Wednesday, May 14, 2014

May 15: I'm starting this blog on the evening of May 14 because....

...tomorrow looks like another day of more activity than I like. So I thought I'd write something general about news for the opener.

Japan is building up its armed forces.  No reaction?

It is building, in particular, around offensive weapons. Still no reaction?

Well, you're not likely to see the story in the Irving press because nobody there would understand the significance of the story.  And even if somebody did, all you would get is the two statements I wrote above which tell you nothing.

In 1945, Japan was forbidden to build armed forces with any offensive capabilities. It had, after all, invaded China in an invasion that was brutal even by the very brutal standards of the time. Accordingly, the Japanese forces were formally labelled Japan Defence Forces. Weapons were to be of a type essential for defence of the homeland. Nothing else. And it was strictly monitored.

Today, Japan is again building weapons with offensive use as their leading characteristic. It's doing it because the US has quietly given it the green light. Why? Who would Japan attack? Why would the US want it to attack anybody?

The why and the who is China.

The US is preparing for a war with China and, this time, Japan would be on its side.  Chinese borders are already crammed with American bases. The US navy is largely designed for the Pacific - where the only likely enemy is China.

Now, China has no capacity to launch a war against the US. (Well, yes, it could fire nuclear rockets - but that would simply guarantee the destruction of China.)

That's why there's another piece of news that has sort of been mentioned in papers - but without any connect the dots explanation.

China, Russia and Iran are negotiating an alliance. To attack the US? No. All three could not launch an attack on the US. The logistics alone would be hopeless. It's because they expect the US to attack them. And that's where it all connects with Ukraine.

When rioting broke out in Kyiv, it was obviously long planned, organized by people who knew a thing or two about creating chaos. Were they Russian?

Not likely. Russians would scarcely have picked the government that seized power. An international banker?  Nazi cabinet ministers? Not likely. But let's not fuss about that part. Let's look at the next part. That's when the European Union, with the US,  immediately recognized the government that had illegally seized power.

The speed of that recognition was more than a little strange.

Then the news media immediately hopped on board the train to paint the war as a Russian plot. There was not even an attempt to figure exactly where that coup came from. Nor did they tell us about all the fascists in the new government. In fact, most news stories were speculation bordering on gossip.

The western response was not to seek a peaceful solution. Not at all. From the start, it did nothing but accuse and make threats - a process in which Canada's chief braying ass was prominent. So far, the only urging for a peaceful solution has come from Russia. It's not because Putin is an angel, of course. It's because Ukraine is not worth the risk of a war.

The West has taken a line, and deliberately so, to humiliate Russia - possibly to make war on it. And for those same reasons, Putin cannot possibly allow the West to do that. He also knows there are influential people in the US who want a war with Russia.

Then, all of a sudden, China and Iran are working on an alliance with Russia, and have announced plans to scrap the US dollar as their trade currency. Well, of course.

China knows it is next on the list - unless the US gets Iran first. The US has been threatening Iran for years over a nuclear bomb programme that almost certainly does not exist. In fact, the US and Britain have been after Iran ever since it booted out the murdering dictator the US and Britain imposed on it so they could loot Iran's oil.

A new cold war? No. Worse than that. The US is a power in decline. If it is going to dominate the world, it  has to do it now. And the news media are doing their usual job of brain-washing us to think this has something to do with defence and democracy.

And it will get worse. If the US were to manage to dominate the world we would be in for war after war after  war to preserve that domination.
Oh, and there's another story you probably won't see in the Irving press. I got it from a very interesting news sheet put out by volunteers in Fredericton. It's called The Brief, and you can reach it at

It's about Escobar in Guatemala, a mine owned by two companies called Goldcorp and Tahoe Resources. The region is overwhelmingly opposed to mining. A girl of 16 was murdered, and h er father severely wounded by gunmen. That's not unusual. She and her father were both active in the environmental movement - and things happen to people like that in Guatemala. Should we care?

Well, those companies are both Canadian owned, and mining companies (with the cooperation of the governments of Guatemala and the US)  have killed people in Guatemala by the hundreds of thousands - to keep them in line.

Why, you might even know one or two of the major owners.

It's worth taking a look at the rest of the world. The Irving press doesn't do it because it's mission is to keep you with your nose firmly stuck in your own bellybutton. But the rest of the world has a profound effect on us; and sometimes it can get terribly close to home.

Harper visited a town in New Brunswick, today. As always,  he did not mention that his family is from New Brunswick.

On C11, Ukraine is holding a peace conference. But the Ukraine government didn't invite the other side. Well, at least there won't be any arguing.
Norbert writes about voting, a subject on which he has nothing to say that would add anything new to hundreds of thousands of editorial writers over the past century.

Alec Bruce writes that "Moncton deserves downtown events centre." It would generate between 12 million and 15 million in spending. (Predicting the future is always dangerous. I wouldn't bet the farm that the events centre would generate anything, given the states of the world economies.)

And it will be a place 'where culture triumphs'? Can anyone seriously believe that this region has 12,000 people who are dying for anything that could be called culture? If so, they have kept their secret well.

If the events centre is such a sure thing financially, can you seriously believe for a minute that the wealthy of this province would allow us common folk to build and own it?

In this province, as in most, the only government concern is raising money.. They give the excuse that they need the money to serve the people. But I know of no government  (apart from Robichaud's) that has had any philosophy of what the needs of the people are. They almost never discuss what our society needs. The society itself never discusses what we need. Nor do our newspapers. All we get is "nifty" schemes to make money.

We need a government that has some profile of what people need. Then you look for ways to raise the money.

Frankly, I don't think any reasonable list of human needs can be met with an economic system that has long since rotted to a pool of corruption and greed.

I do know that before I would spend a cent on an events centre, I would take a hard look at what this society needs to be healthy and to offer opportunity. And I doubt very much that an events centre would come out very high on that list of needs.

Rod Allen offers us another column of his transcendant wit as in "wife no.1."  Incidentally, Rod, we don't have a "current king and queen". Just a queen. Some normally sharp editor must have been so helpless with laughter at all the wit that he missed that one.

Jody Dallaire has an excellent column on how commercialization has done enormous damage to the spirit of Mother's Day - and she suggests alternatives. In short, Mother's Day now is a reflection of our political approach - something largely just to make money. It could, and should, be something to meet human needs.

The first letter to the editor is "Honour all our Afghan casualties".

And it's a good one.


  1. Do you have the source for that letter about honouring all Afghan casualties available ?
    And a couple of related thoughts surface : reminiscent of the outrage of Somalian torture, Canadians were reported to hand over 'kettled' Afghan civilians to torture at rates of multiples of other NATO forces.
    And betrayal started long before commonly acknowledged, likely including 'immunization' protocols. But DU recalls Agent Orange, updated because it disrupts even more as it disperses :

  2. The only source I have is that the letter appears on the letters to the editor page of today's Times and Transcript.

    However, I know it's a quite common practice for the American army to count only those actually killed on the battlefield as war dead.

    The counting of enemy dead is even more stringent. The most popular counting source in Iraq counted on those who died on he battlefield - AND as witnessed by two journalists working for different employers. That's a major reason why American figures Iraqi deaths are so absurdly low.

    I wasn't surprised that Canadian soldiers turned over people for torture. Soldiers, all the way up to general, want to be accepted by their peers in the bigger armies. It's particularly intense for us because the Canadian army has pretty much become just a sub-division of the North American army.