Everyone does year-end reviews. Film, music, literature, even global events make top-ten lists of the year’s best-of (or ‘impacting’ as it applies to global happenings). When it comes to the arts, I find year-end best-of lists utterly pointless. When it comes to music specifically, if a record stands the test of time and, ten years from now, is still as appreciated, then it was worth the mention given it. Unfortunately, too many year-end best-of lists are jammed packed full of records that, even two years from now, most people will have completely forgotten in favour of that year’s best-of. The same goes for films. Literature, on the other hand, being a medium that is, by nature, far more resounding in its longevity, is a different matter.

This brings us to global events, all of which, despite wishes to the contrary, are almost entirely represented by tragedies, conflict, death, despair, and so forth.

Iraq, Afghanistan, Darfur, Somalia, Pakistan, and a whole host of other negatives constitute the year’s most important and memorable issues. So too does the fact that President Bush, who has enough blood on his hands as to stupefy the imagination, hasn’t been confronted by Congress and impeached. That, of course, was one of the issues that the now Speaker Of The House vowed to pursue, one that all but magically vanished once her ass cheeks graced the Speaker’s chair for the first time.

Murder, death, destruction, poverty, disease, exploitation, deceit, greed, fear, and the abuse of power. That’s this year’s top ten. The thing is - that was last year’s top ten, and it’ll be next year’s as well, sure as there’s carts to horses.

Unlike this year’s top ten albums, these yearly reoccurrences will be around in a decade’s time; just as impacting, just as divisive, supported and justified by those too idiotic to see them for what they are, and too seemingly overwhelming for those that aren’t.

Tomorrow is the first day of a new year, but it is only a date on a calendar. It does not, unfortunately, represent anything besides. For change to occur in this world, no fixed date is required for hope to be renewed. No marker need exist to represent a point from which the creation of best and worst-of lists can commence. Life is not measured in retrospectives, it is measured in moving past them having realized that, despite their lessons, the status quo is history’s greatest weapon.

There used to be a time when my grandparents grew beets, potatoes, cabbage, lettuce, rhubarb, grapes, cucumbers, and beans in their backyard. They passed when I was in my teens, but I’ve never forgotten how superior it was to eat vegetables freshly picked and cooked.

Being that he came from another era altogether, my grandfather’s reliance on heavy fertilizers was non-existent. In fact, for the most part, he used compost and other common additives to enrich and protect the soil. He also weeded by hand and rotated plots in his backyard every year so as to allow the soil to replenish.

When my mother was a girl, my grandparents also kept chickens, which is something considering that she grew up on Canada Way on the Burnaby-New West border. They produced eggs and the family ate them. They lived in an old fashioned chicken coup and, as was normal, also ran around as chickens once did before being confined to cages in the tens of thousands on modern chicken farms.

The point that I’m making is that there was a time, and it wasn’t that long ago, that we had a hand in what we consumed, even in the suburbs of cities. People grew vegetables, herbs, and fruits, consuming them when in season and turning to stores that they had built up in the winter months, commonly pickling what could not be stored long-term.

Today, of course, we find ourselves living in a very different world, one in which we are all guilty of helping sustain the abuse of animals in the pursuit of testing foods – even health foods.

According to The Sunday Times in the UK, health food trends have led to a 300% increase in the use of animals for testing purposes in Britain. The animals used range from rats, mice, and guinea pigs to rabbits and dogs - all of them disposed of after the fact.

To ensure the safety of Teavigo (“green tea in its purest form”), the lives of dogs are sacrificed. I look at Benji and Casey and think of health food nuts taking Teavigo supplements, most of whom are probably entirely oblivious to the fact that animals were sacrificed in the testing process.

There are, of course, those that will argue until they’re blue in the face that testing on animals in necessary. In truth, it’s an empty argument, because the last time I checked animals weren’t used to test the effects of foods that have sustained humans, and animals, for millennia. A carrot is a carrot and a beet is a beet. Animals will eat them just as readily as human beings will, and that’s something that shouldn’t be overlooked. Nor should the fact that even in the testing of dog foods, some dog food companies do unconscionable things to dogs themselves to ensure that, if you can believe it, the product is ‘good’ for them.

The testing of cosmetics, animal foods, health foods, and a laundry list of other commercial products all lead to one end – the death of animals. You might find rats and mice repulsive, but who is anyone to say that we have the right to sacrifice them in an effort to produce better ‘health drinks’?

The use of animals in medical research is one thing, and in certain cases with regards to devastating diseases, a very unfortunate necessity at times. But even then, the utmost care should be taken with just how far we are prepared to go to sanction the use of living things for our benefit. It is a precedent that creates a very slippery moral slope, one that has led to the belief that the use of animals for a variety of testing purposes is completely acceptable.

My dogs can’t talk, and therefore are unable to convey their emotions in a fashion that, were they harmed or afraid, would reduce most individuals with a conscience to tears. All they are capable of doing is producing sounds of pain, and as a dog owner and lover, even those are utterly unbearable to my ears. To think that anyone could willingly ignore such cries of distress, even if limited to canine wails, is entirely beyond me.

Mahatma Gandhi once said – “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated”. Given the variety of ways that we abuse animals in the attempt to secure fortunes, to cash in on health food trends, or whatever else, what does that say about us?

Daniel Ellsberg once said, and rightly so (and yes I have mentioned this on countless occasions), that foreign policy tends to have more to do with domestic politics than anything else. With regards to the US ‘surge’ in Iraq this year, the results have proven Ellsberg’s analogy true yet again.

Violence is down, reports the administration, and therefore the surge has been successful. But, as is always the case, a myriad of realities are conveniently not presented the average American with regards to what has transpired this year in Iraq. In truth, 2007 has been one of the worst years on record.

Dahr Jamail runs through Iraq’s 2007 realties…

When you’re sitting on your couch in front of your television on a leisurely Sunday afternoon and the news regarding ‘successes’ in Iraq are presented you, these are the details that are not revealed. And because the situation in Iraq is presented the American public in the simplest of terms, the belief that real progress has been made is becoming the norm.

The truth, on the other hand, isn’t as positive, and therefore it’s best not to delve too deeply beneath the surface.

With a day left in 2007, the United States has now militarily occupied Iraq for almost five years, longer than their entire involvement in the Second World War.

A political party is not a monarchy. Successors are not named in democratic political parties simply because of blood association. Unfortunately, that seems to be the case with regards to the PPP in the wake of Benazir Bhutto’s death. Her son, a mere 19-year-old, as been named the de facto leader of the party, but (get this) will not assume that role until he is finished school in the UK. Until that time, his father, the notoriously corrupt Asif Ali Zardari will act as the day-to-day party leader.

Both of Bhutto’s children, who, until now, did not share the same last name as their mother, have also taken it. Thus, it’s now 19-year-old ‘Bilawal Bhutto’.

It gets even better, of course. How could it not…

“Sitting between his father and Mr Fahim, Bilawal himself said his father would run the party while he was away at university.

“When I return, I promise to lead the party as my mother wanted me to,” he said.

But Mr Zardari blocked any further reporters’ questions to Bilawal, saying that although party chairman, he was still of “tender age”.

Here’s the deal. If you’re to be named the leader of a political party, your dad shouldn’t have to run interference for you at press conferences. And if the family is still in mourning, don’t put your son in front of the media.

This is nothing more than a pathetic play on sympathy for the purposes of retaining political significance because of a last name. Not only that, it is entirely undemocratic in the sense that it does not best serve the aspirations of the public supporters of the party itself, who should, by all rights, be up in arms about this decision.

In a democratic political party, I was under the impression that new leaders were voted in by that party’s membership, not merely appointed because who the last party leader chose to succeed them after their death. Even more, that a single family would have that luxury within what is supposed to be a democratic party.

Like it or not, that is not democratic whatsoever, and it certainly shines some light on what Ms. Bhutto’s view of democracy actually was.

Interventionism can be a nasty business. In the case of Benazir Bhutto, whose return to Pakistani politics was dramatic, polarizing, and suspiciously timed, it ultimately took her life. True, Bhutto played the role of democratic savior and stood to make a significant impact in the upcoming elections, but despite the tragedy of her death, the root of why she returned to Pakistan should not be overlooked.

Benazir Bhutto was an instrument of US interventionism that was playing just a risky a game as President Musharraf has been. The different, of course, is that Musharraf possesses the support of the Armed Forces and Inter Service Intelligence, which, with regards to the reality of the Pakistani political landscape, is immensely significant. There is no question that Bhutto’s distrust of Pakistan’s military establishment was palpable, and given the expedience of her reintroduction to political life, and the entrenchment of the military establishment, one has to seriously wonder what would have occurred had she been successful in unseating the current government given that fact. There is little doubt that the military establishment was well aware of the motives behind Bhutto’s return and, given that, were certainly faced with difficult decisions of their own – even including the possibility of terminating Bhutto to usurp the objectives of those behind her return.

Bhutto’s assassination has plunged Pakistan into a state of chaos, resulting in a decision today by the government to crack down on unrest throughout the country. According to the BBC, 38 people have died in the violence that has erupted since Bhutto’s assassination last Thursday. But beneath such scenes, the wheels of interventionism continue to turn on this side of the globe, with even the New York Times suggesting that the Bush administration should intervene in Pakistan to “fortify Pakistan’s badly battered democratic institutions.” Without Bhutto, US hopes for timely change have been temporarily dashed, but that does not mean that they are out of options. Having alienated Musharraf, they may very well now turn to Nawaz Sharif, who, like any politician in a volatile state, may very likely be open to forming strong ties with foreign interests that are in a position to significantly support his government should he succeed. Then again, given Ms. Bhutto’s fate, he might not.

Ultimately, there should be no confusion regarding the loose employment of the term ‘democracy’ and the reality of what is transpiring in Pakistan. Since 9/11, the use of that term has been bandied about by the United States with regards to those locations that if feels are of significance to its foreign policy objectives. Where the United States is able to enjoy the cooperation of autocratic regimes to facilitate their policy objectives in specific regions they do. In fact, Saudi Arabia is a prime example of that reality.

Pakistan’s significance is obviously multifaceted. Not only are wilder regions of it home to a variety of militant groups, but it has also been used as a staging ground for Taliban operations since their deposition in 2001, not to mention the fact that the Pashtun belt remains home to millions of refugees, many of which have been used to bolster the Taliban’s numbers.

Then there is the reality that within the military establishment itself there are elements that support those that the United States would see confronted. In fact, the assassination of Bhutto could very well have been undertaken by that very element using militants as proxies. The speed with which the ISI was able to produce evidence that Bhutto’s assassination was undertaken by an al-Qaeda affiliated group is both suspect and, in truth, genius. While it certainly appeared to be far too expediently convenient, it shouldn’t be lost on anyone that that convenience plays perfectly into the hands of the very powers that championed Bhutto. Offering up al-Qaeda, in any way, shape, or form, was sure to set off a media firestorm in the Western world, introducing confusion into an already confused situation. Compounding that confusion is also the growing scandal regarding the government’s assertion of how Bhutto died. While her supporters claim that she was shot, a government spokesman has said that she died as a result of her head being slammed against the vehicle she was in as a result of the bomb blast. Adding another layer to the confusion, the militant that the Interior Ministry has claimed was responsible for masterminding the attack has denied any involvement.

If all of that sounds like a contradictory mess then one has to ultimately ask if it’s the product of genuine confusion or manufactured confusion? In situations such as these, genuine confusion certainly does occur, but is usually tempered by the eventuality of informational course corrections. On the other hand, if, in situations such as this, confusion is being manufactured, you’re going to see a continuance in contradictory information being released. The reason for this is to so utterly submerge the event in confusion that answers seem almost impossible to obtain and the public, faced with such overwhelming confusion, will find themselves so mired in it that they will eventually find their focus and scorn diverted.

Diversion, of course, is key to the success of any killing undertaken by the military establishment of any country.

Upon her return to Pakistan, Ms. Bhutto exclaimed that she was not afraid of those that sought to stop her democratic vision from becoming a reality. On the day that she returned to Pakistan, her motorcade was attacked, an incident that took the lives of over 130 people. Since that time, her public appearances placed more lives in danger, including her own it should be rightly said, and numerous attempts on her life were also made. Of course, it takes courage to continue in the face of such dangers, but ultimately the reason for doing so has to be seen for what it is. While her death will most certainly make her a martyr of the country’s democratic movement, it should never be forgotten that hers was not a singular campaign aimed solely at delivering true democracy to the people of Pakistan. That, in the end, it came with conditions that were to the benefit of foreign interests, just as much as to the satisfaction of her own ego given the corruption that plagued her past. Ultimately, perhaps it was her ego that allowed her to overlook the inherit dangers of becoming the democratic proxy of foreign interests. And though it might seem a harsh thing to say, that decision may very well have been what killed her.

As for US interventionism, Pakistan’s nuclear capability requires that future attempts at political subversion be undertaken in a similar fashion. An outright confrontation with Pakistan is not something the United States is at all in the position to consider. There are also other factors to consider as well, such as - in 2006 the United States “signed arms transfer agreements with Pakistan in excess of $3.5 billion, ranking Pakistan first among all arms clients of the United States during that calendar year.” Obviously relations with Musharraf’s government have changed over the last year, but ultimately, customers are customers.

With regards to perceived culpability in Bhutto’s assassination…

According to the Pakistani ISI, a telephone call was intercepted from Baitullah Mehsud, a tribal leader in Southern Waziristan, during which he congratulated another militant on Bhutto’s assassination. Given that conversation, the Pakistani Interior Ministry has concluded that Mehsud ordered the attack on Ms. Bhutto.

Added to this, a telephone confession was also reportedly made by Mustafa Abu Al-Yazid to Adnkronos International…

“A spokesperson for the al-Qaeda terrorist network has claimed responsibility for the death on Thursday of former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto.

“We terminated the most precious American asset which vowed to defeat [the] mujahadeen,” Al-Qaeda’s commander and main spokesperson Mustafa Abu Al-Yazid told Adnkronos International (AKI) in a phone call from an unknown location, speaking in faltering English. Al-Yazid is the main al-Qaeda commander in Afghanistan.”

At this stage I’m not going to rule out the possibility that information is conveniently finding its way into the ISI’s lap, nor that of various news agencies. While it is only speculation, al-Qaeda assassinating Ms. Bhutto provides the Musharraf regime with not only breathing room, but also a chance to seemingly avenge Bhutto’s death, which would certainly work in its favour with regards to international perceptions.

Since her assassination, rioting and unrest throughout Pakistan has resulted in some 31 deaths according to the BBC. Likewise, Frank Gardner, the BBC’s security correspondent has commented that despite the information being provided by the Pakistani Interior Ministry, it is too early to “establish the truth of what happened”, an assertion with which I agree.

In the email correspondence that I have had with Shaan Akbar, authour of The Insider Brief, he had this to say…

“Jihadists were definitely involved, they may have been AQ affiliates, that’s anyone’s guess. I think this was sort of a joint-operation between jihadists (who were largely a proxy) and a section of the establishment. When I say establishment, I specifically mean the PML-Q party leadership, led by the Chaudhry cousins, and the Intelligence Bureau, led by Brig. (retd.) Ejaz Shah.

We saw a weird intersection/allignment of their interests: Bhutto presented a threat to both of them. For the Chaudhries, who were brought to power by Ejaz Shah, Bhutto was the single biggest political threat. Her party was bound to be a major winner in parliamentary elections and the likely center of any coalition government. The jihadists knew that Bhutto’s return to power meant that there would be concrete action against them. So the result was this marriage of convenience between the two. And of course, Pakistan’s intelligence apparatus is no stranger to using jihadists as a policy tool.”

It looks like Paris Hilton will have to spend more of her time focusing on night club appearances and whatever else she has going that generates income. Her inheritance, it seems, is out the window. Even more, it looks like her grandfather’s decision to donate 97% of his worth to charity was partially influenced by her behavior…

“Reports have said that Mr Hilton is embarrassed by the behaviour of his granddaughter.

Ms Hilton, known for her party lifestyle, spent three weeks in jail earlier this year for violating probation in a drink driving case.

Mr Hilton will give $1.2bn immediately to a charitable trust that will eventually benefit the foundation.

The rest of the money will follow after his death.”

The 3% that remains does constitute a great deal of money that will presumably be split amongst the various members of the family, but obviously nowhere near the $2.3 billion dollars that Barron Hilton could have left them.

Let this be a lesson to those of you that are looking at inheriting large sums of money – sex tapes, jail time, and all around grossness do not factor well into your chances of securing it.

We’ve been having some site issues lately, mostly on the back end of things. Today while trying to address one issue, another was created.

For awhile this morning/afternoon, you may have been unable to login to the website. As a result, if you’ve reset your password to something new, you’ll find yourself unable to login again.

The reason: we’ve restored the login user database to a previous one.

If you changed your login information after December 13th and before 1pm PST, you’ll need to use your older login information to gain access to the site. From there, you can change it again if you prefer.

If you’ve signed up for a new account between December 13th and today before 1pm PST, you’ll need to create your account again.

We apologize for the issues, and any frustration & confusion this may have caused.

If you check out the new tutorial for iTunes, you’ll notice a certain artist. Being that we’re all Mac heads here at matthewgood.org, it quite excited us.

Yes, we are now corporate whores. And we like it!

Listen, having been interviewed countless times over the last decade-plus, I know full well what it’s like when something ridiculous escapes your mouth. There are times when you utter something that, as soon as it passes your lips, you realize that it was a bad idea.

Then again, I’m a musician, not the Prime Minister.

When one is the leader of a country, one should always remember to think before they speak. Not only is it always to their benefit, but can quite often save them from total embarrassment.

Case in point – Mr. Harper’s recent comment about the Dalai Lama…

“When Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper tried to explain in a year-end interview why he’d met the Dalai Lama in his Ottawa office, it was clear he wanted to show respect for the exiled Tibetan leader.

Unfortunately, it didn’t quite come out that way.

“I met the Dalai Lama in my office but I meet everyone in my office. I don’t know why I would sneak off to a hotel room just to meet the Dalai Lama. You know, he’s not a call girl,” Harper told OMNI television.”

What should be telling about that statement is not that the Prime Minister accidentally equated one of the world’s foremost spiritual leaders to a call girl, but that the comparison of sneaking off to a hotel to meet one would pop into his head so quickly. Time to check the books at the Chateau Laurier or the Westin?

Perhaps.

I also found this rather interesting (from the same article)…

“Harper is a strong critic of China’s human rights record and what he calls the “undemocratic regime” in Beijing.”

Interestingly, and despite this, Statistics Canada tells a different story…

“Canada’s total merchandise trade with China has soared in the last decade, reaching $42.1 billion in 2006 and accounting for 5.0% of Canada’s world trade. In 1997, China was Canada’s fourth largest trading partner, with total merchandise trade of $8.7 billion. By 2003, the country had emerged as Canada’s second largest trading partner, surpassing the U.K. and Japan. Imports from China were five times higher in 2006 than in 1997, while exports to the country had tripled.

A significant part of trade between Canada and China can be related to the globalization of production. In 1997, 34.3% of Canada’s exports to and 37.6% of imports from China involved two-way trade within the same commodity groups. By 2006, with exports four times their 1997 level and imports more than eight times their 1997 level, the two-way trade accounted for over 45% of exports and over 57% of imports. Leading commodities in the two-way trade include: organic and inorganic chemicals; plastic and rubber materials; iron and steel and articles made of iron and steel; industrial and agricultural machinery and equipment; electronics; automotive equipment and parts; optical, photo, medical and surgical instruments; wood products, paper and paperboard; and fish products.

The commodity mix of exports to China has changed little in the last decade. Indeed, of the 30 leading commodities exported in 1997, 25 remained in the list of 30 leading commodities exported to China in 2006.

In 1997, China accounted for 1.8% of Canada’s total imports of machinery and equipment (in classes 84 and 85 of the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System) from the world. Imports of machinery and equipment from China accelerated over the last decade and, by 2006, the country’s share in Canada’s total imports in that category grew to 13.6%. Imports from China in machinery and equipment also became more intensive between 1997 and 2006. The share of this commodity group in Canada’s total imports from China advanced from 23.6% in 1997 to 40.5% in 2006.”

Strong criticism, as usual, doesn’t include economics. Thanks Milton Friedman.