Tuesday, July 12, 2016

My love affair with Justin Trudeau et al. is over

Okay, so my love affair with Justin Trudeau et al. is over.  I voted for him but I wouldn’t do it again even though he has already fulfilled some of the election promises he made. Why? I turned away from the NDP in the last election because of their “balanced budget” that seemed more of the “same ole”. I did worry about Trudeau’s youth and inexperience in international matters, but I felt comforted that he had Jean Chretien to advise him.  Remember Jean Chretien?  When Prime Minster, how he was under enormous pressure from the Bush administration to join the US and Britain to help invade Iraq? And how he refused and kept us out of the horrible, disgusting illegal mess of invading Iraq?

Well, I don’t know where Chretien was when Justin just caved to US pressure and decided to imitate the role UK’s Tony Blair played in the murderous invasions and bombings of Iraq. Trudeau has become the new lap-dog on the block by sending Canadian troops and military equipment to Latvia. Blair will forever be remembered as the lap dog of the US.  And I think Trudeau seems to be taking on this role although a damming report has just been released in the UK on Blair’s role in the deaths of so many people in Iraq.  Yes, our lovely young handsome prime minister has caved to Obama’s pressure and agreed to send troops and military equipment to Latvia. 

Does Trudeau know that Latvia is smack on Russian’s borders?  And that he has just dedicated Canadians to join in a war mongering that could very well bring on World War Three?  This at a time when countries like France, Italy and Greece are reducing their own NATO spending? They see the senselessness of threatening Russia who has few military bases outside its own country (in previous Soviet Union countries) while Republican Ron Paul in the US presidential debate (2011) said that the US military was in 130 countries and has 900 bases around the world.  How did Justin Trudeau come to the decision to send Canadian troops to Latvia?   Has he fallen in love with his own Hollywood image?  Does he want to help play John Wayne with nuclear weapons?  My God, I am disappointed in him.

Friday, February 19, 2016


As a duel citizen (Canadian, US) I take a lively interest in the presidential debates going on in the US.  And I have been especially interested in the debates on the Democratic side.  Bernie Sanders, a self-proclaimed Socialist, seems to be gaining ground on Hilary Clinton.  As a result Clinton is desperately courting the women’s vote and has brought out some very important people to bolster her credentials on feminism.  Three of these important people are Madeleine Allbright, (former US Secretary of State) Gloria Steinem (renowned feminist writer, speaker) and most importantly, Clinton’s husband, Bill Clinton (former US President). 

I rather liked Gloria Steinem until she said that the reason young women were going to vote for Bernie Sanders in the US presidential primaries was because “that’s where the boys are”.   Meaning that young women are primarily interested in meeting men and were not into serious political activism or even political discussion.  What kind of a feminist statement is that? But Madeleine Allbright’s statements were not only irritating but disgusting.  She said that there “was a special place in hell for women who don’t support other women”.  Isn’t that sweet?  The very idea that women should support other women no matter what these other women do or say is perverted.  In my opinion, kind of like Madeleine Allbright herself.  

When asked on a TV interview if Madeleine Allbright thought that the deaths of five hundred thousand Iraqi children was worth it in the invasion of Iraq for the non-existent “weapons of mass destruction”. Madeline Allbright said yes,  a hard choice but it was “worth it”.   This is the woman Hillary Clinton brings out to attest to her own “feminism”?  One who thinks the deaths of five hundred thousand Iraq children is okay but reserves “a special place in hell” for women who won’t vote for Hillary Clinton, who is a warmonger in her own right? Hillary Clinton thinks like the banking masters she serves, that most women in general are ignorant and love to be flattered and duped.  But to bring out Bill Clinton to scold the public in general for not supporting Hillary as he thinks they should, takes the bloody cake.

Bill Clinton was a practicing womanizer while President.  Okay, so what?  So that’s not a good way to go for a President of the US no matter how “exceptional” the country or the man.  This kind of scenario can wind up with the man thinking he can do just about anything he likes,  like having oral sex with a young intern in the Oval Office of the White House while talking on the phone with Members of Congress. What might have been the next thrill?  Oral sex on the roof of the white house?  The Rose Garden? During the annual children’s Easter Egg Hunt? The man is disgusting to me, not just for degrading the White House, a symbol of American pride, but for his political ties to the banking and Military Industrial Complex.

No, Bernie Sanders may be scruffy looking (as described by some media) but by sticking to his socialist principals he has emerged as embodying most of the principals of not just socialism, but some important aspects of feminism, too.

What is more feminist than striving for women’s equality in work space, in maternity leave, in the right to education and health care for all, for the right to control one’s own body, the right for all to have decent jobs and incomes, the right not to be slaves of debt and poor paying jobs that leave women destitute and vulnerable to prostitution and/or to submitting to domestic violence for the lack of other options to feed oneself and one’s children? My vote is for Bernie Sanders.

Sunday, January 31, 2016

Negative Interest

Is Canada next in line to enter That Bizzaro World?


Wondering why the stock market has gone through the roof this past week? Here on the west coast of BC all we have to do is look across the ocean to Japan. Japan has just announced they will join The European Central Bank, The Swiss National Bank, along with the central banks in Denmark and Sweden in slashing bank interest rates into negative interest territory. An article in the Financial Post entitled (Canada is flirting with a bizzaro world of negative interest rates) John Shmuel warns us that Canada could be next in line to embrace this banking anomaly.  He writes: “Bank of Canada Governor Stephen Poloz discussed negative rates at a luncheon in Toronto last month, putting it on the radar here.”

Shmuel also cites Moshe A. Milevsky (Professor at the Schulich School of Business at York University). “What you might see happening is a negative interest rate masquerading as higher fees” Milevsky said.  “No bank in their right mind would tell a consumer, give us your hundred dollars and we’ll give you 95.  That will never happen”.  But whose idea was this, anyway, this negative interest rate business?

It seems to have come from European bankers, having indulged in many Quantitative Easings (QE’s) to no avail in quick-starting the entire Western economy (how could it, when printing presses run overtime to pour money into banks and the banks just sit on the money).  Something more needs to be done to get the larger banks to make more loans to businesses and customers.  So, the central banks will charge the other banks money for the privilege of parking their money instead of loaning it out.  In turn the regular banks that we know in our communities will pass on the fees to us, the consumers.  Instead of a miniscule amount of interest money being paid by the banks to people with banking accounts, we will be forced to pay the banks for keeping our deposits at all.  And that’s the big goal.  Then people will start spending their money instead of paying to have it stored in a bank and voila, the economy will bloom.  But will it?  More next time.