, as it allows people that live close to the American border to purchase more goods in America before they pay duties. The 24 hour limit on purchases increased by 400%! Why are we helping the American economy?

3. A $7.5 million Elections Canada funding cut. I view this with major suspicion and would like to know why an organization vital to the democratic process is having it's budget cut. So far I can't find a reason in the media. Let us not forget about Harper's stance on Democracy, visible last year when he tried to cut political party subsidies.

4. Foreign aid and international development is being cut by $377 million by 2015. Call this what it is: an abandonment of the Third World.

5. Reduction in the environmental review process for resource development projects. Combine this and the point above and it's easy to see how the Conservative government is systematically destroying the respectable international reputation that Canada enjoys. Canada currently is home to the largest envirnomental disaster zone in the world (oil sands), and the government wants to cut environmental review even more? Did we not look bad enough in the eyes of the world when we withdrew from the Kyoto Accord last year (I won't defend that treaty, I thought it was unproductive, but it's the principle of it)? It's clear our government will bend over backwards for oil companies, not for the people of the land they love.

Here's a quote from a Jan.1st, 2012 news article on CanadianBusiness.com: "Profitable Canadian businesses are set to reap $2.85 billion in additional income tax savings in 2012". Am I missing something here? That's half of the $5.2 billion that Flaherty plans to cut in the budget! Elminate the 1.5% Federal rate cut to corporations and save half of the nineteen thousand government jobs that are on the chopping block! The article also addresses a quote from Harper, where he complains about all the private money "sitting on the sidelines". I have an idea, tax it and turn it into public money! Just take a look at the debt clock to the right and see how badly this needs to be done.

I do commend the education boost to First Nations, the reduction in the defense budget (and no provision for the F35 Joint Strike Fighter), and the sale of diplomatic properties overseas. I do not, however, think these steps make up for the failings that punctuate this budget. 

Computer Down

My computer is in the shop having it's hard drive replaced, so my posting will be limited for the time being. Expect me to be back online and ranting within a couple weeks.

Weaponizing the Stock Market

A couple weeks ago I did a post on Flash Trading. Here's an interesting development reported by Zero Hedge, where it shows how these programs can be used as weapons.

Out With the Outpost

Just as I post my thoughts about the progress the world is making, the Israeli Supreme Court rejects the state's attempt at delaying the destruction of a settler outpost built on Palestinian land. Hopefully this signifies a more tightened stance on the legitimacy of these settlements, which I believe are one of the biggest threats to peace in the region. They are a violation of the UN Charter and the UN Security Council Resolutions demanding they be ceased and demolished have been repeatedly vetoed by the US and Israel.

The evacuation deadline for the Migron outpost will be August 1st, so on August 2nd I predict a propagandic news release showing Israeli settlers being dragged away kicking and screaming and their houses bulldozed. In truth, the state had offered to build them new homes, and settlers are offered monetary incentives to move to these settlements, so to me the whole forced evacuation charade seems suspicious.

For Better Or For Worse?...Better.

I'm sure by now my blog sounds very cynical and negative, but I'd just like to say that this is not my outlook. It's easy to say that my views sound very conspiracy theorish if you look at these facts individually, but if you put everything together in the big picture, it's easy to see that it truly is a conspiracy by a wealthy and powerful elite to gain more control of just those things, wealth and power. And if you still don't believe in it, simply ask the question: Historically, have people tried to do just that? Of course the answer is yes. Alexander the Great, Julius Casesar, Genghis Kahn, Napoleon Bonaparte, and Adolf Hitler are just a few of these people. Is it logical to say that in the past fifty years that's changed? Definitely not, it's just taken on a new face.

Now to my negative outlook. I do highlight negative things simply because outrages demand attention. I believe the first step to change is awareness, and I try my best to spread the true facts and encourage others to stop relyiing so much on this business controlled, propagandic media machine to deliver the facts to them. I am not negative about the way the world is headed. I used to be, but now when I see one hundred to two hundred thousand people protest tuition rate hikes in Quebec, or thousands of people gather to demonstrate for the justice of Trayvon Martin. These protests are part of a greater movement that is sweeping the world, the demand for change that is taking place on the streets and in the parks. Not even during the Vietnam War were anti war protests so strong as they were against the Iraq War. I look at these events as signs of hope, hope that we can achieve a better future for ourselves and for our children.

Guns! Come Get Your Guns!

Zero Hedge did a piece the other day about Sturm Ruger, an American arms company that has just suspended orders because it is sold out of weapons. That's right, sold out of weapons! This really doesn't mean they just simply sold out of stock, it means that there are so many orders that they're so backed up that they cannot take anymore! This makes me wonder just how many weapons were put out onto the streets of America last year, where there are already millions.

I look at this and actually become fearful. One can look at the past few years and see the growing discontent and dissention that is happening within the US populace and easily conclude that guns do not positively influence this situation. Having even a few thousand armed people causing civil disorder is disastrous. One example of this is the 1967 Detroit riots, where snipers plauged the city for days and the army had to be brought in to suppress the violence.

I believe that the more the wealth gap increases in the US, the more people are forced into poverty, the more social injustices are inflicted on them (like Trayvon Martin), then the more chance there is for violent riots or armed insurrection to occur. It's easy for people in the Western nations to feel safe in a bubble, but Greece is a perfect example of how things can turn to shit when people are desperate.

Dirty Oil

Doesn't anyone think it's a little odd that Obama is now seeking to fast track a part of the Keystone pipeline? Shortly after his inauguration into the White House, he stated that the US did not want to buy Canada's "dirty oil", but now he's pushing forward part of the pipeline that leads straight to it.

Strange what $4/gallon gasoline will do to approval ratings...

We should have sold our dirty oil to China and done business with the rising star, not the falling one.

A Piece Of Justice

Al-Jazeera reported today that Brazil has announced it will file charges against seventeen executives from Chevron Corporation and it's drilling contractor, Transocean, and has barred the executives from leaving Brazil. This looks like a small start to justice for South America against Chevron, which has a bad reputation for environmental exploitation and damage on the continent, particularly with this latest spill in Brazil and other incidents in Ecuador. Chevron is the fourth largest corporation in America, and has operations worldwide. Considering this fact, we'll see how the US government responds to these charges. My prediction is that the US government will not allow it's executives to be prosecuted, and we'll intervene on their behalf. And if I'm right, it will further highlight the American corporate imperialist ignorance to which the world is subjected.

Another thing to note here is the environmental risk posed by offshore and deep water drilling. Have we not learned enough from BP and the nearly dead Gulf of Mexico to see that these drilling operations are simply not worth the risk. These giant oil corporations control too much power in the world, wielding it to influence policy in their favour to increase profits at the expense of our world. Prosecutors in Brazil are demanding $10.6 billion for reparations from the spill. This is just over half of Chevron's $19.13 billion annual income in 2010. Enough of the oil craze, let's cut ourselves from this noose around the neck of the world and find some other alternatives!

China's Game

It is fair to say that World Trade is not. It's balance is manipulated to be tipped in favour of the Western powers, often at the exploitation of the third world. Except in China's case. It constantly pursues it's own path, not willing to follow the "guidelines" of the US or the World Trade Organization. This can be seen in it's rare earth program, which they control with an iron fist. Today, the US, Europe and Japan have formally complained to the WTO about Chinese restrictions on rare earth exports.

Rare earth is an combination of elements that when found together, are very useful in the production of electronics. China's restrictions on rare earth exports is simply a move to boost high tech manufacturing at home (which are the core of upper middle class jobs), instead of exporting their valuable resources to other nations. In the past they have undercut rare earth prices to keep their large position in the world production market. Of course other superpowers will be critical of these moves, as it undermines their national manufacturing jobs, as corporations move their offices to China to secure cheaper resource contracts and wages. China doesn't care about this, and can you blame them? They're not interested in Imperialism. This is simply about looking after the interests of Chinese citizens, and it's working. Criticize their human rights record all you want, but I've been to China, and what I've seen there is everyone is well taken care of; in my two months there I saw two homeless people. Contrast this with the standard of living distribution in the United States and you really have no argument about who's doing a better job for it's citizens.

These policies are going to quickly elevate China's world status even further, bringing it into even more direct challenge with the United States over resources. World opinion will only swing into favour with China, as China uses diplomatic negotiation to secure resources, while the US continues to use bombs.

KONY Credibility

Has been completely destroyed.

NAFTA and War

I am highly critical of the North American Free Trade Agreement. I could rant for a long time on the consequences and disadvantages of this treaty, but right now I'm going to focus on one; one that nobody really talks about.

NAFTA is a direct threat to Canadian sovereignty, most notably in our ability to dictate our policy towards war. With the takeover of Canadian companies and investment in Canadian resources by American corporations, we lose the ability to decide whether or not we will contribute to a war effort. Chapter 11 of NAFTA basically allows American or Mexican companies to sue the Canadian government if it imposes policies that affect their investments. So basically if the Canadian government wants to block molten sulphur from being sold from the Scotford Upgrader in Fort Saskatchewan, Alberta to defense companies in the United States to be used as components in bomb manufacture, or stopping DOW Chemical in Fort Saskatchewan from exporting Agent Orange to the US, it legally can be sued for this. These two examples do and have happened, respectively. Another example was the former Canadian company SNC-Technologies, which partnered with General Dynamics in 2005 to take on a $1.2 billion contract to produce munitions for the US Department of Defense[1]. Undoubtedly some of these bullets were used in the Iraq War.

In effect, this treaty allows the US to use Canada as an industrial base to support it's war effort, undermining our moral sovereignty and exploiting our resources for the purpose of causing death and suffering around the globe.

Good On You, Canada!

As reported by the National Post, former Vice President Dick Cheney has cancelled a trip to Toronto, claiming Canada was "too dangerous". This is a reference to a trip he made to Vancouver last year, where protesters turned violent. Canadians view Cheney, correctly so, as a war criminal.

I say GOOD ON YOU CANADA! When I heard this I thought it was funny as hell, but seriously, this is a major symbolical event. The citizens of a country effectively prevented a war criminal from setting foot on their soil. They have affirmed that they will not tolerate war crimes and condone the people that commit them. Although he may never be put on trial for these crimes, I'm glad citizens of the world are rejecting him altogether. This event makes me proud to be Canadian.

Size Does Matter

As reported by Gallup Polls, fewer Americans think America is the number one military power. Who do they think is???? I'd assume the next logical choice would be China, so let's look at the comparison of military spending in China and the US for 2012 [1] :

US - $530.5 Billion

China - $110 Billion

The United States' de(of)fense budget is nearly five times that of China, which has increased their defense budget from $65 billion in 2004 to secure China's position in Asia from US hegemony. The next biggest military is a close third to Russia. If we want to look at a very specific example of US dominance, let's look at their navy, which has a total fleet displacement greater than the next thirteen strongest countries combined.

The US Navy includes:

282 Ships

3700+ Aircraft

11 Aircraft Carriers (more than carriers of all other nations combined)

9 Amphibious Assault Ships

22 Cruisers (with advanced AEGIS missile systems)

60 Destroyers

27 Frigates

71 Submarines

What do they need this gigantic fleet for? The obvious answer is not terrorism, as the Administration would have everyone believe. Terrorism is best fought clandestinely and with small units of special forces. America's Supercarrier allows them to project military power everywhere in the world, and that's exactly where they always are. They can enforce American dominance, and are a primary tool of American Foreign Policy. And right now, nobody can challenge the supremacy of this incredibly powerful military.

Jews Against Zionism

I watched this video today on Al-Jazeera, and found it very interesting. Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss presents some interesting and thought provoking points on Zionism and the Jewish State of Israel. I find the most interesting part of this point of view is that it's coming from a person of the Jewish Faith; it really makes a person ask: who has the wrong point of view here? It's obvious that Rabbi Weiss has the more peaceful and progress stance compared to Israeli President Binyamin Netanyahu. I wouldn't go as far as to demand the dismantling of Israel, but I do believe the idea that Jews are entitled by God to the lands of Palestine and have the right to take and keep it by force is quite a radical one indeed.

Here is the website to Jews Against Zionism.

The Straw That Breaks The Afghan's Back

Just as things calm down from the Koran burning a couple weeks ago, another incident happens in Afghanistan. This time it was outright murder. A US Military Staff Sergeant apparently left a US base in Kandahar in the middle of the night, fully armed and equipped with night vision. He wandered into a village nearby and killed sixteen civilians, including three children. He is in custody after returning to the base and turning himself in, now a full war criminal.

This is going to be a hard one to fix with the Afghan populace. Burning Korans is one thing, but the cold blooded murder of innocent women and children is an atrocity. In my opinion this person should be turned over to Afghan authorities and face trial which will surely result in the death penalty. While I do not support the death penalty, I do support the Afghans receiving fair justice for these crimes, which they will surely not receive if this criminal is tried in American Military Court. We can only look to the examples of the Haditha and My Lai massacres, where nearly all of the charges against the accused were dropped, and the ones they were found guilty for had been reduced to trivial offences.

Right now I'm very glad the bulk of Canadian forces have been withdrawn, because there will be further ISAF blood shed due to this incident.

Further Bloodshed In Gaza

BBC reported today on further air strikes in Gaza. Israel claims these are in response to recent rocket attacks by Hamas. These air strikes come nearly two weeks after Israel's raid of two Palestinian private TV stations in the West Bank, in a deliberate attempt at censorship of regional events.

I am highly critical of Israel's role in this whole situation. It's policies hardly have a humanitarian overtone, have succeeded in exacerbating an already bad situation in the West Bank and Gaza, and have cemented a deep hatred within the Palestinian people. It's not rocket science to see that if you oppress and kill people of a certain ethnic group enough, they will develop hatred toward you, and that hatred will be deeper routed in further generations, and as the road to peace becomes more narrow and rocky, outright genocidal feelings will develop. This is plainly obvious to see when you read Arab opinions on Israel. A number of the governments reject the Israeli state, and have attempted to crush it in the past. Those days of Arab supremacy are, however, in the past. Modern day Israel possesses a very powerful and highly experienced military, totally backed by it's ally, the United States. It also possesses the only nuclear arsenal in the Middle East. At this point in time the actual threat to Israel is very minimal, contrary to the over exaggerated victim it seeks to portray itself as.

However, the home made threat to the Israeli nation is growing. This threat lies in Islamic Fundamentalism, which is a growing cause in the Middle East. Places like the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Lebanon are perfect culture dishes for which Islamic Fundamentalist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah can grow and expand. The desperate conditions in these places, created by and maintained by constant violence and economic suppression, leaves the people no choice but to look to these organizations. Hezbollah runs a large social development program, which includes hospitals, education, and economic support programs. It's clear that popular support for them will continue to grow as these programs increase the quality of life in Lebanon, something Israeli bombs fail to do. As they become a larger part of Lebanese politics, inevitably so will their hard line Islamic values. This will further galvanize the divide between the Arab and Israeli people.

My view is that Israel has to back down. It must demolish the barrier fences around the West Bank and Gaza, stop and demolish it's settlement program, withdraw behind the Green Line, stop the blockade of Gaza, recognize the right to dual religious worship within Jerusalem, and support humanitarian programs within these areas. This can all be done in relative security to Israel. It's powerful military can easily repel invasions and counter insurgency action within it's borders, and the new Iron Dome system, when further expanded, will provide security from potential rocket attacks from outside it's border. Only then will a road to peace come back into sight, and the idea of reducing Islamic terrorism be taken seriously.

KONY Fever

I just recently watched the KONY 2012 video, and here are my thoughts on it. I commend Russell on bringing attention to what is a horrible humanitarian situation in Uganda that has been ongoing for decades. It's great to see mass support for humanitarian causes, but I do implore the masses to not simply jump on a crusading bandwagon in a blind push for justice. This video completely simplifies the situation in Uganda, which is actually not limited to Uganda at all, but stretches into the Democratic Republic of the Congo and South Sudan.

It's very easy to say simply this man should be brought to justice, as he absolutely should. It's not easy to make it happen. Kony is protected by an army that has been estimated to be in the thousands, and is well entrenched in jungle it has called home for years. Since Kony has declared the only way he will surrender is if he is granted amnesty, it is clear that only a military operation can bring him into a court room. From what I can see from his video, Russell's knowledge of the required military operations to capture Kony is rudimentary. I will not claim to be an expert on African politics or history, but I do know that any conflict fought in Africa is bloody; civilian death tolls are always high and humanitarian violations common. Viewers of the video must understand that bringing Kony to justice will be a bloody battle.

I'm going to adopt a cynical view and say that I can't really take Obama's deployment of advisors to Uganda as a serious commitment to bringing Kony to justice. It's clear that the American Administration does not want to be directly involved in military operations. The one hundred soldiers is really a fraction of the military aid given to Colombia to supposedly fight narcotics traffickers, which has amounted to $8 billion over ten years. If a US Special Operations Group were deployed to Uganda in a direct combat role, I'm confident they would be able to hunt down Kony.

I believe the picture of the twelve US Administration Officials in the video is incredibly ironic and sheds some light on the US Government's response. Two of the officials in the video were very hostile towards the International Criminal Court during their period in office, and those officials are George Bush and Condoleeza Rice. The US has repeatedly rejected ICC rulings about war crimes conducted by the US in Nicaragua. By the laws of the UN Charter and Geneva Convention, George Bush himself is a war criminal. It is clear that if the US gets into the business of hunting down war criminals, they set the standard to bring to light every war crime committed, which could open members of the former Administration to criminal charges, something that former US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales warned Bush about. My view is that Russell and his organization should recognize that dealing with war criminals for the prosecution of a war criminal is both irresponsible and hypocritical.

And the wrap it up, we must not forget that there are many human rights violations and people who perpetrate them all over Africa (Sudanese militias, Interahamwe), and if people are going to commit to one aspect of a cause, they had better be willing commit to the big picture.

Arming the Syrians

There has been quite a bit of talk lately, especially from Senator John McCain, about arming the Syrian opposition. Now there is a lot of debate as to which opposition faction should be armed, and so far nobody has come up with a clear answer. I for one am cautious about this approach. Not only is it short sighted and ignorant, but it could be very dangerous. Giving people the means to defend themselves is fine, but the consequences these actions could have in the future must be contemplated.

First of all, if the opposition wins the war and the Al Assad regime is ousted, a number of heavily armed factions and militias operating in a country with no stable government is not a good thing. This is presently clear in Libya. There, armed militias are presenting an obstacle to the Libyan Transitional Council's effort to rebuild and restore. I meant to make a post on this yesterday in response to Eastern Libya's calls for autonomy, but didn't have the time. And the prediction that was going to be included in that response proved correct in a new development today: Libyan leader Ahmed Zubair al-Senussi is denounced the call for autonomy and said he will maintain national unity with force. Basically Libya is now on the brink of civil war.

The next point holds an example from the Soviet era Afghanistan. During the Soviet invasion, the CIA supplied the Mujahideen with arms, including Sting Anti-Aircraft missiles, which were very effectively used against Soviet attack helicopters and aircraft. Once the conflict was over and the Soviets withdrew, the American Administration expressed concerns that the Stingers might be sold to terrorist organizations (as if the missiles weren't directly supplied to Jihadists in the first place) and used to shoot down civilian passenger aircraft. An operation was then initiated with the goal of buying back these missiles from Afghan war lords, at a cost of $80,000-150,000 a piece. By 1996 there were still six hundred unaccounted for, and most of the money spent to repurchase the missiles ended up in the hands of the very same warlords who reduced the country to rubble during the Afghan Civil War that followed the Soviet withdrawl. There have already been concerns that opposition factions in Syria could have ties to extremist groups, so this fact has potential to become a problem if handled incorrectly.

My stance is that simply giving the Syrians guns and hoping there will only be one shootout is irresponsible planning. I'm hoping that Russia will step up pressure on it's ally, al-Assad, and convince him to grant a cease fire and/or peace settlement.

Return of the Papa

Well, it's official: Ol' Papa Putin is back on the throne of the Kremlin, taking a whopping (and suspicious) 65% of the vote, compared to 17% of the vote taken by the next candidate. It's plainly obvious to see why people are calling this a fraud. We'll see what happens in the next couple weeks, but I expect that Putin will hang on to power, and tighten it even further. I also expect heightened tensions with the US and NATO over Syria, and further conventional and nuclear arms racing.

The Body Count

I found an interesting website today, called www.iraqbodycount.org, that provides a body count of civilians killed in Iraq since the illegal 2003 invasion by the United States of America. It's amazing how violence in Iraq have taken a back bench in the American media now that American troops are no longer the target. In CNN today, out of seventy five stories I browsed through about the Middle East, one of them was about violence in Iraq, and it was about an American teacher that was killed by a Kurdish student. There was not one story on MSNBC or Fox News. There have been deaths every day for the past week in Iraq, and the corporate controlled media could care less. The complete lack of responsibility for the situation that was created by an American military action is nothing short of appalling. This is exactly why I support and follow independent media, notably Zero Hedge and Democracy Now, and follow mainstream media sources (that are MUCH less biased) like Al-Jazeera and BBC. I'll throw in a note here: The US government hates Al-Jazeera, and has even gone as far as shooting a missile into their offices in Kabul in 2001.

Nuclear Progress

Only a week after I made a post about the threat of nuclear weapons, we finally have some progress towards diminishing the threat. As reported by Al Jazeera, North Korea has suspended it's nuclear programme in exchange for US food aid. I don't see anything in here about decommissioning it's present nuclear arsenal, but at least it's a step in the right direction. It is not to be forgotten that the US (and other nations) is still developing nuclear arms, and should also be suspending it's own weapons programs.

This also makes me hopeful of the new leadership of North Korea. This marks a possibility that Kim Jong-un might be taking his country in an entirely different direction than his father was, and may give the North Korean people and the peninsula greater stability in the future.

Santorum Is Not An Apologist

As reported by the Daily Mail, US Republican presidential runner Rick Santorum made a comment the other day where he states his opinion of Barrack Obama's apology to the Afghan people over the burning of a pile of Koran's. This incident ignited Afghan tempers and has caused riots and protests all over the country, and has resulted in the death of four US servicemen and the wounding of eight others, as well as the deaths of thirty Afghans.

Rick Santorum's stance: Obama was wrong to apologize, it made him and the US look weak. My position on this is that the Commander-In-Chief (the US President) is totally responsible for the actions of his/her subordinates. He states that the burning of the Koran was not a crime, but a mistake. It is a mistake that should not have been made, for which the president is responsible, and for which he and the people involved must be accountable for. Not only does this show that Santorum does not share this opinion, it also shows his complete lack of sensitivity and regard for the values and culture of Muslims. With Santorum being such a strong Christian, would he be as quick to denounce the burning of a pile of Bibles?

His audacity grows further when he demands an apology from Hamid Karzai and the Afghan people for the resulting deaths of the US servicemen. His view of these events and his obvious ignorance of Islam can only be a further danger to the American people if this man is elected president, as his policies are sure to be unsympathetic to Muslims and result in more suffering at the hand of the "War On Terror", especially because his views on Iran are very hawkish.

No Evidence Should Mean No Action

As reported by the New York Times via Democracy Now, US Intelligence Analysts are maintaining that there is no hard evidence that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons programme. I just hope that lessons of history, even recent history, are not lost on the American public. Let us not forget that the entire country was duped into launching an illegal invasion of Iraq based on the same rhetoric and hearsay that is being aimed at Iran. Although this time the US doesn't have the receipt for these WMD's.

High Frequency Trading

Here is an interesting article on the problem of High Frequency Trading(FHT). For those who are not familiar with the term, FHT is a trading action used by large banks that utilizes computer algorithms to instantly recognize key market data and make transactions based on movements in that information, effectively allowing the bank to instantly trade on share price movements. This generates huge profits, as the banks have the capital needed to make a profit on a miniscule price move.

The problem with this system is the huge contribution in market volatility, notably so in the May 6, 2010 Flash Crash, where the Dow Jones nearly instantly plunged six hundred points. I remember this being attributed to a "fat finger", but to me it looked like a near catastrophic failure of this system, which I'm sure has minimal security measures installed.

What Can You Do?

It seems intimidating to think about standing up to the government as just one person, and usually the question "how can I make a difference?" comes to mind. We must realize that we, the people that live in democratic societies, have the control. It's through your freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom to protest, and above all, freedom to vote. This is a right you are entitled to, and should not take for granted, for it is the only way to true freedom.

I am sad to see that it is taken for granted in my country. In the 2008 Canadian Federal Election, only 58.8% of registered voters went to the polls to vote. In the 2011 Federal Election, that number rose slightly 61.4%. That means that 38.6% of people did not vote; over a third of the population. I understand that some people have no interest in politics, but they must also understand that a simple vote can make a huge difference in the every day life of their country, because there is not one aspect of it that is untouched by government or society. With the huge amounts of information at our fingertips and our every day lives, anyone can do some research about a political party within minutes.

If you don't like something, protest! Governments, especially the US, love lazy, impressionable people. Why? Because they don't speak up. They don't have the willpower to get off the couch and get in the streets with signs that bear slogans of their unhappiness with government policy. This is a privilege our freedom provides us, and should also not be taken for granted. If I'm not convincing enough, I'm going to cite the example of Khader Adnan, a Palestinian prisoner who just won his freedom from Israeli Administrative Detention (arrested with no warrant and held indefinitely); his form of protest a hunger strike that lasted sixty six days and almost cost him his life. While I'm not encouraging people to starve themselves in the name of Democracy, I do support Khaders statement, his bravery, and his non-violent way of protesting against oppression. He is an example to us all of the power that we all possess.