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?