Coalition

Well these certainly are interesting times. This should probably have happened a long time ago but finally the Liberals have decided to work with the NDP directly. The majority of Canadians, without question, would support this progressive team.

Some Liberals will hate it because they won't be able to go as far to the right as they would like to appease their corporate masters. But they'll look really good thanks to the NDP which will mean they'll win a majority in the next election and then behave like Conservatives.

But for now hopefully we'll get some progressive legislation on climate change which should be all that really matters. Climate change is actually caused by the economy so by supporting the economy you actually fuel climate change. The recession is the best thing that could have happened since greenhouse gas emissions with decline. You won't hear that on TV.

But the coalition seems good to go. Now we'll have to see if the elites decide to let them take power. I can already hear those elites worrying about the "socialists", as if the NDP could claim that title. And Harper and his crew keep banging on about the "separatists" as if the Bloc is something other than a regional party.

I can't wait to see Steve Harper as the leader of the Official Opposition probably in January. But I'm not counting him out yet. The Conservatives aren't going to give up without a fight. The longer this goes on and the longer the economy rots the better to my mind. Let's learn to take care of ourselves and we won't need this stupid global economy/death machine anymore. It's not as scary as we might think.

And remember, you can't spell coalition without coal. I'm sure there's a stimulus package for coal mining somewhere out there.

Election Made Easy

So in my last post I offered a mentat lesson on strategic voting. It was pretty long-winded but also straightforward and a way for you to look at your riding and find a way to make your vote prevent the Conservatives from winning another election.

Then today a friend forwarded me a link to voteforenvironment.ca which makes strategic voting really simple. The site recognizes that the Conservatives have no real plan for climate change and for reducing our greenhouse gas emissions while the other parties have much more progressive policies. I've embedded their video below this post.

Essentially they are targeting certain ridings which the Conservatives only won marginally or have a chance to steal in the next election. Your riding might very well be on the list.

Hotly contested ridings (with links to their recommended voting):

• Ancaster--Dundas--Flamborough--Westdale
• Beauport--Limoilou
• Brant
• Burnaby--Douglas
• Central Nova
• Edmonton Centre
• Edmonton--Strathcona
• Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca
• Essex
• Etobicoke--Lakeshore
• Fleetwood--Port Kells
• Fredericton
• Gaspésie--Îles-de-la-Madeleine
• Guelph
• Halton
• Hull--Aylmer
• Huron--Bruce
• Kamloops--Thompson--Cariboo
• Kenora
• Kitchener Centre
• London West
• Louis-Hébert
• Madawaska--Restigouche
• Miramichi
• Mississauga South
• Mississauga--Erindale
• Mississauga--Streetsville
• Nanaimo--Alberni
• New Westminster--Coquitlam
• Newmarket--Aurora
• Newton--North Delta
• Niagara Falls
• Nipissing--Timiskaming
• North Vancouver
• Northumberland--Quinte West
• Oak Ridges--Markham
• Oshawa
• Ottawa South
• Palliser
• Parry Sound--Muskoka
• Peterborough
• Pontiac
• Québec
• Random--Burin--St. George's
• Regina--Qu'Appelle
• Richmond
• Saanich--Gulf Islands
• Saint Boniface
• Saint John
• Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot
• Saint-Maurice--Champlain
• South Shore--St. Margaret's
• St. Catharines
• St. John's South--Mount Pearl
• Tobique--Mactaquac
• Vancouver Island North
• Vancouver Quadra
• Welland
• West Nova
• West Vancouver--Sunshine Coast--Sea to Sky Country
• Winnipeg South

The best hope is for a Liberal minority government supported by the NDP. The corporations will have less power (and the Liberals definitely love corporations) and they will have to give in to NDP demands like mandatory labeling of genetically modified food. The most important thing is that the NDP will hold them on their climate change promises. Climate change is the only thing that matters: fuck the economy! What good is an economy on a climate crazy planet?

Here is how the vote would break down if environmentally-conscious Canadians vote smart for the environment:

Conservative
Liberal
NDP
Green
Bloc
IND

97
109
46
1
53
2

As dirty as it feels to vote Liberal you should probably do it if it means keeping a Conservative out of power. Please spread the word to anyone you know (especially those Canadians in the hotly contested ridings).

How to be Strategic

So perhaps you want to avoid electing the Conservative Party of Canada to a majority or even a minority government on October 14. But every stupid news source is telling you that you should just vote Liberal or vote strategically. What to do?

First take a deep breath. This isn't as hard as it might seem.

Then direct your web browser to the Elections Canada 39th General Election results page. Then click on "Poll-by-poll results Electoral districts" on the left hand side. That will open up a list of Canada's provinces and territories.

Now find your riding. Hopefully you know your home riding; if you don't, visit Elections Canada's Voter Information Service and input your postal code to find out.

Now go back to the results page and select the results of the last general election in your riding. Elections Canada has a pretty crappy setup for results so you have to check each column to see how each party and candidate did. But with a little persistence you'll see who won and by how much.

That will give you an idea of how to vote if you want to be strategic.

Here's how. Most ridings are a contest between two parties. Usually this is either between the Conservatives and the Liberals or the Liberals and the NDP. Rarely the NDP takes on the Conservatives but this can happen in some strange places like Central Nova (where Peter MacKay may take a mighty fall on October 14--this will make sense when you consider that the Liberals aren't running a candidate). Sometimes you get all three major parties (Liberals, NDP, and Conservatives) being competitive with one another.

The result numbers from the last election will tell you how to vote (this assumes that people won't vote very differently this time around or that a saviour doesn't arrive*). If it's a contest between the Liberals and the Conservatives and the NDP aren't anywhere close then you might want to vote Liberal to prevent a Conservative win in the riding. If it's between the Liberals and the NDP and the Conservatives don't figure then you can vote for either with a clean conscience. If the Conservatives are close then you should probably vote for the highest vote getter in the last election to be safe. Voting Green is fine but only if you know that the seat is safely in the hands of a party you approve of; unfortunately the Green Party is unlikely to ever win a seat in Parliament.

*One caveat: sometimes the candidate actually matters (amazing isn't it, the people you are electing aren't just robots?). A popular candidate can make all the difference as was the case with the election of NDP candidate Thomas Mulclair in Quebec in a recent by-election.

**The Conservatives are going to probably get a few more and the Liberals a few less votes because of Dion's dismal English and because the Conservatives are currently in power and that always helps because people are stupid. The extra votes can only come at the expense of the Liberals as the next party along the spectrum; an NDP voter might vote Liberal but will doubtfully switch to the Conservatives for instance). So try and factor the Conservatives getting a few more votes in your strategic choice to vote.

Let's use Hamilton East-Stoney Creek as an example. In 2006, the NDP won the seat with 17,599 votes. The Liberals took 16,662 votes and the Conservatives took 11,572. So this was a close race. This time around the Liberals have a star candidate in former Hamilton mayor Larry Di Ianni but he's also seen to be extremely corrupt and in bed with developers. So this one is hard to call but it's safe to vote NDP if you so desire because even if they don't get in the Conservatives aren't likely to get in.

Oakville provides another useful example of the importance of strategic voting. In this riding the Liberals won by a few hundred votes over the Conservatives in 2006. The NDP didn't even come close. So in Oakville this time around, vote Liberal to keep the Conservatives from getting the seat.

But in the end do what you want. If you want to vote for the Green Party, then go for it. If you like the Marijuana Party choose them. If the NDP is your cup of tea give them your vote. Just don't be disappointed when Harper wins his majority.

I should also remind everyone that all the parties don't actually give a fuck about the planet (yes even the Green Party) so we're kind of doomed anyway. With this in mind you might want to vote Conservative because at least they will destroy civilization faster and we can get on with the job of picking up the radioactive and plastic pieces.

As much as I want to speed this up, I just don't want to hear Harper gloat about winning a majority. I can hear him now: "We're humbled to be the choice of the Canadian people. We are going to stand up for Canada. Canada is officially open for business. If you want to cut down a forest, it's yours. We are going to double investment in the tar sands. We are going to cut transit and boost car ownership in our cities. And now, women no longer have a choice. Our first bill will outlaw any abortions in Canada. Get your coat hangers ready ladies, Steve's back!"

Blackmail

I've had this thought for some time now. The Bush Administration is warning that if Congress tries to add or subtract from their $700 billion bailout plan it's likely to damage efforts to rescue the economy (a question no one asks is: why do that?). The kinds of things they might like to add are oversight of the massive fund and possibly some supports for families who might be on the verge of losing their homes. The message is clear: do what we say and things won't go bad. By meddling you ensure they will go bad.

Given that the wealthy dominate North America, they have the power to ensure that people suffer. They can move their money around the world as easily as striking a few keys on their laptops. Because we have given them all the power through concepts like trickle-down economics they can bring down the temple. It's therefore a simple matter to punish a government that doesn't agree with them or won't give them what they want.

So even if a progressive government was elected somewhere, they won't last very long. The people will lose their jobs and their (small) comfort and turf them out and all will return to normal. So what happens is that you have parties who realize that being progressive will never work (partly because the wealthy control the media and the chumps don't think critically) so they sell out (see New Labour in the UK or even the 1993 Liberal Party in Canada and Bill Clinton and now likely Barack Obama).

It's hard to address this imbalance of power. I assume that the Democrats are going to cave and make even more handouts to the wealthy. Then again, if you're foolish enough to believe that the state has your small interests in mind then you probably don't fret about such matters.

But how do you address this blackmail? You ultimately have to get people to realize that they are going to suffer to make the world a better place, whether that's within the state system or ideally without. Overturning the old order will entail suffering as new systems are built and it kind of has to happen everywhere because other states will likely not want this poison to spread and will fight back. We've been told that we can have anything we want at any time (thank you WalMart) without working for it. So I don't have much faith in people to accept this degree of inconvenience even if it's in their interest.

But it would be better than the stressed earth doing it for us. That's really going to hurt.

Are you Serious?

This article by Jonathan Freedland is worth a look for election obsessed North Americans. Ugh, I can't shake the hype. I need to get off the computer and go into the woods for a while.

Essentially it makes the point that the the majority of the world wants Barack Obama elected president. No one outside America wants another four years of Republican delusion. That's a lot of hope in one man. Hard to live up to but he would be light years better than McCain, doubtless.

This passage sits heavily on me:

"For America to make a decision as grave as this one [electing McCain] - while the planet boils and with the US fighting two wars - on the trivial basis that a hockey mom is likable and seems down to earth, would be to convey a lack of seriousness, a fleeing from reality, that does indeed suggest a nation in, to quote Weisberg, 'historical decline'. Let's not forget, McCain's campaign manager boasts that this election is 'not about the issues.'"

--

In other news, the Green Party has arrived. Well done Elizabeth May! Now if we only had proportional representation.

Palin Pain

I have a problem. I have to admit that I'm reading everything I find on this stupid election. I'm falling for all the celebrity hype and for every spec of analysis on Barack Obama and John McCain and their running mates. I know that it really doesn't matter and that ultimately a Democrat President will only differ from a Republican President in the speed with which they destroy the planet. Still the hype and hope have dug their talons into my skull.

Last year I predicted that John McCain would be the next president of the United States. I'm, sadly, now more sure of it than ever. And the venomous Sarah Palin will be the Vice President (can you believe what she said about community organizers?).

It's becoming clear to me that McCain is ripe for the picking leaving Palin president. And she's the perfect president, even better than Bush: close to big oil, ready to blow up mountains for coal and happy to let the polar bears drown. She'll do great murdering all life on earth. And her message is: Guns, Babies and Jesus.

I'm sure Jesus would approve.

From an article I just read: "I love the woman," the pilot on our flight shouts over the noise of the engine, "especially what she wants to do with oil, we just have to drill more, there is no alternative. What's the point of leaving it all in the ground?"

What's the point of leaving it all in the ground? This is the attitude of our live-now, fuck-tomorrow civilization. I've said this before but why do people who cling to this motto bother to have children. You might as well throw your newborn baby in a stagnant septic tank and watch it struggle as it sinks into darkness. Doing so might be a blessing compared with the potential horrors of climate change.

That's the reason why we have to leave it in the ground, fucker. So that morons like you can breed and your spawn can actually have a chance because they certainly won't have oil and a big screen television.

It's over. You're just too stupid to notice.

Rage Building

Contribution from a reader:

Curious to hear your reaction to all this election ridiculousness north and south of the border. Stupid democrats picking an old white guy running mate to counter American racism. Stupid republicans patronizingly picking a woman to try and steal votes, not because she has any significant policy credentials other than Alaskan oil and anti-abortion interests. What a doomed country.

Back home, redneck Harper salivating to call an election and cowardly convictionless liberals avoiding his phonecalls.

... Feeling angry that these are the political choices people have given themselves.

--

Thanks for writing Mentat Mulq (nice ring to it?). Yeah I share your rage on a lot of this. I think it's exceedingly cynical that McCain picked this new Thatcher as his running mate. I know nothing about this woman really (pro-life but somehow will back the war I'm sure) but it just seems to be a way of grabbing some Clinton voters who obviously (if they fall for it) are unable to read or make decisions for themselves. They deserve what they get if they are sore losers. I hope that McCain gets hammered for this choice but I still think that he's going to be the next President of the United States.

By the way, are you noticing the insane degree to which this election is being covered? It feels like if you watch TV long enough or search the Internet enough you'll find info on how Barack Obama's tie selection is him reaching out to Coors Light drinkers (the new demographic that matters this year). It feels like every move means something and that there are plans within plans within plans. I'm just pretty blown away by the degree of analysis. It's like we have nothing better to do at the end of the world.

And as for the Canadian election, it's a case of deja vu. If it happens this fall, Harper will win a minority government and then in a couple of years (and another 100 soldiers killed in Afghanistan) claim that the House of Commons isn't working and will win another minority and so on until people wake up and go out and burn down Parliament.

My thought is just that we need to take control of as much as we can and stop thinking that these leaders are going do be our saviours.

Oh Jesus (and the humans that exploit you) what have you done to us? Your cross has taken all our power away and institutionalized it just when we need it the most.

Two Weeks, Young Man

Outrageously, the ruling five nuclear powers today gave Iran two weeks to come clean about its nuclear program. Do as I say, not as I do. These countries (US, Russia, China, UK, France) have thousands of nuclear warheads at their disposal and no one, repeat no one, can demand one scrap of information about their nuclear programs. Why do we allow this hypocrisy to continue?

Yet no one asks these questions. Not the media, not politicians, not pundits, not religious leaders, not CEOs, nobody with power. Can you hear all the sheep braying along with the chorus line. To war!

I shouldn't even be wasting these key strokes. What can you do with an insane system?

For once, Iran has the moral high ground and I think they hold all the cards. The powerful always fall. We just have to make sure that there are no other powers rising from the ashes after they come tumbling down.

New Law

Just read a story on Al-Jazeera regarding the legal proceedings arising from a protest against Guantanamo Bay that happened back in January. Naturally we don't hear about such things on the news which is run by the corporations that get rich off war and fear. But Al-Jazeera will sometimes cover it (rich Middle Eastern kings apparently will still get rich even if they annoy the American state).

Anyway the point is what these protesters (totally nonviolent and therefore largely ineffective) are being charged with. All they did was walk up and sit on the steps of the Supreme Court. That's it. Al-Jazeera reports that they are to be charged with "unlawful free speech". In case you didn't get that I'll write it again more clearly:

UNLAWFUL FREE SPEECH

Yes there's a law against that despite the fact that it's a total oxymoron. Free speech by definition can't be unlawful.

Good luck to all of us as laws like these spread like so many sweatshops around the world. I guess it makes sense to have such laws in a time of endless, growing scarcity. People have been used to so much and now will have to do with less, forever. But thankfully everyone will still obey the law, even though it has nothing to do with justice.

Evil Askew

So it seems that his reign of terror is over. No, not George W. Bush, not yet, but Robert Mugabe. You should have seen the negative press he got in the UK in 2003 and very likely to this day. He was evil incarnate, kicking white people off their productive private land and impoverishing his nation. Then I knew many people of colour who saw him as a hero though they kept their voices down. But in Britain there were even calls to cancel cricket matches in Zimbabwe and impose sanctions and support the opposition. Sounds familiar.

But now he seems to have been unseated. A coup perhaps? An invasion from several neighbouring armies you might be thinking. Maybe he was assassinated by a British agent? Surely no democratic process would have unseated this tyrant, this least of democrats.

Again this is yet another example of an "evil" regime actually following the rules. There was an election. No cheating no stuffed ballot boxes. He lost, fair and square. And not just a meaningless loss either but Mugabe may not be president in a few days time. How the mighty have fallen.

Now this election demonstrates to me that the previous elections were also free and fair (for the most part because which state actually holds free and fair elections). Therefore the majority must have been behind him. Obviously he ran out of steam which is hardly unexpected given he has been in power for so long and had done many terrible things.

It also makes me think of Hamas, the rightful government of Palestine. They obeyed the rules but learned that if you're labeled "evil" you might as well not play the game. But Palestinians voted for them in droves. They were their democratic choice for better or worse.

Hopefully we'll see some similar tyrants unseated. Let's start with Hosni Mubarak in Egypt. Oh wait, he's a friend. Don't expect any calls for him to step down or for him to hold free and fair elections from the "good" governments of the world.

Anyway farewell Mugabe. I'm sure there's a bullet or hangman's noose waiting for you. Now I wonder how quickly international financial institutions will be on Zimbabwe like crows on a corpse. "We'll save you", I can already hear them saying. "Just sign here and we'll give you all the money you need".

Everyone in Green

Who's left in the US presidential race? Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain. Have you figured out who's going to win? My money's on John McCain of course. And I made this prediction over a month ago and I do have a witness so there!

How's McCain going to do it? Everyone loves him in the Republican Party--except for those pesky evangelicals. One wonders why the hell they care about an election at all, isn't the rapture coming. Oh wait, it's been 2,000 years and it still hasn't happened. And the vast amount of people in the middle also love him. He's an old white man, enough said. Personally, I hope that the fact he's been tortured will help him to realize that it's a terrible and counterproductive practice; if only Bush and Cheney had similar experiences.

But most importantly, like everyone else, he's green. Which means of course that he cares about the planet. He's jumping on the bandwagon that the Governator started in California (just forget that he drives a hummer). McCain has read about climate change and he's serious about doing something.

Alas his plan likely follows the Bush model of more ethanol and weird contraptions like space mirrors. White elephants anyone? None of the candidates, including McCain, are going to even consider that the endless economic growth prescribed by capitalism might actually be the real cause of all the ecological misery afflicting the world today. We have to choose between capitalism and a habitable planet but it's a choice leaders can never make.

It's important that we continue to remind everyone about this fact and continue to reject the "shop to fight terrorism/climate change/recession" impulse of our dear leaders.

Stubborn Stains

There's a hidden message in the media's hailing of Barack Obama as the "First Black President of the United States" (FBPOTUS). Most people wouldn't catch it so I don't blame you if you haven't spotted it yet. If he is elected, he will most certainly not be the "First Black President of the United States".

If he's elected, he should be known as the first mixed race (though isn't that a terrible and problematic set of words) President of the United States (FMRPOTUS). Obama's mother is a white American and his father is from Kenya. He's not black, in fact he looks quite brown to me. Blackness means that as far back as you can tell, you're family was descended from Africans (slaves, mind you, not Kenyans--there was no such thing as Kenya until relatively recently). The same thing for whiteness (though what does that mean? There are white people from western Europe to the Caucasus and now beyond).

Though I admit few personal details on these pages, I'm the child of a mixed race (ugh again!) couple. My dad is Indian (no, not First Nations) and my mother is white. But much like Obama's blackness, I'll never be more than an Indian. Very few people would ever consider the complexity of my background in defining me. The only thing they see is the stain of my birth: colour.

Here's an example of the usual, everyday conversations I have to endure:

(Suspicious) "You're not Canadian. Where are you really from?"
(Suppressing rage) "Well my mum is from England and my father is from India and--"
(Interrupts smiling) "Oh you're Indian. I love curries."

Whiteness is sacred. It doesn't matter if your parents came from Russia and the Orkney Islands or Finland and Croatia. You're not a complex person, you're white, you're special, you're at the top of the pile.

But the second a white person has a child with a person of colour, the child is forever stained, quite literally, with that terrible act. Even if you never spend a second with your coloured parent and have only white kids as friends and listen to country music, you're coloured. You're not a kid with brown skin who plays hockey with his white friends, eats burgers and fries and listens to country music.

So I encourage you, dear reader, to avoid falling into the trap of referring to people of mixed backgrounds by their stain alone. In fact perhaps you should disengage from believing in the rarely discussed concept of stain altogether; though that's hard since we all believe it utterly and completely like the fact that the sun will rise in the morning.

Despite all this people of mixed backgrounds are just as complex as any other human being or any other living being on this planet.

Bhutto-matically

This is one of those assassinations where we're constantly told that we're supposed to feel bad. Now why should we feel bad for Benazir Bhutto?

Seems to me the primary reason is that she's dead and she died violently which isn't much fun. But then poor people have been dying violently in Pakistan and across the border in Afghanistan since the British first arrived and the Americans followed (and earlier when Aryans from Central Asia arrived and then Muslims). Perhaps it's only just that a member of the elite, usually insulated from violence, has died on her own sword.

The truth is that elites have a monopoly on violence and that that violence flows only one way, down. So perhaps I'll withhold my tears for now.

The other argument I've heard for why we need to mourn her is that she's a woman. Yes it's true (and perhaps unbelievable) that there could be a woman head of state in Pakistan. I bet the Saudis would sweat if she ever visited on official business. For that reason it's a tragedy. Women should of course be able to participate in public life without threat. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that Bhutto was interested in supporting other women or building systems to have them elected etc. She was an exception and unless some other man's daughter aspires to greatness I don't think we'll ever see another woman head of state in Pakistan.

So perhaps some tears here but then again how much do we really need leaders to take our power away?

But I think it's important to remember that she's a super elite. Did you ever hear her speak? I guarantee that she (like all South Asian super elites) was educated in Britain. She has more in common with the Oxbridge elite than almost anyone in Pakistan. Another example of an out of touch leader (the Bush family are stinking rich, Paul Martin runs Canada Steamship Lines, South Korea's new leader used to run Hyundai, for instance). Bhutto never went without her whole life while millions in Pakistan barely survive because of the system that elites like her have created. Also it's important to remember that she's been booted out of power twice for being corrupt (a common ailment in Pakistan--ask Nawaz Sharif).

So I feel that Madame Bhutto is not necessarily someone to mourn. Just another elite leader blown to bits. When you live (and profit) by the sword, you die by the sword. Yet I somehow doubt that this latest "martyr" will convince her fellow elites to change direction.

Choices

The expansion of the tar sands oil extraction in northern Alberta is one of the most under discussed issues in Canada today. It has been called the "biggest environmental crime in history". Canada is never going to reach our Kyoto obligations if the tar sands project goes ahead. Our greenhouse gas production is going to go through the roof with the energy intensive tar sands processes.

Not only that but the "project" is destroying the landscape making it look more like the moon than a vibrant healthy mix of ecosystems; that means that animals and plants won't be able to live there, try as they might. Yes, believe it or not, humans aren't the only beings on this planet and we don't have the right to displace others.

It's also poisoning the people that live there with certain First Nations communities suffering dramatic health problems by living downstream; these include cancers that rarely occur in the general population. Incidentally to those of you who might think that the government will step in when health is at risk learn about the story of Dr. John O'Connor who was sanctioned by Health Canada and Alberta Health for speaking out against the health impacts of the tar sands "development". The government isn't going to do anything to protect these communities no matter the evidence.

The tar sands also consume tons of fresh water which is contaminated during the process and has to be left in special ponds for potentially thousands of years (if they don't breach their banks and flow to the sea first). It takes five barrels of oil to produce one barrel of oil and then those barrels of oil are contaminated.

To read more about this important issue, I suggest you pick up a copy of the Dominion Paper or check it out online here.

I read these facts and I can't accept that this project has to happen. There's no reason for it and, even if there was, it's wrong. With all the evidence against it, it has to be stopped. It's like driving; all the evidence against driving means we have to ban cars forever. But as in either case, no one else sees it this way, so I guess I'm crazy.

Does this mean I have to go out and talk to people and hold their hands and try and get them to see that I'm right and that fucking Bambi has a right to live on this land? Remind them that the First Nations people in northern Alberta don't want cancer and death? Fuck that. People don't give a shit and I have to rub their faces in it so they care. Your economic development is killing everything.

So I'm faced with a choice. I can try and continue to live with a decreasing ecological footprint while the rest of the world continues to go the other direction and set an example for people as to how humans could live, with a lot less, but a future. Or I can head to Alberta and disrupt this terrible industrial death machine. One things for certain, I'm not going to continue sleepwalking and winning nothing, as I have been for the past two years. Something is going to happen.

For one special reader, I'm thinking about it. For the rest of you what are you going to do? It might be northern Alberta, or China, or Bangladesh, the Sydney tar ponds, Bhopal but eventually the death machine will make its way to you. Are you just going to stick your heads under the sand? It's so easy to do so but that doesn't mean it's right. Good luck to us all and our non-human companions on this earth.

Farewell

Another of Bush's gang has fallen. Let's ponder what's next for Mr Howard, the former Prime Minister of Australia:

• Perhaps a well paying seat on the board of directors of Halliburton, the Carlyle Group, Exxon-Mobil or News Corporation
  
• Consulting is always an option; I expect Howard could charge well over $500 an hour to inform elites how to be more elite
  
• Like Bill Clinton, Howard could attend high level gatherings and act as a keynote speaker; amazingly, like Clinton, he could have a change of heart and lament the lack of action from "developed" countries on poverty, disease and, yes, even climate change
  
• Perhaps like Mr Blair, Howard will take on the peacemaker's role, perhaps in Indonesia where Australians are well respected

In the end, this defeat is meaningless. Howard achieved record profits for corporations, dried out his country by ignoring climate change and further militarized Australia. (New) Labour would have done the same and I expect they will; perhaps with a few more smiles and some bones for the poor to gnaw on. Signing up to the Kyoto Protocol, seemingly the only difference between the parties, is at this point fairly weak gesture worthy of the Liberal Party of Canada.

Good luck to you John Howard and also to the land down under (perhaps to have a more telling meaning with global warming causing rising sea levels).

Dodgy Logic

"The torture called waterboarding is a pretty violent business.

"The torturer straps down the victim, feet elevated above the head, then covers the subject's face — often with cloth or cellophane — and pours water onto it. This triggers the gag reflex, persuading the mind that the body is drowning, provoking an atavistic terror. The straining and flailing against the restraint straps can sometimes break bones. If the torture is protracted, lung and brain damage can occur."(Neil MacDonald from CBC.ca)

But as the article points out, the official line is that the US doesn't torture, despite the fact that waterboarding happens in US custody around the world and it's clearly torture. It's all semantics and murderous, bureaucratic doublespeak you see. Read the article. It's miserable and frustrating reading.

Here's some other miserable techniques I've heard about: in Uzbekistan they boil prisoners alive; others pull off your fingernails; others strip you naked and subject you to freezing temperatures; others beat your extremities into a pulp; remember the Russian Roulette game in the Deer Hunter? I haven't seen these new torture movies like the Passion of the Christ, Hostel or Saw and I never plan to but I'm sure you could get more violently ill there. Someone is clearly enjoying all this misery which makes me once again ponder the rotten heart of civilization. But I ask: would you, who rejoices in torture, enjoy being subjected to it yourself?

I oppose torture because I believe in the Golden Rule; much like the Four Nobel Truths, it makes sense. Jesus said: "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." George W. Bush once stated that Jesus was his favourite philosopher. I guess all that money in his pocket and power in his hands has silenced the little voice in his head. Good luck at the pearly gates George.

Noose

You'd have to be both blind and stupid to not look at the proposed US missile defence shield in Eastern Europe and realize who it is meant to deter. Then add to this fact that Canada was expected to join as well (we have withdrawn for now). Other missile sites in Japan and South Korea would make the lasso complete. Yes it's Russia, the supposed loser of the Cold War.

Yet the US continues to declare, as Defense Secretary Robert Gates did today, "that the missile defence shield being proposed in central Europe is not directed at Russia."

So let's analyze some of the potential threats this shield is meant to counter:

1) Iran - If Iran were to launch a nuclear missile (still ten years off by the way) at the US, not only would it take ages to reach there but it would probably run out of gas halfway. And let's not forget that the US has bases, fighters, and naval armadas in the Persian Gulf and the Mediterranean not to mention Israel. If they shot a missile towards Europe, I have to believe the Europeans could take care of themselves. And most importantly, Iran would never do so because they would be a smoking radioactive crater following any such attack. Look at a globe, Iran is on the other side of the world.

2) North Korea - Why would the US need special facilities in Eastern Europe to counter North Korea? And wouldn't Russia be a little irritated that North Korea was blasting missiles across its territory? And in the end launching missiles that way is the long way to the continental US. Again though, why would North Korea dare launch a missile at the US? It would be crater #2 following Iran.

This is really all about full spectrum dominance. The US is an empire in decline and denial. The only other state in the world that calls them on it is Russia. There was only ever one superpower despite the US building up the Soviet Union to evil empire proportions. Russia continues to impress, however, in speaking bluntly about the US's imperial ambitions.

I'd like to suggest that the missile defence shield has a more dismal side. We're heading for a time of energy insecurity and climate change. The US is attempting to ensure that it can invade and conquer and dominate anyone without fear of retaliation thereby maintaining its primacy and ruling while the rest of the world rots.

Good luck US, we're on to you.

Glass House

Someone should send the Turkish government a copy of Ward Churchill's amazing book, On the Justice of Roosting Chickens.

Turkey is fuming after the United States Congress voted to formally declare their massacres of Armenians in 1915 a genocide. The US Congress though was right in declaring that this was a genocide. Turkey shouldn't pretend it didn't happen and really what damage does this declaration do? Those Armenians are still very dead and Armenians will never be powerful enough to win reparations or return the favour.

The US though should take a good, long look in the mirror and to their history. Compared with the orgiastic genocides perpetrated by the US, Turkey's extermination of the Armenians is a church social. A review of Churchill's book will make the case and I encourage you, dear reader, to take it out of the library.

While the Armenian people live on, the US purposely and utterly annihilated many First Nations such that their only memory lives on in place names if at all. Genocides are genocides and the US Congress should really begin to admit its beloved state's terrible violence.

The blinkers of empire, however, will make this honesty impossible. In the meantime Turkey, condemn the US in return for their countless atrocities. An eye for an eye, sadly, seems the only language any violent state (and all states are inherently violent) understands.

The Only Good Indian . . .

The (non-binding, of course) United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was passed today with just four states voting against it (remember it's non-binding). Who were these states: Canada, the United States, Australia and New Zealand.

Amazingly these are the four states that have benefited handily from the displacement and genocide of indigenous people over the past say four hundred years. When your whole existence is based on violence it's kind of hard to face that violence. So you act in denial of the facts. Hence the vote today.

As Ward Churchill reminded me the other day, 1/3 of the continental United States is a giant land claim or in more plain language, stolen land. Similarly during university, I learned that most of British Columbia was snatched without the appropriate "legal" documents showing a transfer of ownership. Again more stolen land.

I want to believe that despite today's embarrassing vote, Canada will acknowledge in a real way the violence perpetrated on this continent's first nations peoples. But the state that we have constructed today is a result of that violence. This current construction, Canada, will never be in a position to admit it has been guilty. Just ask anyone what they think of first nations peoples; they'll curse them for not "paying taxes", or for being drunks or some similar shit.

The only hope for this state is its eradication.

When, oh When

I wonder at which point one finally recognizes that there isn't even a drop of goodness left in the rotten heart of civilization. Will that day come when even the seagulls and pigeons are extinct? Perhaps when snow and ice are memories, lest they be found in freezers? Maybe when we can no longer walk under the sun? Or when cancer is guaranteed at birth?

I haven't reached that point it seems. I must be pretty thick, or scared.

Perhaps the problem is that these experiences accumulate too slowly to really motivate people to stand up and fight. Then we get caught in this constructed world. So we never get up and make a mess in a blindingly messy world. My only hope is an eviction from my home, starvation while others feast, or some other structural violence done to myself or my family. Maybe then I'll do what I should and carve cracks in this bloated carcass called civilization.

In the meantime, I slouch and soldier on. Monday is the National Day of Action against the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP). This new North American Union is a bad idea. Read about it and write our dear Prime Minister and your MP and let them know what you think. Is it any wonder the House of Commons is out of session? Amazingly even the dreary Liberals have concerns, though, if they were the government, they'd be lining up to sign on.

I guess it's all coming down either way but in the interim, let's make some noise.