Thursday, August 6, 2015

August 6: I thought this might be useful to show what a real newspaper looks like...

Haaretz pays no attention to the dictates of government or big business. Unlike the Irving press, it treats news with honesty and intelligence. Much of what is below is important to us. It does affect us, and it will quite possibly kill some of us. But none of the below appeared in the Irving papers.

Obama wants the  peace agreement with Iran. Just about every country in the world, except Israel, wants it. A large majority of American Jews want the peace settlement. But Netanyahu, working through the Israeli lobby in Washington, doesn't want it. Netanyahu wants war and the destruction of  Iran

That would kill not only hundreds of thousands in the region, it could well expand into a global and nuclear war.(And this, he says, is to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb. But there is no evidence Iran was operating such a plan in the first place. U.S. intelligence said it wasn't - even before the talks started. In fact, the only country in the middle east that has illegally developed a nuclear bomb is Israel.)

American policy and the lives of all of us are being staked on the demands of a man who has proven to be driven by hatred and a willingness to kill, a man who rules a country with less population than that of a lesser American city.

This is a big story, and an important one. But the Irving press account of it (page B 3) is pretty tame stuff with no sense of what the stakes are, no mention of the power or even the existence of the Israeli lobby. Nor is their a single commentary column on this important news.

Haaretz also noticed - as nobody at Irving press did - that this year is the 70th anniversary of the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima. But even Haaretz doesn't say anything about why it happened.

The official story, that the U.S. might have  suffered a million casualties with a land invasion of Japan is pure bunk, believable only because of the war hysteria spread by the news media of the time - just like today. Almost all of the Japanese army was stranded from in China and other parts of east Asia or on Islands. It could not get back to Japan to defend it because the U.S., with the help of Britain and Australia so controlled the seas that Japan couldn't even get food or fuel. The few ships it had left couldn't leave port because there was no fuel for them. And the bombers that hit Hiroshima and Nagasaki met no fighter opposition because the air force had no fuel.

As well, Japan had been putting out feelers for a surrender - and that was well known to the U.S. The Japanese people, in very large numbers, were starving and homeless, and they knew the war was lost. It simply is not true that an invasion of Japan would have suffered heavy casualties. Quite the contrary.

As well, the Soviet Union was going through the Japanese army in China like a knife through butter. There was a danger it would get economic control of China - and U.S. big business had been lusting for such control for half a century. It was dying to pick off the parts of the British and French empires that had exercised control. That's why the U.S. government was in no hurry to save Britain and France in 1939. It didn't care about Europe. It wanted control of Asia.

So why did the U.S. bomb Hiroshima?

Because the Soviet Union was going through the Japanese army in China like a knife through butter. The bombing of Hiroshima had nothing to do with ending the war. It was a warning to Russia.

So why bomb Nagasaki right after? That was an experiment to test a newer form of nuclear bomb.

It happened seventy years ago - and we're still living the consequences of it.

(Incidentally, if you can ever get hold of the old newsreel films of the 50s, you will see many cases of American troops wearing sunglasses lined up to watch nuclear explosions on U.S. testing grounds.
Why bring in troops to watch? To test for the effects of exposure to radiation. And sure enough, a great many of those soldiers lived lives of illness and died  young.)

Oh, but none of this is in today's Irving press.
A3 has a big story about volunteers feeding people at city parks. It has not yet occurred to the Irving press to ask politicians in this province why the hungry have to be fed by volunteers. Certainly, the government has no trouble with the cost of feeding billionaires and other friends at Larry's Gulch.

Any why has it never occurred to the Irving press to find out how many people in this city are underfed and or homeless?

But, no. As always, most the news section of A is trivial crap like court news, and on A12, huge excitement that wrestler Jake the Snake Roberts will be in Moncton. Be still, my heart.
The editorial is a babble about the Order of New Brunswick. Doesn't the editorialist have anything to say about real issues in this city? Usually, a newspaper editorial takes a stand on an issue, and writes an analysis and an opinion about it - and this becomes the official position of the paper. I have every respect for people who get the Order of New Brunswick. But I don't think it ranks among our great problems to deal with.

And doesn't the editorialist know that there is a world outside of Moncton? And that  what happens in that world affects us?

Another good column by Norbert Cunningham, this one on the federal election. The kid is coming along.

Rod Allen shares his wisdom on the joy of chasing pigs. Hint, Mr. Allen. A commentary column is one in which we express analyses and opinions. It is not a column of tedious humour. Nor is it a column of trivialities. If you really have nothing to say, wouldn't it be better to assign someone else to that column. Most of your student columnists write more intelligent stuff than this.

The guest column is about the wage gap. And it seems there isn't any. We're all doing just great. Sort of. The column comes, of course, from the Fraser Institute, a very far right "think-tank" sponsored by the rich to serve the rich. The writer is a professor of economics. As I've said before, not all professors can be trusted.

Alec Bruce writes about the federal election - but really has nothing to say. It must be a bug going around the Times and Transcript office.
Canada&World opens with a big, world story. "Political leaders prepare for first debate". (Well, it's not really a big story. I mean 'Political leaders don't prepare for first debate"  would be a big story. But, as it is, it's like saying "Political leaders will wear clothes for first debate".

A more important story is that the provincial conservatives have demanded an inquiry into the revelation that the union leaders at NB Power have been working for the federal Liberals on the federal election, and urging their members to volunteer their help. Energy minister Arsenault says it's not a government responsibility.

We can (and probably will) play word games on this until the election is over. But it is not possible that the provincial Liberal Party didn't know about what was going on. As well, union leadership in all of Canada should be taking a hard look at what the N.B. Power union did. There's nothing wrong with a union supporting a party in an election. But it would be very wrong to be spending union dues without a supporting vote from the union members. (Funny how the newspaper never even thought of the membership angle.)

B3 has the story of a man with a hatchet and gun at a movie theatre in Nashville who died in a shootout with police. That's a more important story than it seems.

In both Canada and the U.S. we have stirred up such a hysteria over terrorist attacks that we have abandoned most of our human rights and freedoms and created several multi-billion dollar domestic spy organizations.

Every mosque on the continent has been photographed, along with its members, and all investigated. And we're even hysterical enough to let the spies consider environmental  groups to be terrorist, and make reports about them for law-abiding billionaires.

And how many terrorists have been caught? Well, for Canada, it's two. Maybe. It's a simple-minded, perhaps mentally unwell and isolated couple who were paid by our, heroic spies to prepare a bomb. The spies also told them how to make a bomb, and supplied then with material and plans. When they protested they didn't want to do it, the spies gave them more money - and pushed them along.

Then, before the bomb could be exploded, the spies arrested them. Wow! That was close!  O Canada!

And that cost us billions of dollars.

The story has been very similar in the U.S. Lots of people have been suspected. But there have been few arrests - and very few attacks. Apparently, you have more danger of being killed in the U.S. if  you go to a movie theatre. And far, far more of being killed by a policeman. In fact, the number of people killed by police in the US since 9/11  is more than double the number killed on that day.

Add to that the number of Americans and Canadians killed in wars resulting from 9/11 and you're up to three times or more of the number killed on 911. And that's doesn't count the as many as two million Iraqis and Afghanis, men, women and children, who had nothing to do with  9/11 slaughtered. (Yes. Bush and Blair lied. It's pretty much official now.)

Add to that the chaos, murder, starvation, and the refugee toll in today's middle east - also a direct result of our hysteria over 9/11,

This is a hysteria generated by governments, news media, and billionaires who make money out of it. It is a hysteria that has destroyed the very foundations of our democracy and our freedoms. And we are by no means close to the end of that hysteria.

On the same page, many U.S. states are trying to block Obama's new limits on power plants to reduce emissions, and at least delay climate change. The limits will almost certainly be vetoed by the Senate.
Why don't the protesting states want to protect the environment?  Well, says one of the governments, "These regulation if passed will do serious damage to West Virginia and the U.S. economy."

That means billionaires don't want it. Profits are more important than human survival.

And that's pretty much it for the Irving view of the world today.

For more news about New Brunswick that isn't in the Irving press, read below.

Again, a short summary of what is happening and what is going to happen in the world.

The wealthy have always bought governments in Canada - and all over the western world. The great change began with free trade which enabled the wealthy to exploit cheap labour in other countries and, thereby to cheapen labour in their own countries. Free trade also enabled them to exploit countries that had no environmental regulations - and  to get rid of any regulations that were in the way.

In the process, they have effectively destroyed democracy in much of the western world.  Greece and Ukraine are a big step forward in this process. Both countries are directly controlled by big business - in these two cases, mostly by international banks.  But events are moving quickly.

The latest free trade agreements have a heavy stress on reducing environmental conditions, and allowing the wealthy all over the world to pretty much ignore national governments altogether. That's true of the trans-Pacific Partnership which, you'll notice, Harper never tells us much about.

Where do we go from here?

Well, we can move to world control by one country. The one country making that move is the U.S., especially since the election of George Bush Jr. (Check the story on B3 of today's TandT. In speaking of the Iran deal, Note where Obama says it's important to maintain "America's credibility as the anchor of the international system"

Oh? Who elected the U.S. to do that? And what international system is he talking about? The nation that is the biggest invader and killer and torturer in the world is the anchor of the international system?  The country that killed over a million Iraqis on a false claim that Bush knew was false, the million and more whose murders Bush was never charged for, the same semi-literate Bush who gets hundreds of thousands of dollars for a speech ---this was our anchor of the international system?

If so, Good luck.  And Seig Heil.

The other possibility is that the very wealthy of all countries will come together to replace all governments with their select group as world rulers. Ultimately, that will be a disaster for all of us.  They have the greed for power. But not the brains. Like the editorialist for the TandT, they understand money. But they don't even see people as humans like themselves.

A third possibility is major uprisings around the world - with who knows what result. In fact, those uprisings are already happening. That's much of what's going on in the Middle East.

The fourth possibility is us - which is limited to what we can do in Canada and here in New Brunswick. We have to wake up, and we don't have much time. We have to get ourselves out of the sad and ultimately hopeless western world that surrounds us in this age of the death of the last, western empire.

We have to break out of the hysteria and elect a government that will actually make changes in this country, changes that put the needs of people at the top of the list.

That means Harper has to go. If he gets power again, it's all over. That's not an exaggeration. He has, all his years in power, shown utter contempt for democracy, and utter compliance with whatever the billionaires want. He is the most dangerous and destructive prime minister this country has ever had. Nor is there anyone of any talent in the toadies who surround him. (That's why MacKay made such a mess when he was minister of defence.. That's why we just sent our pilots off to war with outdated aircraft.)

Trudeau is zero.  This is a typical product of an upper class family who is running for prime minister because his father was a prime minister. There is no substance to him. The same is true of his party. It has failed, and failed badly, to find a real leader in three tries. There is no talent in Trudeau, and none in the Liberal party. They're back to where they were in 1919 when Mackenzie-King re-invented Liberalism.

Norbert thinks the Liberals could merge with the NDP because, he says, the two parties have a similar philosophy. That's nonsense. The official philosophies are quite different. And that's reflected very much in the type of  people each gets elected. I think the NDP philosophy should go much deeper; but it has no resemblance to the Liberals. In fact, the Liberals haven't really had a philosophy since Lester Pearson was prime minister.

I don't think the NDP programme goes nearly as far as it should. But it's not the NDP that stands in the way. It's the Canadian people who are blocking the way to the changes that have to come. It's time, and not much time, to wake up. We are at what is probably the biggest turning point since some hairy creature rose for the first time to stand on his (or her) feet.

On balance, I'll vote for the NDP because I know both the Liberals and the Conservatives would be disasters. The Greens? I like them. But we cannot protect the environment without other, essential changes, to our political system. We cannot protect it so long as billionaires have the political power they do. To vote Green Party now is to put the icing on the cake before we've baked the cake.

Oh, meanwhile, watch for the killing in the middle east to get much worse very soon. And watch for pressure for a Canadian commitment. It's our duty to help "America's credibility as the anchor of the international system."

N.B. I shall be off tomorrow for three days of sea and sand - and maybe sun.


1 comment:

  1. the Evil Empire: religion, armies, monarchies and politicians...are the causers of all wars