Yesterday evening,
as I went through world, national and local news, I was astonished at
the implications of much of what I was reading. I was looking forward
to reading, perhaps, fuller versions and, perhaps, commentary on
these stunning events.
Only one made it
into the Irving press. It's on B5 - “Iran allows Russian
overflights to Syria.” It's a version of events that seems to be
several days old – and doesn't tell us much.
As well, all the
stories I read last night need explanation - but none of them
brought a single word of commentary. In fact, the only commentary
that was interesting was the one by Rod Allen. And it was interesting
only because it was such bargain basement, badly written, and
irrelevant trivia. I cannot understand a newspaper which would permit
this level of crap to appear on its pages.
The only local news
that caught my eye was that Sackville United Church has been
demolished. Unfortunately, it never occurred to the reporter to ask
anybody about the significance of that church and its demolition in
the context of Sackville's history.
He didn't even
mention that I was married there fifty years ago.
The editorial isn't
bright. It argues that we should not force parents to get
vaccinations for the children before school, but should have
“conversations” to convince them. Similarly, I guess we should
not fine or jail drunk drivers, but should chat with them.
It concludes that
parents who refuse vaccination for their children should be required
to make other educational arrangements for their children. Huh? How
is that different from forcing them? And how can most parents
possibly afford “other” arrangements? This is a solution that
could ruin the child's life.
In most newspapers, the editorial is discussed and agreed on by all
the editors as a statement of the newspaper's opinion. If that's the
case, the editorial boards of the Irving press has a lot of cobwebs
in the attic.
So let's take a look
at the real news.
For a start, there's
a very blunt criticism of Canada in The Guardian – and The
Guardian may well be the best, English language paper in the world.
We Canadians have been doing dirty work for the U.S. for almost sixty
years. Today, we are killing civilians in Iran. That's not simply an
accusation. It's from the U.N. We killed Afghans to make an American
president like us. We have treated refugees brutally, with Harper
alone having put some ten thousand of them into our prisons – that
includes children, and sometimes includes solitary. They can spend
months, even years in prison, while our government considers their
cases and, commonly, deports them.
Why does Harper do
that? 1. Because it pleases the bigots of Canada. 2. because it
pleases the fearful – and they are a major part of the Harper vote.
3. because it pleases the U.S. where the hysteria is even worse than
in Canada.
Once upon a time,
Canada was respected around the world. But no more. The rest of the
world recognizes what we have become. We have played a full share in
creating the Middle East Crisis. We aren't hated; we are despised as
puppets of a very greedy and murderous American capitalism. Once upon
a time, to be Canadian was to be proud. Now, it's to be ashamed.
Then there's a video
interview with Julian Assange of Wikileaks. It's about the scale of
murder, torture, starvation imposed on billions of people by U.S.
capitalism. Yes, it appears in a Russian media release. But it's more
valid than anything I've seen in any North American newspapers. And
Assange is a man who will, some day, by murdered by the U.S. for
telling what he knows. There is no reward for him in this. He can't
even go out on his balcony for fear of being shot by a U.S. agent.
Then there was a big
story on CBC News on Sept. 9, about a wealthy Canadian who hasn't
paid taxes for years because he keeps his money in an offshore
account. The story also revealed that this is a very common practice
among the very rich, and not just in Canada. We all know people that
refers to in New Brunswick. How could an honest news editor miss that
story when local CBC radio had it?
Worse, what we do
get is economic and governmental preaching from the “eminent and
respected” professors Savoie and Saillant who don't seem to be
aware that there are such things as tax avoidance for the very, very
rich. And maybe, just maybe, this tax acoidancecould be a factor in
our provincial economic condition.
It is not possible
for news editors to be so ignorant they don't know about this. That
means they can only be lying and propagandizing.
Then there's what
could be the biggest story of the year. Reuters has reported Russian
troops in Syria, and fighting against ISIL. The U.S., of course, is
angry because only it and its puppets (like Canada) are allowed to
fight ISIL.
Russia is not going
there as Santa Claus, of course. It needs Assad to stay in power in
order to put through the pipeline I discussed yesterday. Nor is the
U.S. in the fighting because of kind hearts like the Koch brothers.
So we aren't talking
about good guys and bad guys here.
The U.S. has made
the Middle East a hell hole because of American capitalist greed.
That has created a refugee crisis that won't directly affect the U.S.
and Canada, because both governments have said the hell with the
refugees. Let them drown. (And we'll put up monuments, and feel all
virtuous about it.)
However, the
refugees are creating a crisis in the European Union – and that
crisis can only get worse, probably very much worse. The policies of
American oil capitalists and of the politicians who take orders from
them are leading to instability throughout Europe.
This Russian
intervention could lead to nuclear war if Obama insists on continuing
the middle east policies that have been favoured by oil billionaires
and Bush – and Obama.
Or it could be that
the oil billionaires will grow brains, and realize that widespread
instability is not good for business. Russian intervention could
defeat ISIL. That would be good for the U.S. - but not for the oil
billionaires because 1.it would keep al-Assad in power which would
mean preserving the pipeline agreement, thereby making money for
Russian capitalist oil billionaires. It would also give Russia a
long-term influence in the region.
I have no idea how
this will work out. Putin has consistently outplayed Bush and Obama
in diplomacy. It's possible that the U.S. and Russia will come to a
deal which would end the cold war, and integrate itself into the
European Union. But any guess is just a guess because we are not
dealing with people who are entirely sane. (For an example of that,
read the Trump story on p. B5. So far, his only foreign policy seems
to be that he would make changes so quickly “It will make your head
spin.” And I'm not sure that's a good way to make foreign policy.)
The CBC report below
is important – though not really as unbiased as a news commentary
should be. It's pretty light on the role of American oil billionaires
in creating this mess. But this is a story with enormous
implications- and I'm astonished that the Irving press editors don't
seem to have realized that.
Then there's the
item a reader sent, saying it seemed to sum up my analysis. And, yes,
it does. And I love it.
No comments:
Post a Comment