Obviously, the new tactic of The Moncton Times&Transcript is to report on public activities of the anti-shale gas movement; but not to provide any information on what it is all about. There are many questions that could be aksed of our "transparrent" governments.
1. What study did Shawn Graham's government do before approving eploration for shale gas?
2. Why were regulations not immediately drafted?
3. Why are they still not in place?
4. What research has Mr. Alward's government done? (it wouldn't be expensive. Don't we have google on government computers?)
5. Why have some juisdictions banned fracking?
6. Don't we have geologists in our universities? How come they have not been interviewed?
7. How come there have been no reports of the problems with Fracking in the US?
8. Why aren't we told, as a matter of democratic routine, how mucdh money corpprations and unions donate to the parties - and how much each party gets from such donors?
9. How much of our money went into the U2 concert?
10. How much went to the band? How much to hotels and restaurants? How much found its way down to the pockets of ordinary rate-payers? How many of the concert and restaurant goers were native Monctoners; and, therefore, did not represent any new money at all? (That's rather important since claiming a profit with money that was always here in the first plact would be more than a little fraudulent.)
Not one of those questions has been addressed by the politicians; and, certainly, no politicians have been pressured by the Montcton times to answer them. Nor have Times editors bothered to select a reporter to get answers.
Hedard Albert, MLA from Carquet offers a column critical of the Alward government on education policy. The criticism is valid. But he offers no sign that his party has learned anything about education after its disastrous period in government - and still has no policy at all.
The only column of substance is Alec Bruce's. So I'll indulge myself in criticizing it. He argues that the US was engaged in making this a better world. It never was, and cerntainely not in the period of the 1945+ that he cites.
American policy has been consistent since 1775, to make its wealthy even wealthier by the use of military force. It has been at war almost continuosly since that time. (Indeed, with well over 200 wars on its record, it is surely one of the most aggrewssive counjtries in history.
It fought its native peoples, and took their land and resources. It tried to take Canada. It fought Mexico to steal one-third of Mexican territory. (The war began when the Mexican government attempted to stop American settlers from brining in slaves, since slavery was illegal in Mixico. (Davey Crockett, who became an American hero at the Alamo was, in fact, a slave trder.)
War with Spain gave the US much of Central America where it promptlyly established the dictatorships that were so useful in maintaing a level of poverty that ensured cheap labour,, to this day, for Chiqita Banana, Fruit of the Loom, and Levis. It took Hawaii to make the Doles happy. It took The Phllipines in a particularly brutal war because it wanted a military base to make profits fromcheap labour for American companies, and to challenge the British, French and Dutch looting right s in Asia.
The only democracies ever permitted by the US were those that were US puppets. That's why Aristide of Haiti waas sent into exile. The fool was going to raise the minimum wage from $3 a day to $5. There was also loose talk about building schools and even hospitals. After a century of american control, Haiti remains the poorest country in the western hemisphere.
More commonly, the US has overthrown democratic governments to iinstall dictators - as it did in Iran and Guatemala.
Today, the US stands where Britain stood in 1945. It's empire is too expensive in money and life to hold onto. Britain wisely gave up on the empire game. But the greed of American corporations is so great, it will not permit any retreat, no matter how great the cost in money and lives and suffering. I mean, presidents of Exxon are not suffering. Indeed, the incomes of the very rich have gone up even as some 50 million american live on food stamps.
The US is determined to gain world domination. But it's not to help the world. Make a list of the democracies the US has created. Make a list of how much foreign aid is given out in the form of weapons rather than food. Make a list of the billions in aid that are publicly promised but never delivered. (Sart with Haiti.)
No. I would not look to othe US for leadersup to a peaceful and prosperous world. The American people are as victimized as all of the rest of us by this. The problem is not hte pople. It is a coporate leadership in the western world gone made on greed, a sense of entitlement, and a militatnly anti-Christian/Judaic, Islamic phi8losophty that makes greed and indifference to the suffering of others into virtues.
They also own all the major private news mecia in North America.