ENRON: A Drop In the Bucket

The other night I had the pleasure of watching the documentary "Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room". I highly recommend it as it brings to light, not just the story of one company and the corruption from within, but the serious issue of cronyism and greed that plagues both the government and corporations. You can read what CorpWatch had to say about the film here.

Profit over people, as it turns out is not simply a catch phrase, but an ongoing synopsis of capitalism as it operates in conjunction with the free market.

Here is a list of 14 companies that are pursuing the interest of profit over people as stated through lengthy list of human rights violations provided by Global Exchange.

Here is a list of the top 100 Corporate Criminals as provided by the Multinational Monitor.

There are also a number of websites that contain insightful information about the practices of large corporations, in particular, oil companies. I have included a small number of them here with a strong suggestion that you look through them. Many of these discuss the issue of oil extraction and consumption in the context of an addiction that we must conquer, something which I too believe.

Oil Watch
Halliburton Watch
Oil Change International
Foreign Policy in Focus
Project Underground
Earth Works
ChevronToxico
Amazon Watch

Industry News
Oil News
Oil and Gas Journal
Oil Online

Statistical Review of World Energy by BP

I will add these all to my permanent links for future reference.

I will include a more developed commentary on the issues of oil consumption, corporate loopholes; human rights violations; environmental violations; corruption, and so forth, at a later date. Please feel free to comment on any of the suggested readings, or if you have further ideas and even better links.

Message from the Moderator

Well so far the discussion part of this blog is bust. I hope that more of you readers out there will be willing to hand over your thoughts and ideas. The tag board currently allows a maximun of 200 characters, so I can see why that may limit on-line debates. However, I hope to be applying a more elaborate chat-board some time in the near (fingers crossed) future.

I have been working diligently to provide a variety of links for research and information purposes. I do hope that you find them useful and of interest to you. As the links grow in number I will be attempting to organize them in a clear, detailed and "user-friendly" manner. All I ask in return is for your patience as I am a novice blogger with only a minimal level of creativity concerning this medium, as well as a seriously low aptitude for html. Suggestions in this regard are welcome as well.

To all of those who have accidentally passed by this blog and found themselves pleasantly surprised, I hope you continue to join me in the future for further discussion on those items that are shaping the world we live in.

The U.S. Love of Landmines

Why won't the United States join the Mine Ban Treaty

(otherwise known as the Ottawa Convention)?

TREATY

MEMBERS

STOCKPILES

Ralph Klein Lies to Albertans

Alberta: a province sustained no longer by agriculture, but by non-renewable resources.

Last night, during his television address, this is what Premier Ralph Klein had to say about Alberta's energy sector:

"Clean coal has a big role to play in Alberta's energy future. The coal beneath our feet contains twice the energy of Alberta's conventional crude, natural gas and bitumen combined," Klein said. "To make the most of this massive resource, we'll need to use the same Alberta ingenuity that turned the oil sands into a source of long-term prosperity. We already use clean coal to meet more than half of our electricity needs. But we can do so much more."

There is no clean coal being used to generate energy at any Albertan plant. He was right when he said future prospects, but that is as far as the truth goes. Now, there are three possible reason why he would make such a blatantly false statement:

1. He is way out of touch.I would agree with this statement if not for the army of speech writers that were behind this address.

2. He truly believes that Alberta's economy is sustainable.

3. He is purposefully trying to mislead the public to believe that the government is working hard at finding and implementing new sources of energy.

Klein is obviously attempting to capitalize on the "good feeling" that has passed over the people of Alberta due to the temporary economic wealth that they find themselves immersed in. Yet to blatantly lie begs the question of what the Alberta government is really attempting to accomplish with this speech.One possibility is that they are attempting to counter the ever-increasing concern over the environment and global warming.

Alberta is not a clean province. Sure, there are the big blue skies, and miles of farmland, but it is by far anywhere close to operating any sort of environmentally friendly industries. Investment after investment, whether it be in the oil sands, or towards prosperity is still following the rules of the old days...build it and they will come. The shallow attempt to make people believe that they care about the environment as much as they care about their pocket books is not only misleading, but dishonest.

He was also very presumptuous in his statement that:

"In the future I see for Alberta, no one will need to worry about where they'll live, or who will look after them in their golden years."

What I got from this statement is that when the markets crash, we won't have a safety plan and we will have to look after ourselves, for there will be no one there to help us out. Okay, maybe that is slightly pessimistic, yet it is just as likely that will happen as having Klein's utopian vision of never-ending wealth and prosperity. At least considering our reliance on oil and the energy sector.

Even the advances in technology such as that proposed of clean coal, although better than traditional extraction and burning methods, is still lacking. More over, it still relies on a resource that is non-renewable. We are going to deplet the world of these amazing resources instead of focusing on further renewable energy. Wouldn't it be nice to save our kids just a bit of these non-renewable materials.

Energy consumption is the big problem here, but it is a problem that is not going to end anytime soon, so we sure as heck need an alternative solution. Alberta has abandoned all other industry in the face of high energy demand and prices, including that of agriculture. The provincial government refuses to take its head out of the sand and REALLY think about what the future holds...not 20 years from now, but one hundred years from now.

Furthermore, I have yet to find any articles that articulate the impending war over non-renewable resources. Yes, I mean armed conflict. At this very moment there are three countries vying for Alberta "abundance" of resources: India, China and the United States. We all know what the United States government is capable of, and with ever increasing consumption of energy throughout North America, but particularly in the United States, it is irresponsible to not try and nip this issue in the bud, before catastrophe is imminent.

Two days ago, the government sealed the time capsule that is not to be opened until 2105. I con't help but wonder after hearing Klein's address how much they are trying to reshape history by including false information to our future. I am sure it will encourage placing the blame somewhere else when things fall apart.

After the last energy boom and bust in Alberta, we said we would learn from our mistakes. It seems to me that we are repeating the cycle of destruction. As they say, history tends to repeat itself.

For more information on Clean Coal Energy here are just a few sites to refer to:

1. IEACCC - International Energy Agency Clean Coal Centre
2. DOE- U.S. Department of Energy
3. Council on Foreign Relations
4. BBC Science and Nature

U.S. Violates Human Rights

New photos were released today of atrocities at Abu Ghraib. These pictures are in reality the documentation of war crimes as they are taking place. They provide evidence to the double standards that the United States has assigned to nearly all treaties and conventions that it enters into. Everything from NAFTA to the Geneva Convention, which is most glaring considering the state of the world today.

So as I sit down for my morning coffee and paper, I catch this story. David Irving's previous denial of the existence of gas chambers in concentration camps at Auschwitz is being punished with jail time, 3 years to be exact. The irony strikes me like a blow. Here is David Irving, doing time, while many other more high profile professionals, politicians and world leaders, those to whom we look for guidance, continually denying any wrong doing on their parts in other atocities around the world.

The United States itself, when it isn't misinforming its constituents, is making up excuses that are to serve as a justification for their reproach for world collaberation, when it does not serve the immediate interest of those in power.

Vietnam, Iraq and I dare say even the atomic bombs dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima are examples of this.

There is an international forum that is meant to prosecute those leaders who engage in inhumane actions, torture and other war crimes. This World International Criminal Court, The Hague, will in itself only be supported by the United States, as long as they remain exempt. This position in of itself admits guilt of war crimes past, present, and those to come.

The United States remains the world's most powerful country because of their ability to make or break a country, whether that be economically or with armed conflict. As in most cases, if they do admit to error there is they are generally able to come up with an excuse good enough to apparently justifies death and torture of innocent people.

Just look for yourself:

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol 1)
Adopted on 8 June 1977 by the Diplomatic Conference on the Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanitarian Law applicable in Armed Conflicts; entered into force 7 December 1979

Article 35 paragraph 3

It is prohibited to employ methods or means of warfare which are intended, or may be expected, to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment.

Article 51 paragraphs 1, 2, 4 and 5 (excerpts)

The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations.

[C]ivilians shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.
Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited, [including an] attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

Furthermore, even McCarthyism is still practiced to this day, although the guise under which it operates has taken many other titles through the years, more and more patriotic in nature.

Today, HomeLand Security has taken over this role under the guise of weeding out the terrorists. The September 11th bombing of the world trade center was in many ways welcome to the current U.S. administration, for it has allowed not only for abuse of power overseas and against the citizens of numerous countries, but within its own borders and against its own citizens as well. Such horrific events stun nations, and leave them emotionally helpless and fearful, and therefore, subject to manipulation, coercion and the will of those who hold power.

The same people that disapprove of actions and words that attempt to downplay such horrors of the past, fail to acknowledge the inhumanities of today, ones that they themselves are instigating, let alone downplaying the injustices and murder that they were involved in, in times past.

Hypocratic Free Speech Debate

Even as a pacifist, I can't help but lift the corners of my mouth in a sly grin in satisfaction at the controversy that has errupted at the release of the Turkish film "Valley of the Wolves: Iraq" that (with or without reason) villifies American soldiers.

This story has come on the heels of the all too infamous caricatures of Mohammed, which have seriously offended a large portion of the Muslim population, having been reprinted over and over again in the western world all in the name of free speech.

I would bet that all of those that have their panties on a little too tight over this film are probably the same ones that saw nothing wrong with the caricatures. Ultimately, it all surrounds the same founding principle of freedom of speech.

William Donohue, President of the Catholic League actually stated (incredibly) on MsNBC's Scarborough Country that using the freedom of speech argument was "[...] such a cop-out."

He also stated that "In this country, we are civilized. We don't appreciate it when some one sticks it to you in the name of freedom of speech...we condemn it. But over there they take the uncivilized approach, and then they wonder why so many people don't trust the Muslims when it comes to liberty, because they will abuse it [...]" Did he really just say that? You can watch the entire segment here.

Furthermore, to date there have been hundreds of American films that have villified a number of nations, religions and ethnies around the world, from the Russians, to Vietnamese, to Cubans, Mexicans, Serbians, Czechs...and the list goes on and on and on. Just a few examples include "True Lies", "Rules of Engagement", and "Navy Seals." How much do you want to bet that Mr. Donohue has seen at least one of these films and the thought of American film makers abusing their liberties didn't even cross his mind. He probably enjoyed it if anything, along with his popcorn.
People are saying - okay, fine, we are upset, but we sure aren't burning any embassies. Were any American embassies bombed bacause of the release of these pro-American films? No.
We must keep in mind the context of the rioting. It is not just the caricatures, but a serious of events that have occurred throughout decades, that are all compounded by the ongoing occupation and control over the Muslim world by what most would consider 'foreign invaders'.

If anything, the backlash in America to this film will only fuel more hatred and propoganda on the "western" side against the Muslim world, even more than the film will invoke hatred against Americans. Sadly, this is already the reality.

Please note that I do not blame American, or allied soldiers, for the situation that they are in. I watched Private Ryan after all. I do however blame the world leaders that have a tendancy to view human beings as mere "collateral damage" in their quests, and who invoke war on the world in the first place.

Discretion in Free Speech

So this is me exercising my freedom of speech. Let it be known that I agree with neither representation. Although you can bet that Ezra Levant is silently (out of fear of appearing all too hypocritical, practicing extreme double standards) extremely offended at the latter representation.

And it is to all of you that take great pride in exercising our "freedom" of speech that I appeal. Please, in your representations, do not let it slide that it is not the religion, or the nationality, or the ethnicity, or even the borders that one comes from, that provoke horrendous acts. Violence stems from environment, such as media and teachers, and history, and ignorance. It stems from oppression, and unjustness, and persercussion, and from people like Ezra Levant, who take advantage of an already shaky situation, and make it even worse while taunting his "rights" while staying safely close to home.

This is of all leading up to the much talked about cartoon controversy.

Example 1:
You are a caucasion tourist who walks into Harlem and hears one african-american call another a "nigga." Nothing happens of any violent sort, so you then take it upon yourself to call that same man a "Nigga". Do you think they will take offense?

Just as it is inappropriate for a white person to call a black person a "Nigga", it is to inappropriate for a christian community to knowingly offend a muslim one.

Example 2: You are a kindergarten teacher. You have one child in a class of 30 that continually acts up. The rest of your students are well behaved despite the disruptions of the one unruly student. But instead of re-inforcing the positive students behaviour, you continually irk the unruly student by continually putting him and the entire class down because of his behaviour. Slowly the rest of the class begins to view you as the unjust party for constant condemnation, rather than viewing the unruly student as the one who is truly unjust for inhibiting their time to learn.

Just as the cartoons were only one stupid call on the part, of now many western publishers, this has not been the first and is not the last offending action that they will make towards Muslims, mostly abroad (though felt worldwide). Eventually, the Muslim community will take offense, and no one can really blame them. These cartoons as published in Western Media, and rightfully so, can be legitimately viewed as western propoganda at a time when many Muslims are under the power of western occupation, and where their rights and freedoms have essentially been stripped by the same people that proudly speak of these "freedoms."

If we would all just think before before we speak, or act. Then maybe we wouldn't be so ignorant and stupid.

"Just and Unjust Wars" Excerpt

Here is the closing paragraph from Micheal Walzers thought provoking book "Just and Unjust Wars", 3rd Edition, Basic Books, 2000.

Nonviolent defense depends upon noncombatant immunity. For this reason, it is no service to the cause to ridicule the rules of war or to insist (as Tolstoy did) that violence is always and necessarily unrestrained. When one wages a "war without weapons," one appeals for restraint from men with weapons. It is not likely that these men, soldiers subject to military discipline, are going to be converted to the creed of non-violence. Nor is it critical to the success of the "war" that they be converted, but only that they be held to their own punative standards. The appeal that is made to them takes this form: "You cannot shoot at me, because I am not shooting at you; nor am I going to shoot at you. I am your enemy and will remain so as long as you occupy my country. But I am a noncombatant enemy, and you must coerce and control me, if you can, without violence." The appeal simply restates the argument about civilian rights and and soldierly duties that underlies the war convention and provides its substance. And this suggests that the transformation of war into a political struggle has as its prior condition the restraint of war as a military struggle. If we are to aim at the transformation, as we should, we must begin by insisting upon the rules of war and by holding soldiers rigidly to the norms they set.

The restraint of war is the beginning of peace.

This paragraph will be understood much better after reading the book in its entirety. I highly recommend this book as it examines central questions surrounding war and morality, rules of war and the war convention. You may not agree with his ideas, but it never hurts to educate yourself to new ideas. It is thought-provoking if anything, and is definitely on my recommended list.

Eco-Friendly Economy

Last night I had a somewhat heated discussion with a friend that covered topics ranging from alternative energy, alternative economics to alternative political theories.

I have concluded that, in this day and age, there is a better chance at revival and change in the world by organizing these three issues into one theory. That is to say the discussion of social change needs to involve new energy sources and plans, and thus new economic theories need to include these plans in their discussion, which would then necessarily lead to a political theory that implements them both.

Why?

We all know the end result of our over-consumption of NON-renewable energy sources. The discussion, at least in the majority of the western world, either blatantly refuses to address the issue of alternative energy sources in any serious manner, or turns the discussion to that of nuclear energy as the only viable alternative. Are they, those in power, really so bold as to think that most of the world thinks that those are the only viable alternatives? Iceland has taken the lead on this issue by currently testing 4 city buses run on hydrogen, which emits only water. Now why aren't the energy companies putting some of their windfalls into research and development of this source. Instead, they see only as far as their wallets, and are capitalizing on the reduction of the resources for which we, and they, depend.

Now in developing a new and, most importantly viable, economic theory that could help reshape our world, we must take the use of alternative energies into account. These theories must take into account the transition away from fossil fuels. The reason being that much of the worlds economies are based, either in large or small proportions, on the free market, which is ultimately lead by companies involved in the fossil fuel industry. When these companies collapse due to the lack of alternatives, and the disappearance of fossil fuels, what do you think will happen to our economy if it is based on the same theory as is currently practiced? Of course, it will collapse. In reality, before this happens it might have already collapsed due to the outbreak of armed conflict that is most likely to occur due to the battle over that last little precious barrel of oil. If you don't believe this will happen, and in our own backyard, you are fooling yourself. It has already begun. All you have to do is read the papers and listen to our "leaders".

Therefore, the new economic theory needs to account for the loss of the fossil fuel sector, and include the new resources in its discussion.

Thirdly, there will then necessarily need to be a change in political theory as it is practiced world wide. Many of our leaders benefit from the market as it is, more than we will ever know. Also, much of the investment of tax dollars is in places that depend on a stable economy. Sure, so far, we have been fairly lucky...so far. Many governments also depend highly on the success of non-renewable energy resources and companies. There fore, a new political theory in turn needs to account for the change of economics and resources levels.

Further more, Democracy, is the going craze these days, but in practice, there are no real democracies, and we once again are kidding ourselves if we think there is. First past the post...when 25 % of a government set area are able to elect one person to represent all of their interests....that is not democracy. Neither is a two party system, both with very similar ideals. A system where the only issues that cause differentiation seem to be that of state involvement in the bedroom and with the churches. Funny that is a world that has globalized to such massive proportions, it is still frivolous issues that make or break an election, in Canada, it may amount to as much as same sex marriage.

Alas, I digress. The point to all of this, is that there needs to be serious discussion to alternatives to the systems that are in place now. Serious. Discussions that occur not only in the academic world, but that are taken further into the mainstream scope, so that ignorance may be defeated, and progress, will actually mean progress, not wealth.

And I am sure I will be criticized for criticizing our system when I myself have no viable alternative to bring to the table. Yet the purpose of my ideas are to begin a discussion, to get people thinking about alternatives. If you can give me one person who can say there are no serious flaws in systems that we uphold today, and they can prove it, then I will stop this discussion. Until then, let us begin to look forward, to the world that our children and grandchildren and even great-grand children will be left with, and what we can do now to make it that much better for them. To prosper, not necessarily with empty material things, but with health and happiness, which is growing more and more uncommon.

I will be including links very soon that will delve into these topics and that will therefore aid in the commencement of serious discussion on these and other related matters. Patience.

If you have links that you think are pertinant to this discussion please let me, and all others know about them in the comments section. Thank you.

An Exercise in Self Reflection

They say that Life isn't predictable. Sure, things happen that we don't expect, but for the most part, I disagree with this statement. I can tell you right now, that if I make a certain decision, what the consequences will be. For example, if I don't pay my rent, eventually they will kick me out of my apartment, after going to court and paying restitution. If I run a red light on a busy street during rush hour, chances are I am not walking away uninjured.

Perhaps predictability is the wrong term. The essence is more along the lines of discretion, and caution, and above all common sense, which as they say once again, is not so common.

What is my point you ask? The point is that you are responsible for your actions, for your future, your destiny. No one else. Think about that. No one else is to blame for your bad choices, nor are they to take credit for the positive ones. No matter what the pressure, it is ultimately up to you.

Now if everyone would just think about this for a minute. Take the time to contemplate the fact that every action they take is there own, and therefore they bear the burden of all consequences that may ensue, whether good or bad. Perhaps more people would actually contemplate their actions before hand. Perhaps, they would reflect enough to distinguish the bad choices from the good. Sure, this wouldn't happen all the time, and bad choices will still be made, but perhaps there will be less of them. And if you care to know what I think, I do believe that people may be more respectful, empathetic, and perhaps even a little less ignorant. And all of this from a little self reflection.

1

I have no time to write in a blog. Being one of the greatest procrastinators you should expect to see at least 3 entries a week.