Pearl Harbour, Kyoto, Jim Jeffords and the FTAA; an analysis of the latest media bits.

News come in fragmented bits. Since the average attention timespan of public opinion is somewhere between 1 day to 1 week, most people cannot think of any bits being related to the next ones unless the media specifically point it out. However, sometimes if we're lucky we can get many bits within one or two weeks so that they may form some sort of consistency to the subversive mind.

So how would Pearl Harbour, the FTAA, Jim Jeffords and Kyoto be related to each others?

Kyoto is where the USA signed a worldwide environmental agreement not so long ago. Think so? Not exactly. Kyoto was not about trees and greenhouse effect, it was about slowing down the growth of destructive industries. If the world nations agree that destructive industries are a threat to everyone, they aren't so enthousiastic about setting the example themselves. So Kyoto allowed for a mutual agreement that would slowdown everything equally while at the same time keeping the economical and geo-political balance between most nations.

So when President Bush unilaterally ditched the whole agreement last week to make room for his aggressive energy policy, he actually middle-fingered every other countries on this planet by re-iterating his country's declaration of economic war to rest of the world. "Friendly discussions don't exist anymore," said the commissioner to the European Economic Union. This was an euphemism considering the limited potential for industrial expansion in Europe. Europe must now respond to an even faster growing economic deficit towards the United States. Because of this, it is permitted to think that trade between the EEU and the USA may suffer new obstacles and that the FTAA shall be quickly and forcibly imposed on North American "partners".

But you can't fool everyone all the time. This is when an old man named Jim Jeffords, who was deeply and personnally concerned as an american partisan senator, took all his integrity and remaining will to raise himself and say "Enough! I won't stand for all this." This gesture must not be underestimated. It is a highly significant event which illustrates 2 things:
1) some foreign people are so upset with American policies that it is starting to scare and old man in his senatorial chair.
2) if that one-man defection does not find enough support in United States, the support and resistance will come from outside.

Regardless of its source, the growing worldwide resistance is likely to show itself at some very specific geopolitical hot spots. Now that Europe is left with the leftover mess in the Balkan, and that the Taliban have a free ticket in their area in exchange of drugwar commitments, that leaves the South China Sea as the most likely theater of the next major conflict. (Not only for the rich mineral soil around the Spratlee Islands, but also for the control of strategic air and sea commercial routes. Refer to the US spyplane incident comments of April 11th at urbanmonk.blogspot.com).

By the way, while I think of it, has anyone seen the latest movie showing in all good theaters near you?

I won't comment on the historical lies in this movie, all I'll say is that considering the clever use of the mass entertainment in America, I believe we are preparing the nation for the next major armed conflict.