NOTEBOOK: Interesting quotes, interesting times

NOTEBOOK: Interesting quotes, interesting times

First things first. Happy Holidays to all. (The more generic version of Merry Christmas.) To all our readers, advertisers, friends, (whether true, scarcely available, long-lost or there when they need you), family and relatives (of course, also here and everywhere, long-lost, forgotten or unforgiving), and enemies (mortal, impossible and sworn or forgettable).

I mention all these because truly there’s a time in a year when you can forget the stressful conflicts and tensions in your life and just relax. And this may be it. The holiday season. It’s a cliche to say it’s time for giving. It doesn’t have to cost money. It could be sending an electronic greetings card or making a phone call. Just make a connection to another or a few individual souls. It could be a call that can make their day. Don’t underestimate the impact it can create in another human being.

There’s a phenomenon called the Butterfly Effect. Roughly, it means a flapping of a butterfly’s wings can cause or trigger a change of weather on the other side of the earth.

So go then, call a long-lost friend or a far-away relative. Just connect and share the holiday spirit.

* * *

On page 16 of this issue, we reprint Michael Moore’s open letter explaining why he’s posting bail money for Julian Assange, co-founder of WikiLeaks. Assange is accused of rape, two allegations of molestation and one of unlawful coercion.

It’s not hard to conclude that they’re after the man as much as they’re after WikiLeaks that has released, partially, and will release more of what it describes as 250,000 U.S. diplomatic cables.

It has already caused some embarassments for the U.S. One of which is a message from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asking American diplomatic officials to gather intelligence info on foreign diplomatic officials.

U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates belittled the damage done to U.S. by WikiLeaks. He said:
“The fact is governments deal with the United States because it’s in their interest, not because they like us, not because they trust us and not because they think we can keep secrets.”

This quote is actually very important. It reveals the realpolitik of diplomatic relations. When applied to U.S. itself, this means all the talk about spreading democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan is hogwash. It’s in the U.S. government’s interest to secure its sources of oil in that region that they’re in those two countries, not because they care for the peoples of those two countries that they have to protect them from Al Qaeda and Taliban.

But going back to Moore’s comments on WikiLeaks. He said had WikiLeaks existed a decade ago, it could have exposed the secret FBI report warning about suspicious activity consistent with preparations for hijackings. George W. Bush would not have ignored those warnings (made public) and something could have been done to prevent the 9/11 attacks. More than 3,000 lives could have been saved.

Had the weapons of mass destruction fraud been exposed by WikiLeaks when it was being cooked up in 2003 by Dick Cheney, the bombing and invasion of Iraq could not have happened the way they did. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis would have been alive today. And of course more than a thousand American, Canadian and allied soldiers would also have been alive at this time.

The truth, it turns out, not only will make us free. It will also save lives as in the above scenarios. We need more WikiLeaks and Assanges!

* * *

About the boycott of the Nobel ceremony by 18 countries, here’s an interesting twist.

Here’s a quote from a blog of Tariq Ali:

“For the record, Liu Xiaobo has stated publicly that in his view:

(a) China’s tragedy is that it wasn’t colonised for at least 300 years by a Western power or Japan. This would apparently have civilised it for ever;

(b) The Korean and Vietnam wars fought by the US were wars against totalitarianism and enhanced Washington’s ‘moral credibility’;

(c) Bush was right to go to war in Iraq and Senator Kerry’s criticisms were ‘slander-mongering’;

(d) Afghanistan? No surprises here: Full support for Nato’s war.

He has a right to these opinions, but should they (sic) get a peace prize?”

The governments that boycotted the Nobel ceremony are being accused now of caving in to China’s pressure. Including the Philippines whose lame excuse was that its ambassador to Norway was in Denmark meeting 10,000 Filipinos.

It turns out, the acceptable reason for the boycott could have been the views of Liu Xiaobo supporting colonialism and wars of aggression. The Nobel Peace Prize for a pro-war personality?

But then had the boycotters used Liu’s views, it would have made them opposed to the U.S. wars in Korea, Vietnam and now in Iraq and Aghanistan.What a dilemma for these governments whose choices in this case are limited to whom to please or displease, China or the U.S.

* * *

Here’s a quote from Ontario Ombudsman Andre Marin, speaking in a press conference in Toronto on Dec. 7:

“For the citizens of Toronto, the days up to and including the (June 26-27) weekend of the G20 will live in infamy as a time period where martial law set in in the city of Toronto, leading to the most massive compromise of civil liberties in Canadian history.”

These words bring a chill down your spine. Most massive compromise of civil liberties. Those who did not at least watch the media coverages of the G20 protests and police violence, these words are too much. But to those who were victimized, the more than 1,000 detained and those who were beaten by police, these are kind words.

The broken noses, the swollen arms and legs, the long hours without water and food in detention, the hours of being cornered in the rain on Spadina Ave. and Queen St. West, the warnings not to join any demonstrations in the future, and more, the words “compromise of civil liberties” sound like too polite. If you ask those hurt and intimidated, they say “police brutality.” Ask Adam Nobody, for example.

The Toronto Star did a splendid job of exposing the G20 police violence with its stories and photos. Yet until today, only one police officer has been identified for this “most massive compromise of civil liberties in Canadian history.”

The faces of some police officers caught in the act of assaulting protesters had been exposed in the papers. Could this be the most massive cover up of police brutality in Canadian history?