Global Warming and The New Climate Change Economy....

When George Orwell wrote 1984 he epitomized the use of doublespeak.  His words, "Freedom is Slavery" made us think about the human use of language and how we use it to generate ideas, and from those ideas create an ideology.  Take Global Warming for example, what started out as a movement towards responsible stewardship of our planet, has turned into it's own kind of stock market economy that threatens to take away our right to stewardship under the strict control of the United Nations.  What once was an appeal for nations to work co-operatively to manage resources and preserve our living spaces has turned into the Church of Global Warming.  The question is how did we let it get to this and what does it really mean for our future.

As a kid, I remember the first Earth Day, where we were all supposed to start worrying about our pollution, saving the whales, the extinction of the tiger and just how much woodpulp went into our textbooks.  The timing merged well with the birth of a digital age where information would be more accessible through something called the "web" and the personal computer.  It was to be a huge leap for mankind; efficient, responsive, responsible human beings taking care of their earth using the technological advances we created.  Reducing waste, re-using what we consume and recycling what we previously threw away was suddenly the new mantra, and one that made sense, but made little impact in the grand scheme of things. Schoolkids at home madly recycled their juiceboxes, while big oil companies contaminated their tailing ponds or wrecked their tankers near a nature preserve.  Just how could one kid be expected to make a difference?

There was also, for a short time, a recession in the 80's that once we were out of it, spurned a new decade of "gotta have it" mentality.  Christmas at our house got WAY out of hand, with more and more presents appearing under the tree each year.  The amount of money being spent on bigger and more expensive presents just so you could outdo yourself from last year increased instead of decreased.  Obscene is the best way to describe it.  It was as exhausting getting ready for Christmas as it was actually opening presents Christmas Day.  And there was so much cardboard and paper and filler thrown out at the end of that day that my mental "save the planet" alarm was going beserk.  We could have whatever we wanted and had no reason to think about being responsible consumers ( I know because the television ads and credit card companies told me so!).  Only recently have I learned to ask "Do I really need this?" before making a purchase.

The Kyoto accord, was in essence, an attempt to adress what we were doing to our environment but without any real consequences.  It was like our parents saying, "If you don't stop that right now, you're getting a time out!".  Not much there to inspire the world to change.  Fear, however, is a great motivator.  In fact greater than love or hate combined, fear can do more to move a person to action and so it makes a valuable tool for politicians.  Politicians like Al Gore have made Global Warming the fear buzzword that Kyoto never was.  Global Warming is going to destroy the earth in case you hadn't heard and is already responsible for the drowning of the Polar Bears and for every drought and flood in the past 100 years.  The idea that the Sun regulates the earths temperatures is clearly not as popular (or as well funded) as the belief that what humans breath out is responsible for an apparent rise in earth temperatures.  And of course, every campaign needs a campaigner; enter Al Gore.  Now most people only remember Al as the guy who ran for President against Bush and somehow magically lost the election. (See the article from Investigate Magazine below for a primer).  But most would never guess that Al had some dealings with Enron and Ken Laye that although he denies, don't paint him in a very eco-friendly light.  It is important, however, to understand the Kyoto/Enron/Gore/Laye connection as it has profoundly set the stage for the "mechanism' now in place that will undoubtedly affect everyone in the western world.  This mechanism, the brainchild of the World Resources Institute (via Al Gore and Ken Laye) and the United Nations  ( UNFCC) aims to capitalize on our failure to take concrete measures to address the issues such as species conservation, pollution control, toxic waste, air and water quality, water conservation etc... by lumping them under the umbrella called Global Warming.  Now here, I will not debate the validity (or lack) of the Global Warming concept as put forth by several climate scientists.  There is plenty of data on both sides to support either argument (either that Global Warming exists, or that it is a scam).  What is most important is that a whole new economy is being forged on the premise of this 'theory'. 

COP 16 (or the Council of the Parties #16), which was recently held in Cancun and is the progeny of the Kyoto Accord, reveals the true nature of the movement to adress Global Warming.
A preliminary review of the documents found at the UNFCC shows the following:
1. Several dedicated funds have been set up which party countries contribute funds to on a yearly basis (these funds are accessible in the form of grants and loans depending on who is accessing the funds and for what project)
2. Countries who are Party to the treaty agree to curb their GHG (greenhouse gas) emmissions through a series of reporting, monitoring and regulation measures that they have already begun to institute.  The reporting measures for agriculture (for example) include specialized software that allows for the input of individual producers information such as how many sheep, cattle, chickens are on their farm, how much manure is produced, is it transported 'off-site' for disposal, how much nitrogenous fertilizer is added to the soil, how much natural fertilizer is added to the soil, how many legumous crops are grown, etc.   This data is formulated so as to produce a number relating to the amount of GHG produced for that particular farm or operation.  It accounts for how the land is used, how waste organic matter is used etc...  Having a number and having a database of specific producer operations allows for the better calculation of how much that producer should be taxed.
3. Yes, there will be taxes.... Canada has only committed funds for 2010 and has not reported how much it will contribute in 2011-12, but it will be in the area of 41-44 million dollars to the fund.
4.  Third world countries have the ability to submit their projects for review and to apply for funding of these projects through the funds.
5.  The funds are controlled through the World Bank.
6.  The United Nations has appointed the Secretariat and Board Members (of which Canada has no representation).
7.  Technology transfer is also one of the initiatives of the UNFCC, which allows for third world countries to access technology for their projects without payment of licencing fees, and overrides patent protection.
8.  The monies put into the funds are tax free to the third world parties.
9.  The monies put into the funds cannot be accessed by developed nations for their own technology transfer, green projects etc... In other words, it is a one way flow from Most Developed to Least Developed.
10. Party countries are restricted to activities that maintain a temperature increase of less than 2 degrees centigrade.  Canada has agreed to a GHG emission reduction of 17% by 2012 in step with the US.

Sounds fair right?  Sure, if we were striving for a Utopian society less dependant on crappy plastic toys from Malaysia, cadmium laden jewellery from China, etc... AND if developed nations were also given tools to help make the transition to greener energy rather than becoming more dependant on fossil fuels to supply the WB with the funds in the form of taxes in the first place.... As well, who will benefit most from the technologies used in these projects?  Those who invest in the newly formed green economy and those poorer nations struggling to make their countries more vibrant.  Development in the worlds poorest nations is not a bad thing, when approached from a more co-operative standpoint, and should not be used as an opportunity for the corporate elite to get richer. 

I suppose it's a fitting punishment for our inaction and lack of resolve.  We didn't regulate big oil, or mining or logging so now we must pay.  We didn't do enough to help the poor in other countries so now we must pay.  The problem is that these policies and treatise are not about staving off a 2 degree increase in global temperatures, as much as creating a new "stock" that can earn interest, can be traded and sold.  The weather will continue to do what it always does, and that is behaves in a way that is erratic and unpredictable and UNCONTROLLABLE except by the influence of our Sun.  So, while all you people in Canada, the US and Great Britain are bracing for the most severe winter in decades, try not to laugh too hard when they tell you it's due to Global Warming.




The Kyoto Conspiracy (Gore, Enron, Carbon Trading, Global Warming)


Investigate Magazine ^
March 2006



Posted on April-06-07 12:56:24 PM by Shermy



Not one single day goes by in New Zealand now without a reference somewhere to global warming, and New Zealand’s requirement to comply with the Kyoto protocol. But few people realise that Kyoto was the brainchild of a corrupt multinational energy company, looking to make a buck out of the green movement. KEN RING explains:



Amidst the talk about the benefits that Kyoto Protocol is sup-posed to promote, it is perhaps forgotten especially amongst the greenies how Kyoto was born in the corridors of very big business. The name Enron has all but faded from our news pages since the company went down in flames in 2001 amidst charges of fraud, bribery, price fixing and graft. But without Enron there would have been no Kyoto Protocol.



About 20 years ago Enron was owner and operator of an interstate network of natural gas pipelines, and had transformed itself into a billion-dollar-a-day commodity trader, buying and selling contracts and their derivatives to deliver natural gas, electricity, internet bandwidth, whatever. The 1990 Clean Air Act amendments authorized the Environmental Protection Agency to put a cap on how much pollutant the operator of a fossil-fueled plant was allowed to emit. In the early 1990s Enron had helped establish the market for, and became the major trader in, EPA’s $20 billion-per-year sulphur dioxide cap-and-trade program, the forerunner of today’s proposed carbon credit trade. This commodity exchange of emission allowances caused Enron’s stock to rapidly rise.



Then came the inevitable question, what next? How about a carbon dioxide cap-and-trade program? The problem was that CO2 is not a pollutant, and therefore the EPA had no authority to cap its emission. Al Gore took office in 1993 and almost immediately became infatuated with the idea of an international environmental regulatory regime. He led a U.S. initiative to review new projects around the world and issue ‘credits’ of so many tons of annual CO2 emission reduction. Under law a tradeable system was required, which was exactly what Enron also wanted because they were already trading pollutant credits. Thence Enron vigorously lobbied Clinton and Congress, seeking EPA regulatory authority over CO2.



From 1994 to 1996, the Enron Foundation contributed nearly $1 million dollars - $990,000 - to the Nature Conservancy, whose Climate Change Project promotes global warming theories. Enron philanthropists lavished almost $1.5 million on environmental groups that support international energy controls to “reduce” global warming. Executives at Enron worked closely with the Clinton administration to help create a scaremongering climate science environment because the company believed the treaty could provide it with a monstrous financial windfall. The plan was that once the problem was in place the solution would be trotted out.



A lawyer named Christopher Horner was hired who had worked in Senator Liebermann’s Environment Committee. Horner, employed by Enron, became director of relations with the Federal Government. That was in 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was drafted. According to Homer, on the second day at the job he was told that the Number One Objective was to obtain an international treaty that would impose cuts in CO2 emissions, but at the same time allowed trade with emission rights. Enron had the biggest natural gas production behind Russia’s Gazprom. Enron was making a lot of money trading with coal, but they had already calculated that the profits they would lose with coal would be more than compensated by the profits derived from its privileged position in other areas. With clever positioning and anticipation Enron had bought the world’s biggest wind power company, GE Wind, from General Electric. They now also owned the biggest solar power company in the world, in society with Amoco (now belonging to British Petroleum – BP). Enron then started to finance everything related to the global warming hype, including grants to scientists – but asking for results favorable to their interest – “proof” that humans were responsible for the excessive emissions of CO2 through fossil fuel burning. The fire of malaise, now lit and kindled, only required feeding.



The expressive term ‘Baptist-bootlegger’ derives from the days of prohibition. Under prohibition bootleggers and those who trans-ported and supplied illegal alcohol made fortunes. One such entrepreneur was Joseph Kennedy whose second son, John, became US President in 1961. The bootleggers had allies in the Baptists and other teetotalists, who believed that alcohol was a deadly threat to the social order, and had worked for decades to get prohibition onto the statute books. The Baptists provided the political cover and the bootleggers pocketed the proceeds. In public the two groups maintained a great social distance from each other. Now Enron had positioned itself at the centre of an awesome Baptist-bootlegger coalition. The gargantuan rents which Enron energetically sought could be realized only if the Kyoto Protocol became established as part of US and international law. Ken Lay, Enron’s CEO saw Enron as not only making billions from sales of the natural gas which was to displace coal as the preferred fuel under the Kyoto commitments, but he realised that as the main if not the only international and domestic trader in the new barter world of carbon credits, Enron could realise hitherto unimagined wealth. Such credits, of course, would only become bankable pieces of paper if governments, particularly the US Government, established and policed a global policy of decarbonisation under which a global tax on carbon was to be enforced.



As the movement to establish the Kyoto Protocol developed momentum, it was necessary for Ken Lay to build up alliances with the green movement including Greenpeace. A 1998 letter, signed by Lay and a few other bigwigs asked President Clinton, in essence, to harm the reputations and credibility of scientists who argued that global warming was an overblown issue, because these individuals were standing in Enron’s way. The letter, dated Sept. 1, asked the president to shut off the public scientific debate on global warming, which continues to this date. In particular, it requested Clinton to moderate the political aspects of this discussion by appointing a bipartisan Blue Ribbon Commission. The purpose of this commission was clear – high-level trashing of dissident scientists. Setting up a panel to do this was simple; just look at the recent issue of Scientific American where four attack dogs were called out to chew up Bjorn Lomborg. He had the audacity to publish The Skeptic Environmentalist demonstrating that global warming is overblown. David Bellamy, the world’s foremost environmentalist also stepped out of line with his widely printed article “Global Warming? What a load of old Poppycock.” In the same way Galileo was forced to publicly utter that the moon had no effect on tides, so Bellamy under pressure backtracked on some of his claims.



Enron commissioned its own internal study of global warming science. It turned out to be largely in agreement with the same scientists that Enron was trying to shut up. After considering all of the inconsistencies in climate science, the report concluded: “The very real possibility is that the great climate alarm could be a false alarm. The anthropogenic warming could well be less than thought and favorably distributed.” One of Enron’s major consultants in that study was NASA scientist James Hansen, who started the whole global warming mess in 1988 with his bombastic congressional testimony. Recently he published a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences predicting exactly the same inconsequential amount of warming in the next 50 years as the scientists that Enron wanted to gag. They were a decade ahead of NASA.



True to its plan, Enron never made its own findings public, self-censoring them while it pleaded with the Bush administration for a cap on carbon dioxide emissions that it could broker. That pleading continues today – the remnant-Enron still views global warming regulation as the straw that will raise it from its corporate oblivion. Some greenie campaigning in America is still directed from this source. On July 7, 2004, Kenneth Lay was indicted by a federal grand jury for his involvement in the scandal.



Everyone knows that a few hundred votes in Florida tipped the election to George W, but few are aware that West Virginia, normally a Democrat stronghold, went for Bush because the coal industry in that state decided to back him because he would not endorse Kyoto. Without West Virginia, the vote in Florida would have made no difference.



”Enron stood to profit millions from global warming energy-trading schemes,” said Mike Carey, president of the Ohio Coal Association and American Coal Coalition. The investigation into the collapse of Enron will reveal much more about the intricacies of the Baptist-bootlegger coalition which was promoting the Kyoto cause within the Republican Party and within US business circles. Coal-burning utilities would have had to pay billions for permits because they emit more CO2 than do natural gas facilities. That would have encouraged closing coal plants in favor of natural gas or other kinds of power plants, driving up prices for those alternatives. Enron, along with other key energy companies in the so-called Clean Power Group – El Paso Corp., NiSource, Trigen Energy, and Calpine – would make money both coming and going – from selling permits and then their own energy at higher prices. If the Kyoto Protocol were ratified and in full force, experts estimated that Americans would lose between $100 billion and $400 billion each year. Additionally, between 1 and 3.5 million jobs could be lost. That means that each household could lose an average of up to $6,000 each year. That is a lot to ask of Americans just so large energy companies can pocket millions from a regulatory scheme. Moreover, a cost of $400 billion annually makes Enron’s current one-time loss of $6 billion look like pocket change. Little wonder Americans and the incoming Bush administration did not want a bar of it.



In NZ the Labour government was forced to agree to the Kyoto Protocol because the Alliance Party self destructed and Labour needed the Greens for support in Confidence and Supply. The cost of that support was agreement to GE legislation and the Kyoto Protocol. Labour could see that the GE debate had no financial return, but the carbon credit trading game looked much more promising. Positive credit-trading with all our trees acting as CO2 sinks made politicians see dollar signs. But just as Enron came unstuck mired in financial ruin and scandal, so too is the Kyoto Protocol set to ruin economies and bring down governments and any players foolish enough to be taken in. Enron collapsed in a quagmire of bribery, misinformation, energy price manipulation and the use of political connections to exert pressure on energy boards. Anything connected to the Kyoto Protocol will turn out to be good money after bad, because a scheme instigated by half-truths and hype must eventually collapse under the weight of the spin of its own cover-up. The half-billion dollar debt NZ now owes could be just the beginning. In 2002 Helen Clark said “Climate change is a global problem ..the Kyoto Protocol is the international community’s response to climate change and New Zealand is playing its part”.



This contrasted strongly with Enron’s own internal report expressing doubt that global warming was real. It is hard to accept that Clark does not know that the Protocol only became real through Enron. Real problems are the gullibility of satellite western economies, the dangers of being the tail of giant corporate dogs and the perceived need to appease the EU for trade deals. Global warming itself does not even get a look in. In NZ the only funding for environmental research comes to the NZ Climate Change Office for the Ministry for the Environment and is funded through the Ministry of Fisheries and the Public Good Science & Technology fund.



The particular institute concerned has all the appearance of an independent research body whilst at the same time proclaiming to be spokespeople for government policies re the environment. In this way debate is suppressed in NZ, because there is no funding for alternative viewpoints, no panel for review or accountability of government-science agendae and no voice of balance in government-funded public media. I suggest you look out the window to see if there is any catastrophe happening. While looking, check to see if any ocean is yet rising. Also look up – exactly where is this methane cloud? Please, someone, explain how heavier-than-air car emissions can get 6-8 miles up where weather is generated? We are not all that taken in.



Despite all the handwringing and increasingly desperate hysteria, where global warming is concerned there has been a failure to force this paranoid religion onto the world. Since the Rio Conference in 1992, the greens have tried using the threat of global warming to induce Protestant guilt in us all, to cap growth, to change lifestyles, to attack the car, industry and the Great Satan of America. They have lost. Only schoolchildren remain rich fodder willing to believe it is up to them now to Save The World, which hasn’t needed saving one iota during the last 4,000,000,000 years or it wouldn’t still be here. Now it is surely time to face the facts: there isn’t a snowflake-in-hell’s chance of global warming altering real life. But the failure of the greens is not just with the public. While playing the climate-change card at the G8 Summit, the final Gleneagles’ declaration shows that the leaders of the developed world have no intention of sacrificing growth and economic success for an ascetic global warming religion. To quote Michael McCarthy, the environment editor of the Independent: ‘The failed agenda that Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, the World Wide Fund for Nature and others were complaining of – that the US has still not agreed to cut its carbon dioxide emissions – was the green groups’ own agenda, not the British government’s.



At G8 the idea of capping greenhouse gas emissions was cleverly replaced by an emphasis on technological innovation and imaginative development. The Kyoto Protocol is effectively dead.



SIDEBAR In NZ almost the only funding for environmental research is invested in NIWA and comes via the NZ Climate Change Office for the Ministry for the Environment, but mostly funded through the Ministry of Fisheries and the Public Good Science & Technology fund. The institute has all the appearance of an independent research body whilst at the same time acting in the appointed role of spokespeople for government policies on the environment. NIWA is a fine organisation when it comes to marine biological research, but when it comes to climate projection theirs must still be only an opinion. Sadly, though, other opinions that might make for lively debate are somewhat suppressed in NZ, because there is no funding for alternatives, no panel for review or accountability of government-science agendae and subsequently no voice of balance across most government-funded public media. Consequently the work of NIWA is perceived in some quarters as having become politicised which is sad for an otherwise valuable and necessary national research resource.



REFERENCES http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron http://archive.columbiatribune.com/2002/Feb/20020226Comm007.asp http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26124 http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/EvansEnron.html http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=204 http://ff.org/centers/csspp/opeds/80320040418_landrith.html http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/0000000CAC72.htm http://www.niwa.co.nz/pubs/ar/2004/14ncc.pdf

A Summer Holiday Journal Part 1

Aug 1/10
     Got up early with the kids and finished packing the last minute items (toothbrush, ipod, coffee cup full of joe....) for our trip to British Columbia.  Yay, two weeks with family... wait a sec... did I say Yay?  Ok, well, two weeks with family anyways, and I've made up my mind to let the trip unfold as it may.  I'm trying my latest scientific experiment called... the By The Seat Of Our Pants project.  No anxiety, no over-planning everything down to the very millisecond.... this trip is going to be different.  Calm.  Happy. Spontaneous without regret.   Enlightening to be sure.

Aug 1/10 continued...
Well, made it through the boring parts of Saskatchewan and find ourselves heading through Calgary on our way to the mountains.  Weather has been beautiful for this drive.... as if to say welcome back... too bad that this summer sucked so bad at home.  Maybe my feet will finally dry out and the moss will stop growing in my hair.  No wild-life on this trip (except an unusual amount of predator birds).  Not even the odd flattened bunny or skunk to greet us on the soft-shoulder.  Maybe we'll see a bear again like we did two years ago.

Aug 1/10 continued.... continued....
Getting tired of driving and really want to spend the night in the mountains of my youth.  I say that because every summer I came to be here (either in Field with my Grandparents or with my Mum at the cabin at Adams Lake).  The smell of the pine and fir makes me want to cry.  I miss those good-old-days.... you know... the ones where you were young and didn't know there was an age past eleven....  There's rain in the air.  I can smell it.  The clouds have started to gather in the valley and now is a good time to find a place to pitch camp.

Still Aug 1/10.....
Put my scientific program into use.... took a secondary highway (Bow Valley Parkway) once we saw a campground sign and found ourselves at a T-intersection.  Go left to Lake Louise or right to Banff... Ok, kids...Lake Louise it is.  Found a pretty camp site with tall spires of cedars at Protection Mountain.  Set up the tent in no time and decided that the growling that we were all hearing wasn't a bear after all, but our tummies telling us to get some food.  Drove down the road and spotted a sign telling us food was nearby (y'know the one with the plate and knife and fork?... that and the potty sign are my favorites).
There, nestled in this bunch of wilderness, was this quaint lodge and restaurant (Baker Creek Bistro) where the average menu item is priced at $26 bucks.... Nevermind the price, I'm on holidays with my kids, Darnit!  Hard to call a restaurant fancy when the chandaliers are made of antlers... but I'm quickly reminded when I look at the menu....duck, rack of lamb, pate... Kids, foods that sound weird are usually expensive.  No, don't look at the prices...you can have whatever you want...you deserve this dinner for putting up with Mom!  Oh, there's lobster...well that's a no brainer and yes you can have the sampler platter and french onion soup... maybe you want to share?
Great to have the restaurant to ourselves too.  Oops, spoke too soon, two couples have just been seated next to us.  The gentlemen are rather loud, while their wives are quietly chatting together.  The one man, who appears to have an American accent (Northwest perhaps??? Oregon??? Washington??? oh, well....) is talking excitedly about his job.  Telling the other man.."Y'know this new stuff we're working on has lots of potential.....this guy I was talking to who's with the coast guard was telling me......figuring out how to get this kind of biometric scanning equiment for the National Guard.... great enthusiasm by these companies.....".  These were just some of the snippets I caught in between my conversation with my kids.  My oldest looks at me over her glasses in a very knowing way...."did you hear what I heard?" her eyes are saying to me... I raise my eyebrows and look over mine...."of course, does this surprise you?" mine are saying back.    Dinner consisted of: laughter, great bread and main courses that had lots of interesting flavors to them.  What's this taste like to you, my kids are asking me as we share bites of everything.  Wow, we're saying, that's not what I expected it would taste like... unique flavor!  By the way, dessert was awesome... they make the best, huge, apple/rhubarb crisp I've ever tasted....

Aug 1/10 late evening....
Back at camp we make a fire while the kids try out their flint.... after 20 minutes Mom gets tired and says... "here, lets use these matches instead".  Sounds of thunder in the mountains... very cool, rumbling and then the echo of the rumbling.  Once we're tucked in bed and nearly asleep, the heavens open up and the hardest rain begins to beat down on us in our little tent.  Please don't leak, please don't leak, I'm telling the tent.... My youngest pipes up... "Mom, something just dripped on my head".  Gotta love her for stating the obvious... I turn on the flashlight and shine it at the roof.  Sure enough, several rivlets are running down on the inside of the canopy and are dripping onto our heads.  "Maybe it'll stop soon" I say, hopefully.  The rain comes down even harder.... "Into the car kids, and bring your sleeping bags with you, and pillows too."
Didn't sleep too well until I figured out how to move the seat back, but had the pesky problem of the gear shifter digging into my knee.  Will have to find a Timmies first thing in the morning.....

ps. The one thing I've learned so far, in this scientific experiment, is that sometimes nature lives By The Seat Of It's Pants too....

.....to be continued.

MacLeans Gets G20 Protest All Wrong....

While waiting at the optometrists for our yearly eye exams, I happened to spy a MacLeans magazine perched on top of a pile of waiting room reading materials.  The image on the front cover leapt to my eyes.  It was of a young, thin man with his arms raised and his face covered with a WWII era gas mask, standing defiantly in front of a blazing police cruiser.  The cover photo was the same as the one above except that the "Canada's Gross National Product sign had been conspicuously cropped out.  The caption read, "Lock Them Up: Why the G20 thugs don't deserve any leniency".... I chuckled a bit out loud and commented under my breath "who are the thugs you're referring to exactly", meaning that the Police and Security forces brought in could easily have been mistaken for thugs this past weekend.

I thought I'd have a quick read, hoping to find a glimpse of a neutral and balanced examination of the "thuggery" and how the parties on all sides played their respective roles.  I expected some criticism of the Police for not using (even once) the very costly water cannon vehicle to at least extinguish the burning wreck of a cop car, let alone blast the so-called Black Bloc anarchists into the next postal code.  But, alas, I was sorely mistaken.  Instead, I found a rather contrite and slightly apologetic treatise on how the city was man-handled by this relatively small band of anti-capitalists.  They certainly packed a rather large punch, media wise, compared to the over 25,000 peaceful protestors who marched down Toronto's streets over the course of the three days. Not much ado was made of the peaceful protestors, and plenty of the window smashers and car blower-uppers.  It hardly seemed a fair analysis, considering that people had reported being harrangued for simply being too close to the security fencing.  Surely the anarchists would have had a much rougher time with the police?  And yet, by all accounts they did not.  So, why now the "off with their heads!" battle cry?  It doesn't make sense to close the barn door after the cows have run away.  After reading the article I knew I had to clear up a few points.  I just cannot let such blatent ignorance go unchallenged.   I'll do my best to break the article down, paragraph by paragraph to expose the blatent lies and deceptive inferences that imply that a witch-hunt is now in order.

The article begins by saying: "In downtown, Toronto gangs of highly motivated thugs torched four police cars and broke storefront windows of dozens of businesses during a wild spree of G20 violence. Police responded by arresting more than 900 protesters and bystanders."  It should be noted that none of these "thugs" were of the 900 arrested.  The author wrongly  implies that 900 Black Bloc (and witnesses) were arrested.  If this were true you wouldn't need to find them, would you?

"What took place on the streets of Toronto was indeed a serious situation, yet anxiety over the behaviour of police is wildly overdone."  I would vehemently argue that this is not the case, and I encourage anyone who disagrees to go to Youtube and view footage shot of the various police officers randomly beating people, bullying them, dragging them and of the comments coming from the "innocent bystanders" MacLeans refers to who testify of the deplorable conditions in the makeshift detention center at Toronto Film Studio's.

"Those responsible for the damage should be the focus of society’s anger. Only the professionalism and preparedness of police prevented circumstances from being much worse."  Excuse me, but 1.5 billion dollars bought a heck of a lot of fence, police and security and equipment to handle the so-called thugs.  Why wasn't it used I wonder?

"Rather than an inquiry, we need further police effort to ensure every one of those lawless thugs is brought to justice."  Well, it seems as if arresting 900 peaceful protestors wasn't enough, now after the event has long gone, we now need increased police presence to bring the real criminals to justice.  An inquiry seems a bit silly, I guess.....(tongue in cheek).  I mean, we're obviously not safe anymore, right?  We just need more police and fewer rights and freedoms and we can all sleep better at night.

"Overheated arguments from the CCLA and others regarding mass arrests and claims of police brutality need to be kept in perspective. Many of the complaints seem to involve the quality of the sandwiches in detention. Or that the police banged their batons on their shields in an “intimidating” manner. It’s possible many of those arrested for breach of the peace were not directly involved in any violence. But they were released in a matter of hours. Canadians’ constitutional rights have survived the ordeal unscathed."  I know that one woman would have plenty to say about police brutality.  In her 'testimony', she recounts how she was grabbed, thrown into a van, sat on by a very large 'officer' who punched her and choked her until she nearly passed out, threatened her, deprived her of water, and more.   You can read her description of events here: http://rabble.ca/babble/activism/my-experience-g20-detention-centre .  As for Canadians' constitutional rights surviving unscathed... I guess that depends on which side of the fence you're on.  I'm pretty sure the right to peaceful assembly (as set out in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms) was certainly scathed for about 900 detainees.

"It is necessary to keep the violence that did occur in perspective as well. Recall that when the Montreal Canadiens beat the Boston Bruins in the first round of the 2007-2008 NHL playoffs, street havoc also ensued. And those Montreal rioters managed to torch or smash 16 police cars. So by at least one measure, the G20 conflagration produced only one-quarter of the damage created by a run-of-the-mill hockey riot. Further to the point, there were no injuries significant enough to mention and the riot earned only modest international attention. This was no Bosnia in the 1990s. It wasn’t even Montreal in April."....Well, then what's all the fuss about then, if it wasn't as bad as all that?  The riot earned only modest attention, by MSM (mainstream media) standards because that's what MSM does, it only shows what it wants too... the people were certainly there along with hundreds of photographers and independant journalists, but most of them were arrested (like Charles Veitch of Love Police fame, Dan Dicks of PressForTruth.ca, and Luke Rudkowski of We Are Change New York, who was denied entry into Canada altogether).

"But consider what might have happened without this massive investment in security. Had the “black bloc” anarchists responsible for the extant street damage penetrated the security fence and disrupted the actual G20 events, the international attention would have been much more significant, and the damage done to Canada’s reputation far greater. Whatever steps the police took to prevent this from happening were both necessary and welcome"  Police either politely looked the other way, or weren't there altogether while all this was going on.  In fact, some YouTube evidence exists that police provocateurs were involved in the street damage as was the practice at the Montebello, Montreal SPP protest.

"Beyond the role of the police, however, there’s another reason—largely overlooked—why a major security catastrophe was averted: the global protest movement appears to be losing steam.  This statement is assinine, and reflects the complete lack of research done by this publication.  The United States Tea parties, the riots in Greece, Iceland, etc.. are exactly about the global protest movement.  Perhaps said author, should get out more, or at least watch some YouTube.


The mass of protesters agreed on very little other than a general sense of unhappiness with the status quo, whatever it might be. Issues seen and heard from the crowd ranged from animal liberation to legalization of marijuana to the treatment of homosexuals in Iran. There was no consistent message, other than the minority position on the desirability of broken windows. Only after the fact have protesters managed to coalesce around a common theme of alleging police brutality. Yet it bodes poorly for the future of the protest movement if  the only coherent argument it can muster involves the reaction of others to itself."  This argument is like asking which came first the chicken or the egg.  It is rediculous to say that 25,000 peaceful protestors who managed to show up on three separate days, have speeches, create placards and signs etc.. failed to show a consistent message.  The message is just that.. the people are unhappy.  The fact that the author could care less about the small issues as much as the big ones makes him an ignorant idiot.  As well, the fact these kind of issues are not MSM fodder, does not mean that those who got arrested got what was coming to them.  The people who showed up to protest expected to vent their concerns and feel a part of the democratic system that encourages their right to free speech and assembly without the threat of being arrested or assaulted.  I'm pretty sure no one who was arrested wanted their head smashed into the pavement just to make a point.  And the future of the protest movement is now unfortunately tainted with distrust of the police who are supposed to be guardians of the public.

The author goes on to state that: "Bringing the world’s major economies back to fiscal balance is crucial to closing the book on the Great Recession. Was this accomplishment, significant though it may be, worth the candle?"  I guess my question to this question would be: "Significant for whom?"  Who, (if not the people living under the governments represented at the G20,  and better yet,  those protesting), are the recipients of the gains made at this years conference?  Will we, the people, see improvements to our economies? Or will we see a group of corporatists put us all further in debt? 

In my opinion, the "roving lawlessness" demonstrated at this years G20 went unopposed.  Why?  Perhaps it was a "dry run", a test situation, used to feel the pulse of the Canadian people.  We are, after all, one of the healthier economies in these days of economic collapse.  The global awakening, as Zbigniew Bryzinski stated, is one of the greatest challenges to the Globalist Agenda.  People don't want their countries turned into corporations, plain and simple.  And whether Black Bloc or the guy up the block, we need to continue to say so. 



"We feel it is important as well to stand together with the rest of the movement in solidarity and opposition, but at the same time visibly apart in our presence and analysis.  It is time we spoke about what we want, both within the anti-globalization movement and to the world at large.  It's time for the world to hear the voices behind the masks."  The Black Bloc Papers (2002)

Citizen's Arrest of War Criminal George W. Bush: Court Case in Canada

Ony In Canada Eh? Well actually no, plenty of other citizens (all in the US) have made such attempts, but this one is noteworthy because it is an indication of the disdain some Canadians have for politicians in the south.  George Bush (Jr.) has made several appearances across Canada, giving speeches on his 2 terms in the Presidency.  His appearances are well attended by both fans and protestors alike.  Below is an excerpt taken from the Calgary Herald (where the article no longer appears) and reposted at Global Research. 

Citizen's Arrest of War Criminal George W. Bush: Court Case in Canada

Anti-Bush Protester Handed Fine, One-Year Probation

By Daryl Slade

Global Research, June 10, 2010

Calgary Herald - 2010-06-07

CALGARY — A Chase, B.C., man will not go to jail after being convicted of obstructing a peace officer while protesting former U.S. president George W. Bush's visit to Calgary last year.

Provincial court Judge Manfred Delong handed a conditional discharge Monday to John Pasquale Boncore, 58, and placed him on probation for a year.

Boncore — who also goes by the name of Splitting the Sky — must make a $1,000 donation to a charity of his choice and pay a $50 victim fine surcharge as conditions of his probation.

Court heard Boncore, who wanted to have Bush arrested as a war criminal, tried to cross a line of city police officers providing security as the former president spoke at the Telus Convention Centre on March 17, 2009.

Boncore told the judge before sentencing that if being fined $1,000 "for trying to apprehend a war criminal of the Bush administration, and possibly stop torture and murder," then "bring it on."

Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, who has worked for many years in aboriginal rights with Boncore, a former resident of Buffalo, N.Y., gave a strong character reference on the man's behalf during Monday's hearing.

Outside court, Clark condemned the Bush administration for "the most unspeakable aggression" since the Second World War in starting conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. He insisted there shouldn't be a problem with protesting something you believe in.

"It's important people see that side of (Bush's regime)," said Clark. "If (the U.S.) continued this war aggression, it's going to be a short and difficult future for everybody."

A defiant Boncore told the judge before sentencing he wasn't there to incite violence but that he "(believes) in my heart that George W. Bush is a war criminal."

Crown prosecutor Tracy Davis, who did not seek any jail time, nevertheless called Boncore's actions that day a well-planned and deliberate action.

Defence lawyer Charles Davison had sought a discharge for his client, who had no prior criminal record and has a good standing in his community.

Delong said the issue did not have anything to do with Boncore's beliefs but rather what he had done that day.

He called the obstruction a relatively minor offence compared to similar cases.

Citizen's Arrest of War Criminal George W. Bush: Court Case in Canada

Why the 9/11 Truth movement just won't die....

I've come across an interesting theory in Quantum Physics and the quest for the truth that explains why the 9/11 Truth movement just won't die. 

Physicists like Einstein, Bors, Pauli and others, have and continue to wrestle with the concept of reality.  Aristotle was the instigator of this question (formally), when he looked at the question of potentiality which asks: "What potential does something have to become something else".  Aristotle's view was that each 'thing' has a certain power to become something that it is not already...ie. A sleeping man to become awake.  Quantum physicists took this a step further in proposing that the man is both asleep and awake as the potential exists for both states.  The "Copenhagen interpretation" of Quantum Theory developed by Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Wolfgang Pauli, and others says two basic things:


1. Reality is identical with the totality of observed phenomena (which means reality does not exist in the absence of observation), and
2. Quantum mechanics is a complete description of reality; no deeper understanding is possible. (1)

The Theory basically states that a phenomenon exists only when it is observed, and becaused it is observed.  The man exists in both potentially sleeping and awake states and is only one or the other once someone else observes the man that way.
Alex Patterson has this to say about the Observer Effect:

     "Fundamental to contemporary Quantum Theory is the notion that there is no phenomenon until it is observed. This effect is known as the 'Observer Effect'...".

So what constitutes a phenomenon?...
Some definitions:
1. An observable fact or occurrence or a kind of observable fact or occurrence. For example: Hurricanes are a meteorological phenomenon.

2. Appearance; a perceptible aspect of something that is mutable.

3. A fact or event considered very unusual, curious, or astonishing by those who witness it.

4. A wonderful or very remarkable person or thing.

5.  An experienced object whose constitution reflects the order and conceptual structure imposed upon it by the human mind (especially by the powers of perception and understanding).

It would seem that the very definitions of 'phenomenon' are in themselves 'Observable Effects'.


Let's break down September 11, 2001 a little bit.  Let's suppose that only one person in the world was in New York that morning and saw only one plane hit one tower and later saw that tower fall.  The collapse of that tower as it appeared to that one observer would be considered a unique phenomenon and it's "truth" would be found to be unique and unshakable.  That person could travel the world telling of his or her experience and all who heard it would also accept that as their "truth".  Now if we add another observer, say two blocks away in the other direction from the first, what that observer saw happen would be an entirely different phenomenon, due to the difference in angle of view. 

Now, lets add a second plane hitting the other tower and observers who saw this from their offices on various floors of office buildings around the plaza.  As well, we can add people who did not see anything, but heard loud explosions, and other people describing what they saw or heard.  These too are unique phenomena. 

Now we add another interesting element, which is the media, that supplies us, on say, four or five different channels, different footage from the ground and by helicopter of the two towers. (For those of us who were nowhere near the events of that day, we had only our television sets to shape our observations.)  The observations, however, are not enough on their own to constitute the truth of what really happened.

"All credibility, all good conscience, all evidence of truth come only from the senses.

                                                                                                                                     -Neitzsche

Butressed against these is "the official story", which has also proved to be as variable as the observations themselves.  For each person who was a "witness", they will contrast their version of what they saw, heard, etc... with "the official story" and decide if it agrees or does not.  When the official story begins to show inconsistencies and holes, people still tend to cling to their observation as the absolute truth and discard the official story as a pack of lies.  The more that the media clings to the official story and rebroadcasts it, the more the official story begins to stink.  What's more people begin to question all the other official stories they've ever been told whether they were observers to the phenomenon or not. 

The truth is not really out there, but within each person, based on their personal experience and their perception checking of the facts of the official story and the facts as they see them.  The number of truths about 9/11 probably reach in the billions and will never find agreement until all the facts come out. 


Footnotes
(1) From Alex Patterson's Website: http://www.vision.net.au/~apaterson/science/observer_effect.htm

WHO and Big Pharma....not so strange bedfellows

When I drive in to school from where I live to Saskatoon, which is about a 30 minute drive, I like to listen to the Alex Jones Show.  My morning routine involves getting up, dressed, a quick bowl of cereal while the coffee percolates and I download the latest podcast of his show from the day before.  While I don't always agree with everything Alex has to say, (and lately I find myself agreeing less and less with what he has to say), I still find he has a way of sourcing out information that no mainstream media outlet can. 
On the outside people would expect that me, this 39 year-old, single mother of two teens, who works and is pursuing her Nursing degree would hardly be the Infowars type.  However, I have to give Alex some of the credit for waking me up to some of the realities that are wreaking havoc on our world today. It was Alex who first brought me some very different information about the H1N1 pandemic than what I was hearing from our local news outlets.  CTV and CBC were busy stressing about how many people were diagnosed or who had died from the virus every day and by all accounts it seemed that the second wave was going to be the next 1918 flu.  Why then was Alex ranting about it being a hoax? 
I decided to find out more about it and even set up a public opinion poll on a website I created in order to find out if indeed I wasn't alone.  Well, I got 260 responses and without boring you with the percentages, found that over half of the respondents felt that the pandemic was over-exaggerated and had no intention of getting the H1N1 shot.  On top of that almost all respondents said they wanted to see a review of the governments handling of the pandemic and wanted to see more research into the safety of vaccines.  Only 2% of the respondents trusted the Canadian Government and yet most trusted the Provincial Health Authorities, who are overseen federally.  Only two respondents said they trusted the pharmaceutical companies and a low percentage trusted the FDA.
 Surprisingly almost all the respondents trusted the World Health Organization.  I say surprisingly, because on the Alex Jones Show (Feb 8th, 2010), I listened to an interesting interview with a Dr. Wodarg, who is head of the European Council on Health and who is investigating the dealings between the big pharmaceutical companies like Novartis and GlaxoSmithKline and the WHO.  Apparently, the WHO has some sort of private dealings with these companies and may have been involved in some kind of profiteering from the sales of vaccine and Tamiflu.  These are, of course, allegations at this point, but the fact that 47 nations in Europe are participating and getting to the bottom of things is certainly encouraging.  So encouraging in fact, that I took the liberty of informing our own Prime Minister about the councils investigations in hopes of inspiring Mr. Harper to action. 
Prior to sending Mr. Harper this letter I sent the results of my poll to Dr. David Butler-Jones(our Health Minister) in hopes of getting a review of some kind here.  Sadly, I received minutes from a special hearing that told me the Canadian Government has no intention of holding any such investigation into it's own handling of the pandemic.  In minutes from the hearing, Dr. Butler-Jones blithley side-stepped questions from Health Critic, Judy Wasylicia-Leis, who point-blank asked him when there would be a public review.  He laughed and essentially said that the perview of health matters was between the Health Minister and the Provincial Health Authorities, so any discussions as to what could be done differently would be done on that level and that level alone.  The public needn't be bothered. 
Now, as all Canadians are aware, the Parliament is prorogued until March 3rd, and as far as I know my letter still sits on the Health Minister and the Prime Ministers desks. 
Perhaps now that a panel of elected European representatives from 47 countries are willing to call the 2009 pandemic a hoax, maybe the right people will be held accountable there and it will trickle down to other countries as well. 
If the World Health Organization, (who made the decision to upgrade the pandemic to level 6, thereby creating a panic and putting into action, government agencies who blindly purchased untested vaccine for mass distribution to the people) can be brought to their knees, what makes the PM of Canada or the Health Minister for that matter think they are above the same reproach?
March 3rd is still some weeks away, so it will be interesting to see what conclusions the EU council makes in that time....I guess, until then Mr. Harper, enjoy the Olympics!

Prayer Breakfast with the President

In Obama's speech yesterday at a prayer breakfast where dignitaries, politicians and lawmakers gathered to share a meeting of the minds; the President made bold and scathing comments aimed at bringing his critics into line.  In a typical passive-agressive fashion, Obama openly challenged those who questioned his faith and "for that matter" his citizenship.  This move, clearly aimed at re-establishing his position as the commander-in-chief, seemed to also say....'don't mess with Mr. Big'! 

When I heard this speech, heck, I almost felt guilty.  I mean, how dare we question the authority of the President?  Really, what does it matter what Obama's birth certificate says?  He is a man of faith!  That should certainly be enough. 

Curiously, though, no one noticed that while Obama was blithely asking us to accept the idea that faith and politics should be viewed as singular, in another breath he pledged that he would maintain the separation of Church and State.  If this is true Mr. President, then we could certainly accept your adherence to your faith and yet still question your country of origin.....they are after all separate issues as you point out.

Huffington post reports: "Obama said the office would also work to reach out overseas "to foster interfaith dialogue with leaders and scholars around the world."" (referring to a new branch of government that would seek to revitalize America through interfaith movements at the 'neighborhood' level).  Obvious to this writer is the contradiction this poses...does anyone else see it too?

He also goes on to say that he will gladly extend religious groups a helping hand from tax dollars provided it goes to non-religious activities.  While this is good for feeding the homeless, etc...it does present some form of control over the religious organizations themselves and the ways they see fit to help people.

On a final note, I have to laugh at the following statements he made:

"There is no religion whose central tenet is hate."


"There is no god who condones taking the life of an innocent human being," he said, and all religions teach people to love and care for one another. That is the common ground underlying the faith-based office, he said.

I find it hard to believe that the President would be so naive....I mean, did he not pay attention to his briefings on Islamic extremeism, is he not familiar with the Talmud?  Has he never seen a bhuddist monk kill another person.  I would suggest that he is naive if not in denial and certainly didn't have a good speechwriter proofread those remarks before he spoke them.

For the full article see here.

They don't want us to Unite!!! - B. Marley

Had a rather heated debate with a friend on the activities of my favorite patriotic radio-show host Alex Jones (of infowars.com).  I came across a webpage linking Alex to the Zionists and criticized his friendships and business dealings with certain Jews....The page reeked of White-Supremecy.  While I have no real knowledge of the vocabulary used by anti-semetic commentary...I can use my common sense to discern a smear campaign when I see one.  What was funny to me was another article I read criticizing Alex as being a White Supremecist.  I guess when you can't attack the facts that a person is talking about...you can always attack their character.

Not everything that Alex says, I agree with, but what I can say is that he is very well read, knowledgeable and neutral when it comes to religious affiliation.  Where Alex is not neutral is when it comes to attacking elite individuals who take advantage of the weak and usurping the rights of citizens, and that includes the freedom of speech.  What is ironic is that people like Alex, Lou Dobbs, Ron Paul and others are fighting to maintain the same freedom of speech that those who speak out about the above people enjoy so much.

The debate with my friend will never be about Zionism or White-Supremecy, from my perspective, for I have no opinion about which side is right or wrong...what is important is that the ability to say what we believe is maintained.  The fact that I can argue with my friend and yet still maintain an element of respect between us is truly what is at the core of our freedoms.  This above all else is what must be maintained.  Perhaps if we focused on our commonalities we might be more united than we realize.

Those who want to see the oppression of others continue, will of course defame those who speak out about oppression.  The oppressors want to divide and conquer...and if we can fight amongst ourselves, they just have to sit back and watch the mayhem.  Like Bob Marley said..."They don't want us to Unite!".

Through a scanner darkly...

This morning it was made official, the not so small smalltown of Saskatoon has been scheduled to recieve a full body scanner for it's John Diefenbaker airport.  It did not come as a surprise but was nonetheless dismaying to read about.  "Well, there goes air travel for our family!"  I wondered if there was anyone else, other than my facebook friends, who would agree with me.  Did people know?  I mean, really know just how much of the human body is shown by these things?  I decided to find out by listening to our local talk-radio station.  Well, there were certainly lots of hot comments coming from people who were outraged over the courts decision to let the Saskatchewan Roughriders GM off lightly for his assault on a 16 year old girl.  This is encouraging, I thought!  The whole scanner issue would be sure to ruffle a few feathers.  Boy was I wrong.  I got a very polite intro to the topic I was going to be talking to the host about only to find that I could only get a few comments out before getting cut off.  Wow, well, I guess I know how this is going to go down.  People will, it seems, think it's not ok for the GM of our favorite football team to treat a 16 year old babysitter as a sexual object, but ok to put our wives, mothers, sisters, daughters through a machine that shows their naked bodies to some airport staff members.  Ah, but there's an alternative!  If you object, you can go into a private room for a pat-down. 
Another point of contention is that this so-called terrorist attack occurred in the US.  Whatever in the world made the Canadian government jump on that bandwagon without a proper review?  Oh, right, I forgot...the parliament is currently prorogued...the PM doesn't have to answer to parliament.

For the record, I will drive to visit family from now on..unless I can find an airport that doesn't have a scanner of course!