|
The fake energy crisis
Dear Republic:
Re: “Capitalists better smarten up” [Republic 109, March 17].
Karl Marx put forward his scathing criticism of capitalism towards the end of the nineteenth Century, when the burgeoning industrial revolution was still using virtual slave labour, and workers had yet to organize into unions. Up until then entrepreneurs were getting something for nothing by profiting from "free" resources transformed using cheap labour.
The advent of the labour movement in Europe and America changed that equation, effectively sharing those profits with labour through living wages and sustainable conditions. It has been a win-win situation without which the tremendous wealth amassed in the Western Hemisphere during the last Century would never have been possible.
Unfortunately, the power elite that first got the industrial revolution going has decided that it would not be good for their position to let the middle class become too wealthy, lest they take over control of society. So about thirty years ago they fabricated a shortage of energy, the infamous "energy crisis," to create an illusion of limited prosperity. It now appears that we are into the second wave of that "scarcity scam," as we enter yet another phase of wealth concentration.
The promise of capitalism has always been about adding value to natural resources through job creation and profit sharing. But that has never been what the vested interests are about; indeed history has shown again and again that they are all about power.
- Charles Leduc, Vancouver BC
Who's the terrorist?
Dear Republic:
Kofi Annan endorsed the definition of terrorism offered by his UN Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, which states: terrorism is "any action intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do, or abstain from, any act."
The international sanctions against Iraq prior to this latest war resulted in predictable and officially accepted deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians (500,000 dead children accepted as necessary casualties by then US Secretary of State Madeline Albright) with the goal of isolating and destabilizing the Ba'ath government of the time.
The Iraq sanctions were an example of the international community committing a terrorist act. The question of "intent to cause death . . . or harm" is not relevant when its definition is a matter of politics and semantics. What matters is that the devastating human cost of the sanctions was considered to be less important than the political goal of removing Saddam Hussein's government from power.
- Andrew Phillips, New Westminster
Marriage is life
Dear Republic:
Civilization doesn't just happen. It requires nourishment and inspiration, especially by governments. Because the elevation and revering of heroism and self-sacrifice is so effective at accomplishing that goal, it is puzzling and disturbing to see the Canadian government devaluing marriage and undermining family life—the most potent civilizing influence of all.
In a self-indulgent time such as ours, parents more than ever need to perceive that their commitment to the next generation is valued. The term “marriage” is one small indicator of that esteem—a simple symbol representing the conviction that a union open to the possibility of new life with its inherent responsibility and sacrifice is deserving of special status. Those heterosexual couples who can't have children or who marry later in life, don't destroy the symbolism. Exalting their union still illustrates the fact that we as a society cherish the potentiality of new life—the idea itself—and that we believe neither a mother or father is redundant in the nurturing of that new life.
Realizing this—that marriage is more than a sign of affection between two people—Australian politicians recently enshrined marriage as only the union of a man and a woman, specifically prohibiting same-sex marriage. Canadians however have been bullied by judicial activism and media sermons into thinking that anything less than equal access by all is discriminatory.
Reserving “marriage” for committed heterosexual relationships is not discriminatory. It is a pedestal—a recognition by society that not only the sacrifice, but the very symbolism of propagating and nurturing the species must be elevated. No country should feel guilty in distinctly honouring a relationship with such awesome significance.
- Robert Burns, Okotoks, Alberta
****
|
