The U-S is just itching to (have Iran) start a nuclear war

Here is what the U-S State Department wants you to believe.

Iran's hardline, Islamic-based government can only be developing a nuclear energy program for one reason - to propel a nuclear bomb at the Evil Jews who run Israel. And then to take on all other comers who would dare challenge the Ayatollahs for Asian, if not world supremacy.

It would have you believe that Iran is so ignorant and misguided that it doesn't realize there are a dozen nations with thousands of REAL nuclear weapons that could make it disappear in a flash. It also wants the world to accept that it makes no rational sense for Iran's villainous government to want to supply it's 72-million citizens with a cleaner, more efficient form of energy. Or to wean itself off carbon-based fuel. Or to help modernize and diversify.

It insists, without a shred of evidence, that Iranian leadership is, in fact, Doctor Evil - obsessed with a diabolical Armageddon that would wipe Israel off the planet... with only hardy applause from the rest of the world. No other consequences. No other fall out (pun intended). Iran would launch its single missile on the tip of a crude, even obsolete rocket... and that Israel would be helpless to defend itself. Never mind that the West (U-S, EU, NATO and Israel) has satellite cameras that have every inch of Earth under surveillance, especially regions of the planet they consider to be disruptive.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Or believable to rational, thinking people.

We are supposed to all accept, without question, that Iran would be willing to inflict a nihilistic blow on a smaller, neighboring country that has one of the world's most lethal and effective militaries, and which also happens to own 100 to 200 sophisticated nuclear weapons. Not to mention the radiation that would maim and kill Palestinians and Arabs throughout the region.

If you actually are gullible enough to believe this daily tripe from the Pentagon, you haven't been looking at the bigger, more rational picture.

As a journalist I become ill every time I see the laughably compliant American media parroting the U-S State Department's long-running narrative - that a nefarious, nuclear-armed Iranian regime will launch a bomb the moment is has the capability, inviting certain annihilation. It defies logic.

The Pentagon has used this same method with North Korea, Pakistan and Iraq. None of those countries has ever launched a nuclear strike. North Korea's Cult of Personality dictator is in no hurry to be blown to smithereens by launching a nuke. Pakistan and India may be at odds (gawd knows why), but neither is off kilter enough to let loose with a nuke. And even if Saddam Hussein's Iraq or Moammar Kaddafi's Libya had nuclear bombs, they would only do what others do once they have that capability - wield the power to fend off invasion and perhaps to suppress their own people, NOT to go attacking others. Check the record.

Lets look at a few FACTS.

Iran has signed the Non Proliferation Treaty on the use of nuclear weapons. Israel has not. Nuclear inspectors have never been allowed to do their work in Israel. The latest IAEA report on Iran's nuclear program is a virtual rehash of previously published information. The report only hints that Iran may be working on a weapon. No evidence whatsoever.

But let's pretend the American Military Complex is right. That Iran actually develops a weapon. So what's next? Invasion? More economic sanctions? No discussions? No adult conversations?

A telling sign of who really runs the United States was the sensible and pragmatic statement by then newly-elected President Barrack Obama declaring that the best way to deal with Iran was to sit down and talk. He was immediately berated and ridiculed by enough American hawks that the plan was shelved.

Sure, it may have been prudent for Ronald Reagan to talk with the USSR's Mikhail Gorbachev, or to have indirect talks with North Korea, but Iran? So why the difference? Because it does not fit the U-S Military Complex narrative - that Israel is good and Iran embodies all that is evil.

The same U-S media that is capable of delivering thorough investigative reporting allows this irrational State Department story to be spewed unchallenged. It's shameful.

Jack

A few years ago I mentioned to my friend Brian that I'd met Jack Layton. I noted that he seemed like a pleasant fellow, but it was a brief encounter and he didn't really have time to stop to shake hands. So we exchanged pleasantries and went on our ways.

Brian said he had shaken Layton's hand and was struck by how small that paw was. Delicate, even.

Within a year Layton and I came across one another for a second time. In Calgary. Stampede time. Jack was perfunctorily decked out in cowboy duds. This time, I made sure I offered my hand because I wanted to see if Brian was right, wrong, being picky or showing anti-NDP bias. Sure enough, this small hand was enveloped by my medium-sized mitt. The hand was in stark contrast to Layton's square jaw, tanned skin and macho cowboy paraphernalia (Wrangler jeans, shiny boots and garish, big-buckled belt.) Still, the handshake was firm and sincere. His eye contact resolute.

But apart from hands that seemed to be in stark contrast to his vivid, outgoing, engaging personality, Jack Layton was impressive. His conversation was peppered with empathy for his fellow humans, especially those who hadn't been afforded a break in life. Just honest, hard-working folk trying to find their way and provide for their loved ones. My image and opinion of him were reenforced from listening to him talk briefly to a small group of supporters and the curious at the stampede grounds. This, from a guy who (at the time) was fiercely apolitical.

Like most public figures I've come across, Layton was more striking in person than as portrayed and profiled by media.

He seemed to personify compassion. I just had this feeling that he strove to lift people up, to work for a social justice system that valued everyone, not just the successful. I think he deeply cared about Canada, Canadians and narrowing the gap between rich and poor. All admirable traits and aspirations, although his means to those ends were disputed by his opponents.

He often referred to Tommy Douglas, the father of Canadian government-provided health care and himself a feisty campaigner for working stiffs. I think I know why. They were much the same. I know because I got to know Douglas when he relocated from Saskatchewan to Vancouver Island many years ago. The Douglas-Layton similarities were evident to me - sparkling, penetrating eyes; resonant voice; engaging presence; two men of ambition, purpose and healthy egos. Douglas as a whirling Dervish who had more energy in his mid-60s than men half his age. Up until a year ago, Layton was a mirror image of his idol.

Layton leaves us in his 62nd year, ravaged by an insidious, unrelenting disease. Yes sad. But I have a feeling Layton would shrug, smile and say, "hey, that's life. Get on with it."

So we should do what he would want us to do - celebrate his life, toast our own lives, recognize his modest contributions to the Canadian discourse and paint the town orange.

RIP Jack.

Prompted.... by lunacy

There is considerable irony in the August 8th Wall Street and Bay Street selloffs. It was on this date that several prominent crooks were in the spotlight. Richard M. Nixon quit the White House in the Watergate scandal in 1974 and Britain's Great Train Robbers, 15 thieves, made off with $7 million in 1963. 


Now to August 8, 2011.


Investors worldwide were spooked by a so-called rating agency, Standard and Poor's. But how soon politicians and pundits forget about or ignore S&P's trail of thieving, lies and corruption. 


S&P and its fellow specious rating services were key players, the main enablers, in the fraud that allowed banks to bundle and sell toxic assets, that caused the worldwide financial crisis in 2008. Those agencies had given their AAA+ blessing to the houses of cards, known as derivatives, from a mortgage system that was comically corrupt. A system, by the way, that has been wholeheartedly supported by the U-S government and the dense, self-serving politicians that run Washington.  


Lehman Brothers was the first banking domino to fall in 2008, followed by Wall Street's sheer panic and warnings of economic Armageddon. It begged for money and got it - $800 million from U-S taxpayers. Laughably and tragically, much of that money, within weeks, was doled out in the form of multi-million dollar bonuses, the most lavish ever. 


So it is ironic and hypocritical for Standard & Poor's to now downgrade a federal government debt that it was central in helping to balloon to $14.4 trillion. Not only that, but the senseless demotion of U-S Treasury notes (bonds) has spooked stock markets, which have little to do with the bond market. The bond market held up quite nicely today. Why? Because the main creditors, China and Japan, still have every reason to believe that the U-S will honor its obligations, as it has done for two centuries. They know the world needs a strong, solvent United States. 


In the Great Train Robbery police tracked down all but three of the gang through fingerprints. Richard Nixon scurried from office before he could be impeached.


But the busted financial model in the U-S apparently will carry on as if government debt doesn't matter. No elected official has the fortitude to do the right thing. 


Its sad to watch Americans still living the delusion that the U-S of A is bless by God and is the Greatest Country The World Has Ever Known. 
 

Vancouver Canucks - Tough To Love

Something felt right about the Vancouver Canucks loss in the Stanley Cup finals. It’s hard to explain exactly why, but here goes.

In spite of their enormous talent and 11 seasons in the league, there is an eerie calm about the Sedin twins, Daniel and Henrik, that border’s on smugness. It’s a nonchalant demeanor that lacks passion. They just didn’t seem to care if they won or lost, but how they played the game. And there’s the rub.

The way the Sedins play the game has rubbed off on the entire team. Much of it is wonderful; perfect tic-tac-toe passes, finding the open man, using angles, and criss-crossing through centre ice and across the opposing blue line. They are experts at lifting opponents’ sticks, stealing pucks, turning on a dime and creating odd-man rushes. The Canucks resemble a Swedish Elite league side or the Soviet Red Army squads of the 70’s and 80’s – always skating, circling, using forward motion efficiently and preferring offensive-minding defensemen.

However, much of the Canucks style lacks mettle, strength of character. Following their dopplegangers, uh, leaders.

The Sedins are like robots – methodical, logical, a necessity in today’s world. Championship hockey, on the other hand, demands grit, adjustment, going deep within. Just as sophisticated company data systems are hacked by cyber rogues, tough-as-nails men, ranging in age from 19 to 43, bashed to bits the Canucks intricate, but delicate set-piece system.

In the aftermath of the lopsided drubbing in the final game, the Sedins calmly provided frank admissions of their failures. But couldn’t explain why  (did the pandering sports bingo callers even asked that question?) It was all so clean, clinical and hollow.

Over the course of the playoffs Canucks players bit, faked and embellished and their General Manager whined about unfair officiating. That alone was enough to turn off most hockey traditionalists. But for me the hallmark of the series arrived near the end of Game 6 when, at the end of a play, small, rookie forward Brad Marchand of Boston landed half a dozen punches to the head of a Sedin (doesn’t matter which). The passive twin absorbed each blow with a head-turn, as if trying to draw a penalty. Afterwards, when asked why he did it, the brash rookie said, “Because I felt like it.” He should have added, "because that spineless excuse for a man refused to even shove me back". Tactics like that might work in Sweden, or in the old Soviet Union, but NOT in the Stanley Cup Finals.

Follow the leader(s)? I’m not so sure, Vancouver fans.