Nuttyslack

Bomb-astic Tony

2005-07-27T11:36:00.000+08:00

It's been over a couple of weeks now since the despicable bombings in London, and the authorities have had plenty of time to find out information about the perpetrators, as well as their motives for committing such an act.
There has been a lot of media analysis - research into backgrounds, analysis of ethnic strife in modern Britain, and brainstorming of reasons as to why these four, apparently normal, young men would want to do such a terrible thing. But, up till now, I haven't seen too many newspapers or columnists mention what I guess the majority of Brits would consider the main reason they believe these murders were committed - Britain's role in Iraq and Afghanistan as the poodle of America, and the murderer of innocent Muslims.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not unpatriotic. I support our soldiers, and I know the Brits in Iraq are a hell of a lot more organised, responsible, friendly, and less trigger-happy than their coalition counterparts, but are the majority of the Muslim world aware of this? Probably not! When Muslim people around the world see stories of prisoner abuse, bombed villages, and Fallujah-type massacres, naturally they equate it with coalition forces in general, even if the British forces are, as reported, doing a great job, and winning many 'hearts and minds' in southern Iraq.
It is the very fact that we, the British, are there, as part Iraq's modern-day colonial occupiers, that causes these radical Muslim preachers to spout their evil diatribes, and to recruit young, disillusioned men from immigrant families.
That is the long and tall of it, and no matter how much the government pretend otherwise, this problem will not go away until the British and Americans do the same from Iraq.
We need to tackle the cause of these atrocities, not wage war and kill thousands more in good old 'Dubya' fashion.
The politicians point to the fact that we, in Britain, have suffered terrorism attacks before, and of course, they are correct. The IRA set off numerous bombs during the dark days of the struggles, and killed a fair few innocent people to boot. But have young, Muslim Brits ever set off suicide bombs in their own country before? I certainly don't remember it happening.
Americans will point to the fact that the 9/11 attacks were totally unprovoked, and that again is more or less true. But was the solution to invade an unrelated sovereign country, kill tens of thousands of people, and create a world network of torture camps?
This has only exacerbated the chance of further terrorist attacks, as events have already proven, and anyone who denies this is living in cloud-cuckoo land.
The solution WAS to invade Afghanistan, it WAS right to topple the Taliban, and then it was right to leave, and right to hunt down and bring Mr Bin Laden to justice. It was NOT right to stay there indefinitely and most certainly NOT to go after Saddam and Iraq.
If this had been done, I think that people in Australia, Madrid, and now London would not be holding annual commemorative ceremonies and silent vigils in tribute to lost ones. If this and only this had been done then I'm pretty sure most of the Muslim world would have considered it reasonable.
But going into Iraq has given the 'War on Terror' a 'War on Islam" feel. After the original 'WMD threat' and 'nasty regime' justifications crumbled under scrutiny, and the episodes of torture, murder, and religious desecration emerged, who could forgive any Muslim for feeling that the major western powers are against him?
How many other 'nasty regimes' have been toppled out of love for democracy recently? Who is lining up to invade Zimbabwe, Sudan, North Korea, and Uzbekistan and free their people from ruthless dictators? This kind of hypocrisy is what has left the people of the Middle East and their brethren feeling unfairly persecuted, and this is probably why they are so easily attracted to join these radical Islam fringe-groups and blow themselves up.
Until we get out of the region for good, and leave 'sovereign' countries to be exactly that, then the general public of Britain will have to continue living in fear, and continue to have their liberty slowly eroded.
Tony Blair can deny this until the cows come home, but he is lying. And as we are already aware, this is something has no qualms about doing!

Well, oil be damned!

2005-07-05T13:12:00.000+08:00

Am I the only one concerned about the recent rise in oil prices? Just how high does the price have to get before people will start thinking about alternatives to motorized transport?

There are any number of reasons being floated in the media about the reasons for the ever rising cost of the black stuff, political instability in producing countries, Iraq, holiday seasons, etc. But there is no escaping the fact, world oil reserves have, or about to begin on a long downward slope, and they will never recover.

Peak Oil is an issue that many people - except the big oil companies - may be unaware of. It is a well kept secret, but you can look it up on any internet search engine, there are reams and reams of articles and websites concerning this issue.

Read some of them and you will discover that oil doesn't just run our cars, it runs our whole way of life. Oil makes pesticides and fertilizer for our crops, oil makes our personal hygiene products and medicines, oil is used to make all our electronic gadgets and gizmoes, oil transports our food around the country, oil powers everything. Haven't you wondered why your utility bills have been rising recently?

I'm not unduly worried at the moment because I haven't owned a car for over 10 years, and I live a somewhat prudent lifestyle, but in the next few years this issue will begin to impact on many other aspects of our daily life and not just motoring.

But in the end it boils down to this, Oil is a FINITE resource and we are rapidly running out of economically viable supplies of it. And with the economies of India and China growing rapidly, demand for oil is increasing while worldwide supply is falling, what do you think is going to happen? - work it out!

What's the solution? China's economy shows no sign of slowing down, and India is beginning to expand equally as fast. America and their leaders have shunned the idea of cutting consumption and reducing demand saying that the American lifestyle is non-negotiable, what does this mean for the future of the world? Demand is going to increase ever faster!

At the moment there are no credible alternatives to the carbon-based economy, but people are putting their faith in technology to solve this conundrum. Scientists so far have failed to come up with a credible alternative. But who knows what will happen? One thing is for sure, our lives are going to have to change.

In the meantime, I donned my Nostradamus cap in a bid to come up with some predictions for the future concerning our good old friend, crude oil:

1. Expect Iran to be attacked/invaded during this decade years by you know who.
Reason given: Developing nuclear weapons.
Real reason: access to oil

2. Expect Venezuela to be plunged into crisis and President Hugo Chavez to be toppled.
Reason given: Make one up yourself!
Real reason: access to oil - he won't sell America any of his oil!

3. US forces will be in Iraq indefinately.
Reason given: stabilise 'democracy' and fight the 'insurgency'
Real reason: to protect the oil

4. China will be increasingly pictured as the enemy in America
Reasons given: Commie, human rights-violating sons-of-bitches, etc
Real reason: competition for oil

It will be interesting to see how many of the above come true.

By the way, if you are wondering how we may cope with life after oil - take a look at Cuba. They had a shock after the fall of the Soviet Union, their aid and oil imports dried up over night! However, they have coped with a back to basics lifestyle and a return to non-mechanised farming. Read about it in the article by Bill Mckibben, Harper's Magazine, April 2005 issue.
It's fascinating stuff!

End Globalisation Now

2005-07-01T09:21:00.000+08:00

What is the point of globalisation?

The perpetrators and benefactors argue that it creates wealth and brings civilisation to the poor countries of the world. On the first point I would have to agree one-hundred percent!

Yes, the point of globalisation is wealth creation, but we all know who are the direct beneficiaries of this wealth, and it is not 'the man in the street.' It is usually the man cruising the street in his chaffeur driven limousine.

The second point is debatable. Who are we, in the west, to dictate the terms of civilisation? Is western life (as we are the main spreaders of this so-called doctrine) today really civilised? I think we have a very high opinion of ourselves. We may have good sanitation, comfortable houses, and live longer thanks to great medical advances, but when we are ready to meet our maker can many people really say they have led a good and purposeful life, one that was better than say, someone living in the rainforests of the Amazon?

Looking at globalisation............
We in the west, say we are dedicated to helping the poorer countries and people of the world through trade liberalisation and globalisation. However, in many cases, these are the very things that ruin those countries in the first place, forcing them into poverty and despair.

Big, powerful multinational companies, and subsidised American and European agricultural products gain access to their markets and put the small local businesses/growers out of business. They just cannot compete with the foreign giants. How is that helping a country?

A couple of examples, before WTO entry, the small Carribean island of Haiti had thousands of chicken and rice farmers who made a comfortable living growing and selling their produce locally. Four short years after opening up their markets in 1994, all the chicken farms and many rice growers were already out of business, bankrupt thanks to imports of subsidised 'Miami rice' and turkey meat from the States. Where is the benefit for the Haitians?

Once proud and independent businessmen and women are now reduced to scratching around for a living, and eating food aid donated by the very countries that are responsible for their predicament. Ironic, isn't it?

Don't you think these Haitians would be better off having something to do -raising their chickens and growing their rice -rather than scrabbling around, selling imported foodstuffs while their fields and land sits empty. Probably until it is brought up by the very multinational that put them out of business in the first place!

Looking at the Oxfam website we can find another example. Millions of small-scale cotton farmers in countries like Benin, Mali, Burkina Faso and Chad are under threat thanks to entry into the WTO, and this is being financed by American and European taxpayers! In the US, the cotton barons of Texas and Alabama get huge subsidies, sell their cotton on world markets below the cost of production and drive these more efficient African farmers out of business.

Subsidies, especially US ones, have helped to halve world cotton prices since the mid-90s, causing economic and social crisis in African countries where 10m people depend on the crop. Oxfam says that Africa is losing $300m a year as a result. Elimination of subsidies could lead to a 25% rise in world cotton prices.

Don't you think the African farmers would prefer to be allowed to grow and sell their cotton without unfair competition, and eke out a modest living, rather than be dependent on food aid, which is what will happen if these schemes are allowed to continue?

Even the AID we give these countries has strings attached. The big hoohah over the recent debt cancellation by the 'generous west' for African nations totally overlooked the smallprint that was attached as part of these deals.

In return for debt cancellation, the poor countries are required to privatise their utilities and liberalise their markets, a la World Bank and IMF 'restructuring.' Basically, this lets multinational firms come in and take over their vital services like water and power. What happens is that once in control, they raise tariffs to fund 'investment' to levels that most ordinary people cannot afford. Then the fun begins.

Cochabamba in Bolivia is a good example of what people can achieve in this kind of situation if they get together to resist. Don't forget that it is us, the people, that put our so called representatives in charge of our respective countries, and theoretically we can get rid of them whenever we like, providing we really want to.

The Seattle anti-globalisation riots certainly worried a few of our 'leaders', and most definately got the message across that not everyone is happy with rampant capitalism 'ruining the many for the benefit of the few.' But a sustained effort is needed if we are to force goverments to take action to reverse this evil trend.

One simple and effective way people can stop this is by voting with their feet. If you stop buying crap from these global chains (and it is mostly crap), buy locally made, small business produce and goods then they will eventually disappear. Every store, no matter how big, needs customers.

We shouldn't give up this battle, we should strive to regain some of our long surrendered independence, dignity, and self respect back from the clutches of our governments and these global behemoths, and start living a wholesome, more natural life again. It's not too late!

Sham Wars!

2005-06-30T14:42:00.000+08:00

Found a great gag while surfing the Village Voice website yesterday:

Q: What's the difference between the Star Wars prequel trilogy and the war in Iraq?

A: One outlines the manipulation of a corrupt and complacent democracy into a manufactured war to facilitate the rise to power of a malevolent, oppressive, downright evil force …

… and the other has light sabers.

Just about sums it up! But I'm sure if Dubya and Rummy thought they would help in any way they would have issued the troops with light sabers by now.

Dumb Yanks!

2005-06-29T13:08:00.000+08:00

Seriously, how slow are the American public?
Two years after their government led them into a war based on a pack of lies, the American public is finally starting to realise the truth, that it was a bad move, and that there is no immediate way out of the quagmire that they have created!

I know you have to support your troops, and there is nothing wrong with that, but you don't have to continue supporting the bunch of corporate crooks and brigands that sent them there to tackle "terrorism" - especially when you discover it was, and is, all bull!
Why has it taken so long for so many of the American people to realise that there was absolutely no connection whatsoever between Iraq and 9/11? They can't possibly be that naive, or is the media that good at hiding the facts? Or are they so wrapped up living the American dream to care about what crimes are being perpetrated in their name in Iraq?

I can't criticise them too much, because unfortunately my country, and its poodle of a leader is enemy number 2 in the "coalition of the killing", but at least our public knew the WMDs, nasty regime claims, etc was BS from the start.

How can Bush and his 'presidency' survive? Clinton nearly got impeached for dropping his trousers and lying about it. Dubya and his cronies have inadvertently caused the deaths of over 100,000 people (1700 coalition troops). If still in power, would Saddam have slain so many in just two short years?

It reminds me of that quote:
"If you kill a man, you're a murderer
Kill thousands, and you're a conquereor
Kill them all - you're a God"

Maybe Bush is trying to attain god-like status, he certainly seems to be trying his hardest. Where is the justice?

Even yesterday he was still linking the trouble in Iraq to 9/11, unbelievable! It's about time the American government admitted that the insurgency is not being fuelled by foreign fighters, it is largely Iraqis fighting to get their country back. And the few foreign terrorists that are there only arrived after the Americans invaded and destabilised the country.

Calling on all Americans, wake up from your comfortable lives and do something about your government, it stinks! Protest, march, write to your representatives, congress people, governors, anyone. Impeach the "fool on the hill" and his evil puppet masters now, before your foreign policy genii start World War III in the middle east!

First Post Warning!

2005-06-28T16:18:00.000+08:00

This is my first post on my new blog so I must warn you, this is my place to rant. So some people may find it offensive!

I may upset a few people with the harshness of my comments, but as purveyors of porn say, "You don't have to read it!"

My subject today is the world - and its lack of future. I have been reading a lot of apocalyptic stuff recently and I can't help thinking we (humanity) are DOOMED! We carry on raping and pillaging Mother Nature at will, and we don't look as if we are going to stop until her illness is diagnosed as terminal!

Is this a bit heavy for a first post?

What with all the signs of global warming, the depletion of resources (peak oil is, or will be here real soon, read up on it!), and animal extinctions increasing, I can see no long-term future for our planet. Pretty soon its going to be a big, barren, dirtpatch with nothing but billions of people running around killing each other. (Sounds familiar, doesn't it?)

Don't our 'leaders' realise were need biodiversity in order to survive, we can't carry on poisoning our planet if we want to carry on living on it, everything on the planet (even things like worms) are here for a purpose! Will we only be happy when we have fished all the oceans dry, cut down all the trees and extracted all the minerals? What will we do then? We will be in serious trouble if we keep on destroying things that are not 'convenient' to our modern way of living. What damage we have done to the earth since the second world war, and there is no end in sight! When are we going to wake up and see what's going on?

They talk about sustainable development, but in my opinion that is an oxymoron. We need resources to develop, but the more people there are, the more resources we need, if we don't give our natural resources time, allow them to renew then they will run out sooner rather than later! Also there are a hell of a lot more people to feed now than 50 years ago. Water in particular is becoming a precious resource.

Mark my words - there will be a war over water before long!

And excuse me, but I don't see anything sustainable about current global fishing practices and the rate of energy extraction. If people look back into history we can see how people lived sustainably, by only taking what they needed, not having all they can eat, and definately not by sitting in front of televisions!

I'm not talking about going back to live in caves, but I feel we really need to give up or cut back on some of the luxuries of modern life if our future generations are going to inherit a habitable planet.

What's on my list? - for a start we need to drastically cut back on car usage, things like air conditioners, and the collection of stupid, needless gadgets, etc. I mean, after the first few months, does anyone really use their bread-making machine? Isn't it just shoved in a cupboard out of the way to collect dust?

People really need to get back to nature, reform communities, do and buy things locally, grow some of your own veges if you can, compost your waste, only eat meat in moderation, conserve water, use traditional remedies for things like cleaning instead of chemical ones, and finally, don't buy needless amounts of junk.

Junk's no use to you when you die. You're only going to be six foot under with whats left of the worms, anyway!