RANT: Cuidado Portugal y España, Careful Ireland

My rant for today is essentially three words: Portugal, Ireland, Spain.

It's very simple - if the European Union saw fit to literally throw Greece to the proverbial wolves (i.e. the detestable IMF), then what is stopping it happening to these three countries?

The cartoon here by the brilliant Brazilian Latuff says it all...

The plates to be broken here are those of Portugal, Spain and Italy. However, although Italy was cited as being 'in trouble' a few weeks back, to my understanding it really is Ireland that is the actual 'I' in 'PIGS'...at least for now.

'PIGS' is the frankly disgusting acronym given to these four Eurozone countries, all in apparent trouble with their so-called 'sovereign debt'. Greece was in the worst trouble, hence it being sold down the river last week. But the public coffers in Portugal look pretty bad too, as is the case for Ireland. And Spain, the fourth biggest economy in the Eurozone, is said to be in very bad shape too.

So, will the EU allow three more countries to go the way of Greece? Certainly, Portugal and Ireland look quite expendable, for want of a better word. Portugal never seemed to ride very well on the EU bandwagon (must be that 'Club Med-southern European thing', methinks). But it's quite ironic that Ireland is in the 'PIGS club' given that it was a shining beacon of free market, neo-liberal economics until just recently. Ireland was the place to be in the EU, a true 'success story' it seemed - especially for those in IT, direct marketing, business or anyone with a bit of cash or an entrepreneurial streak.

How the tables have turned. Now Ireland is just another basket case. Hmmmm, yet another strike for neo-liberal Friedmanite economics.

And what of Spain? Can the EU really afford to let a country of that size and importance falter and possibly even be in danger of defaulting on its debt obligations? What then? And what will be of the Euro?

How much longer can this madness go on? Are Germany and France going to snub these countries too? Will the IMF simply become the de facto bank for the Eurozone?

For now, I am very worried for these three countries - not to mention all of the European Union.

I am half-Portuguese, a heritage of which I am proud, and I lived in Lisbon for a few years, a city in which I finished my schooling and which I visited every opportunity I had during my university vacations, it being a city I love and know so well. I do not want to see that beautiful country thrown to the dogs.

When will this European club ever finally come together and be united and there for all its members?

After all, is the second word in the letters 'EU' not union? Where is the union in this band of misfits?

Do you get my point?

RAVE: Earth Hour - Small Gestures Writ Large

My rave for today has to do with Earth Hour. It took place yesterday with hundreds of millions of people all over the world switching off their lights for one hour at 8:30pm local time. I did it for the third year now.

For clips, pictures and more information on just how successful this year's Earth Hour was, please visit the official website: http://www.earthhour.org/

We have the people of Sydney to thank for this annual event. It was in 2007 that Australia's biggest city decided to raise awareness (not to mention collective consciousness) on the pressing issue of climate change by simply switching off their lights for one hour. The idea, fantastic in its sheer simplicity, not to mention 'media-savviness', caught on hugely and by the next year many millions more were doing the same all over the world.

It was a cool but lovely night here in Johannesburg. To have the candles lit for an hour and playing cards by candlelight made it quite special in its own way. I took a look outside and was disappointed to see that my most of my neighbours' lights were still ablaze. That really peeved me, although I must admit at hardly being surprised.

By the way, that is those homes that I was able to actually see into from my garden that were not totally blocked out by walls so high they could be something out of Jack and the Beanstalk as directed by Tim Burton, not to mention all that equally Burtonesque and skeletal-looking electric fencing - this is Johannesburg after all.

The lack of participation on my street I am quite sure was endemic in this country. Typical. South Africans are a mostly apathetic, self-centred and insular bunch. Especially if its about issues like this pesky thing called the environment. But let there be a call for South Africans to wear T-shirts on a Friday in support of the national rugby or soccer or cricket team and, oh boy, they come out in droves in workplaces and shopping malls across the land decked out in the national colours. Ridiculous.

But I did my bit. As did millions of others. It was a small gesture, no doubt about it. People switching off for just one hour on one day in the year is hardly going to make a significant difference to climate change. But the symbolic gesture is significant, and that is what this entire initiative should be seen as. A symbolic gesture that people all over the world are at least aware of climate change and, in their own very small way, wish to have their say. Nothing more and nothing less.

In this time of era-making cynicism and so much uncertainty about our global natural environment, I will grab and even cherish every little gesture that unites humanity in our collective quest for a better world. Earth Hour is one such gesture.

RANT & RAVE: The New Greek Flag

I simply had to share this brilliant cartoon that I came across today. It's entitled 'The New Greek Flag' and is from the '9' magazine of the Athens newspaper, Eleftherotypia. It shows the Greek Flag in different stages of 'mathematical expression' - it's self-evident when one looks at it. And hilarious. Like all images in my blog, you can click on it to enlarge it.



I rave about this cartoon because it is yet another example of the sheer genius and the sheer necessity for satirical comment in any political discourse.

And I rant about it because, funny and clever as it is, it is still a painfully ironic reminder of the huge sell-out that the Greek people suffered yesterday. A sell-out whereby their government agreed to be bullied by Germany and France and will now be in the clutches of that most nefarious of organizations, the IMF.

My heart goes out to the Greek people. All I can offer is my outrage and my continued solidarity with their struggle against a crisis that was not their doing.

Do you get my point?

RANT: Greece - Sold (Out)

My second rant for today is a follow-up to my first rant. It's all about the Greeks again.

So what happened yesterday at the frantic EU conference in Brussels, of which the Greek financial crisis was top of the agenda?

Well, Greece got sold out of course.

And we have Germany and France in particular to thank for that. The 'deal' for Greece (read: sell-out of Greece) is that there will be a bail-out (of sorts) at the behest of both the EU and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Or rather, very much under the control of the IMF.

Talk about shockingly bad news. Consider this:

1. The IMF is the Satan of international finance. It's that simple. This horrific organization, along with its evil twin, the World Bank, has single-handedly wreaked more havoc on the economies of the world than any other multilateral entity on the planet. The IMF is the 'world arm' of Wall Street and international banking and finance. Have any doubts? Think I'm being overly melodramatic? Then please do take the time to read "The Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein. And get real.

2. It is de facto guaranteed that an IMF bail-out means that a country must slash all public spending. So, bye bye to spending on education, health, pensions and other social welfare programs for the Greeks.

3. It is de facto guaranteed that an IMF bail-out means that a country must privatize more of its public entities, and that could include for energy, transport and even water. Yeah, and we all know what a huge success privatized electricity is (California and the UK, anyone?), not to mention privatized water (Bolivia, anyone?).

4. It is de facto guaranteed that an IMF bail-out means that a country must 'open' up its economy even more to foreign bankers, foreign creditors, foreign anything-that-can-rip-your-economy-off-in-the-name-of-'free-trade'. Yeah, like that's just what Greece needs right now: to be even more exposed, legs flayed wide open, to the very financial and economic terrorists that destroyed their economy in the first place. For sure.

What surprises me is that the Greek Prime Minister, who at the beginning of this crisis so virulently attacked the global financial sharks for artificially creating the crisis in his country, is now quoted as saying that he sees this 'deal' as a "big step forward". Yes, a big step forward into the abyss for Greece and for the Greek people. When was he taken away by the aliens and a Stepford Prime Minister put in his place?

Did Papandreou really need to kiss Angela's feet quite to that extent?

Look at the talons on those feet. Snicker.

Why do countries always feel so obliged to sell themselves so down the river when they are in a 'crisis'? It's the international relations equivalent of battered wife syndrome - the more battered you are, the more you go back to the aggressors for more. Just ask Argentina, circa the early 2000s.

This deal will definitely mean less sovereignty for Greece as a nation and untold more suffering and hardship for most Greek citizens, very probably for years to come. How can this be ever be a good deal?

And all of this thanks to the pressure of fellow European countries, starting with that Uber-Meister of the EU, Germany, and given greater impetus with that inimitable French je ne sais quoi.

With friends like these, what the hell does Greece need enemies for?

Do you get my point?

RANT: Greece for Sale

My rant for today has been brewing inside me for days, even weeks. I've touched on this issue in another post, with the Icelandic vote on March 6th being my touchstone for this rant as well (again, hurrah for Iceland for saying NO to the financial and political terrorists!).

In short, it's all about Greece.

It's well-known that Greece is in a huge 'debt crisis'. Meaning that it owes billions of Euros by the end of May, money that it simply does not have. As quoted from James Jubak in the Huffington Post: "Greece needs to refinance about $27 billion in debt that matures in May, according to calculations by Bloomberg. Already investors are demanding a 3.48 percentage point premium over the benchmark German bonds before they'll buy Greek 10-year debt. That premium is four times the average premium of the last five years."

Which means Greece is in deep trouble. Hence the recent attempts by the Greek parliament to introduce austerity measures (read: slash public spending on civil servant salaries and other social benefit-related slashing). These measures have been met with mass strikes and protests in Athens and other Greek cities and towns.

The people of the Hellenic Republic are not pleased. It has been well recorded in various news media that the Greek people feel victimised and angry as a result. And why shouldn't they be bloody upset and bloody angry?

Consider the following:

1. Why did this Greek crisis occur so suddenly? Because it was a carefully orchestrated assassination of the Greek economy, and in particular Greek treasury bonds, by the financial and economic speculators (read: terrorists) from Wall Street and across Europe, especially that poster child for speculative terrorism on the world economy, JP Morgan. Greece was targeted, simple as that. Iceland, anyone?

2. Why must the Greek government be so ridiculed by other countries for its large public spending bill? As if countries like Germany, France and the UK don't have huge public spending bills themselves. Isn't the UK currently sitting with the biggest ratio of public (sovereign) debt to GDP in all of the EU? And why should the Greek people should be accused, as if they were petulant little brats, of wanting nothing more than decent health care, education for all and their pensions paid out after all their years of work and service? How totally unreasonable of the Greeks to expect the very same of their government that the French, the Germans and the other hypocrites in Europe expect of their governments.

3. Why shouldn't Germany and the rest of the Eurozone bail out Greece? Why not? What is the purpose of having a monetary zone like the Eurozone, one which was supposed to be for the benefit of all Europeans, and which was to unite all of Europe, when stronger partners are not willing to assist a partner in trouble? With friends like this, who the bloody hell needs enemies?

4. And, speaking of Herr Deutschland, Germany is the richest EU country with the biggest national surplus, largely thanks to the power of the Euro over the past decade. Why must Greece be made to pay for the fact that Germany is holding elections later this year, and that German voters may hold helping out Greece against that Grosse Deutsche Hausfrau, aka Angela Merkel? Why must Greece pay for the fact that Germany's reunification cost so much money? You Germans went all mushy and wanted to unify, that's your bloody problem. Now you're a member of a monetary zone that has been of most benefit to your economy, and you think you have the right to be damn stingy to help out a fellow European country in need?

5. And, by the way, Germany, don't you think it's time that you gave Greece back all those billions of dollars of gold bullion that your Nazi ancestors plundered from Greece during World War 2? I think that's overdue, you ungrateful and patronising prigs.

6. And if I see one more television footage of some pasty-faced, ugly German in some grey German city crinkling up their little Teutonic nose at the suggestion of helping out Greece, I'll scream! Or I'll get on a bloody flight (not on Lufthansa, by the way), land in Germany and just start slapping faces left and right! But let the German economy be in as much trouble as that of Greece, and that German begging bowl would be casting a huge shadow over all of Europe, no questions about it. You hypocrites.

7. I need to say it here: this Greek crisis has really brought out the ever-simmering contempt which many Northern Europeans have for their Southern European neighbours. It's there - always just below that very thin patina of northern European 'respect' for their fellow Europeans to the south. One can literally sense it when northern Europeans, smug and patronizing to the hilt, are asked their opinions on TV news and shows about the crisis. It's palpable.

Comments are made about the 'Club Med country' crisis, thereby reducing Greece, Spain and Portugal to nothing more than what many northern Europeans believe them to be - that is, nothing more than holiday destinations where the weather is better and the locals a darn sight cuter and more fun.

I wonder how Ireland feels, being that it's in the same crappy sovereign debt position, yet hardly a sunny Club Med destination...?

Endless commentaries are made about the 'recklessness' of how these countries have governed their finances, always with that undertone that southerners are somehow less 'restrained', less 'responsible'. Even the acronym 'PIGS' (which stands for Portugal Ireland Greece Spain) says it all. Italy is now out of that spotlight, even if only for now. The main subtext is simple: the southerners just can't get it right, even if one of those countries (Ireland) is not a so-called 'Club Med economy'.

As if the likes of the UK have done any better. It makes me bristle with anger, given my southern European ancestry.

Which is why I so appreciated this cartoon from the UK's Independent newspaper lampooning the musical 'Grease'. Says it all.

And the poor Greeks are now at the mercy of their northern partners. I pity them for that. Greece and citizens of Greece deserved better than to be held responsible for the devious and destructive machinations of the global financial system that saw fit to wreak havoc on their economy.

Do you get my point?

RAVE: Google 1 - China 0

It has been almost three weeks since I last wrote on my blog. Not a good thing. So I thought it best to recapture my blog-writing mojo with a positive rave. I do intend to keep it shortish, given that the subject matter is hardly earth-shattering. And I also need to get back into my groove...

The whole China vs. Google debacle has created quite some media attention in the past few weeks. And, much to its credit, Google eventually decided a few days ago that it would no longer submit to China's draconian Internet censorship laws. And so it set up its China operations in Hong Kong.

Counting against Google is the fact that for quite some years now it sold its corporate 'soul' (do corporations even have souls? The US Supreme Court would probably find reason to believe they do, but, NO, they do not) by acquiescing to China's stringent and flagrantly anti-democratic Internet laws. The reason cited now by Google as its reason as to why it no longer wishes to acquiesce to China is because of the incessant snooping on, or blocking of, the Google e-mail accounts of pro-democracy activists in China by the People's Republic.

You took a long time to find that elusive 'soul', Google - but, as they say, better late than never.

So, why am I happy about this decision by Google? Consider the following:

1. China has an appalling human rights record, whatever its well-oiled PR system in both the East and West might state. Therefore, I'm on the side of pro-democracy activists. Simple as that.

2. China is a bully. Everyone loves to rant and rave about what a huge bully the United States (which it is) but no where as much anger is directed at China. Well, as any kid who was ever picked on at school can vouch, there can be more than one bully on the playground. And China is a bully. As the world whored itself out to China just to get cheaper T-shirts and crappily made (yet still expensive, please note) electronic goods, so China became Sweatshop to the World and an economic powerhouse. And, increasingly, a passive-aggressive bully. Many people swoon over its riches and its monetary clout on the global scene. I, for one, remain sceptical and keep thinking: that's what you get for being a sell-out, Rest of World.

3. I'm frankly sick and tired of China using that adage that 'when in China, the laws of China must be respected.' They use it with such aplomb and such vigour, and it's such a load of absolute hogwash. With that logic, apartheid South Africa would have been justified in its racist policies, simply because they were 'their own laws in their own land'. Uh huh. The old South African regime tried that, but rightly so, it didn't work in the end. Your wise Oriental logic simply doesn't gel, China. Not if your laws stink to high heaven and it offends some of us out here in the big, wide world. So sorry.

4. I'm glad too that Google did not capitulate out of sheer greed. So many economic 'pundits' (you know, those bloodsucking 'experts' and Wall Street sell-outs that proliferate financial talk shows and newscasts on CNN, et al) have pooh-poohed Google's decision as stupid, given how 'huge' the Chinese market would have become for them in the near future. Well, for one, I'm quite sure Google did all their sums and have covered most of their 'Chinese future market realities' quite well. They're not a huge and quasi-monopolistic corporation for nothing.

5. And, for another, it's nice when ethics and good corporate governance trump corporate greed and capitulation to amoral foreign laws. The gesture may be nothing more than 'tokenism' by Google to many, but I'll take the tokens and ride on this train, thank you very much.

6. I like the fact that an American organization has given a middle finger to the Chinese government. It's a small, very insignificant victory in the scheme of things, but it's a victory to be savoured nevertheless. Simple as that too.

People are most mistaken if they think that the decline of the American empire, with all that is so despicable about that, will somehow be replaced by some magical, 'golden' Chinese empire. The current Chinese socio-economic and political reality is farcical in its artificiality and, quite frankly, China simply never lets up on its many, MANY human rights violations.

China the Bully is dangerous, make no mistake about that.

Empire is empire and this 'mercantilist empire', so breathlessly admired by so many in the West, has very dangerous tendencies, particularly with regard to human rights and other core values which I, for one, believe in and hold dear.

I do not trust China. Nor should you. Which is why this middle finger by Google, however cynical or however delayed it may be, etc, is nevertheless something to be cheered about. It's fashionable to deride and to diminish the West these days. So very fashionable. Yet, still today, core Western democratic values are yearned for by so many millions and millions of people, including in China. Very interesting that.

I, for one, will support any initiative that seeks to trump autocracy and human rights abuses with democracy and human rights for all as victorious.

I may live in Africa, but in these things I am proudly Western to the core.

Good for you, Google.

RAVE: International [Great] Women's Day

Today is International Women's Day. My rave for the day is a celebration of all the wonderful women of this world, both past and present.

It is exactly a hundred years since the idea of an annual International Women's Day was first proposed in Copenhagen. That was at a time when very few women were guaranteed any political rights, i.e. the right to vote, let alone equal property, pay, political and other socio-economic rights.

Women continue to battle to gain any semblance of true equality with men, even in the most so-called 'advanced' nations of the world. Women continue to have large pay disparities with men for like work in most countries, men continue to dominate the political arena in nearly all countries and men continue to be dominant in nearly all industry sectors, with a (very) few notable exceptions in some large corporations and, to a better extent, in medium-sized and small businesses. Again, men dominate even in areas where women fare better.

Amazing that these cliches still hold true as we enter the second decade of the 21st century.



Some things to consider:

- The first country to grant women the vote at the national level was New Zealand, only in 1893. Countries like the UK, USA, Austria, Sweden and others only followed suit in the aftermath of the First World War. Many may not know, but Switzerland only gave women the vote in 1971.
- The only country that continues to not allow their female citizens to vote in elections is that theocratic bastion of sexism and bigotry, Saudi Arabia. But they get away with it - all that oil and wealth that bedazzles so many in the West is a good excuse.
- The Holy See (Vatican State) is the only other country that doesn't allow women the vote - but neither do men have the right to vote there (they are a bunch of Catholic priests, after all) and spot the woman in the Vatican, win the prize.
- Kuwait, another highly bigoted and sexist society, only joined the modern world by granting women the right to vote in 2005.
- Women continue to earn less than men for like work in most countries. A 'Global Gender Pay Gap' report commissioned by the International Trade Union Confederation in 2008 found that there is an average 'pay gap' between women and men of over 15%, as averaged across 63 countries. Astoundingly, the report found that the older, more experienced and better educated the woman is, the greater the pay gap!

And the above is the tip of the very tip of the iceberg.

It's been said that the world would be better off if it were run by women. Perhaps. As long as they were not women who behaved worse than men just to get ahead (the heinous Margaret Thatcher anyone?) or women who tried to out-vulgarize men by proving they were 'tough' (the equally heinous Sarah Palin anyone?).

But a world run by some of the women that I admire would certainly make for a better place - the likes of Vandana Shiva, Ingrid Newkirk, Naomi Klein and Gloria Steinem come to mind. That type of women power would certainly make a difference after so many millenia of the unbelievable mess that is male-dominated power.

Yes, we men have a done pretty bloody awful job of it since time dot. Beg to differ?

However, a caveat: in my humble opinion, today should not be cause for celebration for all women. What was that, you ask? Yes, not all women deserve this day. There are too many out there who are a disgrace to their sex - the shallow ones, the money-grabbing ones, the bad mothers, the cows, the women who add nothing to this world. This is not your day, ladies. This is a day for those women who well and truly deserve it. The ones who are a credit to the fairer and better sex. The ones who make us men look plain bad.

That's why I'd rather dub this International Great Women's Day. I know many women who would agree with me on that.

So, here's to all the great women in the world. From the great women surviving the war in Afghanistan to the great women keeping their families alive from starvation in Zimbabwe, to every one of them and every other great woman in every corner of this world. This is your day.

To my mom, the very kindest, the very best woman in my world. Thank you, mom. To every woman that I have known and respected over the years. Thank you to all of you.

Today may not feel that special or all that different for many of these great women. I wish it would, somehow in some way. That's the very least they deserve.

RAVE: Iceland Votes 'NO'!!!

What GREAT news from yesterday - Iceland has resolutely VOTED NO in the Icesave referendum!!!

That means that the Icelandic people have basically told their government that they should not re-pay the UK and Netherlands governments billions of pounds for what it has cost those governments to pay their account holders in the Icesave collapse.

What FANTASTIC news!

And, better still, the vote was overwhelming in its resounding NO. Latest estimates from the poll put the 'NO' vote at 93%, with only 2% voting in favour of 'honouring' Iceland's debt to the UK and Netherlands. The rest of the voters cast invalid votes, which pundits assess as being a protest vote in itself. Hence, many believe that, in fact, 98% of Icelandic voters were against the debt re-payment, in one way or another. Amazing.

Talk about a nation united in their collective fury and anger at having to be the 'fall guy' for an unregulated global financial system that is clearly perverted, inequitable and entirely out of control.

It has been stated that the referendum has shown far more all-out opposition to the debt repayment by this small country's citizens than was originally expected. And this in the first referendum held in this country since 1944; one of the world's oldest continuous democracies, by the way.

My respect for the people of Iceland today is enormous. They may still hunt whales (to which I have a huge problem - please, stop that, Iceland), but at least they had the courage to stand up to the British and Dutch bullies and, more importantly, to have the vision to realize that they simply cannot have their economic future held hostage because of what uber-capitalism has become today - namely, unfair, unjust and unsustainable.

There will be tough days ahead for Iceland. That IMF loan has just become a lot more difficult to get. I just wish Iceland would see that for the beautiful silver lining that it will be for the country. Think middle- to long-term, Iceland - you do not need that IMF loan. The cost will simply be too high for your society.

Even EU membership may have to go on hold for now. Too bad. Nothing is worth getting if it means having to sell your soul to the Devil incarnate that is the current global financial system, sick and twisted as it is of now.

The relative silence on this Icelandic vote on most of the major international TV news stations today has been deafening. That in itself says everything. The corporatist powers-that-be are scared. Very scared. This small North Atlantic island nation of just 350 000 people has just scared the living daylights out of the world's financial establishment with the biggest middle finger to the rest of the world in recent times.

The corporate powers-that-be and economic terrorists on Wall Street and in the City of London can pooh-pooh this result all they like. They don't fool me. They know that the tide may just be turning against them. The people, quite frankly, have had enough.

Good for you, Iceland. Now, please Greece, be the next...

RANT: Oscar Hate Part 2 - 'Swag Bags'

This is my second contemptuous rant against the Oscars. I guess I couldn't resist having another swipe at the tarnished, little gold man.

The Academy makes it so easy...

Courtesy to superhypeblog.com for the hairdrying pic, by the way. I like it.

This time it has to do with the so-called 'swag bags' that each nominee will be getting at this year's awards. This is a 'little bag of goodies' that they each receive from the Academy for having been nominated. So sweet of the Academy.

I've always known these swag bags were filled with a lot of expensive gifts, but yesterday by pure chance I overheard on one of the news stations just how much this year's swag bags will cost per nominee. Each swag bag has goodies to the value of $85 000.

Yeah, you read that right - eighty-five thousand dollars!

The goodies include a trip to Monaco, a trip for a whole bunch of people for a safari to South Africa, expensive electronic goods, and on and on.

Thank goodness I wasn't carrying anything in my hands, because they would have gone crashing to the floor, such was my disbelief.

And then my disbelief turned to outright anger. Who the bloody hell are these people that they deserve 'gifts' totalling $85 000 just because they're nominated for some bloody award? And just how sensitive is it of the Academy to divulge those types of figures for little gift bags at a time when the United States is lurching from one economic crisis to another and unofficial estimates put the unemployment and underemployment rate at close to 30%?

Do these people have no shame??

And what of the stars? Those over-pampered, utterly self-important celebrities that earn millions of dollars just for appearing in a film - do they really need these types of gifts gratis? Why is it always the rich or the very well-off that seem to get all the freebies?

What are the likes of George Clooney, Meryl Streep, Woody Harrelson and Helen Mirren, all nominees this year, going to make of these swag bags? Are they going to keep them, gleefully clutching on to their goodies with their beautifully manicured, lotioned and perfumed hands? If they do, just how do they reconcile such obscenity at this time with all their liberal, do-gooder causes and sentiments?

Hell, I love some of these people and think they're great performers, but does no one see the hypocrisy here?

And, by the way, does every nominee get this type (and value) of gift? I don't know why, but I have a sneaking suspicion it's something especially reserved for the directors and producers and actors. I just don't see nominees for Best Documentary Short or Best Sound Editing getting quite the same amount of love from the Academy. Call me a cynic.

Yes, this kind of over-the-top, frankly gratuitous gifting is frankly obscene at any time, but never more so than at this time of economic hardship for so many all over the world, including in their very own US of A.

You may think I'm overreacting. And of course there are bigger and more important issues and injustices in the world. But it is these small, 'insignificant' little financial obscenities that, in their own, small way, have an insidious tendency to make the haves feel even more impervious to the real problems facing the (growing number of) have-nots. The gulf just keeps getting bigger. Even when it comes to giving out gifts.

And even if it's just a case of simple bad taste, it's just plain wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Shame on you, Oscar.

Do you get my point?

RAVE: Brilliant Image re Iceland Crisis

As a follow up to my rather lengthy rant about the Icelandic vote tomorrow on their 'debt' to the UK and Netherlands, I could not resist raving about this brilliant image I just came across:

It shows a bulldog (synonymous with the UK and, by extension, Gordon Brown) standing over a map of Iceland. Sheer, simple brilliance - it says it all.

Due credit for this image is given to the Debtonation site - a brilliant site that I highly recommend (www.debtonation.org) with insights regarding the current financial crisis.

RANT: Iceland - Please Vote NO

Tomorrow the citizens of Iceland will vote on whether or not Iceland should honour its so-called 'Icesave Bill'. This is a piece of legislation whereby Iceland must pay back the debt it supposedly owes to the United Kingdom and the Netherlands due to the collapse of one of its own banks, Landsbanki, in 2008 and, in turn, the collapse of Icesave.



Landsbanki offered their 'Icesave' brand as an online savings account - the draw being very high interest rates (read: greed) on this savings loan, thank you very much. Hence, the large number of investors who bought these loans - over 400 000 in the UK and Netherlands combined. When Landsbanki went into receivership in 2008, so too did their online savings buckeroo. For 6-8 weeks people holding these loans could not get their money out. A diplomatic row broke out between Iceland, on the one hand, and the UK and Netherlands on the other as to how Iceland would pay out these debts to so many foreign account holders.

But one has to first ask the question: Why did all of Iceland's three biggest banks, including Landsbanki, collapse in 2008? Some analysts have been critical of the way that Iceland's banks were so heavily leveraged (i.e. the amount of debt they had over and above their assets) by international standards. It was estimated that Icelandic banks were leveraged by more than five times Iceland's GDP. Not good economics.

With the collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008 (beautifully orchestrated by the likes of JP Morgan and those mega-scheisters, Goldman Sachs - more on that another time) came uncertainty as to the solvency of Icelandic banks. There was a rush on foreign accounts held in Icelandic banks and, well, the whole Icelandic banking system went into crisis, their three biggest banks collapsed and, suddenly, the Icelandic government and its parliament, the Althing, were left holding the baby.

The Althing formulated this 'Icesave Bill' as an attempt to bring into law a means by which these foreign account debts could be 'honoured' and it was passed in December 2009 (this after previous similar bills had been rejected by the British and Dutch as unacceptable). The proposed law was highly unpopular with Icelandic citizens, given how much debt Iceland would incur as a nation.

Then, on January 5th of this year the Icelandic President, Olafur Ragnar Grimsson, stunned many by refusing to sign the bill into law. All hell broke loose. The Brits and Dutch threatening that Iceland's plans to join the EU would be vetoed, not to mention threats of international lawsuits against Iceland, and so forth.

My admiration of President Grimsson's refusal to sign into law measures that would be so prejudicial to Iceland knows no bounds. I have included a picture of him in this post. The man showed enormous courage and determination in refusing to succumb to the threats and bullying by the British and Dutch governments.

So, is Iceland really to blame? If you listen to the analysts 'critical' of their over-leveraged banks then, yes, the Icelandic banking system should take the rap. Please note these analysts tend to be of the CNN-MSNBC-BBC-Sky-News ilk, i.e. Wall Street and City of London parakeets to the hilt.

I mean, Iceland should be held accountable for its banks, right? These foreign accounts should be paid back by Iceland, right? Ummm, no.

Why do I scoff at these supposedly erudite analysts? And why do I make the assertion in this post that the Icelandic government and its people should not be held accountable for this debt? I'll tell you why:

1. Because just about every major bank in the world was super-leveraged by the time the global financial crisis hit in 2008, folks! Why the hell do you think so many major banks, especially in the USA and the UK, had to bailed out with government aid packages, i.e. taxpayer money?! They were in hock to the bloody hilt.

2. Because, unlike many other countries, Iceland's government simply did not have the public money to bail out its own banks. The money just wasn't there because international speculators, those economic terrorists from hell, had specifically targeted the Icelandic kroner and it had devalued enormously in 2008. Remember, Iceland is not a member of the EU and so did not have the 'comfort blanket' of the Euro (the bittersweet irony is that now the Euro is itself coming under attack from these speculators! Don't you just love globalized finance?)

3. Because, why must Iceland be vilified for its banking practices, when most banks worldwide, especially most of the big ones in the US and the UK, were being operated along the exact same, unsustainable lines?

4. Because why must, if the Icesave Bill is finally signed into law in Iceland, the country's citizens be okay with the fact that the country's debt will then be the equivalent of 13000 euros for every single citizen? Iceland will become the most indebted nation per capita on the planet. Would you be willing for your country to take on that amount of debt because of the shenanigans of a few of your own country's bankers in full cohorts with international bankers and financiers in other countries? Not to mention the fact that your country's currency had been specifically targeted for obscene speculation by a bunch of economic terrorists?

No, I didn't think you would be happy to do that? So why must Iceland?

5. Because why must Iceland be threatened with being vetoed entry into the EU or threatened with huge lawsuits just because it may choose not to honour a debt that will be so prejudicial to its national debt per capita? Why is it acceptable that the UK and the Netherlands are allowed to be such bullies against such a relatively small economy? Would they do that if the country in question was Italy? Or Spain? Or the United States? Hmmmm, interesting question that...no?

6. Because I hope that a 'NO' vote tomorrow in Iceland will force that country to review its way of getting out of its current financial nightmare. I do believe that being denied a bailout by the IMF, that Antichrist of international government aid, will be a very dark cloud with a beautiful silver lining to it for Iceland. An IMF loan always comes with stipulations designed to further enslave a nation to the whims of international investors and international (Mafia) finance, not to mention the slashing of public spending (read: education, healthcare, etc) and the lowering of labour costs and protections.

Don't let the Chicago Boys in, Iceland!

7. Because, quite frankly, I don't see why there should be any need for a country to 'honour' debt in an international financial system that is obviously so inherently rotten to the core and which it, like most countries worldwide, had been duped into believing was a basically 'honourable' and safe capitalist system. It is NOT honourable and it is not safe - the globalized capital market has become a Mafia domain. Countries are having their economies taken out by economic hitmen in the shape of investment banks and financiers (Greece, anyone?) and being forced (somehow) to have to pay for the mess and debt chaos that these economic terrorists wreak upon their economies. Why be honourable with a bunch of crooks? Stuff them.

8. Because for all the talk of 'innocent' account holders in this Icesave scandal, the majority are nothing but a bunch of middle- to upper-income people and organizations who wanted to make a quick buck with a savings account promising higher interest rates. Understandable, but still an element of greed existed. So, you got burned - I am sorry but, as they say, boo hoo. Welcome to the modern form of global capitalism. There is no level playing field in the markets, you dupes. Nice, isn't it? Time yuppies who love to 'play' the markets thinking they were so clever learned that often all that happens is they get played yourselves by a bunch of economic conmen.

And to all those municipalities who invested in these types of accounts and junk bonds just to try and 'raise more money' - shame on you for playing the markets with public money. You had no right to do so.

Let the UK and Dutch governments have to pay out these debts themselves if they care so much about all these account holders. Maybe then they'll think twice about allowing their own financial systems to become so rampantly unregulated and so at the mercy of international bankers and speculators.

9. Because the current globalized financial system is corrupt, perverse and is not here to serve you or I. It is in the hands of a very few of the mega-rich and the mega-bought-out and they are holding entire country economies and currencies to ransom. THIS is what you get when you allow capitalism to become unregulated uber-capitalism and allow for rampant speculation to become normative.

10. Because Iceland's vote tomorrow is a litmus test for just how much anger there is against the current global financial system. And because this could very well be the starting point of a citizen-led revolt worldwide against this sick, perverse system. This Icelandic vote may yet prove an interesting chapter in years to come about just what led the international uber-capitalist system to be overhauled.

Iceland needs to regain its dignity. And by saying 'NO' to its international debt obligations it will, paradoxically, regain a sense of self and a sense of nationhood. Any nation held hostage to the arbitrary vagaries and collusion of globalized finance should do just that.

Therefore, for all the above, and so much more, I can only hope that Iceland will vote a big, resounding NO tomorrow in the Icesave referendum.

Do you get my point?

SITE OF THE DAY: CanadasShame

My recommended site for today is a follow-up to the rant that I posted just a few hours ago. The site is www.canadasshame.com and it is the site the animal activist group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has established to bring into even sharper focus the barbaric butchering of thousands upon thousands of baby harp seals each year in Canada.

I like the fact that the site's URL is canadasshame.com - it is indeed Canada's SHAME that this hunt is still being allowed to take place this year, even after all these years of so much vociferous opposition to the hunt by PETA, the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) and a host of other environmental groups and individuals from all over the world.

I applaud PETA for this online initiative and this is my small way of trying to spread the word on trying to get this heinous murder to finally be banned.

One can go onto the site and then follow the link to one's Facebook page whereby an appeal to sign a petition against the hunt can be sent to all one's Friends on that site. It's a simple, effective way of getting the word out there.

So, please go and see the site. Look at the pictures and even view the footage (if you can stomach it - it's horrific stuff) and please support this initiative in every which way that you can.

Canada, STOP the seal killing fields NOW!!!

RANT: Blame Canada!

The Canadians are at it again. Yes, there they go again, clubbing thousands of innocent baby harp seals in the most cruel and the most barbaric manner possible.

The annual hunt of harp seal pups will get under way very soon and, yet again, the Canadians have chosen to do nothing about it.

I lived and studied in Canada for two years from 1996-98. I found it to be a beautiful, civilized and amazingly friendly country. I made such good friends there. I found Canadians to be compassionate, helpful and just basically very nice people. 'Nice' in the very best sense of the word. I have lived in five different countries and, for years since, I would always tell anyone who cared to ask about my time in Canada that it was the loveliest and most civilized country I had lived in to date. There's that word again - civilized.

But there is nothing remotely civilized about the brutal, bloody and disgusting way in which these seal pups are bludgeoned and battered to death every year, as spring starts to rise again in the great, white Canadian north. The images are sickening - nothing can justify what goes on in those killing fields. Nothing.

Well, I say enough is enough! Canada should be ASHAMED of itself. And, I'm sorry to say, and with all due respect, each and every Canadian should be utterly ashamed of themselves for living in a country that allows this year in and year out.

Every year the international community shouts louder and louder in its opposition to this butchering in the snow - yet every year Canada allows it to happen.

I don't give a damn about your reasons, Canada. Your reasons are parochial and political and petty and not even worth mentioning in this post.

Canada and Canadians consistently hide behind their 'Mr. Nice Guy' image on the world stage. It was easy to like such a laidback and gentle giant that made their neighbours to the south look like a bunch of gun-toting, crazy hooligans. And, boy, have they milked that image for a long time. Don't make me laugh! The Canucks don't even deserve to be called civilized, if this is how they treat wild animals within their country and entirely at their mercy.

And it's been going on for way too long...

Therefore, I say...

Support PETA, IFAW and other organizations that are doing such a fine and valiant job of trying to get this annual murder frenzy banned - once and for all.

Speak OUT against this Canadian carnage in whichever way you can - and if that means rubbishing all things Canadian, then so be it.

Spread the message around about this murderous carnage to all your family, friends, colleagues, anyone...please. And don't hold back.

Petition the fashion industry and those vacuous fashionistas who insist on still using baby seal fur just to make their fashion (mis)statements.

And, yes...

BOYCOTT CANADA AND ALL THINGS CANADIAN! This is long overdue, people. Canada has had it coming a long time.


I hate to petition people to boycott and to vilify a country that I have always (mostly) admired and for which I still have such good memories. But Canada needs a wake up call.

You cannot play the 'nice' card when you're playing anything but nice with thousands of innocent and defenceless animals every year. Game over.

Remember that hilarious "South Park" song called "Blame Canada" from a few years back? Well, that had a really funny, tongue-in-cheek and ironic feel to it. Except now the song would be ironic in a most unfunny way - now that Canada continues to insist on this annual baby seal hunt.

Nothing very funny or nice about being barbaric.

Do you get my point?

SITE OF THE DAY: Little Sis

My recommended site for today is Little Sis. Once again, I have Max Keiser and his show on Russia Today (RT), the Keiser Report, to thank (bow to Max, yet again) for bringing my attention to this website last night - and what is a terrific initiative.

Basically, if my understanding is correct, Little Sis is a loose group of people online who track, analyze, cross-reference, corroborate and, above all else, expose the ongoing financial shenanigans (read: financial and economic terrorism) of the richest and most financially powerful people in America. This they accomplish by having everyone doing their own analysis, adding content, etc. It appears to me like a hybrid cross between Wikipedia (which I love and respect, with all its flaws) and Facebook (which I hate on many levels - more on that another time) - except its focus is very singular and very expressly stated: as the byline in the website's banner states, "Profiling the powers that be".

As the introduction to their (very young and obviously very dedicated) team states: LittleSis is a project of Public Accountability Initiative, a 501(c)3 organization focused on corporate and government accountability. Our mission is to facilitate and produce investigative research that promotes transparent and accountable governance. PAI was founded in early 2008 by a group of activists, public interest lawyers, and academics associated with leading universities and major social change organizations.

It's the whole accountability part of the Little Sis project that is especially appealing to me. And the fact that their emphasis is so markedly on the very rich and the very financially powerful, i.e. the bunch of lying, greedy weasels that got us into this worldwide financial crisis in the first place - yet still keep getting away with it!

A further direct, italicized quote from their site: LittleSis features interlinked profiles of powerful individuals and organizations in the public and private sectors. Profiles detail a wealth of information vital to any investigation of the ways power and money guide the formulation of public policy, from board memberships to campaign contributions, old school ties to government contracts. I have added the bold for added emphasis, because how very, very true. This simple yet innovative follow-the-money-and-power-paper-trail approach is precisely exactly the type of online initiatives that are so badly needed and that all concerned and outraged people worldwide should be a part of or support, one way or another.

Am I fazed by the fact that the Little Sis emphasis is on the American stinking rich? Not all all. For one thing, the rich and powerful of today have their putrid and money-grabbing tentacles all over the world. Just take all the speculating that is coming to light of late with the entire Greek default crisis - lots of American and other foreign dirty hands in that pie. For another, the influence of the mega-wealthy and the uber-capitalists in America continue to have huge impacts on the global financial and money markets. To deny the importance these American billionaires have in playing with one's own country's economy, sickening and perverse as that idea might be, just because one does not live in the United States is naive folly. Nor does it recognize just how globalized (and, thus, horribly dangerous) international finance has become.

For those reasons and, hopefully, many more to come, I immediately signed up with them today. And, hopefully, as a member I may yet add content to their posted lists, as any member of Little Sis is able to do.

So, if you wish to know more about just how powerful and all-pervasive the likes of Warren Buffet or Bill Gates or that evil incarnation du jour, Goldman Sachs, really are and where they come from and how they possibly get their money, then this is the site for you. Please become a member. As I hope for myself, you may even yet become a content contributor.

Visit www.littlesis.org - and be part of the growing groundswell movement of people worldwide who want to empower themselves by exposing the truth about the wealth of the super-rich and their distorted power. We need to expose them for the mega-greedy, manipulative and economically destructive pack of bastards that they really are.

RANT: Little, Little Oscar

My rant of the day is quite personal and on a subject that is of little or no importance to the vast majority of people. It has to do with a little golden man that turns 82 this year - yes, it's Oscar, also known as the Academy Awards. The only reason I'm giving my two cents worth on this subject is because I'm a true cinema lover. Cinema addict is more like it, to be honest. Hence my little poke at Oscar today.

And the Oscars, love them or hate them or frankly don't care about them, my dear - well, it's a ceremony that commands over a billion viewers each year. That's a serious number of people worldwide who take at least a passing interest in the little gold man.

The 82nd Academy Awards will be hosted this Sunday, March 7th. 'Big deal', most would say. And I get that. I totally understand why the vast majority of people really don't give a flying cuckoo as to who wins what at this year's Oscars. In fact, count me in. I don't give a bloody damn either. At least not of late.

But there was a time when I did care about Oscar. There was a time when the Oscars were something I would look forward to, something that I could share and enjoy with people who loved movies, really loved movies, just like me. It was glamorous, it was exciting - it was a milestone each and every year one could count on.

Sure, I always knew it was a highly political game and that the 'winners' were not always necessarily the best in their category for that year. And there were examples aplenty: The stunning music score by Ennio Morricone for "The Mission" losing Best Original Score to Herbie Hancock's forgettable jazz piece for "'Round Midnight" in 1987? Ridiculous! Fernanda Montenegro's astounding performance in "Central do Brasil" losing Best Actress to Gwyneth Paltrow's sweet but very undeserving performance in "Shakespeare in Love" in 1999? Come on!

Yet another Best Score travesty: Thomas Newman's groundbreaking and brilliant (and so often imitated since) score for "American Beauty" losing to the screechy violin strains of "The Red Violin" by I-forget-who-the-hell-composed-it? Please! And yet another Best Actress travesty: Glenn Close in her iconic 1980s performance in "Fatal Attraction" losing to Cher in her very endearing but totally undeserving role in "Moonstruck"? I love Cher - what a lady, what a legend - but, come on!

Terrible choices have abounded throughout Oscar history. And, of course, you can never please everyone. The whole world's a critic, as the saying goes. Yet somehow I looked beyond that and enjoyed it for what it was.

Then, suddenly, it happened: one year I saw the Oscars for what they really are - political, arbitrary and just plain overrated. Even ugly. I'd always known it, of course - it had always niggled at me. But, suddenly, I guess I'd had enough. I call it the 'Brokeback Effect'. It happened so:

It was 2006 and there I was, watching yet another Oscar show live on television. It was nearly 7 o'clock in the morning (that's how damn late the live show runs when one is nine very, very long hours ahead of Los Angeles - not fun). I was tired, the show had (yet again) been quite a bore and I just wanted to know who had won Best Picture for the year. For once, a movie I was really rooting for was the favourite to win. And I just wanted to know it had done it. "Brokeback Mountain" was that favourite - a groundbreaking, beautifully made and quite superb film by Ang Lee. Jack Nicholson stepped on stage to announce the final winner of the night, Best Picture. He opened the envelope, looked up, eyebrows cocked in his inimitable way, and announced the winner as...

"Crash"...!

I literally felt the air sucked out of my lungs. I could not believe it. Someone next to me said, "Oh no, that's terrible." I actually felt sick. You see, my dislike for "Crash' knew no bounds. It was a film that had everything that I hated about bad cinema - it was cliched, the plot was preposterous, it pandered to every known stereotype and it was such a safe, safe film. I was crushed. And surprised at how much so.

A film that was a ready classic and that had achieved iconic status that year (and against all the odds, by the way), but which many did fear would be too 'controversial for the Academy, had been beaten by a lesser, unimportant, forgettable and shrill diatribe. Suddenly, my love-hate-love opinion of them, my ability to forgive the Academy Awards for its many foibles and drawbacks, suddenly it all became untenable - now, I had become solidly hate-hate.

And it was like everything I had always known about the Oscars but which had always been somehow fuzzy came into very sharp and very intense focus. Like a camera lens that focuses something quite unnervingly into all its ugliness.

My contempt for the Oscars has only grown. I've not watched a live show since 2006. No big deal to most, I know - but that's one less annual milestone in a year to which I can look forward. The difference is there, silly as it may seem. I see them ever more for what they are - a huge, frankly vulgar popularity contest very seldom based on the very best merit, and in which humongous PR (read: truckloads of money) and staged 'events' during the so-called 'awards season' determine the nominees, the winners, who will cry on stage, who will be snubbed, etc. It really is pathetic.

I laughed with derision at Martin Scorsese finally winning Best Film for "The Departed" in 2007, without a doubt one of his most unimportant and instantly forgettable films. But he was so overdue, you see (that's Oscar-speak, as you might know). So, typical Oscar, they just went ahead and gave it to him. I laughed with even more derision when "No Country for Old Men" by the Coen brothers won Best Picture the following year. They're so cool, you see. I defy anyone to tell me where the hell the plot was in that piece of overrated rubbish, because it did a damn good job of hiding itself from me. And I usually like the Coen brothers, not to mention Scorsese. But that's Oscar for you. Truly deserving very seldom comes to the party.

Of course, there will always be just winners. True excellence does sometimes still float to the top, even in the midst of such a morass of big bucks and arch-cynicism masquerading as 'serious'. Thank goodness for that. Categories like Best Documentary Feature and, oddly, Best Costume Design often get it spot-on. And I do hope Jeff Bridges finally wins his Oscar - yes, he has been so deserving after all these years, but at least he'll get it for a damn fine performance! And I would love to see South Africa's very own "District 9" win something - what an unexpected, outstanding surprise that was for me in my movie-going in 2009.

I would even love to hear that Kathryn Bigelow's film "The Hurt Locker" has won Best Picture and beaten out her ex-husband, James Cameron, and his film "Avatar". Not because I've even seen her film or will love it (who knows if I will) but only because he's such a pompous prick and because his film has visual effects that I just absolutely know will look hopelessly outdated by 2012. Snicker.

I will possibly see the recorded version of the awards the day after. It does make for passable viewing on a Monday night in between making dinner and clipping my toenails. And I will enjoy seeing some of the stars and even be happy for some of the winners. But gone is that feeling of watching an awards show that, warts and all, somehow had a magic about it. Gone, gone, gone.

Goodbye, Oscar. It was really good knowing you - when it once mattered.

RANT: The (COP)enhagen Aftermath

My rant today is a long one, so here goes...

It regards the aftermath of the much-anticipated Copenhagen Conference on climate change (offically known as the 15th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, or 'COP-15'), which took place between December 7th and 18th last year. Okay, the conference dragged on into the wee hours of December 19th amidst much hoopla about the 'dedication' being shown by world leaders in working so late into the night. Big deal. All this so they could supposedly try and 'get a deal'. Or rather, no deal.

Copenhagen was, quite frankly, a mess. There were initial attempts, particularly by the Association of Small Island States (AOSIS) and, to a lesser degree, the African bloc, to try and get developed and larger developing countries to commit to reducing their greenhouse gas emissions by at least 45& below 1990 levels by 2020. Furthermore, they pressed for a 'global peak' in carbon emissions by 2015 and a ceiling of a 2 degree Celsius rise in global mean temperature by 2020. Many hailed it the most effective science-based approach that could possibly affect the change needed to halt or at least slow down climate change.

No such luck.

Instead we got the pathetic and drippy-drab little 'Copenhagen Accord' signed by the USA, China, India, Brazil and (to my eternal embarrassment) South Africa. Much ado was made about the fact that four 'developing countries' were included in this group. Never mind that one of them (China) is today the largest carbon emitter (i.e. air polluter) in the world, with another fast catching up (India), with yet another in the top 10 of global emitters (Brazil) and the last still making it into top 15 globally (South Africa).

The USA, fast losing its mantle of 'main honcho on the block' (read: big fat bully) in world affairs, had to saddle up to the new big fat bully on the block, namely China, and the other three 'developing' wannabes just to give the impression of some semblance of an 'agreement' and 'openness'. Yeah, right.

Some agreement...

- Instead of a commitment to a ceiling of a 1.5 degree rise by 2020 (as requested by the AOSIS countries), they opted for a 2 degree rise as the limit - this in itself already dangerously close to what many climate scientists regard as the absolute maximum rise the Earth could take before a possible 'tipping point' into a no-mans land of possible climate scenarios where the outcomes are anyone's guess and, as such, very scary.

- No tangible commitment to a 'gobal peak' year or period was made.

- A 'soft target date' (UN-speak, not mine) of January 31st 2010 was stipulated as to when all countries would have to submit their proposals as to what pledges they would make with regard to combating climate change, whether they be 'developed' or 'developing' countries. (As an aside, I just love all these archaic 20th-century geopolitical terms still being used in the 21st century, don't you? Has no one told the United Nations that the Cold War is now quite over?)

- To its credit a fund of USD100-billion per annum was pledged in which developed countries will channel funds to developing countries in an effort to fight climate change in the developing world, where many of the negative impacts of climate change could occur. How the hell those funds will be effectively collected, channeled and used is anyone's guess, of course.

- There was also some well-intended piffle on halting deforestation. Uh huh. I hope you're listening, Brazil.

- But, most galling of all is that, after all those days in frigid Copenhagen, there was still no legally binding document signed by any of the parties! And that is not to mention the many, many days and countless meetings that were spent in other cities prior to Copenhagen in 'preparation' for Copenhagen. This in cities like Bali, Bonn, Barcelona (lots of letter 'Bs' there, if you hadn't noticed. I think the UN-global governmental gravy train had decided to move on to the letter 'C' with Copenhagen, what do you think?).

And still no binding agreement? Have you ever? In any other industry these people would all be fired for sheer incompetence.

And I am getting sick and tired of UN, governmental, certain NGO/ 'think tank' and other busybody types swanning around all over the world, spending billions of dollars in flights, top hotels, expensive conferences, expense accounts, etc etc, and not even achieving anything that is tangible, legally meaningful and ecologically effective! THAT really gets on my nerves.

And then they have the gall to patronize the rest of us by tut-tutting and saying nonsense along the lines of 'the process is complicated' or 'there are many different countries with different interests' etc. Yes, we know that. Don't state the bloody obvious, thank you very much. You're travelling way too much and staying in way too many good hotels and eating way too much good food at our collective global expense to keep coming up with those tired, pathetic excuses. Stop wasting all of our time. Our lives and the planet depend on it. Grazie!

I feel inclined to paraphrase Michael Moore here, when all I want to do is tell the whole ineffectual, self-important bunch to just shut up and go straight to their bedrooms!

And now? Well, the January 31st deadline has come and gone and - surprise! - not all countries have delivered their 'intentions' to the United Nations. It is considered positive that 55 countries had done so by February 3rd, including big polluters like China, the US and all 27 European Union states, accounting for "78%" of emitting nations worldwide. That does look fabulous in the first instance. And some of the pledges being made are supposedly very gracious:

- China set to reduce its 'carbon intensity' (a lawyer could have a field day with the ambiguity of just those two words) by 40-45% below 2005 levels by 2020 (never mind that they were already polluting like mad for years before 2005 as they chugged along being the Sweatshop to the World);
- India to reduce their 'carbon intensity' (there we go again) by 20-25% below 2005 levels by 2020 (less so re China, but still quite ditto);
- The United States to cut "by about" 17% below 2005 levels by 2020 (don't even get me started on that pile of you-know-what for a 'commitment' from what was until very recently the world's biggest polluter);
- The EU pledges 20% below 1990 levels (which actually at least makes reference to the first 'level year' prescribed by that huge fiasco known as the Kyoto Protocol). Rather capriciously, the EU will pledge 30% below 1990 levels by 2020 if other countries make similar pledges (is it any wonder that the likes of Machiavelli and Nietzsche were European?)

I am so not impressed by all of this because the lack of any of it being legally binding on any of these 'parties' continues to be, I believe, a huge stumbling block. Blame it on my legal background, but I'm a 'put-it-in-writing-and-sign-your-name-on-the-dotted-line-buddy' type of a guy. I know, very petty, very narrow of me.

I don't believe in diplomacy that is so loose it might as well be wearing a miniskirt and fishnet stockings and pulling the punters at the docks at midnight. Nor do I believe in agreements between nations that are...well...ahem...not even legally binding.

So, the uncertainty and the lack of real and meaningful political will regarding climate change continues in the aftermath of Copenhagen. So, the Arctic keeps slowly melting (see a dramatic pic of a 'melt lake' in the Arctic in this post) and the glaciers melt and the ocean already rises in the Pacific. And I'm supposed to be okay with this all this indecision and all this dilly-dallying nonsense. Well, I'm not.



Now there's hope that a possible new treaty might yet be signed at the next big conference (yes, more expensive flights and expensive hotels and expensive food) to be held in Cancun in Mexico in December. It was to have been held in Mexico City, but the UN-governmental flock clearly decided they'd rather be in Cancun. Who can blame them, right? And, after all, they had to stick to the letter 'C'.

By the way, on a final note, why is it that these people must keep flocking to lovely resort or coastal cities (the likes of Bali, Barcelona and now Cancun spring to mind) or other quite nice, usually wealthy urban cities (the likes of Montreal, Copenhagen and Kyoto also spring to mind)? Why not Ouagadougou? Or Kinshasa? Or Calcutta? I really think they should spread the love to every corner of the planet, grotty and poverty-stricken included.

Or, better still, I think they should come right here to Johannesburg and, most specifically, have their conference in Hillbrow, a highrise hell-hole district with the country's worst crime rate. Absolutely!

I'd happily be the events organizer for this international conference in Hillbrow. Really, I would. With pleasure. And I can just picture it:

I would suggest that they meet in broad daylight and right out in the open at the meeting of Pretoria and Kotze Streets. I would then insist, with impeccable South African hospitality, that the delegates be treated to the delightful spectacle of hordes of Nigerian druglords and Zimbabwean pimps on every balcony each pointing their AK-47s and Kalishnikovs down at the proceedings. Then we'll see just how 'long' and 'laborious' the negotiations will be in order for these world leaders and international busybodies to reach a meaningful, legally binding agreement on climate change. Once and for all.

Do you get my point?