Tuesday, August 02, 2016

Time to panic! There's a snake in the grass!

Free range chickens are wonderful watch dogs.  My mother raised chickens when I was growing up in southern Louisiana, and she always knew when the chickens had spotted a snake by their loud, panic stricken squawks.  Whenever their hysterical chicken call sounded Mama would bolt from the house, grab her keenly sharpened hoe she kept handy just for snake duty, and rush to the rescue. Looking back, I find certain similarities between Mama’s chickens reaction to snakes, and how the US military complex is reacting to an imaginary perceived Russian threat. This military complex includes the Pentagon, the military arms industries, the White House, the FBI, the CIA, International banks, NATO, Citizens United, the Israel Lobby and the US media, who all act in unison as if they have just spotted a snake in the grass.  That snake, of course, is Russia.  And she wears the face of Putin.  The American war machine has just picked up their sharpened hoes in lock step with their other friends and is headed to the global yard to kill the snake.

Only Russia is not a snake.  Neither is Putin.  The US and Co. actually know this, which is why their frantic, hysterical calls for some kind of intervention in Russia sound so unbelievably pumped up. Much to my utter dismay, Canada is following the US parade, grabbing our own Canadian made hoes (which may be one of the few last things made in Canada) as we go. But what has Putin done?  Well, he has not agreed to US demands that Russia should step aside and allow the US and Co. to take their hoes to the elected president of Syria.  Putin stubbornly insists that only the Syrian people should be allowed to make “regime change”, not the US or NATO.

This is a shock to the Americans.  After all, they’ve had no trouble beating the rest of the world into submission, even if they had to kill a lot of Libyans, Iraqis, Afghans, many Latin Americans, and some Africans, too, in order to do so.  So all of the Neocon forces in the world are, at the moment, centred in the Pentagon and the International banks, and are cheered on by the others while they encircle Russia and China with NATO bases, hoping to isolate the Russians by threatening them with an all-out war.

War is big business.  Just the threat of war is big business.  And the biggest economic business the US has right now is the military arms industries.   While much, if not most, of US wealth is being poured into the military and its bases around the world, the US strikes day after day on the back of its perceived snake, with outrageous anti-Russian propaganda. Why, the western media can’t get enough of striking at the snake.  Our own CBC is on a daily basis gleefully wallowing in anti-Russian propaganda.  The producers of CBC seem to be itching for some kind of real show-down with Russia, maybe like an honest to God war. If you doubt this, start listening carefully to CBC reporting on Russia. The CBC follows US media slavishly, almost word for word; they claim Russians are liars, cheats, cowards without honor or character, and are undeserving of a place on this earth. Or words to that effect. In reality, Russia is a strong, proud country with a long history of surviving catastrophe.  Americans are ignorant of the history of other countries, even recent history, and even of their own.  And I’m beginning to think that way too many Canadians have forgotten our histories, too.

By placing Canadian troops in Latvia we are helping the US in its long history of war mongering.  Latvia is smack on Russia’s borders. Canadian troops have no business in Latvia.   One stray accidental bullet there could start a nuclear war.  If Justin Trudeau thinks Canada is made more powerful by joining the hyperventilating throng to kill a non-existent threat in order to make more billions for the American arms industry then he is a fool.  So are we if we follow him into this mad endeavour.

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.