Pushed to the Left and Loving It

Remind me Again Why we Spent $800,000 to Celebrate the Libyan Victory?

2012-01-30T06:46:00.000-08:00

"Gadhafi's days are over. Never again will he be in a position to support terrorism or to turn guns on his own people. The Libyan people can finally turn the page." Stephen Harper

The Harper government spent $800,000 on a celebration marking the end of the attack on Libya. Besides being costly in an era of "austerity", the celebration it turns out was premature. This was not a case of "mission accomplished" but back slapping accomplished.

The stronghold of Bani Walid has been reclaimed by Gadhafi loyalists and fighting there continues:

Moammar Gadhafi loyalists seized control of a Libyan mountain city in the most serious challenge to the central government since the strongman's fall, underlining the increasing weakness of Libya's Western-backed rulers as they try to unify the country under their authority. The taking of Bani Walid, one of the last Gadhafi strongholds captured by the new leadership late last year, was the first such organized operation by armed remnants of Gadhafi's regime. A simultaneous outbreak of shootings in the capital and Libya's second largest city Benghazi raised authorities' concerned that other networks of loyalists were active elsewhere.

There is also a growing concern that weapons provided to the western backed regime are falling into the hands of terrorist organizations. Real terrorist organizations, like al Qaeda, not those who oppose Harper's pipeline.

The Western-backed overthrow of Libyan strongman Muammar Gadhafi likely provided huge stocks of heavy weapons to terrorist groups and criminal organizations operating in the Sahel region of North Africa, the United Nations confirmed January 26 in a report. Among the groups benefiting from the arms are al-Qaeda and the deadly Islamic terror organization Boko Haram, which is currently on a killing spree in Nigeria.

The UN report explained that “due to the Libyan upheaval ... governments in the region are faced with the return of millions of economic migrants, the smuggling of weapons from Libyan stockpiles, terrorist activities, youth unemployment, trafficking in drugs and human beings, and a surge in criminality,” the international body summarized in a press release on its findings.

Westpoint had warned in 2007 that the eastern region of Libya, the epicenter of the NATO-backed rebellion, provided more fighters per capita to combat US troops in Iraq than any other nation, including Saudi Arabia. The report noted that most of these Libyan fighters were members of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) who were involved "in an increasingly cooperative relationship with Al Qaeda."

That's coming from Westpoint, not some "left-wing hippie dippie rag".

The LIFG was also on the UK Terrorist watch list as late as November 2011.

The LIFG seeks to replace the current Libyan regime with a hard-line Islamic state. The group is also part of the wider global Islamist extremist movement, as inspired by Al Qa’ida. The group has mounted several operations inside Libya, including a 1996 attempt to assassinate Mu’ammar Qadhafi

Instead of worrying about LIFG, NATO used them to overthrow Ghadafi, and create a leader who would be more willing to work with them; Mustafa Abdel Jalil. But apparently it was all smoke and mirrors as the Foreign Policy magazine is now reporting that Jalil has declared Libya to be an Islamic state.

...interim leader Mustafa Abdel Jalil, thought to be a moderate, declared in his "liberation" address that Libya would be an Islamic state and that sharia law would be a fundamental source of legislation.

What in the hell have we done? The Green resistance movement is growing stronger and a civil war appears imminent.

So remind me again why the Harper government spent $800,000 on a photo-op, declaring their victory in Libya. Reminds me of George Bush declaring that the war in Iraq over in 2003.

So Who Would You Like to Send to the Moon?

2012-01-29T05:24:00.000-08:00

Newt Gingrich frightened even Republicans this week with his plans to develop a colony on the moon by 2020. He had obviously given this a lot of thought, because he indicated that the colony would consist of 13,000 people and would be named the 51st state.

What he didn't say was how he would choose those 13,000. Would it be a penal colony? Would he snatch up vagrants on the streets? Arizona's illegal immigrants?

I think he should have a contest and allow people to choose who they would like to send to the moon. The entries with the best reasons for removing this person from earth would win.

So who would you like to send to the moon? Your Boss? Your in-laws? That girl at the bank who pretends she doesn't see you and keeps her head down writing fictitious numbers on a piece of paper while you stand in line? (I have issues)

If you polled Canadians I'm sure the top answer would be Stephen Harper. But I don't think that would work. He'd have to take along his camera crew to make sure that his images were correctly airbrushed. It's difficult to say how good the lighting is on the moon.

Then he'd need his videographers, his hairstylist and his enormous communications team to ensure that he didn't say something really stupid. He has so many of them, that he now has to tie them together to keep them from bumping into each other. Too many unexplained bruises.

Harper would also insist that the Koch Brothers accompanied him. Before long they'd start drilling into the moon so they could monopolize the cheese market. The media would ignore the damage while chasing the glittering moon rock.

And of course he'd have to be boss of this new colony, even if there was someone else better qualified. He'd just run attack ads against his opponent, calling her a gay loving, gun hating, radical, feminist, terrorist loving liberal. The other colonists would get so sick of hearing it that they'd refuse to vote at all, so he could then be king.

However, King Steve would never forget those behind his success. The American conservatives. As reward he would make sure that all the cheese was piped back to them, even if it meant starvation for "his people".

Wait a minute .... pro-American conservative? .... 51st state? .... self appointed despot?

They could call the new colony CANADA!

Too Big to Fail or So Big They Must Fail

2012-01-28T05:53:00.000-08:00

There is an excellent Viewpoint piece in this week's Time magazine, written by foreign and domestic policy expert, David Rothkopf.

Fixing Capitalism Means Taking Power Back From Business

Rothkopf discusses not only the rise of big stateless corporations, now dictating foreign policy, but also what domestic capitalism has turned itself into.

Using Newt Gingrich's attack on Mitt Romney as an example: “If we identify capitalism with rich guys looting companies, we’re going to have a very hard time protecting it.” For once I have to agree with Newt, though he's hardly an example of principled commercialism.

Rothkopf rightfully claims that a "key part of fixing capitalism will be reconciling the large and growing imbalances between the public and private sector." Corporations have gotten so big and powerful that when they make bad decisions, citizens are told that they must pay for those bad decisions or go down with the ship. Yet when they rebound, they cling to their wealth and throw the rest of us out of the lifeboats.

When early corporations were established by royal charters almost a millennium ago, there was no mistaking their purpose. They had been created by the state to serve its interests. But over the centuries, they took advantage of their special status, which allowed them to achieve enormous scale and buy political favor. The result: They helped shape the development of laws that further tipped the balance of power in their favor ... Corporations have morphed from legal entities designed to ensure an enterprise could survive the death of its owners to institutions possessing more rights than people.

Even Adam Smith, the father of capitalism, condemned "the abuses of the megacompanies of his day, like the British East India Co., calling them “nuisances in every respect,” since the monopolies they fostered inevitably led to profit-destroying corruption."

Conservatives like to suggest that their radical movement is in response to the French Revolution, heralding Edmond Burke as the father of modern conservatism. However, instead of living in the 18th century, they might want to learn from it.

The major cause of the French Revolution was the stark division of social classes in French society. The First Estate, the Church and clergy, which represented less than 2% of the population, owned almost 10 per cent of all land in France. They paid no taxes and relied on tithes to support their endeavours.

The Second Estate, or nobility, made up just 2 percent of the population, but owned most of the wealth. Like the Church they paid little in taxes, despite earning enormous sums from rent on their property, and interest on loans.

The Third Estate was everyone else. 96% of the population, with the poor propping up them all, through hefty taxes, tithes to the church, and rents to their landlords. However, it was not the poor who initiated the French Revolution, but the middle class. The merchants, manufacturers and professional people, who resented the birthrights of the nobility.

Today's capitalism has become a culture of nobility, where lobbyists hold court, the right-wing media act as royal scribes and the true aristocracies are the "Walmarts and Exxons of the world". We have recreated the conditions that led to the French Revolution.

But What of 'Laissez Faire'?

The notion that if you leave business alone and let the markets prevail, everyone will win, has proven to be the biggest hoax of all time. Says Rothkopf:

The current argument that larger government impinges on rather than protects or advances individual liberties is a far cry from the ideas that fueled England’s Glorious Revolution and the American Revolution. It ignores the fact that the void created by smaller government is often not filled by “liberty.” When matters like the global environment or regulation of derivatives trading are left entirely to market forces, for instance, outcomes tend to serve the most powerful because markets neither have a conscience nor do they ensure opportunity.

And yet the U.S. Supreme Court is allowing large corporations to be classed as "citizens", which means that they can now buy politicians outright. No more under the table transactions. Put your money in their mouth and a bill of sale comes out their butt.

The 96% in France created democracy. The 1% in the United States and Canada is intent on destroying it. What side of history do we want to be on?

Americans Fear Their Election Could End up Like Canada's. I Can Help

2012-01-27T07:01:00.000-08:00

In the upcoming election, Barack Obama will not be challenged by the Republicans, who frankly have given up on even pretending to be politicians serving the public, but by the Super PACs. Political Action Committees financed by wealthy corporations, who are tired of democracy getting in their way.

Remember that leaked 2006 CitiGroup memo that they have worked so hard to suppress?

The World is dividing into two blocs - the Plutonomy and the rest. The U.S., UK, and Canada are the key Plutonomies - economies powered by the wealthy. Continental Europe (ex-Italy) and Japan are in the egalitarian bloc.

They warned that voters could try to change the idea of governing only for the wealthy.

We can see a number of potential challenges to plutonomy. The first, and probably most potent, is through a labor backlash. Outsourcing, offshoring or insourcing of cheap labor is done to undercut current labor costs .... Low-end developed market labor might not have much economic power, but it does have equal voting power with the rich .... the third threat comes from the potential social backlash.

It's like they predicted the Occupy Movement, that could be successful given that the "low-end", without "much economic power" has "equal voting power with the rich". (Capitalism, a Love Story)

However, Super PACs are setting out to wrong that right.

And the way they are going to do that is with lots of money and telemarketers. They can't garner more votes, so will instead try to suppress them. The Koch Brothers are putting up $200 million for this venture, determined to oust Obama.

I don't know how much Stephen Harper cost them, but they are already reaping rewards. And if we wonder why the Harper government is so committed to outsourcing Canadian jobs, remember that CitiGroup memo. It's all about cheap labour. Which is why during the worst of the economic crisis, when Canadians were losing their jobs at record speed, Jason Kenney accelerated the use of migrant workers.

Money, Money, Money

Chris Matthews reminded us last week, of where those millions will be going. To telemarketers who will work like mad to make sure that Democratic voters don't exercise their democratic rights.

The last Canadian federal election could serve as a guide to the Super Pacs, as Canadians were telemarketed to the point of madness.

In Kingston, Ontario, there were so many such phone calls, that we were ready to leave the country just to escape them. And while Do Not Call Lists keep the cheap crap purveyors at bay, the rules do not apply to politics. One call I received was supposedly on behalf of our Liberal candidate, Ted Hsu (now our MP), asking if we wanted a lawn sign. The caller was so rude, that had I not been suspicious, I might have fallen for it.

Soon after, Hsu's office called asking for support and I informed them of the bogus call that I had received. Others complained of the same thing. Looking at the Conservative candidate Alicia Gordon's Elections Canada financial records, I learned that she paid Campaign Research more than $25,000 to annoy the hell out of us. Remember those guys? Think Rob Ford (but take a valium first)

Ironically when our Speaker of the House, Andrew Scheer was asked to investigate the damage done to Irwin Cotler by Campaign Research, it was learned that he himself had used them to assure his re-election. He should have declared a conflict of interest. Instead he gave them a free pass.

Another example is Joe Volpe, who was telemarketed out of seat. Joe Oliver paid Campaign Research $12,159.33

An investment banker, he has now joined the Koch team to force feed us their XL-Pipeline, contributing to Canada's reputation as a Jingoistic Petro-State, calling environmentalists "radicals" and "terrorists".

If the American people want to preserve their democracy and not end up like Canada, with another stolen election, I have some advice. If you receive one of these calls, you could just tell the caller that you will be voting so "get a life", or maybe "let me speak to David Koch" or "Am I being punked?".

Although I think the best response might be "Where in the hell do you think you are ? Canada???!!!"

When is Money Good Money?

2012-01-25T07:23:00.000-08:00

Several years ago a story in the Readers Digest's Life's Like That, was a perfect anthem to the American Dream.

The young man who had sent in the story, was attending business school, and in the summer worked at his father's restaurant, a busy local eatery. With his new found knowledge, he found himself frustrated with the way that his father did his bookkeeping. Receipts were put on one memo spike and invoices on another.

Finally, in exasperation, he asked his father how he could possibly conduct his business like that. "How do you know how much your profit is?"

His father's reply was priceless. He said that he had come to the United States with nothing but the shirt on his back. He now owned a business, completely paid for; a house and furniture, completely paid for and had put three children through college without having to borrow a dime.

"I figure that, minus the shirt, is my profit."

That is what the American Dream was all about, but that kind of dream is now illusive to most Americans.

After many requests, Mitt Romney finally made his financial statements public. It was learned that he "earned" $21.6 million in 2010. To give that some relevancy, the median gross income in the United States is $33,048. Romney made that in less than a day.

$7.4 million of his annual income came from earned interest. Money on money, not on hard work.

When we look at past "millionaires" and now billionaires, most did become rich through hard work and innovation. We loved the stories of Henry Ford tinkering with motors on the kitchen counter, his wife with her sleeves rolled up as his assistant. Or Gerber turning a failing food processing plant into a baby food empire and Howard Johnson selling his first flavoured icecream from a small wagon, when he was barely a teenager.

No one resented them because they were the true inspirational success stories. But Romney didn't make his money with his sleeves rolled up and grease on his shirt. He made it by swallowing up small businesses, which often meant ruin and unemployment for those not terminally rich.

He uses Staples as a success story for creating jobs, but what's the average salary of a Staples employee? Are they living the American dream?

In fact, recent statistics have shown that Americans now rank 10th in social mobility. The citizens of nine other countries, now have a better chance of going from rags to riches, than the country that invented the notion.

One in five children live in poverty in the U.S. One in five Americans is unemployed or underemployed; one in eight mortgages are in default or foreclosure; and one in eight Americans is on food stamps. Newt Gingrich's solution to that is to reduce the number of food stamps issued, which will only make the statistic, one in eight Americans died from starvation.

Neoconservatism is turning the U.S. into a Third World Country.

But before we pat ourselves on the back, we are not doing any better. According to the OECD, Canada has fallen from sixth to 24th place in infant mortality, meaning that babies are more apt to die in this country, than in 23 others, most without our wealth.

The numbers were “shocking” — a word used by half a dozen prominent commentators, including the Conference Board of Canada. We had slipped from sixth place in the world to 24, a virtually unprecedented fall for any country. We are now just above Poland and Hungary, with 5.1 deaths per 1,000 live births of infants less than one year of age. The actual tragedy beyond the percentages: 1,181 infant deaths in 2007.

The Conference Board of Canada also cited another statistic:

Canada gets a “C” and now ties the U.K. for 15th place out of 17 peer countries. Its infant mortality rate is shockingly high for a country at Canada’s level of socio-economic development.

In a larger study, the U.S. ranked 41 out of 45 nations.

Conservatives like to take the moral high ground over the abortion issue, but as Gloria Steinem once said, for them "life begins at conception but ends at birth". They want to save a fetus but do nothing to save a child. They tout "family values" but are determined to keep most families living in poverty.

"These proposals included cries for billions of new money for social assistance in the name of “child poverty” and for more business subsidies in the name of “cultural identity”. In both cases I was sought out as a rare public figure to oppose such projects.” (Stephen Harper, The Bulldog, National Citizens Coalition, February 1997)

The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives just released it's figures on the top 1%. By January 3, most corporate executives had earned the same amount that the "average Joe" will make working a full year. Yet the Harper government just lowered the tax rate for the wealthiest corporations, while raising it for the "average Joe" who will now pay about $150.00 per year more in taxes.

The last two decreases in personal taxes took place in 2001 when the tax rate fell from 17% to 16%, and in 2005, when it was reduced again to 15%. The Harper government raised the personal income tax to 15.25%, the first increase in decades, but then took it back to 2005 levels, under a banner of "Tories lower personal income tax rate". They didn't, they just took it back to previous levels.

This means that the Harper government has presided over the largest personal tax rate increases in a generation, not to mention Flaherty's HST. Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty have made it easier for the rich to get richer, but have done little, if anything, to help the "average Joe" or the "average Jane".

"Universality has been severely reduced: it is virtually dead as a concept in most areas of public policy... These achievements are due in part to the Reform Party..." - Stephen Harper, speech to the Colin Brown Memorial Dinner, National Citizens Coalition, 1994.

In Arianna Huffington's Third World America, she discusses wealth and the way in which wealth is now created.

We’ve gone from an economy where we make things to an economy where we make things up: Default credit swaps, derivatives, CDOs, and the like have turned Wall Street into a casino ... the promise of upward mobility – that if you work hard and play by the rules, you’ll do well and your children will have the chance to do even better – has been broken. Two-thirds of Americans now think their children will be worse off than they are.

The Canadian banks, who received almost $70 billion in not so much a bailout as a handout, have lowered the interest rates on borrowing, but that also means lower interest rates on savings. We just renewed an RRSP at 1.3%. When we bought it we were earning almost 11%. How can people save for retirement unless they are willing to gamble on the stock market?

And a lower borrowing rate only encourages more debt, and Canada now has one of the highest debt to income ratios in the world.

Mitt Romney's financial statements should come as no surprise, because they are not unlike most millionaire's or billionaire's today. The only way to make any real money is to become a vulture, capitalizing on the misfortune of others.

We all know what happens in Third World countries when that attitude prevails.

American Magazine Calls Canada a Jingoistic Petro-State

2012-01-24T06:21:00.000-08:00

Blogger Scott Tribe shared a link yesterday to an article that appeared in Slate magazine, which is owned by the Washington Post.

Saudi Arabia. Nigeria. Venezuela. Canada? Is our neighbor to the north becoming a jingoistic petro-state?

We think that Stephen Harper is only our problem, but like it or not, the rest of the world is paying attention and what they see us turning into is not something they admire.

It’s well known that America’s dependence on foreign oil forces us to partner with some pretty unsavory regimes. Take, for instance, the country that provides by far the largest share of our petroleum imports. Its regime, in thrall to big oil interests, has grown increasingly bellicose, labeling environmental activists “radicals” and “terrorists” and is considering a crackdown on nonprofits that oppose its policies. It blames political dissent on the influence of “foreigners,” while steamrolling domestic opposition to oil projects bankrolled entirely by overseas investors. Meanwhile, its skyrocketing oil exports have sent the value of its currency soaring, enriching energy industry barons but crippling other sectors of its economy. Yes, Canada is becoming a jingoistic petro-state.

And Will Oremus, the author of the Slate piece is right. It's pretty hypocritical that Harper is blaming "foreignors" for the opposition to the pipelines, when the damn pipelines and most of the Tar Sands are now owned by "foreignors".

The U.S., French, British, Chinese, Thai, Korean and Norwegian interests have all bought stakes in oil-sands projects. According to the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP), international companies have invested nearly $20 billion in the last three years through mergers, partnerships and outright purchases of projects.

While we were sleeping, the Harper government was selling us off. The Northern Gateway pipeline is being built for China, Norway, Thailand and Korea. The XL pipeline is being built for the Koch Brothers.

Again ... Ethical Oil?

The Ethical Oil Institute, is a phony grassroots organization, created by Ezra Levant and run by Stephen Harper’s current Director of Planning, Alykhan Velshi. Velshi, as we know has close ties to Dick Cheney and George Bush.

Director of the Ethical Oil Institute is Kathryn Marshall, a blogger and sometimes columnist. Marshall appeared on Power and Politics recently, where Evan Solomon repeatedly asked her if she was employed by Enbridge, but she refused to answer.

Kathyrn Marshall is married to Hamish Marshall, Harper's former strategic planning manager. Terry Glavin writes for the Ottawa Citizen: The real foreign interests in the oilsands:

While it's all good fun to play Spot the Freemason, something very serious is going on here. Last summer, John Bruk, the Asia Pacific Foundation's founding president, warned that Ottawa was ignoring the rapid emergence of Chinese government interests "in sheep's clothing" taking over Canada's natural resource industries. Bruk told B.C. Business magazine: "Are we jeopardizing prosperity for our children and grandchildren while putting at risk our economic independence? In my view, this is exactly what is happening." As things have turned out, Bruk was more right than he knew.

When your currency is quickly becoming backed by a single commodity (not gold), the risks are enormous. And when China and other foreign interests, have a large stake in that commodity, the risks become even greater. Do they care if Canada's economy fails? There is no vested interest, other than in profit.

Canadians’ increasing reliance on crude natural resources has economists on the lookout for symptoms of “Dutch Disease”—a phenomenon in which a natural resources boom strengthens a country’s currency, making its other exports more expensive and less competitive on the world market.

Oremus closes by saying:

President Obama’s rejection of Keystone XL is only as secure as his re-election. GOP front-runner Mitt Romney has called the decision “shocking,” and Newt Gingrich called it “stunningly stupid.” By 2013, the two North American countries could be on the same team again when it comes to oil. If so, it’ll be us against the world.

Newt Gingrich is now the front-runner, so it would be Newt and Harper against the world. Imagine that. Dumb and Dumber II.

New Item on Menu - The McFox Sandwich

2012-01-23T04:12:00.000-08:00

My neighbour told us of an experience he had with the local McDonalds. He was sitting in one having breakfast and found himself offended by a debate playing out on the television, that included racial slurs.

So he went up to the counter and asked if they could change the channel but was told "no". Apparently, they were not allowed to do that, so instead he asked if they could just shut it off, but again "no". Not allowed.

The following week, he avoided that particular place and went to a different McDonalds, but was surprised to find the same right-wing station, airing the same offensive dialogue. Again, he tried to get the staff to change the channel or shut it off, and was told the same thing. They were not allowed.

I asked him if it was Fox News or Sun TV. He wasn't sure, since they are both pretty much the same.

My neighbour is not a political activist. He is a retired educator and former military officer. He wrote a letter to McDonalds, he said, the fist time he had ever felt compelled to do something like that.

I thought that maybe the local owner of the franchise was right-wing, and that it was he who decided what was being played, so I googled McDonalds/Fox News. What popped up was a recent posting on Daily KOS, Is McDonald's in bed with Fox News?, citing a similar experience.

I asked a manager why one only had Fox News all the time, and she said they were told they had to leave it on that station at all times and were unable to change the channel. When I asked if customers had requested it, she said no, "Nobody likes Fox, we get a lot of complaints about it."

I thought to myself, I don't work there, so maybe I could change it. But fiddling with the channel buttons had no effect. That single channel was hard-wired into the set; like Big Brother on the telescreen in "1984," it is impossible to watch anything else. When I asked if it was a corporate mandate to have the TV on Fox News, the manager nodded yes. Apparently they were free to switch between various sports networks on the other set, depending on what sporting events were currently happening, but the Fox News TV was permanently set to only that station. "Nobody likes Fox," she had said, but yet that's the only choice McDonald's was giving us, whether we liked it or not.

When my friend complained, in both incidents, several customers backed him up.

McDonalds is supposed to be a "family restaurant", but Fox News, on both sides of the border, is hardly family entertainment. Fox and Sun like to boast about their viewing numbers, but how many of those "viewers" are being force fed this right-wing propaganda?

It is hate porn. The only sensual experience many of their viewers and commentators have. I swear every time Ezra Levant goes into one of his "white people" rants, he closes his eyes and smokes a cigarette.

I'd be interested in hearing from anyone else, who has noticed Fox/Sun as a McWatch. I certainly wouldn't take children into that restaurant. They need to post a warning on the door: "Television content not suitable for the majority of viewers".

Newt Gingrich Thanks Harper for Being a Pro-American Conservative

2012-01-22T07:14:00.000-08:00

Rick Santorum may get his fashion tips from Stephen Harper, but Newt Gingrich likes the whole package. The first truly pro-American prime minister of Canada. What's not to love?

What Newt doesn't understand is the power of the people, who are just as determined to stop the Northern Gateway Pipeline, as they were the XL.

While blasting President Barack Obama for rejecting the Keystone XL Pipeline and the thousands of jobs it has been estimated it would create, Gingrich warned Canada will send its oil to China instead. And he praised Harper, too.

"What Prime Minister Harper -- who, by the way, is conservative and pro-American -- what he has said is he's gonna cut a deal with the Chinese and they'll build a pipeline straight across the Rockies to Vancouver," Gingrich said Saturday night. "We'll get none of the jobs, none of the energy, none of the opportunity.

Maybe Harper and Newt could go on Dancing with the Stars. A much better couple than Manning and Gingrich. Their steps are perfectly timed.

Moving Beyond Politics by Empowering the People

2012-01-22T06:26:00.000-08:00

What if Environment Canada issued a tornado warning for your area? And what if along with that warning they offered suggestions to keep you safe? Things like moving into the basement; covering yourself with blankets and staying away from your windows. You would certainly heed their advice, since it's based on scientific knowledge.

However, what if a lobby group, wanting to undermine the scientific community, told you to ignore the warnings? We'll call them the International Damnifying Idealist Organization for the Takeover of Sensibility, or I.D.I.O.T.S. for short.

And what if I.D.I.O.T.S., instead suggested that the warnings were unfounded? Merely an attempt by criminals to get you in the basement, covered in blankets and away from the windows, so they could steal your stuff.

Confused? Science or a noisy lobby group?

Now what if a group of Nobel prizing winning scientists told you that a devastating change in climate, brought on by the warming of the planet, could make a tornado look like a balloon losing air? And what if along with that warning they offered suggestions to keep you safe by slowing down that warming, but it would involve major changes by industry and yourself.

However, what if several lobby groups and short-sighted individuals, wanting to undermine the scientific community, told you to ignore the warnings? We'll call them Exxon, friends of Exxon and the Harper government.

Confused? Science or the money and power behind I.D.I.O.T.S.?

This week President Obama, when pressured by another group backed by the oil industry, we'll call them the Republicans; announced that he would not support the XL pipeline, that would transport bitumen from Canada to the U.S. for refining.

Canada may not care about the environment, but he did.

However, he could not have taken such a stand, had it not been for another noisy lobby group. We'll call them The People. Backed by the Natural Resources Defense Council, they empowered Obama to act on behalf of the majority and do what was right.

The Toronto Star had an oped piece this week, written by someone suggesting that Obama's move was purely political. An attempt to get re-elected. We'll call him American journalist Robert O. Samuelson.

Bill Moyers, another American journalist, was on Bill Maher this week, and he saw Obama's decision as something else. The oil industry pushing for XL, and their wholly owned subsidiary (we'll call them the Harper government), put $42 million into the pockets of politicians in an attempt to undermine democracy.

But the NRDC, and other environmental groups, instead put millions of voters at Obama's doorstep.

Moyers had worked with Lyndon Johnson, when Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964. When headlines applauded the move, Johnson told Moyers that the Democrats had just lost the South for a generation, and he was right. But the South didn't dictate, the majority did, and the Act was the right thing to do for the majority of Americans.

FDR's New Deal met with the same opposition by big business in the 1930s, but he asked the people to put the power behind him. "Make me do the right thing".

Moyers believes that this is why the Occupy movement is a good thing for these times. Instead of empowering politicians to work against our best interests, by allowing noisy lobby groups to work on behalf on the top 1%, we have to empower them to work for us.

We are the only ones who can build integrity into the political process.

I Would Vote For Grant Gordon in a Heartbeat

2012-01-21T11:47:00.000-08:00

Twitter was all a tweet today with some very clever ads by Liberal hopeful Grant Gordon, who is vying for the party nomination in Jack Layton's old riding.

He is appealing to all voters with humour, something sorely lacking in today's poltical climate.

Dear NDPers: In the upcoming by-election, you guys are going to wipe up... Help get me on the ballot, and I'll create intelligent dialogue. (And don't worry, I'm not a threat. The NDP owns this riding.)

Dear Liberals: Pay no attention to that last paragraph.

And I love the one for the Neocons.

Do you really want to see these pinko commie bike-riding NDPers take this riding in a walk?

Gordon runs an ad agency for the "good guys": "An advertising design boutique, Key Gordon was one of the first creative agencies in North America to focus exclusively on the branding and marketing of socially and environmentally responsible companies."

I'd like to see him get the nomination just for his ads, though he would make a great MP. I wish there were more like him.

Should the National Citizens Coalition Lose Its Tax Exempt Status?

2012-01-21T05:35:00.000-08:00

When it was learned this week that Bob Rae is now polling 24 points ahead of Stephen Harper, many of us wondered when the Harper attack ads would begin.

It took exactly 17 minutes and 43 seconds (Actually, they were already running them).

Careful not to make it appear that he is focusing on his political opponents and not the mess that our economy is in, Harper instead allowed his alma mater, the National Citizens Coalition, to do his dirty work for him.

NCC had provided Harper with a stellar education in liberal bashing, under headmaster Art Finkelstein, Richard Nixon's former campaign strategist. He had the know how, but darn it all, his hands were tied, what with being the prime minister and all. Can't look petty and ... er ... desperate.

When Bob Rae was premier of Ontario, a group calling themselves Ontarians for Responsible Government, a spin-off of the NCC, launced a four year attack, headed up by Gerry Nicholls, Harper's former VP with the non-profit "public service" group.

So who better to get their hands dirty for you? They already had the file, even if it is 20 years old.

Going on the defensive, they emphatically stated that "National Citizens Coalition 'never has, never will' work for Conservative Party". What a farce. They acted as a registered third party during the last election campaign. They were certainly working for the Conservative Party then.

Glen McGregor has an excellent piece in the Ottawa Citizen, detailing the NCC's "not for the Conservative party" assault, including a list of big donors. (I thought you could only contribute $1100)

During the spring election campaign, the NCC raised $168,960 in contributions to advertisements, according to its third-party advertising return filed with Elections Canada. But the NCC appears to have held on to the bulk of this money for, uh, later use. The return shows the NCC spent only about 29 per cent of the money it took in. So, Election 41 was something of a cash bonanza for the NCC.

And the donors ( public record)

Robert Colborne Calgary AB 2011-03-31 $10,000
John Elliot Midhurst ON 2011-04-28 $10,000
Darey Rector Toronto ON 2011-04-06 $10,000
Bruce + Robert Orr Vancouver BC 2011-04-20 $10,000
Wazir Seth Calgary AB 2011-04-11 $5,000
Rick Balbi Calgary AB 2011-04-19 $4,000
Kent Norris Victoria BC 2011-04-29 $3,000
Paul Greenhalgh Richmond Hill ON 2011-04-04 $2,500
Mrs. William P. Wilder Toronto ON 2011-04-15 $2,000
Robert Macdonald Calgary AB 2011-04-01 $1,500
Tom Skinner Kanata ON 2011-04-19 $1,200
Brian Buttler Saanichton BC 2011-04-21 $1,200
Bob Elliot Guelph ON 2011-04-06 $1,200
Tom Como Edson AB 2011-04-28 $1,000
Tara Sinanan Edmonton AB 2011-04-28 $1,000
Sandra Simpson Toronto ON 2011-04-28 $1,000
Rick Balbi Calgary AB 2011-04-20 $1,000
Paul Sunnen Chatham ON 2011-04-04 $1,000
John Elias Morden MB 2011-04-01 $1,000
James L. Attwood Toronto ON 2011-03-29 $1,000
Gerald Heffernen Toronto ON 2011-04-28 $1,000
Frans Feyter Fort Macleod AB 2011-04-21 $1,000
Ed Thiessen Strathmore AB 2011-04-20 $1,000
David Jamieson Red Deer AB 2011-03-31 $1,000
Bryan Bennett Mississauga ON 2011-04-08 $1,000
Brent Buchanan Edmonton AB 2011-03-31 $1,000
Bill Nicholls Cambridge ON 2011-04-19 $1,000

Conservative blogger Stephen Taylor, now with the NCC, while posing as a journalist, has strong ties with the Harper government. And in 2008, when the NCC was giving Preston Manning its medal of freedom, a rather dubious honour, it was our man Harper who presented it.

If you are going to try to make the claim that you don't work for the Conservative Party of Canada, you might want to stop working for the Conservative Party of Canada.

The NCC is not a public service organization, but just an extension of our current government. They should pay taxes like everyone else, and stop hiding behind their "watchdog" title.

These groups do not uphold democracy, but undermine it, and its time they were exposed.

Stephen Harper and Newt Gingrich May be Reunited After All

2012-01-19T11:42:00.000-08:00

When Newt Gingrich and the Republicans stole the Mid-terms in 1994, Gingrich gave much of the credit to Preston Manning and the Reform Party.

Manning's lieutenant at the time was Stephen Harper.

In the contest for the Republican presidential candidacy, Newt Gingrich was a long shot, but that shot just got a little shorter.

Mitt Romney has been stripped of his Iowa victory after a recount that gives it to Rick Santorum, Harper's Mini me.

Romney is also in trouble over his financial records, that include hiding much of his $200 million wealth in the Cayman Islands.

And Rick Perry has dropped out of the race, that will help the conservatives who never liked Romney anyway, by reducing the competition. Perry may back Gingrich who is now surging in South Carolina.

I wonder what the Harper team will do this time to help their conservative allies South of the border? They tried to railroad Obama in 2008, and I'm sure they've still got a few tricks up their sleeve.

Personally, I think Gingrich would be a gift to the Democrats, but who knows?

When is "Foreign" Money and Influence, Not "Foreign" Money and Influence?

2012-01-18T06:32:00.000-08:00

The Harper government has tried a new strategy in pushing through the Gateway Pipeline. Apparently, we are now under attack by "foreigners". "Foreign" money is driving the debate. "Foreign" radicals are trying to stop progress.

And yet "foreign" ownership of the Tar Sands has accelerated since they took power. Our new Natural Resources minister is in fact an investment banker. He sees our natural resources not as something that need to be protected, but something that can be exploited.

Foreign corporations, some controlled by national governments, have been using their economic clout to buy into Alberta's oil sands and take control of our natural resources. U.S., French, British, Chinese, Thai, Korean and Norwegian interests have all bought stakes in oil-sands projects. According to the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP), international companies have invested nearly $20 billion in the last three years through mergers, partnerships and outright purchases of projects.

This increased foreign investment raises questions. Who has the right to develop our natural resources? Who sets the rules for how these resources are developed? Who controls where the resources are processed and sold?

For Harper to use the "foreign" argument is hypocrisy at its worst.

Not only is he selling off all of our industry to global interests, but he used "foreign" influence to gain power. Top Republican pollster, John McLaughlin takes credit for Harper's career.

Within the past year, John McLaughlin has helped elect Iain Duncan Smith, the leader of the Conservative Party (United Kingdom); Stephen Harper, the leader of the Canadian Alliance Party (Canada); Virginia Attorney General Jerry Kilgore; and a historic 30-seat Republican majority in the Virginia House of Delegates.

The American NRA is writing our gun laws. Frank Luntz and the Americans, including Dick Cheney, helped to write our environmental policy (summarized as "screw the environment, we're going drilling") and Religious Right leader James Dobson poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into Stephen Harper's anti same-sex marriage campaign.

Mike Robinson has an excellent piece in the Edmonton Journal today: History repeats itself with Gateway debate: Old questions linger about wisdom of project.

He wonders why the Harper government is working so hard to push this pipeline through. Mr. Robinson knows the dangers because he was involved in similar debates decades ago. The only difference was that many public meetings took place with First Nation communities, where the environmental impact would be felt the most.

Looking back, I was glad the B.C. offshore play never happened, be-cause at the local information sessions we heard too many seasoned fishing boat skippers talk about 80-foot waves, high tidal energy, howling southeasters in Hecate Strait and the growing fragility of the marine ecosystem.

I also heard scores of First Nations speakers decry putting their home-lands and food chains at risk for the sake of oil. I also remember having a few beers with technical members of the company's public-information team. Privately, especially after a raucous community meeting, they would confide to me that high wave and wind action would hamper and disrupt oil spill boom placement and slick-licker deployment, and a major blowout or spill near a tidal estuary would likely be very difficult to contain.

Another concern of mine is something not getting a lot of media attention. The secret deal signed in Texas, that allows the U.S. to send its troops to Canada in the case of a "civil emergency". Stuart Trew, a researcher with the Council of Canadians, rightfully said:

... there is potential for the agreement to militarize civilian responses to emergency incidents. He noted that work is also underway for the two nations to put in place a joint plan to protect common infrastructure such as roadways and oil pipelines. “Are we going to see (U.S.) troops on our soil for minor potential threats to a pipeline or a road?”

A license to invade?

The threat to the pipeline would of course be a threat to Stephen Harper's benefactors, like:

Thailand's state-owned PTTEP who bought a 40-per-cent stake in Statoil's Kai Kos Dehseh project for $2.3 billion. "Statoil is a Norwegian company whose largest owner is the government of Norway, with 67 per cent of the shares. Under the terms of the deal, Statoil remained the majority owner and operator of the project, which ends up being a Norwegian-Thai, public-private enterprise developing Albertan energy resources."

Korean National Oil Company that took over Calgary's Harvest Energy Trust for $4.1 billion ($1.8 billion in cash and $2.3 billion in assumed debt). The deal allowed the Korean state-run company to grab an estimated oil production of 50,000 barrels per day (b/d) and 154 million barrels of oil-equivalent reserves. "In 2006, the Korean firm set up an office in Calgary and purchased the Black Gold Oil Sands leases near Conklin. These leases gave the company 10,000 b/d of bitumen for about 25 years."

PetroChina now owns 60-per-cent share of Athabasca Oil Sands Corp.'s giving them a majority share in a company with access to more than five million barrels of oil.

Chinese company Sinopec, a majority-owned subsidiary of a national company, paid $4.65 billion for Houston-based ConocoPhillips' stake in Syncrude. What makes this deal significant is that under the terms of the deal, the state-controlled Sinopec has a veto on the critical decision of whether the company should upgrade bitumen here or export it in raw form overseas.

In January 2011, Enbridge announced Sinopec's funding of the $5.5-billion Northern Gateway Pipeline.

And what do Canadians get out of all this? The bill for cleanup, the threat of an American invasion and the joy of listening to our prime minister warn of "foreign" involvement in a Canadian (??!!?) pipeline.

So This is Ethical Oil?

2012-01-16T06:16:00.000-08:00

The American conservatives appear to be adopting, or at least sharing, tactics being used by the Canadian conservatives to get what they want. Intimidation and corruption.

The Republican controlled Congress is voting on a bill that would force President Obama to make a decision on TransCanada's Keystone XL pipeline by November 1. An unprecedented tactic that would remove the authority of the president and the secretary of state. Future abuse could be devastating to both domestic and foreign policy.

Obama had to accept the deal in order to avoid raising taxes on workers, something the Republicans were determined to do, and Jim Flaherty has already done. (Flaherty does love taxing the little guy, doesn't he?)

Protests are growing in both the U.S. and Canada over the controversial pipeline, with the Americans not wanting the environmental mess when bitumen is sent there for processing, and Canadians not wanting the risk of devastating oil spills.

Another factor not getting as much media attention, is that while the U.S. oil lobby is citing all the new jobs in their country, many good jobs in the industry are being piped South.

Why? Lower wages? Since our government is now a wholly owned subsidiary of the oil industry, profit will always be job one.

Alberta Energy Minister Ron Liepert claims that Canada must find more markets for its crude oil if it hopes to become a global energy superpower. Why can't we become a global energy superpower with something other than oil? And how many Canadians dream of becoming a global energy superpower anyway? We just want the world to stop hating us.

Another element to this story is one of questionable lobbying practices and conflict of interest. Apparently at least three politician in the U.S. fighting for the pipeline, have shares in TransCanada; two Republicans and one Democrat.

Time to reduce the powers of the oil industry and put it back into the hands of citizens.

Since You Brought it Up: Stephen Harper and R.B. Bennett

2012-01-15T08:28:00.000-08:00

In 1931, during a particularly stormy debate in the House of Commons, a member of the Opposition asked Conservative MP Walter D. Cowan, why he didn't wear his "nightshirt". An odd question to be raised in Parliament, but a very significant one.

Before winning his seat in the federal election of 1930, Cowan had acted as treasurer for the Ku Klux Klan in Saskatchewan. In fact, several new Tory MPs, who joined the government of R.B. Bennett, were affiliated with the Klan.

Quebec Liberal MP, Jean F. Pouliot, produced official Klan documents showing that Cowan, as treasurer, had overseen the collection of more than $40,000 in dues and donations in the province, for which he was paid a salary of $2,170. Pouliot also charged that Ambrose Bury, the Conservative MP from Edmonton, was a Klan member and noted "that body celebrated his victory by burning crosses on the side of a hill near Edmonton." Then in 1934, Pouliot alleged that not only Cowan and Bury, but new Regina MP F.W. Turnbull "and other members of the Ku Klux Klan" were sitting in the Tory side of Parliament.

Initially Bennett refused to address the accusations until the media ran with the story and he was forced to make a public statement denouncing the Klan.

In his new book on Bennett, The Rebel Who Changed a Nation, John Boyko states that the Conservatives in Saskatchewan had been so aggressively anti-Catholic, that even the KKK endorsed several candidates. He's being kind. The relationship between the Conservatives of the 1920s and the Invisible Empire ran much deeper. We have to remember that the Klan of that day, especially in Canada, were not like the KKK of the post Antebellum period in the South.

They did not engage in lynchings or castrations, but were more of a religious fundamentalist group, policing morality, endorsing vigilante justice and protecting their White Ango-Saxon Protestant heritage. As such their targets of hatred were Jews, Catholics and French Canadians.

Boyko's book is the first full-length biography of this controversial prime minister, and he suggests that one of the reasons for that is that Bennett burned most of his papers. I think it's more likely that Bennett burned most of his papers to avoid having such a book written.

I noticed in the bibliography, that Boyko does not mention two very important books written of this era. Julian Sher's White Hoods: Canada Ku Klux Klan (Newstar, 1983) and Martin Robin's Shades of Right: Nativist and Fascist Politics in Canada 1920-1940 (University of Toronto Press 1992)

He also avoids mentioning Cowan, Bury or Turnbull.

Yet at the time, Regina dentist Walter Davy Cowan, was very open about his involvement with the Klan, not only acting as their treasurer, but was a popular speaker at their rallies, including the one advertised on the left, that took place on May 15, 1929.

Klan membership lists were filled with the names of Tory supporters, and their meetings attended and harangued by party activists. According to Dr Walter D. Cowan, the Klan treasurer, Regina Conservative elected for Long Lake to the House of Commons in the general election of 1930, and columnist for the Regina Standard, the Klan was 'the most complete political organization ever known' in the West. 'Every organizer in it is a Tory,' he wrote R.B. Bennett. 'It cost over a thousand dollars a week to pay them. I know it for I pay them. And I never pay a Grit. Smile when you hear anything about this organization and keep silent.' (Robin 1992, p.68)

Cowan's advice of "silence" was heeded not only by Bennett, but by many "prominent Conservative colleagues who welcomed the Klan's arrival, appreciated its ignition potentials and gloated over prospects of a political windfall." And according to Robin, " J.F Bryant, the Tory lawyer and Orangeman, was a key player in the Tory-Klan game."

History has sought to downplay the role of the Klan in Canada, but when it is reduced to a few lines in a new book, suggesting only that Bennett's anti-Catholic stance inspired several Klan members to vote for him, it looks like a deliberate attempt to obliterate that history.

But why?

Telling are some of the endorsements for Boyko's book. Conservative Senator Hugh Segal claims that it should be required reading "for any Canadian who wants to understand the real roots of modern Conservatism." Indeed, in the book Boyko compares Stephen Harper to Bennett, though he may understand Harper as little as he understands, or refuses to understand, Bennett.

Segal is right in many respects. Bennett was cool and aloof, a multi-millionaire corporate lawyer who assisted in many mergers, and refused to address poverty. Under pressure, he attempted a few measures during the Depression, but they were too little, too late. During the 2008 election debate, when the topic was rising unemployment, Harper claimed to understand, himself once being unemployed for a long period of time. When pressed on the issue, turns out that it was by choice. His wife had a thriving business printing material for the Reform/Alliance Party, so he spent his time planning for the next election. Not really the same thing.

And then of course his suggestion that the recession provided an opportunity to buy cheap stocks. People worrying about putting food on the table, are hardly looking for bargains in the stock market.

Both men lack empathy, although Bennett grew up poor, unlike Harper who grew up in privilege. His father made a bundle on an accounting program he designed for Esso and Harper grew up in a high-middle-class WASP neighbourhood.

Another endorsement comes from Brian Lee Crowley, a Neoconservative activist with ties to many right-wing think tanks.

In an interview with Allan Gregg, Boyko states that much of the negativity surrounding Bennett, has been exaggerated, claiming to have found little evidence of "Bennett Buggies", the name given to cars with their engines removed and hooked up to horses (In the U.S. they were "Hoover wagons"). But they were real and images can be found in many places. A trip to the library will help.

Perhaps the most important similarity between Stephen Joseph Harper and Richard Bedford Bennett, is that both used religious fundamentalists and the radical right to get elected, then attempted to dismiss them once they got they wanted: POWER. And yet the policies of both men reflect the desires of religious fundamentalists and the radical right, including tough immigration rules, a roll back of earned "rights", and an attack on the French language, to name a few.

In Allan J. Lichtman's White Protestant Nation (Atlantic Press, 2008), he traces the modern American conservative movement to the Era of the Klan, a strong political force in the 1920s and 30s. According to Hugh Segal, so can Canada's modern day conservatism, which successfully managed to eradicate the "progressive" years, just as the American conservatives try to forget the impact of Dwight D. Eisenhower, the last moderate Republican president.

After accusations of the "new" conservatism being more a "radical conservatism", every bit an oxymoron as Stephen Harper's suggestion that "progressive conservatism" was the same, American Cory Robin claimed that they were reactionary Tories in the same vein as Edmund Burke. And what Burke reacted to was the French Revolution.

After being sent his argument by one of my right-wing followers, I reminded him of another "reactionary conservative" party that had embraced Edmund Burke. From a radio broadcast on April 1, 1933, "the year 1789 has been expunged from the records of history."

"It was obvious to all why 1933 was being compared to 1789. "Any contemporary, whether schooled in history or not, instinctively knew that the French Revolution was the measure of things in the modern world. 'We want to eradicate the ideology of liberalism and replace it with a new sense of community'" (Foundational Pasts: The Holocaust as Historical Understanding, By Alon Confino, Cambridge University Press, 2011, ISBN 978-0-52173-632-9, p. 6)

The man making that announcement? Joseph Goebbels. According to Hannah Arendt in The Origins of Totalitarianism:

While the seeds of German race-thinking were planted during the Napoleonic wars, the beginnings of the later English development appeared during the French Revolution and may be traced back to the man who violently denounced it as the "most astonishing [crisis] that has hitherto happened in the world"—to Edmund Burke . The tremendous influence his work has exercised not only on English but also on German political thought is well known.

It should be noted that John Boyko is a teacher at Lakefield College School, listed as one of the most expensive private schools in the country. They are also under royal patronage, due in part to a famous former student, Prince Andrew.

The Orange Lodge and the Klan worked in tandem during Bennett's time, and while the Klan has lost most of its influence, the Orange Lodge and their counterpart, the Monarchist League, are working to restore our WASP heritage.

They are behind the rewriting of our citizenship guide, returning the "Royal" to our military and are now pushing to have a crown placed on our Olympic uniforms.

This new biography on Bennett provides an opportunity to have an adult discussion on the roots of the current movement, and the impact of radical right-wing fringe groups. We no longer have to open the door a crack, because Boyko has flung it wide open.

And So it Begins. Harper's anti-Homosexual Agenda

2012-01-13T04:28:00.000-08:00

Despite denying his anti-gay stance, Stephen Harper continues to remake Canada by stealth, by nullifying thousands of same-sex marriages:

Thousands of LGBT couples across the world awoke this morning to learn that they are no longer married. A Department of Justice lawyer under Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservative Party of Canada government has nullified all same-sex marriages performed in Canada in which the couples’ native country does not permit gays and lesbians to marry.

This is only phase one. They no doubt have already selected the "landmark" case by a right-wing fringe group, who will challenge the ruling by saying that it was descriminatory to their religious beliefs, showing favour to the beliefs of "foreigners." Harper now controls the Supreme Court, stacked with "social conservatives", so it would breeze through.

If you wondered what a Harper majority would like, wonder no more.

How about a landmark impeachment since this prime minister lied to get what he wanted?

Would a Romney Victory Mean the End of the Conservative Movement?

2012-01-11T04:29:00.000-08:00

Mitt Romney won the New Hampshire primary with 40% of the vote and appears to be heading toward winning the Republican nomination.

Unlike most of his opponents, he has not "surged" but just plodded along, attacking when he needed to attack, and standing up to the blows from his tag-teamed conservative opponents.

In the weeks leading up to these important votes, there was a lot of talk about the conservative movement mobilizing to knock him out, yet they were unable to do that.

They appear instead, to have burned themselves out, by focusing too much on issues that are now non-issues. Same-sex marriage (more than half of Americans now support it), gay rights, abortion and immigration. It's getting old and at a time when the American economy is in crisis, people are looking for someone whose attention will be on that.

The conservative movement was successful only when they downplayed the social conservative elements, instead working behind the scenes to pursue their agenda. Ronald Reagan was able to play the role of a moderate, despite the fact that he was anything but. Stephen Harper appears to be having some success with the same strategy, though the extremism is always there just beneath the surface.

The candidates endorsed by conservatives wear their views on their sleeves and because of that, will never be able to win an election, when the majority of Americans simply don't share those views.

What is telling about the New Hampsire results, is that Ron Paul, the Libertarian, came in second with 23%.

On Chris Matthew's Hardball this week they discussed the possibility of Paul running as an independent, since he seems to be a hit with the younger generation. He's not a social conservative, opposes big government and government spending, is anti-war and believes that marijuana should be legalized.

He may not win the presidency, but could split the right-wing vote.

Mitt Romney's chances would depend on who he chose as a running mate. I actually liked John McCain and believe that he would have done much better, had it not been for Sarah Palin. The thought that she would be president if McCain's health failed, was terrifying.

Romney also appears to be reaching out to corporate America, where the real Republican clout is. In his speech after the Iowa caucus victory, he said that he would get America on its feet with the help of the "job creators", conservative code for lowering taxes for the wealthy.

Same old, same old.

Harper Government on the Wrong Side of the Drug War

2012-01-10T08:08:00.000-08:00

Harper's new omnibus crime bill will mean stiffer sentences for those growing a few marijuana plants, clearly designed to go after the user. However, if he really wanted to do the war on drugs right, he would be targeting the pharmaceutical industry; the real drug pushers of this generation.

I often mock the ads on U.S television for new prescription drugs; "cures" for ailments you never heard of. Clearly they're just starting to make things up.

Direct-to-consumer advertising can be very effective, but also dangerous. According to the Canadian Health Coalition, the ads push the newest medicines, those without a history of the affects of long-term use.

Truth in advertising demands that they list the side affects, but they are practically sung at the end or read so fast you can't keep up.

"Did she just say that this drug might make me want to jump out a window?"

What you remember the most from the ads is "ask your doctor". Arthritis sufferers asked their doctors about Vioxx, a heavily advertised pain medication, and yet 115,000 died from heart attacks as a result of taking the drug.

CHC also warns that the ads are designed to turn the normal into a problem, convincing people who feel fine but with "symptoms" of a new medical condition, that they need drugs. Others who have symptoms of a legitimate condition, could instead treat the fabricated one and mask the symptoms that need to be addressed.

In Canada direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription medicine is still prohibited, but Canwest Global is hoping to change that, calling it an infringement on their freedom of expression. I believe the case is still pending.

With Harper now controlling the Supreme Court, if it goes that far, CanWest will win. They'll just have to bring him a hockey sweater. It won't hurt that Pfizer is now running the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, either.

History Repeating Itself

In his 2008 book White Protestant Nation, Allan J. Richtman traces the modern conservative movement to the 1920s and Prohibition, which was not only about banning the sale of alcohol but an attempt to crack down on all vices, including drug use.

A near panic over drug-induced crime that hit the United States during the 1920s led public officials and private reformers to declare America's first war on drugs. The nation closed its public drug treatment clinics and as it had done with venereal disease, adopted a moral and law enforcement approach to narcotics. Addicts had no recourse other than illegal sources of supply ...

Despite a continued drug war, however, the nation's experiment with Prohibition crashed in the late 1920s. Prohibition exposed the tension between moral reformers and a business community opposed to government control over industry ... a continuing thirst for alcohol gave rise to a thriving underground market operated by organized criminal syndicates that waged bloody street battles for control of market share and paid off law enforcement officials to look the other way. The prisons swelled with felons convicted of violating the dry laws and collateral crimes. The cost of federal law enforcement quintupled during the '20s and intruded into the lives of ordinary Americans. (1)

Many believe that the narcotic trade is new and addiction something that can be cured with tougher laws. They thought the same thing in the 1920s when federal laws were passed and a war on drugs was launched.

Throughout the Victorian era, narcotics were readily available and sold as patent medicines.

Cannabis Indica, patented by the American Druggist Syndicate in 1906. Bottle reads:

"Fluid Extract. Cannabis Indica. USP eighth revision. The flowering tops of cannabis sativa. Alcohol 60 percent. Physiologically tested. A.D.S.

This was one of many cannabis products promising to cure migraines and "nervousness". The 60% alcohol didn't hurt.

Bayer began selling liquid Heroin in 1899 for pain relief. It earned it's name because those testing the miracle cure claimed that it made them feel heroic.

However, by the early 1900s heroism turned to addiction, so pharmaceutical companies began to patent a range of cures for addiction, including the German Liquor Cure.

To those addicted to the habit of using opium or morphia in any form or manner whatever. We guarantee this preparation to be absolutely harmless, to contain no poisonous narcotics. Can be taken freely without producing any of the deleterious effects on the system, such as are caused by the use of opium and morphia. Immediately on taking a dose of this remedy, a calming and soothing effect is produced. It acts as a tonic to the nerves;it will act at first as perfect substitute, rendering the patient independent of these poisonous drugs, and after continued use for a short period the nerves will become strong and the general health improved, so that the remedy can be taken at longer intervals and soon altogether discontinued; then the cure is complete". Cannot be sent by mail on account of weight".

They don't say what was in this stuff, but perhaps more alcohol than Cannabis Indica.

Enter the crusaders of the conservative movement, who were going to end all that, with a whole range of federal laws. We'll call it an omnibus bill.

Since Ronald Reagan launched his war full scale war on drugs, the results have been pretty much the same. Some examples:

- the U.S. per capita spending on schools increased 32%. The per capita spending on prisons grew 189%

- California built 21 prisons since then but just one college.

- From 1985 to 1998, the number of deaths per 100,000 for drug-induced causes almost doubled. In other words, having a drug war proved twice as deadly as not having one. (2)

By the 25th anniversary $4 trillion dollars had been spent on the war on drugs with a record expansion of prison and jail systems.

Martin Beckford, Health Correspondent for the UK Telegraph writes that the War on drugs has failed:
Leading peers – including prominent Tories – say that despite governments worldwide drawing up tough laws against dealers and users over the past 50 years, illegal drugs have become more accessible. Vast amounts of money have been wasted on unsuccessful crackdowns, while criminals have made fortunes importing drugs into this country.
So why does the Harper government, at a time of record deficits, insist on making the same mistakes as those who have tried "crack down" before?

Robert O. Paxton blames it on the mindset of these kinds of populist movements. They "despise thought and reason" and "abandon intellectual positions casually" (3) . Preferring emotional arguments to proven facts, is the basis of the new conservatism. Even if their leaders know otherwise, manipulating emotion is what puts them into power and keeps them there. They often refer to it, as Guy Giorno, Harper's former chief of staff, did, as "playing to the base".

I tried to debate Canada's new drug laws with one of my conservative followers. Frustrated, he said "You can't tell me that things weren't better in the Victorian era", (we'd already run the gamut from the 1920s). And yet I can. Every generation has had their problems and there has never been any quick fix.

Bill C-10 will only create a new set of problems. Or an old set of problems, as history will repeat itself.

Sources:

1. White Protestant Nation: The Rise of the American Conservative Movement, By Allan J. Lichtman, Atlantic Monthly Press, 2008, ISBN: 10-0-87113-983-7, pp 14-15

2. BOTTOM LINE: The true costs of Reagan and extreme capitalism, by Sam Smith

3. The Five Stages of Fascism, By Robert O. Paxton, The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 70, No. 1. (Mar., 1998), pp. 1-23. The University of Chicago Press

With All Due Respect Ben Shapiro. You're Talking Out of Your ....

2012-01-09T08:43:00.000-08:00

I received an E-reader for Christmas and recently uploaded Ben Shapiro's new book: Primetime Propaganda: The True Hollywood Story of How the Left Took Over Your TV. I had blogged on it before, when reviews spoke of the revelation that Big Bird was a commie.

However, learning that Shapiro was a Harvard grad, I thought that he might present a scholarly critique of the industry, so I bit the bullet and bought the book.

I'm only through the prologue, introduction and first few chapters, but it's pretty clear that little effort went into creating this masterpiece. So far, it's mostly ad hoc statements and cherry picked interviews, in an attempt to "prove" that conservatives are being discriminated against.

Says Shapiro of television producers:

"Virtually all vote Democrat, fervently support gay marriage, see abortion as a sancrosant human right, approve of higher taxes, despise religion, think guns are to blame for crime, maintain that business people are corrupt and union organizers are saints, feel that conservatives are racist, sexist and homophobic. Almost all voted for Barack Obama. Almost all hated George Bush."

Whoa! The abortion and gay rights may be true, but when did a television character ever support higher taxes? And on what grounds does he base a hatred for religion? Avoiding religious topics means support for ALL religions. And as to hating George Bush, when he left office he was polling at 19%, so unless 81% of Americans are liberal, I would say that Bush's wounds were self inflicted.

Shapiro does elaborate however.

Televisions best and brightest wanted to set America sliding down a slippery slope away from its Judeo-Christian heritage and toward a more cultivated, refined, Europeanized sensibility.

What's wrong with that? Didn't the notion of a Judeo-Christian heritage originate from Europe?

Revisionist History

The first problem with the book, however, is Shapiro's "history" of the television industry. He obviously did little, if any, fact checking. Claiming that they have been engaged in left-wing propaganda for the past six decades, is simply not true.

During the 1960s artists and creators went out of their way to shock the middle class in order to forward their liberal agenda: feminism, gay rights, racial preferences, bigger government. When the smoke cleared, however, the artists had largely gotten what they wanted - with their help, the civil rights movement had achieved its major goals.

Actually, the civil rights movement was responsible for a change in television programming, not the other way around.

Speaking in July 1964, Frank Stanton, president of CBS, called upon broadcasters to launch a "mighty and continuing editorial crusade" in support of civil rights. In an address to the National Broadcast Editorial Conference of the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, Stanton called for commitment and advocacy. President Lyndon B. Johnson having recently signed the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1964, Stanton spoke now of the "pivotal point in our history" and of the need for television to utilize its "editorial strength boldly, imaginatively and with insight and wisdom." (1)

According to the Museum of Broadcast Communications:

What was consistently projected, without public fanfare but in teeming myriads of programs, scenes, news priorities, sportscasts, old movies, ads, was the naturalness and normalcy of social whiteness. Television visually accumulated the heritage of representation in mainstream U.S. ... According to television representation, the United States was a white nation, with some marginal "ethnic" accretions that were at their best when they could simply be ignored, like well-trained and deferential maids and doormen.

Some blacks appeared on variety shows, like Ed Sullivan, but when NBC launched the Nat "King" Cole Show in November of 1956, they couldn't find a major sponsor, having to rely on 30 smaller and braver companies. It lasted only one season.

Bill Cosby was the first to become a major television star in 1965, when he co-starred with Robert Culp in I Spy. I've always had a great deal of respect for Culp, because he fought tooth and nail to get Cosby equal billing. If that makes him a liberal so be it.

Shapiro also blames shows like Mash for the anti-Vietnam war movement, citing poll results from 1965-1968. Mash didn't go on the air until 1970 and reflected already held views on war.

Shapiro is only a pup, but I grew up watching television in the 1960s, where all women were portrayed as being subservient to men, Native Americans as blood thirsty savages and gun totin' cowboys as heroes.

The first gay to appear on TV was in Soap, a satire on soap operas. The character was Jodie Dallas, played by Billy Crystal, but it was a very stereotypical representation.

He also suggests that All in the Family was discriminatory to conservatives, because they portrayed Archie Bunker, a stalwart conservative, as a buffoon, while glorifying the "leftie" Michael Stivic. Obviously he watched few if any episodes of the show.

Audiences of all political stripes endeared themselves to Archie, because underneath the bigotry was a kind soul. His prejudice was born of ignorance, but we watched him grow with society, and become more tolerant. A pivotal episode was the one where Archie was singled out by a group of men who claimed to respect his views. He attended a meeting but was visibly shocked when they donned their white sheets, and planned to burn a cross on Mike's lawn.

In a previous episode he had been frantic about receiving blood from his black doctor, but now told the KKK that he was a "brother". A classic.

And Mike Stivik was hardly glorified. He often came off as an arrogant know-it-all. In fact, in one episode, Lionel Jefferson tells Stivik that he would prefer Archie's open bigotry to Mike's political correctness. His care in choice of words was off putting and a worse form of discrimination.

All in the Family pushed the envelope, but it made us think. The important thing was that most people knew that what Archie was saying was wrong. We were OK.

I've no doubt that most who work in television are socially liberal, but the industry itself couldn't be more conservative. The prevalent force is the free market, and the shows being made are those that bring in the most money.

If there's any so-called "brainwashing" it's in the advertising that is even reflected in the programs themselves. Most teenagers are now familiar with brands. Which ones to wear and which ones to avoid. And children want the toys based on their favourite cartoon shows.

I should mention that Shapiro does have a personal axe to grind. Apparently he wrote two scripts, one for a potential program based on the Harvard law school, and another for an existing serial. They were rejected, he claims, because of his "conservative" views.

The problem is that he defines conservatism too narrowly and liberalism ... well ... too liberally.

Even Marc Cherry, creator of Desperate Housewives, hardly a "conservative" program, is a Republican. He just doesn't fit the tiny mold because Mr. Cherry is gay.

The Real Story is a Persecution Complex

Robert O. Paxton, writing of these kinds of political movements, speaks of their need for victimhood. "The belief that one's group is a victim, a sentiment which justifies any action against the group's enemies." (2)

That's all we ever hear from those in the conservative movement. The media is out to get them. The universities are out to get them. They are being persecuted because of their religion. From Richard Nixon's "enemies list" to Stephen Harper's bunker mentality, they trust no one.

Brent Bozell III, son of the man who ghost-wrote Barry Goldwater's Conscience of a Conservative, and nephew of William F. Buckley Jr., has actually devoted his life to patrolling the media for left bias.

He founded ForAmerica, an astroturf group initially created to fight Obamacare, but now just another extension of the Tea Party.

His Media Research Center's stated mission is to "prove — through sound scientific research — that liberal bias in the media does exist and undermines traditional American values" and to "neutralize [that bias's] impact on the American political scene.

Most of their funding comes from Exxon and other right-wing foundations. Harper uses taxpayers money to keep track of what we're saying.

All of this just seems like such a waste. If they are looking for people who support a woman's reproductive rights, the rights of the gay community to live their lives, and have no problem with "ethnics", they don't have to invest so much energy. We're out there in plain sight. BOO!

I'm holding my final opinion on the book until I'm finished, but when its foundation is based on fraudulent history, it makes the entire thesis suspect.

Sources:

1. The Golden Age Of Blacks In Television: The Late 1960s, By J. Fred MacDonald

2. The Five Stages of Fascism, By Robert O. Paxton, The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 70, No. 1. (Mar., 1998), pp. 1-23. The University of Chicago Press

What if This Happened to You?

2012-01-09T04:06:00.000-08:00

What if you went into work today and were told that you would have to take a 50% wage cut? Could you pay your mortgage? Your rent? Your bills? Feed your family?

Think about that. Your pay cut in half.

Well that's what's happening in London, Ontario. After purchasing Electro-Motive Diesel, Caterpillar Inc. is playing tough, using the same tactics they used in Illinois, when that state proposed an increase in the corporate tax rate. Staunch Republicans, Caterpillar threatened to move to a state less union friendly.

They even offered to help the governor, a Democrat, balance their books on the backs of workers.

“The state unfortunately continues to put off the tough decisions” about potential reductions in government spending and pension costs, Dugan said. He said Caterpillar was offering to advise the governor on cost-cutting based on the company’s own experience chopping pay and laying off workers during the 2008-09 recession."

At the same time, they quadrupled their CEO's compensation. In the third quarter of 2011, Caterpillar posted profits of close to $15,000,000 per day, a 44% increase over the previous year, so they certianly have no excuse for their attack on Canadian workers.

One London Ontario employee commented that he missed Glen Pearson. Pearson was the object of a smear campaign by the Conservatives, for which it would appear, the new MP, Susan Truppe, paid a mere 18,362.50, to Campaign Research, the Conservative run company that handled Rob Ford's campaign and admit to being behind the bogus phone calls in Irwin Cotler's riding.

Who said you can't buy an election?

And what is Susan Truppe doing to help the London workers? Absolutely nothing. And what is the photo-op king, seen above with Cat workers doing? Absolutely nothing. Like his hero, the only man to out photo-op him, he is standing with big business.

Occupy London is planning a rally, calling on International workers to join the fight. Caterpillar is already in trouble with their shareholders, because of their actions in Gaza. And maybe Greenpeace could lend support, since Cat has also faced heavy fines for their continued attacks on the environment.

So join the London workers on January 21 if you can, and if you are unable to attend, at least send them a message of encouragement.

Stephen Harper not only holds a majority, but also controls the Senate, the Supreme Court and the Governor General. All we have left is each other.

Fiscal Conservative, Huh?

2012-01-08T05:49:00.000-08:00

I love this MacKay cartoon, created when Stephen Harper sold us out for a few crumbs in his "Buy American" scheme. With Obama once again promoting the insourcing of jobs and America first policies, we can no longer count on the United States to get us out of the hole. Not that we should have in the first place.

The U.S. is on its way to economic recovery, while the Canadian economy is losing ground. To help with so-called deficit reduction, the Harper government is laying off 10% of the public service, mainly in areas that challenge their ideology; like Statistics Canada, Environment Canada and Heritage.

Looking to cut corners they are paying a consulting firm $90,000 a day to do the job that was once handled by cabinet ministers. What cabinet ministers are doing now is anyone's guess.

MacLeans has recently published a list of 99 stupid things the government spent your money on, covering right from municipal to federal.

Telling are those "investments" made by our "fiscal conservative" feds. Without mentioning the $57,000 for a fake lake, $16 billion on 65 stealth fighter jets (without engines), and the $19.8 million spent so far on those consultants, the "stupid things" include:

- $6 million to Quebec snowmobile clubs.

- $9,000 to convert a curling rink into an archery centre

- $5 million toward marketing and celebrating the 2012 Grey Cup in Toronto

- $1.16 million to design a pedestrian bridge over a busy highway, even though no decision has been made on whether the bridge is actually needed.

- $180,000 to bring Snoop Dog to the East Coast.

- $26 million on advertising the Economic Action Plan in the lead up to the spring election

- $190,000 into Mrs. Dunster’s, a New Brunswick-based doughnut maker notable for making doughnuts out of pure lard (I thought Harper was a Timmy's man)

- $700,000 was invested in two start-up cheese companies

- $7.3-million to make 486 million new pennies, which means each penny cost 1.5 cents each. This despite the fact that they are talking about getting rid of the penny altogether.

- Revenue Canada spent $750,000 on an ad campaign warning the public about “under the table home renovations.” Another $113,000 was poured into hiring a polling firm to learn that the ads weren’t very effective.

- $249,000 in Newtopia, a company based in Vaughan (Julian Fantino's riding) that offers genetic testing for obesity and online weight-loss counselling. Founder Jeff Ruby was ecstatic: “Banks can give us money, but the government of Canada provides great credibility.”

- $1.05 million to Calona Wines of B.C. to double the output of its boxed wines, even though 80 per cent of the wine it sells is imported

- $87,000 to PurGenesis Technologies of Montreal to commercialize its “line of anti-aging products based on certiﬁed organically grown baby spinach leaves.” The money followed an earlier government “contribution” of $282,000 in 2009. Couldn't we just use baby spinach leaves?

- a company called Solarpro was awarded $54,000 to commercialize tanning beds.

-  a $284-million program to get Ontario tobacco farmers out of the industry in 2008 actually funnelled half the money to people who didn’t farm tobacco in the first place

- $41,300 to find out the value of Canada’s polar bear population. Turns out each one is worth $400,000. Based on what, and who would actually pay that to own a polar bear?

-  Ottawa’s National Capital Commission installed seven new ice shacks along the Rideau Canal for skaters.  Each shack cost $750,000. By comparison, the average house price in Ottawa is $360,000

- $200,000 for two focus-group surveys that both concluded: “Generally speaking, participants were not looking for a quick fix to Canada’s budgetary deficit.”

And that's only a partial list with more to come.  Will it include the $800,000 fiasco to celebrate our victory (?) in Libya? Or the hundreds of thousands for a re-enactment of the War of 1812? Carefully staged photo-ops?

When Harper was with the National Citizens Coalition, he hated this kind of government waste. Now he's like Sarah Palin on crack.

The Conservative Movement and Homosexuality Revisited

2012-01-07T10:37:00.000-08:00

"The hypocrite's crime is that he bears false witness against himself. What makes it so plausible to assume that hypocrisy is the vice of vices is that integrity can indeed exist under the cover of all other vices except this one. Only crime and the criminal, it is true, confront us with the perplexity of radical evil; but only the hypocrite is really rotten to the core". - Hannah Arendt (above)

Of all the hypocritical preachings of the conservative movement, from holier than thou exhortations to economic homilizing, perhaps the most hypocritical and heinous of them all, are their anti-homosexual sermons.

I'm now reading David Brock's Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative (Crown 2002) and am furious.

I like books written by "ex-Conservatives" because they give you a better understanding of what the movement is all about. They read like someone who has just escaped a cult and lived to tell about it.

Frank Schaeffer's Crazy for God, reveals the bigotry and sanctimoniousness of the Religious Right. Schaeffer's dad was the author of A Christian Manifesto, said to be a blueprint for the so-called Moral Majority.

David Kuo's Tempting Faith: An inside Story of Political Seduction, confirms many of the statements made by Schaeffer Jr. As a member of George Bush's "Faith-based Group" Kuo realized that the Christian faith was being exploited for political gain.

Matt Latimer's Speechless: Tales of a White House Survivor, tells of how he was selected to be part of George Bush's speech writing team, only to learn that he was no more than a glorified ad man, reduced to creating slogans for bumper sticker politics.

Brock's book Blinded, exposes far more than religious hypocrisy and dummied down politics, however, proving that Hilary Clinton was right. There really is a "vast right-wing conspiracy", and he would know, because he was a part of it.

Reagan's "Laissez Fairies"

Scott Brison was one of the few Progressive Conservatives in the "new" Conservative Party, created with the Reform/Alliance takeover. He tells of how he was called into Stephen Harper's office and told that while his keen economic mind was appreciated, he would have to go back into the closet, if he wanted a place in a future Harper cabinet.

Brison was always clear that he was not a gay politician, but a politician who happened to be gay. He refused Harper's offer and crossed the floor to the Liberals.

Arthur Finkelstein was one of Richard Nixon's most valued political operatives. An attack ad god. Many of the negative campaigns he helped to launch were against gay candidates, or those who had "gay sympathies". (Finkelstein also spent sixteen years working with the National Citizens Coalition, where he taught Stephen Harper the art of sleazy politics)

It came as quite a shock, when just before his death, Finkelstein was wed to his male partner of 40 years; only an issue because of the hypocrisy. Working with not only Nixon, but Reagan and Bush, publicly denouncing homosexuality and gay marriage, Finkelstein earned a reputation as a homophobe.

According to David Brock the Republican Party is filled with closeted gays and lesbians, who are forced to hide their sexual orientation because of the public image that the GOP is trying to put forward. The sad part of that, is not that they have to remain closeted, but that they have to be identified at all. Such is today's political climate.

Under Reagan, Brock says that the group referred to themselves as the "Laissez Fairies".

The "big tent" had no room for anyone who might upset the "Evangelicals" that Reagan had so carefully courted. What is unforgivable is that Reagan dragged his heels on developing a strategy to fight Aids, because his "faith-based group", headed up by another demonic hypocrite, Gary Bauer, said that Aids was God's punishment for being gay.

Reagan only acted when his friend, Rock Hudson, succumbed to the disease. Too little, too late.

In a new book on Richard Nixon, Nixon's Darkest Secrets: The Inside Story of America's Most Troubled President, former United Press International Washington bureau chief Don Fulsom, says that Nixon himself was gay, and had carried on a torrid love affair with Charles (Bebe) Rebozo. This only matters because Nixon also loved to gay bash, once calling San Francisco "the most faggy goddamned thing you could ever imagine," and blamed the fall of the Roman Empire on homosexual emperors (Nixon Papers, National Archives).

Another book, Lothar Machtan's The Hidden Hitler, (Perseus 2001) makes the claim that the former dictator was also a closeted gay man, with past male lovers. (Mend Protocol) The assassination of Ernest Rohm and 150 other members of the party, says Machtan, was to bury Hitler's past and reduce the risk of blackmail.

Yet the Nazis sought to exterminate all homosexuals, sending many to concentration or labour camps. Definitely worse than than simple discrimination, but damaging nonetheless.

When 15-year-old Jamie Hubley committed suicide after constant bullying because of his sexual orientation, members of Canada's Conservatives actually had the audacity to release public service messages saying "It gets better". Stephen Harper's homophobia, whether real or just for show, is well chronicled, as are the views of many members of his caucus.

They are part of the problem.

David Brock, gay himself, said that conservatives didn't stop at ridiculing those known to be homosexual, but assumed that any male in their 30s or older, who had never married and were not seen to be dating women, were automatically assumed to be gay, so had to endure the same abuse.

If this is true, Brad Trost, Jason Kenney and Rob Anders, might want to rethink their anti-gay rhetoric. Apparently perception is enough.

The Republicans and the conservatives in the U.S. are currently engaged in open warfare, for control of the party, and one of the criterion, for being a true conservative is that you oppose gay rights. However, according to Brock, most could care less. They simply have to keep up the appearance to sooth the pseudo-Christians with all the bucks.

Arendt is right. Rotten to the core. The whole damn lot of them.

Canadians Love Chiquita Bananas so Consiga una Vida Levant

2012-01-05T13:16:00.000-08:00

Ezra Levant really outdid himself on Fox News North, Stephen Harper's personal aping station, by telling Chiquita International senior vice-president Manuel Rodriguez, to basically go screw his mother ... in Spanish.

So much class.

What got Ezie in a tizzy? Chiquita joined thousands, and thousands, (did I mention thousands?) of others who actually know that the Tar sands are the most polluting region on the planet. Is Levant going to swing out at all of them?

Did Harper and his chimps really think that there would be no backlash to their decision to back out of Kyoto? Does he think that Canada can survive on the Petro dollar?

Levant should stick to picking lice off Brian Lilley's back and leave journalism to the more advanced species.

As for me, I'm stocking up on bananas. All Chiquita.

So Levant: consiga una vida!

Is Rick Santorum Getting Fashion Tips From Stephen Harper?

2012-01-04T13:16:00.000-08:00

Social Conservative candidate Rick Santorum, surprised everyone by coming close to beating Mitt Romney in Iowa, finishing just 8 votes behind. Up to now he has flown under the radar as "surges" went from Rick Perry to Herman Cain to finally Newt Gingrich.

The media is now paying attention and one thing that they are paying attention to is Santorum's choice of costume, or should I say uniform.

The dreaded sweater vest. Apparently it signifies the Social Conservative dream of life before the civil-rights movement. Who knew? I thought it just meant they were dorks.

Not all Republicans are thrilled with Romney's victory, feeling that he is being rammed down their throats, because as a moderate, he may be the best choice to beat Obama. Don't they know that the true conservative would rather lose the election than sacrifice their conservative "values"?

The Religious Right is throwing all of their weight behind the only "conservative" left standing, meaning that the very strange Santorum could very well win this thing.

I doubt he'd have a chance in hell of becoming president, but who knows? Stranger things have happened. Just look who we have as prime minister.

Egads.

Should the Canadian Media Make New Year's Resolutions?

2012-01-03T05:11:00.000-08:00

I watched Chris Matthew's Hardball yesterday, where the media panel was asked about their New Year's resolutions, speaking of them as a whole.

Most gave the obvious. Invest in hard journalism, ask the tough questions, cover politics seriously and don't get distracted by shiny objects. All important goals, but aren't they what journalism is supposed to be about? Does a doctor really have to make a resolution to heal or a teacher to teach?

The best answer came from Washington Post's David Ignatius. Recognizing that the media had to shoulder much of the blame for today's toxic political climate, he said that those in his profession had to stop contributing to the noise, divisiveness and confusion that is putting the United States near the point of breaking down.

And Ignatius is actually one of the few who can still call himself a journalist.

I thought that the Canadian media had hit bottom when those covering a Stephen Harper excursion were held hostage on a plane, because he didn't want them to ask him questions about unfolding events.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper is sneaking back into Canada through the front door. Harper flew back from Switzerland today. While in the air his office announced the appointment of five new Senators and the Supreme Court ruled he has the power to decide to ask if Omar Khadr could be repatriated.

What does Harper have to say about these developments? Nothing. Journalists travelling with Harper are being kept on the plane to ensure the Prime Minister doesn't face any questions in his short jaunt from the bottom of the staircase to his waiting limousine.

When the journalists live blogged this unusual tactic, a staff member came on board and said that they were free to leave, but would have to find their own way home. This sounds more like a Stalin move, and yet one those "kidnapped", actually tried to defend it.

David Akin, while writing that they were only allowed three questions in three and a half days, even before the hostage taking, suggested that he was somehow seeking balance in not being too critical.

... for what it's worth, our readers and viewers, of course, include both Harper's supporters and his detractors and reporters must remember that we write for all of them.

Harper's detractors may think we should just give the metaphorical finger to such directives from the PMO but, at one photo opp while we were here, a reporter who did just that and asked a question at a photo opp, despite warnings not to, was immediately warned that, if she continued, reporters would no longer be allowed to attend such photo opps. That would not be good for our access would be curtailed even further. PMO staff also made veiled threats that that individual's organization might suffer further sanction -- all because of the impertinence of asking a question. If you are a media organization in Ottawa, these are no small consequences.

Since when does crippling the media's ability to their job, mean that we are Harper detractors? Shouldn't everyone who believes in democracy oppose this? Akin was telling us that they are being threatened and yet still tried to defend it.

Fortunately for him, he is now with Fox News North where he no longer has to pretend to be a journalist. Only part of the noise.

There is something that our media, those left who still remember why they chose journalism as a career, can do. Stop covering Harper and his party. Only ask questions of the opposition and only publish their answers. If Harper wants his mug in the papers and his press releases printed, demand that he answer questions, and ones that are not presented in advance.

If he lacks the ability to think on his feet, then he is the one who can't handle his job.

The Conservatives don't have to impress the National Post or Sun TV, but if they want to continue to keep up the delusion that they are moderate "Tories", they need the press. It's time that the mainstream media remembered that.

And advice to the Canadian public came from Chris Matthews himself. Too much "noise" and not enough substance? Change the channel.

Harper Job Cuts Provide Perfect Opportunity for Revenge

2012-01-02T05:41:00.000-08:00

On the front page of yesterday's Toronto Star, Les Whittington and Bruce Campion-Smith reveal the thousands of civil services jobs being cut by the Harper government. This after an election promise made by John Baird not to make those cuts.

What he really meant to say was vote for us and if we get another minority, those jobs will be safe. Silly enough to give us a majority, and you're on your own.

Running down the list, it's easy to see why the various departments have been targeted.

Government Services - losing 72 auditors as part of the 687 getting the axe. Harper hates auditors.

Environment Canada - losing 300 scientists and meteorologists. Harper hates scientists and has decided that we don't need people sitting around watching meteors all day (she says tongue in cheek).

Fisheries and Oceans - losing 150. Now that he has allowed mining companies to dump toxic waste into our waterways, and multinational corporations to disease our fish, what's the point? I hear that lice infested three-eyed salmon will become a delicacy.

The National Gallery of Canada - After trying to move many of our treasures to a corporation in Calgary, employees here only get in his way. Besides he has already created a National art gallery after plastering the walls with photos of himself.

Human Resources and Skills development will lose almost 4,000, Canadian Heritage, 579, Statistics Canada (who needs statistics?) 725, RCMP 1,106, Veterans Affairs, 53 (at a time when vets returning from Afghanistan need help), Museum of Civilization, the list goes on.

I know that the right-wing is salivating, but hold on there boys. In the five years that Harper has been in office, the public service grew by 45% as he had a lot of patronage appointments to fill. (Public sector swelled under Tories: Number of public servants far outpaced population growth, Macleans, November 30, 2011) Spending also increased from $209 billion when he took power, to a whopping $274 billion, and the budget for the PMO has risen at a rate of $10 million annually.

Like Ronald Reagan, Harper was never really a small government guy. A bloated cabinet and the addition of Parliamentary secretaries, are only a fraction of the people this man needs to make him look good. Image consultants, photographers, videographers (Taxpayers on hook for $1.7-million as PMO rolls out video, By Bruce Cheadle, The Canadian Press, December 08, 2009), the largest communications staff of any prime minister, all work to make him look prime ministerial.

This government also increased the use of private consultants, after it was discovered that they outspent all others on opinion polls. “The reality is the Conservatives have increased spending on consultants by $3 billion per year since taking office." These consultants are doing the jobs once performed by cabinet ministers and their staff.

Under Harper, a cabinet minister has one job and one job only. To do what he tells them to do.

Flaherty is also promising that many vital public services will be cut so that Harper and his team can continue to live the lavish lifestyle they have grown accustomed to.

Instead of paying $90,000 per day to a private consultant who is supposed to save us money (?), this government should just start doing their job, instead of wasting so much taxpayer money, to provide the image that they are doing their job.

This sounds like John Baird and Ontario under Mike Harris. Baird hired a consulting service to help him save money when he headed Social Service. It cost Ontarians four to one, what it would have cost had he just left well enough alone.

Not a Good Time for Stephen Harper to be Compared to Richard Nixon

2011-12-31T05:05:00.000-08:00

The historian Garry Wills once observed that Richard Nixon wanted to be president not to govern the nation but to undermine the government. The Nixon presidency was one long counterinsurgency campaign against key American institutions like the courts, the FBI, the state department and the CIA. Harper has the same basic approach to politics: attack not just political foes but the very institutions that make governing possible. The state for Nixon and Harper exists not as an instrument of policy making but as an alien force to be subdued.

If it's not the media, or the courts, or the Senate, or Elections Canada, it's the Wheat Board, the federal government's own spending power, the bureaucracy, the gun registry ... Canadians should rightly wonder why their head of government has such a problem with so many Canadian institutions. (1)

It certainly is a "wonder" and a bigger "wonder" how someone who hated our institutions this much, was given the job of upholding them.

From Nixonland to Harperland, a story is told of unprecedented control in what are supposed to be healthy democracies. National Post's Kelly McParland said that it was the result of a "siege mentality".

One of the many online encyclopedias defines “siege mentality” as “a shared feeling of helplessness, victimization and defensiveness” which “refers to persecution feelings by anyone in the minority, or of a group that views itself as a threatened minority.” If there’s anything that typifies the Conservatives under Mr. Harper, it’s the notion that anyone outside the party is to be viewed with suspicion, and even within the party trust is to be handed out sparingly. Beyond the fortified redoubt of the Prime Minister’s inner circle, everyone is on permanent probation. (2)

Richard Nixon kept enemy lists maintained by Watergate plumber Chuck Colson. Word was that you didn't want to get on that list. Many in the media did make it there.

"Never forget," he tells national security advisers Henry Kissinger .. and Alexander Haig in a conversation on December 14 1972, "the press is the enemy, the press is the enemy. The establishment is the enemy, the professors are the enemy, the professors are the enemy. Write that on a blackboard 100 times." (3)

Harper's enemy list extends to young girls who share photos of themselves standing with his political opponents, on Facebook.

There is yet another book written on the life of Richard Nixon, that uncovers not only more control and paranoia, but a violent temper, a battle with alcoholism, wife beating and even homosexuality. I'll leave out the last three in comparing Harper to Nixon, but his pathological control and violent temper are well known, despite attempts to keep it from the public.

Harper's former VP when he headed up the National Citizens Coaltiion, Gerry Nicholls, writes in his book Harper, Me and the NCC, that Harper's temper is not red hot but icy blue, and when he was in a "mood" you kept out of his way.

Lloyd Mackey in The Pilgrimage of Stephen Harper, tells of a chair throwing incident at a Conservative Party convention because things were not going his way.

Former Alliance MP Larry Spencer, in his book Sacrificed: Truth or Politics, relates an interview he had with Harper, where he was torn down for a radio interview, in which he spoke of a "homosexual agenda". Harper wasn't angry about about the gay bashing, but it's timing, suggesting that he was "put up to it" by his political enemies.

Belinda Stonach and Garth Turner took similar dressing downs, where the air was so blue, the big guy may have set a new record for his use of profanity. Others have confirmed, off the record of course, that Harper has quite a potty mouth, and they never want to get caught in his verbal line of fire.

In the many books written on Stephen Harper, the authors have tred softly, opening up many areas for discussion, that for the most part have remained closed. Of the ones I've read, Lawrence Martin's Harperland and Christian Nadeau's Rogue in Power, are the most revealing, and the ones that we should be paying attention to.

Jeffrey Simpson in his critique of Harperland wrote for the Globe and Mail: Looking for Nixon-like tendencies in Harperland

... the interesting comparisons arise between Mr. Harper and Mr. Nixon. By all accounts, and especially those in Harperland, the Prime Minister is not only a partisan, as all prime ministers must be, but he viscerally hates Liberals. His objective is not just to defeat but to obliterate the Liberal Party of Canada. For that purpose, the gloves are off all the time, from nasty attack ads against Liberal leaders to ritualistic, partisan punches from him and his ministers.

Mr. Nixon saw enemies everywhere: in the media, the “liberal elites,” the Ivy League colleges .... He carried enormous resentments, remembered many past slights, and bottled them up inside where they fed paranoid streaks in his character. He was a control freak, and demanded that his staff act accordingly.

With the release of Nixon's Darkest Secrets, Harper might want to tone it down a bit, before someone starts looking for his.

Sources:

1. The Canadian Nixon: Stephen Harper's feud with Elections Canada is just the latest front in his war against government institutions, By Dimitry Anastakis and Jeet Heer, The UK Guardian, April 24, 2008

2. Harper discovers it's easy to find enemies, if you look hard enough, By Kelly McParland, National Post, April 23, 2008

3. Recordings reveal Richard Nixon's paranoia: Recordings show Nixon urged staff to use all means to discredit his political opponents, both large and small, By Dan Glaister, UK Guardian, December 3, 2008

Some Advice This Holiday Season. Don't Fall Victim to the Toys

2011-12-24T04:43:00.000-08:00

As we're dealing with all of those battery operated toys this season, I thought I'd thought I'd share a column I wrote for the Kingston Whig Standard, that was published two years ago.

My own chilling experiences.

It got a bit botched up in the archives with the opening at the bottom, but this is how it was originally written.

A Game For Ernie

In our golden years, my husband and I have accepted the task of raising a grandchild. This can be very rewarding, but not without it's challenges. However, if I had to cite one complaint that would surpass all others, it would be the toys. Not that they are strewn all over, but the toys themselves. With our own children the worst we could expect was picking lego out of our feet, riding a matchbox car down the stairs, or having them blow something up with their chemistry set. (though it was usually just "Hey mom, smell this")

But my grandson's toys have the ability to manifest themselves into life forms that awaken at the slightest hint of a human presence. If I walk by his bed a little voice from underneath calls out "Hi, I'm Ernie. Let's play a game". And though I've now resorted to suggesting a game that involves Ernie and an open window, he's relentless.

But that's not the worst of it. Entering my grandson's toy room can be like a trip to Hades. Truck lights beam, sirens go off and big purple dinosaur tells me he loves me. The book shelf comes to life with Dora wanting me to go exploring and an invisible game demanding that I find the letter 'g'. Before I can even find the game, a buzzer sounds and I am taunted with 'Wrong. Try again."

Even in the night the slightest movement will generate barnyard sounds, screeches and squeals that appear to be coming from the toy box, though I've never felt brave enough to attempt to locate the source.

You probably think I could simply turn them off. However, even if I was able to locate the cleverly concealed switches with their iconic symbols, they never work. They merely kick the toy up a notch. Oh, take the batteries out, you say? Now there's a good idea.

In another attempt to remind me that they are smarter than I, they hide their batteries behind tiny little doors, held in place with tiny little screws, embedded so deep inside that even if I could find the right tiny little screwdriver, I couldn't target that sucker if my life depended on it.

So I have decided to surrender to the toys, until I'm better equipped to launch a counter attack. But for now, I must go. Ernie is calling me. He wants to play a game. I was unable to locate the right screwdriver, but have found the perfect hammer. "C'mon Ernie. Let's play!"

--------------------

All the best of the season to everyone.

Will the Flaherty-Harper Ticking Time Bomb be Detonated?

2011-12-23T04:53:00.000-08:00

In Jim Flaherty's first budget, he announced that his government was opening up the housing market to private insurers. “These changes will result in greater choice and innovation in the market for mortgage insurance, benefiting consumers and promoting home ownership."

Loosely translated, the sub-prime mortgage industry was heading north, and so was AIG.

On May 2, 2006, in his first budget, Mr. Flaherty announced that not only would Ottawa guarantee the business of U.S. insurers, it was doubling the guarantee to $200-billion.

And despite repeated warnings that Canada's financial system was being exposed to far too much risk, Flaherty locked arms with his boss and said "bring it on".

Tick, tick, tick.

If you remember, AIG was one of the early victims of the Wall Street induced economic crisis, and in fact their "innovation" helped to create the collapse, when with the help of Goldman Sachs, they backed too many risky mortgages.

Of course that was the game all along as what are known as "derivatives" became a popular form of investing. The way it works is that people who wouldn't normally qualify for a mortgage, suddenly became home owners. This brought more competition into the housing market creating a bubble.

The investor then took out an insurance policy on the risky mortgages, knowing that they would fail, and when the housing bubble collapsed, they cashed in and AIG cashed out. Matt Tabbi called it the "swoop and squat".

Yet again, knowing how risky derivatives are to a nation's economy, Jim Flaherty hired a Goldman Sachs employee to help him get the Canadian taxpayer into the game, even investing some of our Canada Pension Plan funds.

Tick, tick, tick.

When the economic crisis hit, Flaherty knew he was in trouble. The banks after repeated warnings, let him know that they were not going to shoulder the burden of his mismanagement, so he was forced to buy back all the high-risk debt that he had saddled them with.

Unlike the bank bailouts south of the border, where the banks had to pay the government back, this was an outright transfer of rotten paper, in exchange for $125 billion in cold hard cash. Our cash, now backed by what could very well be worthless junk. And since we didn't actually have $125 billion sitting around in a safe, we had to borrow the money, adding to our national debt.

Tick, tick, tick.

The International Monetary Fund is now warning that Canada could be facing the collapse of our housing bubble, something that the government was warned about two years ago.

Canada’s average home price is about 10 per cent higher than models suggest it should be, posing a “vulnerability” to the country’s economic outlook, the International Monetary Fund warns in a new report. A drop in prices would be a blow to already highly indebted consumers. With household debt at record levels of about 150 per cent of disposable income, the domestic spending boom that helped Canada weather the financial crisis already is at its limits.

When Flaherty bailed out our banks, he said that it was to "free up funds", that could be lent to consumers so that they would spend, and help keep up the illusion of his sound fiscal management. Now Goldman Sach's Mark Carney, head of the Bank of Canada, is blaming consumers for their personal debt, the result of spending that they no doubt would have curbed, had they known just how shaky our economy really was.

Tick, tick .... TOCK?!

The IMF is now investigating CMHC. Where were they in 2006?

Life Getting Tough in Harperland

2011-12-21T04:11:00.000-08:00

The consumer price index reveals that Canadians are paying higher prices today than a year ago, with significant increases in food (up 4.8%), shelter (up 1.5%) and gasoline (up 13.5%).

Yet wages have only increased .08% We are not keeping pace.

The Harper government can't blame this on the global crisis because similar increases were reported in 2008, before the so-called crisis.

We were then in an election where the Harperites were promising that Canada would be safe from any economic distresses under their leadership.

We don't really need statistics to tell us that we are worse off today then we were five years ago.

Household debt is at a record high. Income disparity is rising faster that many developed countries.

Poverty is on the rise and when a report was presented to Stephen Harper that outlined ways to decrease poverty, he threw it in the trash. Not his problem.

Compare those headlines with this one: Scotiabank, CIBC Top Bonus Increases After Record Bank Profits

Or this one: Big Oil Companies Post Huge Profits On High Gas Prices

Or this one as we remember the Attawapiskat crisis : Record sales push De Beers’ profits up 55 percent

How do you like Neoconservatism so far?

Jim Flaherty Joins the GOP in Bid to Stick it to Workers

2011-12-20T02:25:00.000-08:00

I can understand now why Stephen Harper claims to only watch American news. How else can his government follow the trends, though the GOP are lagging?

Jim Flaherty announced an increase in payroll taxes ages ago.

The parties who claim to support lower taxes are instead increasing them, though only for those lucky enough to still have jobs. Wealthy citizens have seen their taxes reduced dramatically on both sides of the border.

Flaherty is now framing his tax hike as only half of what he originally threatened. The GOP just says take a hike. Someone has to pay for the Bush tax cuts for the greedy.

Flaherty is also warning provinces to start cutting back on healthcare now at a time when our population is aging, and we need it the most. "Canadians have to understand that everyone will have to pay their share."

Their share of what? Their share of planes with no engines so Lockheed Martin can prosper? Their share of nuclear submarines? Their share of new uniforms for the Monarchist league? Their share of new prisons when our crime rate is at its lowest in history? Their share of corporate tax cuts? Their share of blood for oil wars?

What??????????

I can think of many ways to find the necessary funds for healthcare. How about cutting the size of cabinet and their Parliamentary secretaries for a start?

Reform Party Has Come Full Circle With Attacks on Quebec and First Nations

2011-12-16T04:48:00.000-08:00

More than two decades ago, when the Reform Party was organizing, several protest groups formed to try to keep this group from gaining influence in Canada. It was well known that they were xenophobic, homophobic, misogynist and just plain weird.

For the most part the media ignored them as just another Western protest party, so when a motion was raised to round up all "undesirable" immigrants and ship them back, they smiled. When Sikhs were referred to as "ragheads", they grimaced. When it was determined that a woman's place was in the home, they shook their head and walked away.

Even the right-wing Toronto Sun called them a "bunch of dung kicking rednecks".

If only they had paid attention then, we might not be in the mess we're in now, with a government that is determined to bootjack every Canadian value we ever held, and turn us into a country based on American conservatism. When head of the National Citizens Coalition, Harper wrote an oped piece for the National Post, praising Alberta and "its adherence to "American enterprise and individualism", suggesting that it was a better model for Canada.

And later, "Westerners, but especially Albertans, founded the Reform/Alliance to get "in" to Canada. The rest of the country has responded by telling us in no uncertain terms that we do not share their 'Canadian values.' Fine. Let us build a society on Alberta values." (Dec 8, 2000)

Which he clearly states means an adherence to "American enterprise and individualism". I think the Tea Party is selling cushions with that slogan embroidered on them. They make great stocking stuffers.

The horrendous omnibus crime bill, that even made Texas lawmakers blush, is a devastating blow to this country, but what I find more alarming, are the open attacks on Canada's First Nation communities and Quebec.

The Reform/Alliance had a severe set of policies for dealing with Canada's Aboriginal people, and with a majority, Harper can finally do what he intended to do when he wrote much of the policy. Secret committee meetings headed by the American Tom Flanagan, author of the racist First Nations, Second Thoughts, that diminish not only their role in Canadian history, but challenges their position, guaranteed by legally binding treaties.

The committee will be discussing the right to sell land on Reserves, but it's not too hard to determine how this will play out. Natural Resources on those lands will no longer belong to the community, and if a non-aboriginal wanted to purchase a lot to build a home and the band refused to sell it to them, Ezra Levant would go into another "white people" rant, calling the community "racist". They would soon be driven out .... again.

Quebec is also feeling the affects of the Reform Party agenda.

As the new Bloc leader, Daniel Paillé says: "Quebeckers are watching a Conservative majority government reshape Canada into something unfamiliar. The crackdown on crime, the elimination of the gun registry and the fact that Quebec didn’t get a piece of a gigantic federal contract to build new ships are just the start."

The Bloc are now tied with the NDP for support in that province, and with a feeling of isolation, brought on by these fundamental changes, I think the Bloc will rise again, perhaps stronger than ever.

John Ibbitson said recently that the problem the NDP face is that most of their MPs are from Quebec, while most of their membership is from English speaking Canada. How do they regain the trust of Quebekers without alienating their core? Remember that several of their new MPs have separatist leanings, while the NDP is firmly federalist.

I have to admit that I'm very frightened for our future.

I received two emails and one comment on Facebook, from my right-wing followers, about Canada's sixth place showing on the annual "Prosperity Index". However, what's interesting is how we got that ranking.

Beat out by Norway, Denmark, Australia, New Zealand and Sweden, the indicators were "social equality", "tolerance" and "welcoming immigration policies", all things that the Reformers want to change.

Income disparity is on the rise, and with that goes "social equality". Our immigration policies are becoming as Draconian as our new law and order agenda, and human rights offices have been closed so that we won't hear how "tolerant" we are now.

I remember a comment I read some time ago. I can't recall the source, but they said "those who take credit for the rainfall should not complain when they are blamed for the drought".

Canada's right-wing is taking credit for our current standing, despite the fact that they had no hand in the things that earned us that position. But I can guarantee that if we fall over the next year or two, they will not shoulder any of the blame.

The big question, however, will be if as a people, we change, because ultimately we are the ones responsible for our position on that scale.

There is an interesting segment in the CBC archives, of when Reform decided to stop bashing Quebec, in order to take the party nationwide. To appeal to the mainstream, they knew that they would have to tone down their rhetoric.

But Harper no longer needs Quebec, so all bets are off. What a horrible man and what a horrible party.

I Love Time Magazine's Choice For Person of the Year. Us

2011-12-14T06:57:00.000-08:00

Time magazine has chosen "The Protester" as Person of the Year.

From the Arab Springs to the "Occupy" movement, those who literally stand up for democracy are being honoured. Time said it is recognizing protesters because they are “redefining people power” around the world.

"People power". What a lovely term. And the nice thing is that just as the word "people" includes those of all ages, cultures and political goals, so too are the protesters.

The 99%.

We rock.

Beautiful Attawapiskat Christmas Carol

2011-12-13T13:59:00.000-08:00

The song is Jesus Ahatonia, written by St. Jean de Brebeuf in 1643. Absolutely beautiful.

Well the S.O.B. Did it. Canada Officially Out of Kyoto

2011-12-13T03:48:00.000-08:00

The US announced their energy strategy in 2001 which was largely developed by Vice-President Dick Cheney and the large fossil fuel and nuclear industry companies. Capitalizing on the California energy crisis, which had been brought on by the market manipulations of another close Bush crony, Enron’s Ken Lay, the US Administration called for more of everything — coal, oil, gas, nukes. The only energy item excluded was energy conservation. As Cheney said, “While conservation may be a personal virtue, it has no place in an energy strategy.” Canada’s Minister of Natural Resources at the time, Ralph Goodale, commented that conservation was an essential part of the energy planning of “any intelligent society.” Where will the US find the vast amounts of energy it demands for its massively inefficient and polluting economy? George W. Bush has stated, “We’ve got a plan to make sure that gas comes — flows freely out of Canada into the United States.” (The Energy Onslaught: The Impact of the Bush-Cheney Energy Plan on Canada’s Wilderness. the Sierra Club)

If then energy minister Ralph Goodale, was challenging Dick Cheney by promoting conservation, what was the climate change denial industry going to do?

In her book It's the Crude, Dude; Linda McQuaig discusses the debate around Kyoto. Dick Cheney and the Bush Administration of course hated it, but they also hated any talk of conservation, something Cheney sneered at. McQuaig reveals how a Canadian anti-Kyoto group sprang up overnight, sponsored by the oil companies, to defend Dick Cheney's position. (p. 133)

Some of Ernie Eves’s top cabinet ministers partied last week with Kyoto-bashers the Canadian Coalition for Responsible Environmental Solutions, a lobby group with close ties to both Ralph Klein and the energy industry ... It took place in the Queen’s Park dining hall and was a very chummy shrimp-and-wine gathering, a chance for members of the coalition -- the Canadian Association of Oil Well Drilling Contractors, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Landmen, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, etc -- to schmooze Tory heavies.

There were speeches by coalition organizers, and a particularly passionate Ontario energy minister, John Baird, made his anti-Kyoto rallying cry. Needless to say, the audience was very receptive. Baird’s parliamentary assistant, Scarborough MPP Steve Gilchrist*, who at one time helped block developers’ plans for the Oak Ridges Moraine, was busy propping open doors with chairs to give relief to a very hot and stuffy room. I couldn’t help remarking to him that perhaps the room was so unbearably hot because of climate change. He was not amused.

While Eves has been slightly slippery on just where he stands on Kyoto, it was interesting to learn that this meeting was organized by Guy Giorno, Mike Harris’s old chief of staff and ultimate Tory party insider. Giorno now works with National Public Relations (NPR), the coalition’s high-priced lobby firm. (Big Oil's Kyoto Party: Harris whiz kid pulls strings at wine and shrimp fete, By Josh Matlow, NOW Magazine, October 24, 2002)

A decade ago John Baird and Harper's former chief of staff, Guy Giorno, were sweating at a shrimp fete and rallying the climate change deniers.

The Canadian Coalition for Responsible Environmental Solutions, was an AstroTurf group created by Giorno and funded by the industry that he lobbied for.

Given that we have had a decade of this nonsense, is it any surprise that Canada is backing out of Kyoto?

The only problem with the billboard at the Copenhagen climate conference, is that Stephen Harper will never, ever, ever, say he's sorry for anything. His job is to make as much money as possible for the oil industry, and he's doing that job.

I just wish he'd do the one he was elected to do and start standing up for the people of Canada. We already have enough black eyes, did he need to give us a bloody nose and fat lip too?

The sad thing is that in their search for "balance" the media will somehow make this a good thing, allowing the figures that Harper has pulled out of his butt, to stand as fact. I wish they'd remember that this is their country too, not to mention their planet.

*Steve Gilchrist was the former boss of Harper MP Paul Calandra

I Think I Can Answer the Question on This Week's Cover of Time

2011-12-12T14:53:00.000-08:00

"In Gallup's poll of the Republican faithful at the start of 1966, Nixon was ahead by twenty-three points. Michigan governor George Romney sat fourth. But Romney was the one all the pundits were picking ..." Nixonland, By Rick Perlstein, 2008

George Romney was of course, Mitt's father. But why did the pundits think that he would beat out Nixon?

I just received this week's Time magazine and on the front cover they have George's son asking "Why don't they like me?"

On Chris Matthews Hardball this week, several on the panel are still predicitng a Romney victory. However, what they fail to understand is that the base of the party are not looking for a Republican who can win, but a true "conservative" to carry their banner, come hell or high water.

In 1966, the media had not yet caught on to the fact that the Republican Party had been hijacked by the conservative movement. They simply felt that George Romney was the best man for the job, and assumed that all those voting Republican would see that.

However, Conservatives would not have thrown their support behind Romney the way they did Nixon, earning him not only the candidacy, but the presidency.

Newt Gingrich is surging in the polls despite the fact that he is a serial adulterer, and despite the fact that other polls indicate that he would not do well against Obama.

He is a regular on Fox News so he's one of them.

It's not that don't like you Mitt. You're just not "conservative" enough. It's that simple.

All the attacks in the world, won't change that.

The Problem With the Media May Not be Lack of Balance

2011-12-10T07:16:00.000-08:00

In her book The Right is Wrong, Arianna Huffington devotes a chapter to the media's search for truth, or abandonment of it, depending on how you look at it.

Huffington is a former Republican who left the party when she realized that they had gone completely crazy. If you recognize her name, it's because she is the founder of the Huffington Post.

She claims not to be angry with the right-wing media. After all, they are only doing what we expect them to do, so we don't read their papers, listen to their radio programs, or watch their television stations.

They have become part of our culture, so we're aware of them, but they don't have an impact on our own views.

Where the problem lies, she believes, is with what is supposed to be the mainstream media. Those charged with providing unbiased news and seeking the truth in every story.

However, in today's toxic political climate, an attempt to seek the truth, may be an archaic principle, because the mainstream media has allowed the Right's radical ideas to become "ordinary".

A key to understanding the fanatical Right's takeover of the Republican Party and how their ideas spread to the rest of the country is looking at the role of the media—not the Fox News pseudo-newsmen or the talk radio blowhards, but the respectable, mainstream media. Without the enabling of the traditional media—through their obsession with "balance" and their pathological devotion to the idea that truth is always found in the middle—the radical. Right would never have been able to have its ideas taken seriously. If not for the media's appeals to balance, nea-conservatives would have been laughed out of the court of public opinion long ago. And when the media do attempt to dig into the ideological underpinnings of debates about policy and current affairs, they get buried in another form of disorder. (1)

Fox News and Sun TV have contrarians on all the time, but only to set them up for ridicule. They are not seeking the truth, but simply reaffirming their truth, to the people who watch their programs.

When Shelley Glover remarked in a CBC segment, that "it is a well known fact that all cops vote Conservative and all criminals vote Liberal", she should have been rebuked. Yet her insane comment was allowed to stand as legitimate. A contrary point of view, that we have a Conservative law enforcement, instead of one paid with the tax dollars from those of all political stripes?

The Left/Right Paradigm

Richard Nixon was the first to suggest that there was a left wing media bias. From his inauguration in 1969, until the day he left office in disgrace, he exacted his revenge on the press, once stating: "One day we'll get them - we'll get them on the ground where we want them. And we'll stick our heels in, step on them hard, and twist." (2)

His anger wasn't unjustified, though it had nothing to do with a left bias, but a stalker columnist named Jack Anderson, who matched dirty journalism with dirty politics. As for the rest of the media, Nixon simply didn't like getting caught.

However, since that time, the media has enabled the Right to set the tone of debate, by establishing a left/right paradigm. Thus all arguments are now based on left/right "opinions", instead of established facts.

Climate change is a perfect example of this. Jim Hansen, a climate scientist and director of NASA's Goddard Institute, wrote in the New York Review of what happens when highly qualified experts try to make their case in the mainstream media.

I used to spread the blame uniformly until, when I was about to appear on public television, the producer informed me that the program "must" also include a "contrarian" who would take issue with claims of global warming. Presenting such a view, he told me, was a common practice in commercial television as well as radio and newspapers. Supporters of public TV or advertisers, with their own special interests, require "balance" as a price for their continued financial support. Gore's book reveals that while more than half of the recent newspaper articles on climate change have given equal weight to such contrarian views, virtually none of the scientific articles in peer-reviewed journals have questioned the consensus that emissions from human activities cause global warming. As a result, even when the scientific evidence is clear, technical nitpicking by contrarians leaves the public with the false impression that there is still great scientific uncertainty about the reality and causes of climate change. (3)

Can you imagine if today's media was around at the time of other scientific breakthroughs? When Jonas Salk developed a vaccine for polio, would we have Stanley Knowles (CCF/NDP) and Louis St. Laurent (Liberal) arguing its merits and pushing to immunize all Canadian children, with contrarian Solon Low (Social Credit) calling it a Jewish plot to suck money out of the treasury.

Of course not. We trusted science and science prevailed in combating the disease.

So why are we leaving information about the devastating results of climate change, and human activity that is accelerating it, to politicians and political pundits? Harper claims that it is only a "theory" and that Kyoto was "essentially a socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing nations." (The Star, January 30, 2007) and we allow that to stand, just as we allow Glover's remark that all cops vote Conservative to stand.

Instead of truth vs lies, science vs non-scientific opinion, and fact vs myth, it has all come down to left vs right.

Not So Much Anger as Disappointment

I have found myself many times getting angry with the media, and not the obvious right-wing media, whose job it is to spout nonsense, but with the mainstream media.

As Huffington suggests, it is because of disappointment. We expect more and get less. In an effort to seek balance, they have allowed the conservative movement to frame all debate. We know that Canada's crime rate is the lowest in history, but apparently only those on the left pay attention to the facts. And by giving the contrarian viewpoint, that crime is on the rise, so we need more prisons; there is an implication that the facts may be open to debate. A confused public shrugs and moves on. They'll let future generations deal with the mess that this change in direction will create.

During Harper's first and second term, every time that conservative corruption was revealed, the MSM countered it by bringing up the Sponsorship Scandal. In other words, yes the Harper government was corrupt, but what about those darn Liberals? They gave him an excuse. And yet not one mentioned that most involved in the scandal, were hired by Brian Mulroney (4), in the first Adscam.

With such an entrenched right-wing media, the old rules of "balance" no longer applies. What we need is argument against right-wing nonsense, instead of providing it with a platform.

And What About the Auditions?

There is a joke often thrown around, that many journalists and columnists are jockeying for senate seats, so that their work becomes their portfolio. It is well known that Mike Duffy had been trying to get a senate seat for years, but it was his complicity in the annihilation of Stéphane Dion, that finally gave him his coveted spot.

But what of others, like Angelo Persichilli? I used to enjoy his columns, with the exception of the Quebec bashing, until he started acting weird. Becoming the Liberals' Jack Anderson (2) he turned into a tabloid writer, listening in on private conversations, in an effort to discredit them at every turn. He went from a respected columnist to a peeping tom.

So should we have been surprised that he was given the top job on Harper's communications team? They needed someone without integrity, who would do anything to dig up dirt on Harper's political opponents, and he proved with his latest columns, that he was up for the job. Or I should say down.

We have some very good journalists in this country, but the Chantel Heberts, Evan Solomons and Lloyd Mansbridges, must step up to the plate and debunk conservative spin, instead of turning the crank. Talk to experts not idiots, or risk joining the latter.

Sources:

1. Right is Wrong: How the Lunatic Fringe Hijacked America, Shredded the Constitution and Made us All Feel Less Safe (And What You Need to Know to End the Madness), By Arianna Huffington, Aldred A. Knopf, 2008, ISBN: 978-0-307-26966-9, p. 5

2. Poisoning the Press: Richard Nixon, Jack Anderson and the Rise of Washington's Scandal Culture, By Mark Feldstein, Farrar, Strauss and Giroux, 2010, ISBN: 978-0-374-23530-7

3. Huffington, 2008, pp. 23-24

4. On the Take: Crime, Corruption and Greed in the Mulroney Years, By Stevie Cameron, Macfarlane Walter & Ross, 1994, ISBN: 0-921912-73-0

Are First Nation Complaints All Part of a Commie Plot?

2011-12-08T07:06:00.000-08:00

At the root of the Conservative movement on both sides of the border, is the fear of Communism. In the U.S. they rallied around Joseph McCarthy, and Ronald Reagan became the poster boy for the anti-communist movement.

I read yesterday that Canada's First Nation chiefs are taking their case to the UN, and I think that's a good idea, because clearly the Harper government has overstepped their bounds.

The chiefs asked the UN to appoint a "special rapporteur" to examine whether the Harper government is dealing with the crisis in a way that meets its obligations under Canadian and international treaties concerning First Nations people. The declaration, which also calls on the federal and provincial governments to respond to communities in dire need, was added to the meeting's agenda at the last minute as the controversy over Attawapiskat grows.

That story reminded me of something I had read several years ago about this party's views on Canada's Aboriginal people, and fortunately, I was able to find the piece again online. It was written by Alex Roslin, a leading Canadian investigative journalist , and was first published in Windtalker, Volume 17, Issue 12, 2000.

Under the heading: New name, old attitudes - CRCAP, Roslin warns us of what would happen if the Alliance Party was ever able to form government. And now that the Alliance Party has formed government, his predictions are coming true.

In 2000, the Reform Party underwent a name change, but kept all of their prejudices intact, justified in their mind, because of a commie threat.

So you thought the Cold War was over and communism was dead. Not according to Canada's great right hope, the Canadian Alliance. The new right-wing party believes the red menace is lurking in First Nations communities across the land, and promises to stamp it out. The Canadian Alliance, which unites Reformers and [provincial] Conservatives [Mike Harris and Ralph Klein] and has set its sights on winning the next federal election, has a platform on Aboriginal issues that promises to bring relations with Native peoples to a boil ... The new party also has an interesting view on Aboriginal self-government: it should be eliminated because it is "communistic."

Jason Kenney who was handling Stockwell Day's leadership campaign, had suggested that Aboriginal self government, would be a breeding ground for Communism, and Diane Ablonczy said that

...the Canadian Alliance would invoke the notwithstanding clause - the device used by the Quebec government to sustain its unconstitutional French language law - to overrule court decisions affecting First Nations and any other issue the party doesn't like. ... Also new in the Canadian Alliance platform is opposition to "race-based allocation of harvest rights to natural resources." This particular position brings the party into conflict with numerous recent Supreme Court decisions and international legal norms.

Even their own constitutional experts warned that the notwithstanding clause could not be used on Native issues.

When Stephen Harper headed up the Alliance he shared the same views, and in fact, during his 2004 election campaign (then under yet another name: The Conservative Party of Canada) he ran against our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Constitutional experts have warned that the Conservative platform is so anti-charter it is a legal minefield. "A lot of this stuff raises serious constitutional issues." the University of Ottawa's Ed Ratushny told CanWest Global News Service. The experts have identified at least 12 positions that either, violate the charter, are ripe for serious court challenges or would require amendments to the Constitution.

If this government was never prepared to uphold our Constitution or our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, why would we expect them to honour legally binding treaties?

"They are saying they would just disregard treaties," said Jean LaRose, an AFN spokesman. "They are just as extremist as before, but now they are trying to form a party that would stretch across Canada and form the government. That, for us, is very worrisome." "Here is a party that wishes to place itself above the law and above the courts," said AFN National Chief Phil Fontaine in a statement. "I wonder if Canadians understand the implications of such a movement. It could override any legislation or court decision if it chose to, using nothing more than its own judgement."

Is that not what this government has been doing since stretching across Canada? They have placed themselves above the law and if anyone disagrees with them, they simply use the law to tie things up in the courts until issues reach their best before date.

A federal court has just ruled that Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz "broke the law by not consulting with the Canadian Wheat Board or holding a farmer vote before moving to end the board's grain marketing monopoly.

"Had a meaningful consultative process been engaged to find a solution which meets the concerns of the majority, the present legal action might not have been necessary," Justice Douglas Campbell wrote in his decision. "... The minister will be held accountable for his disregard for the rule of law."

"Held accountable"? Since when has this government ever been held accountable for anything?

That idiot Peter Mackay is even thinking of suing Opposition members for suggesting that he was lying about his helicopter joy ride.

Of course, he'd have to sue Stephen Harper too, who gave a conflicting story to Mackay's, by saying he needed the helicopter because he was called back early from a fishing trip.

We elect MPs with the idea that they will either be part of the government, or part of the body elected to oppose the government, by trying to keep them honest. What good are they if they can simply be sued by the government for challenging them?

And again ... this is what passes for democracy in Harperland.

I hope the UN will step in and make Harper step up, but I'm not counting on it. He also campaigned against the United Nations.

"When it comes to issues of this country's vital security and national defence, you don't put that to the United Nations, which, quite frankly, is a coalition of everybody—the good, bad and ugly," (Stephen Harper, Toronto Star, February 28, 2004)

Will he simply claim that the Aboriginal communities are a threat to our security? I mean aren't they all Commies?

Attawapiskat Sheds Light on Canada's Ghetto System

2011-12-07T06:51:00.000-08:00

There was a joke floating around several years ago, with an American and Canadian arguing the benefits of their respective countries.

The Canadian lashed out at the American "At least in Canada, we don't have ghettos", to which the American replied, "I know. You call them "reserves"" Most of our cities do have ghettos, areas set aside for the poor, but the way in which many of our First Nations are forced to live, gives Canada no moral authority to criticize anyone.

I was sent a link to a story yesterday, a press release from 2005, after an agreement was reached between the community of Attawapiskat and De Beers Canada. (1) There was a sense of camaraderie, as both sides were simply then waiting for the environmental assessment before the project could begin. De Beers had held over 100 community meetings to sell the mines as a major boon to the economy of the region.

Former Attawapiskat Chief Mike Carpenter said , “De Beers Canada’s diamond mine is the first and only opportunity our community has ever had to break free of our soul-destroying poverty”

... among other issues, the mine sparked debate within the community regarding how to proceed given their longstanding interest in environmental protection and cultural preservation on one hand, and the economic benefits the mine could bring on the other (Inf. #2, 8). According to one informant, “the community was wary of the colonial history of De Beers and the mining industry`s track record with Aboriginal communities” (2)

This was to be a partnership, with the promise of prosperity for all.

So what went wrong? Why four years later were the people of Attawapiskat forced to put up road blocks, and why two years after that, are we still seeing images of "soul-destroying poverty"? According to residents, De Beers has not been honouring the Impact Benefit Agreement (3), and viewing the images we've seen the past week or so, it would be hard not to agree.

In Ezra Levant's rant, in which he blamed the "greedy" aboriginal community, he implied that at least one resident blamed the situation on their leaders, meaning that they agreed with the accusations of fund mismanagement. However, when I read comments from the community, the anger with their leaders, is over the agreement to allow De Beers to set up shop in the first place.

Besides worsening poverty, the community is subjected to racial attacks, workplace inequality and environmental damage, as a result of the mining operation. (4)

De Beers claimed in 2005, that they were sensitive to the needs of the community, understanding that once the diamonds were gone, they would be too, so wanted to leave the area in a better condition than it was when they went in. Instead they will be leaving Attawapiskat, not only poorer, but in turmoil.

But What of That Big Screen TV?

The right-wing noise machine has made much of the image of a big screen TV, a hockey rink with a Zamboni and a late model truck found in a ditch. If we gave them all that money, why did they waste it on such frivolous things?

A big screen TV would not be out of place in the homes of De Beers executives. In fact if we were watching a video of one of their estates and in the backyard there was an old rundown shack, we would question why with all their money they didn't have the eyesore removed.

The sight of that TV surrounded by such squalor, is actually a symbol of promises made and promises not kept. There should have been a big TV in every home and no one in the community should be forced to live in poverty.

The Victor Mine is producing 600,000 carats of diamonds per year. The provincial government receives an 11% levee and the federal government, 15% in corporate taxes. All money coming from diamonds being extracted from land owned by the Attawapiskat people.

Maybe instead of sending in auditors to examine the books of the reserve, we should send the auditors to the government offices and De Beers. Where is the adequate housing and largess, promised by this "partnership"? They are not receiving "public" hand outs, but their share of tax revenues and corporate profit.

Blogger BC Blue, brought up NDP’s Ian Capstick's interview on Power and Politics. Capstick speaks of visiting the reserve with Jack Layton, and being so moved that they sent sports equipment. I have to admit that my first reaction was sports equipment? Are you kidding me?

However, sometimes small gestures can make a huge difference.

I'm reminded of a story that I read several years ago in the Readers Digest. It was from a Canadian Vet who had been in Holland during the Liberation. He spoke of Dutch children who would often surround their camp, and how moved the Canadian soldiers were by the forlorn faces of these young people who had known nothing but war.

So the cook took what extra provisions they had and whipped up a batch donuts, and that snapshot in history, of those sticky smiling faces, left a lasting impression on the author of the story. That cook couldn't change what had happened, but he offered a glimmer of hope, and sometimes that's all we can do.

Attawapiskat Chief Theresa Spence kicked out the auditor sent by Harper, telling them that she just wasn't going to take it anymore. I am so proud of her.

The Harper government only moves in when the corporate sector is in trouble.

When lumber giant Domtar, was facing blockades at Barriere Lake, Harper placed the reserve under Third Party Management, and replaced the elected chief with corporate friendly Casey Ratt.

When a doctor reported a high occurrence of a rare form of cancer at Fort Chipewa, downstream from the tar sands, the Harper government vilified the physican, and when he appeared at a Parliamentary committee with an environmentalist, Conservative Peter Braid, that bumbling idiot, went on the attack, attempting to discredit them both.

That's what passes for democracy in Harperland.

His recent attempted takeover of the affairs of Attawapiskat, is just more corporate protectionism, and we all need to stand with Chief Spence. How much more can they be victimized?

Sources:

1. Attawapiskat gives thumbs up to mining project: The Victor diamond mine project passed its latest hurdle. Wawatay News, July 14, 2005: Volume 32 #14

2. Attawapiskat First Nation, Canadian Business Ethics Research Network, 2009

3. Attawapiskat members issue demands to DeBeers, Wawatay News, February 18, 2009

4. Attawapiskat unhappy over Victor Mine issues: Environmental, contract and discrimination concerns emerge, By: Nick Stewart, Northern Ontario Business, December 7, 2009

Even Canadian Bankers are Hoping that the "Occupy" Movement is a Success

2011-12-06T04:46:00.000-08:00

The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) released a report yesterday, showing that Canada's income disparity is growing faster even than that of the U.S. Low paying jobs and a diminishing middle class, are partly to blame, but also deregulation, that allowed the wealthy to become even wealthier, is a huge factor.

Jim Flaherty was on the defensive in the House yesterday, suggesting that his government has been creating good jobs, but all they created was a marketing strategy: The Economic Action Plan. They had no real economic plan, other than to move lobbyists and Goldman Sachs into their offices on Parliament Hill.

Do we really expect that lobbyists have our best interests at heart? Or Goldman Sachs?

Do you know what Goldman Sachs employee Mark Carney did before being named to head up up the Bank of Canada? He advised Russian oligarchs during the period of mass privatization, after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

According to Wikipedia:

During the 1990s, once Boris Yeltsin took office, the oligarchs emerged as well-connected entrepreneurs who started from nearly nothing and got rich through participation in the market via connections to the corrupt, but democratically elected, government of Russia during the state's transition to a market-based economy. The oligarchs became extremely unpopular with the Russian public, and are commonly thought to be the cause of much of the turmoil that plagued the country following the collapse of the Soviet Union. The Guardian described the oligarchs as "about as popular with your average Russian as a man idly burning bundles of £50s outside an orphanage".

Historian Daniel W. Michaels suggests that the Russian people were better off under Communism, as the word "corrupt" has replaced "authoritarian". You would think that capitalists would want to make their system more palpable, in order for it to survive, but instead they have only exposed the ugliness.

Bankers on the side of the "Occupy" Movement?

In October, TD Bank CEO Ed Clark, spoke of the imminent threat to Canada's economy, citing several root causes.

Consumer and employer confidence, demographic forces that are causing demands for government services to grow faster than revenues, and globalization that has produced massive increases in income around the world, but its benefits have been unevenly distributed.

Clark's speech combines the economic with the social, something that is missed under neoconservatism. As Margaret Thatcher once said, "There is no such thing as society". Neocons believe that if you allow the rich to get richer, the benefits will "trickle down", but that isn't happening. It didn't work for George Bush and it won't work for Stephen Harper.

However, Clark presents another cause of our economic woes: "divisive politics", and he urged business leaders and politicians to "stand against divisiveness and political extremes."

Even with a majority, Harper continues to play political games instead of focusing on the needs of Canadians, and engages in Nixonian politics, instead of governing.

During the 2006 election campaign the media asked Paul Martin how much he thinks about strategy. He replied "seldom". They asked Stephen Harper the same question, and he replied "24/7". Nixon's response to the same question was 6 days out of 7, and that was after he won the election. It's politics all the time, and the constant game playing is hurting everyone.

At a time when all elected officials should be putting their heads together to sort out this mess, the Conservatives prefer to go it alone, suggesting that only they can save us.

Only they can bail out our banks and then lie about it.

Only they can spend $18 million more on gazebos for Tony Clement's riding, than infrastructure in Attawapiskat.

Only they can expand our prisons when Canada's crime rate is the lowest in history.

Only they can buy planes without engines and contemplate the purchase of nuclear submarines, while Canadian citizens are suffering.

Only they can bloat their cabinet and enlarge their executive with Parliamentary secretaries, meaning fewer elected MPs working for anyone other than the Conservative Party of Canada.

Ed Clark also offers some advise to the Occupy movement:

Asked by the Toronto Star what he would tell the protesters, he said: "My main advice is stick to your guns. When people say, 'You don’t have a solution,' say, 'Of course we don't. If there was a solution, don't you think people would be doing it?' To ask the people who occupy Wall Street or Bay Street to have a full answer is absurd. They're doing their job which is to say, 'If you think this [system] is working for everyone, it's not.'"

Globalization isn't working. Neoconservatism isn't working. Partisan politics are not working.

This government is failing us so we need to build on this "Occupy" movement. We need more government revenue, not less, but instead of hitting workers, as Flaherty has done, we must go after corporations and our wealthiest citizens, demanding that they start paying their share.

We've propped them up long enough.

MacKay's Joy Ride Not a One Of, But Part of Conservative Culture of Entitlement

2011-12-04T15:16:00.000-08:00

I love the above cartoon from the Montreal Gazette. Brilliant.

Did he or didn't he? Only the prime minister knows for sure. Give me a break. Do they honestly expect us to believe that this was the first and only time this government used our military as their own private airline?

It first came to our attention in 2006, when Harper and the boys used a military jet to fly to a hockey game. Harper defended it by saying that he paid for his own tickets. Gee, really?

By 2007, we learned that the hockey game was not the only recreational event charged to the taxpayers' credit card.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has been flying in military jets to Conservative events and even a hockey game — despite having once railed against their use by the previous Liberal government. Invoices obtained by the Canadian Press show Harper flew Challenger executive jets three times in 2006 — and the Conservatives only fully reimbursed the military for one of the flights, which are estimated to cost more than $2,000 per hour.

By 2009, the hourly rate skyrocketed and so did the abuse.

The Harper government says it is unable to provide the names of passengers who have flown on its fleet of Challenger executive jets since 2006 because it would take longer than a month-and-a-half to assemble the list. The jets, operated by the Department of National Defence, have made more than 1,900 flights with the prime minister, the governor general, cabinet ministers or other senior officials aboard since the Conservatives formed the government. The aircraft logged 9,916 hours in the air over that period. (Tories silent on who flew on executive jets. Compiling list to take too much time, By Glen McGregor, The Ottawa Citizen, November 19, 2009)

DND was unable to provide the information because Harper refused to allow them to record the names of the people who were flying around at our expense. Far too easy to match them to donor names, I suspect.

However: 'DND did release figures that show that the average cost of feeding passengers has increased sharply since the Tories formed government."

Nothing is too good for the king and his entourage. 1900 joy rides by 2009, and we're worried about one helicopter trip?

Durban Climate Conference Tells Peter Kent to Stay Home. I Wish He Would Just go Away!

2011-12-04T05:49:00.000-08:00

Lesley Hughes was a popular CBC radio host and respected journalist, who had always been an advocate for the less fortunate members of society. In 2008, she was urged to run for the Liberal Party of Canada, in the Winnipeg riding of Kildonan–St Paul, to challenge incumbent Joy Smith.

Smith was a cohort of Stockwell Day's, a social conservative who handled his Manitoba campaign when he was running for the party leadership. Since Kildonan–St Paul is a swing riding, the Conservatives feared that Lesley Hughes could unseat Ms. Smith.

Waiting until it was too late to register another candidate, Peter Kent and the B'Nai Brith, publicly accused Hughes of being anti-Semitic, because of an article she had written in 2002.

It was called Get the Truth, and was in response to the "friendly fire" deaths of 4 Canadian soldiers. Hughes, like most Canadians, questioned our involvement in the Afghan war.

Kent pointed to one paragraph, as being an attack on Jews.

German Intelligence (BND) claims to have warned the U.S. last June, the Israeli Mossad and Russian Intelligence in August. Israeli businesses, which had offices in the Towers, vacated the premises a week before the attacks, breaking their lease to do it. About 3000 Americans working there were not so lucky.

She does not suggest that the Jewish people were behind the attack, only that German intelligence had warned of the attack, weeks before, and since it looked like nothing was being done in the U.S., Israel was not about to let their people be victimized, just in case the reports were true. And she provides her source.

Yet, with the help of the media, she was painted as being anti-Semitic and one who believes in a "Jewish conspiracy". The incident not only cost her the election, since Dion was forced to remove her name, but severely damaged her career. (B'Nai Brith Canada tells Liberals to dump star candidate)

This was not the first time that they tried to discredit Progressive candidates.

As a former journalist, I was surprised that Kent would sink to this level, but then he was with Canwest Global, a step up from Fox News, though it depends on what you're stepping in.

Peter Kent would also make headlines for his involvement in trying to influence student elections at York University.

"The Conservative party has no authority at all for getting involved in student politics and neither does the York administration. We're an incorporated, independent body," charged Krisna Saravanamuttu, who was elected president of the York Federation of Students in the controversial vote. "Prime Minister Stephen Harper's foot soldiers are deliberately interfering with student elections to help candidates more friendly to their policies." (1)

Through a Freedom of Information request, the student federation obtained 50 pages of email exchanges in which assistants for the two politicians, who represent student-heavy ridings north of the campus, repeatedly questioned university executives about the results of a student council vote this spring.

The students were right that the Conservatives had no authority over their elections.

I can't look at Peter Kent without being angry, and the thought of him representing us at an international climate conference, makes my blood boil.

He was shown on the National, blaming the Liberals for signing onto Kyoto in the first place. Their biggest blunder says Kent. And to bring some "balance" into the story, the National interviewed environmental expert Jack Mintz. Isn't he an economist? But then they can't really interview an actual scientist, because Christian Paradis (2), also not a scientist, has them all bound and gagged. Suncor got to weigh in though, and guess what side they're on?

Mintz is using China as a scapegoat, but even they have a better policy than we do.

And where are the environmentalists in this story? Our climate policies are now being decided by an ex-journalist (Kent), a corporate lawyer (Paradis) and Suncor.

This reminds me of a joke I shared before, when another non-scientist (Bernhard Rust) was heading up the science ministry in 1930s Germany. It was published in a 1933 Time Magazine story, entitled 'Science: Jews Without Jobs':

Two Germans were eyeing a burly lout in the Nazi uniform who was striding through a university hall. First man: "What is the policeman doing here?" Second man: "Sh, sh. That is the man selected to succeed Einstein."

I chuckle at the media suggesting that at Copenhagen we agreed to do what the U.S. does, despite the fact that Italy and Canada were the only G8 nations not invited to attend Obama's private meeting. The Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi was back home after being attacked by a protester earlier in the week, and Harper should have just stayed home. (3)

We were also warned by Americans that we should fend for ourselves:

.... speaking before a House of Commons committee on the environment, three experts on the U.S. effort to pass a climate change bill suggested Canada might be better off working on its own legislation then working to link it to whatever legislation the U.S. passes.

Gotta' love the media though. If Harper says it, it must be true.

The Durban climate conference is now telling Peter Kent to stay home. I agree that he shouldn't attend the conference, but why do we have to be stuck with him?

Sources:

1. Stop meddling, students tell Tories, By Louise Brown, Toronto Star, July 6, 2009

2. Ottawa’s media rules muzzling federal scientists, say observers, By Margaret Munro, Postmedia News, September 12, 2010

3. Obama makes last-ditch effort to save climate deal, By Allan Woods, Toronto Star, December 18, 2009

A Half a Century Later and We are Losing Half a Century

2011-12-03T05:15:00.000-08:00

The Canadian Manifesto: How the American Neoconservatives Stole My Country

In researching the conservative movement on both sides of the border, one thing becomes clear. In the U.S. they don't like to be referred to as Republican any more than Stephen Harper likes to be called a Tory. They are CONSERVATIVE, and there is a difference. The Republican Party is only the vehicle on their route to power.

Historian Richard Perlstein, writing of the 1960s conservative takeover of the GOP, says "A right-wing fringe took over the party from the ground up" while the Eastern establishment has been reduced to a "fringe looking on in bafflement". (Nixonland, 2003)

The picture above is definitely worth a thousand words.  Nelson Rockefeller, who should have beaten Barry Goldwater for the nomination in 1964, George Romney and of course Ronald Reagan.

Mitt looks a lot like his dad, and like his dad he could very well be obliterated by history. George Romney was a moderate who opposed the Vietnam War and supported Civil Rights. The conservatives had to crush him, and now feel the same way about his son.

This is important for Canadians to understand, because Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada, were born of this movement.

Ernest Manning* and his son Preston, planned to take over the PC Party in the 1960s, until Robert Stanfield, a Red Tory, won the leadership, and they knew they'd have to wait. They wrote a book Political Realignment, that called for a definitive right-wing party to challenge a definitive left-wing party, and no soft centre.

It's not hard to see how we are being realigned, though I think Canadians may finally be balking as such an unnatural situation in a country that has always been somewhere in the middle.

Colin Brown, the man who created the National Citizens Coalition, initially to oppose public healthcare, read Political Realignment, contacted Ernest Manning and together they built the NCC into a voice for corporate interests. Stephen Harper ran the NCC before running for the Alliance leadership (they kept his position open for four years in case it didn't work out).

Gerry Nicholls, Harper's VP when he headed up the organization, was fired for criticizing his former boss. Not his wasteful spending, though he did publicly denounce it, but because he committed the mortal sin of suggesting that Stephen Harper was not "conservative" enough.

If lynching was legal they would have strung him up.

Perlstein tells us that while American Conservatives were devoted to Barry Goldwater, they had their suspicions of Richard Nixon, who had also initially spoke out against the Vietnam War. It wasn't until a young Nixon aid, spoke to his Conservative allies and assured them that Nixon was only trying to garner support from moderates, that they agreed to back him.

That young aid? Pat Buchanan.

Being devoutly anti-Communist and anti-Civil Rights, Ronald Reagan was never in doubt. When he ran against incumbent Jerry Brown, as Governor of California, Brown tried to expose Reagan's extremism, that included his ties to the John Birch Society.

However, as one Reagan insider told the Brown team: "A Bircher isn't identifiable, but a negro is." At least they had the "'right' colour" on their side.

The conservative movement, as well as the Religious Right, has always been about race, and they appear to be successfully wiping out the last 50 years of tolerance.   One Kentucky Church is even banning interracial marriage. How long before others follow suit?

This week Ezra Levant responded to the Attawapiskat crisis with so many "white people" chants, I was waiting for his Freudian to slip, and he break into a "white power" shout.

Richard Nixon and Stephen Harper shared the political expertise of Arthur Finkelstein, but it was the Reagan/Harper guru, Paul Weyrich, who taught them the art of hatred.

Harper's decision to cut 31.5 million in funding to Ontario immigrant programs, and his new immigration policies, must have the late Weyrich looking up, cackling in the flames.

Footnotes:

*Suncor founder, the late J. Howard Pew, gave money to Manning, Reagan, Goldwater and Nixon. His Pew Foundation now supports many right-wing causes.

Ezra Levant's Rant Has a Ring of Truth, But His Din is Deafening

2011-12-02T11:29:00.000-08:00

One of my right-wing friends asked me to watch Ezra Levant's take on the Attawapiskat crisis, feeling, I suppose, that he presented a compelling argument.

Levant is right when he suggests that it is hypocritical for Charlie Angus to use the photos of the devastation against Stephen Harper. Angus has been the MP in the riding for seven years. Why have we not seen these photos before?

In fact, the NDP MPP, Gilles Bisson has served the area since 1990.

In fairness, though, how often does any MP or MPP share images of the horrendous living conditions that many of our aboriginal people are forced to live under? This should not be "a scoop".

HOWEVER, the rest of the 11 1/2 minutes on the video, is just noise.

Noisy false accusations. Noisy skewed figures. Noise, noise, noise.

Right off the top, the Harper government does not give $34 million a year to the band. According to Âpihtawikosisân, for the 2010/11 fiscal year, the federal government contributed only $17.6 million. The rest of their budget (which they post online) comes from other sources.

The five year, $90 million figure used by Harper, includes a school that had to be torn down because it was built over toxic waste.

Levant tries to make this about "white guilt" and reverse bigotry, because we don't have faith in native people to take care of themselves. But he ignores the fact they are not given the same allowance for education and healthcare, as non-native communities. Everything has to come from these allotments.

An important fact that many commentators forget (or are unaware of) is that section 91(24) of the Constitution Act of 1867 gives the Federal Crown exclusive powers over "Indians, and Lands reserved for the Indians." You see, for non-natives, the provinces are in charge of funding things like education, health-care, social services and so on. For example, the Province of Ontario allocated $10,730 in education funding per non-native pupil in the 2010-2011 fiscal year. For most First Nations, particularly those on reserve, the federal government through INAC is responsible for providing funds for native education.

The federal payments are legal treaty commitments, not "hand outs" as implied. If they spent it all on housing, how could they afford other basic Canadian rights, like the right to education and health services?

Levant also mentions the fact the De Beers has been generous to Attawapiskat, but they just don't appreciate it. However, in order to mine in their backyard, De Beers had to sign an Impact Benefit Agreement, contractually obligating them to provide training and job opportunities, to the native community. And the reason the Native workers don't return home to build a house is because as part of the Indian Act, they can't get a mortgage on a reserve.

This reduces them to children, depending on their father figures, Papa Harper and Papa De Beers, with no mention that Attawapiskat's "baby daddies" (???) are legally responsible for the things they provide. How much profit is De Beers making from that mine, and the best they can do is send some old tin work shacks that they are no longer using???!!! They should be ashamed, not congratulated.

Many of our aboriginal Canadians are living in Third World conditions, and this story only shone a light on Canada's shame.

It is rich that Harper is sending auditors to Attawapiskat, when he recently reduced funding to the Comptroller and Auditor General, whose jobs are to keep track of his spending.

Levant's rant was hate mongering. Nothing more, nothing less. Count how many times he screams "white people". "White, white, white", as if it's a badge of honour and privilege.

Harper's base will eat it up. Fortunately, Harper's base does not represent the views of the majority of Canadians.

And neither does Ezra Levant.

The Conservatives Did What? Please, Not While I'm Eating!

2011-12-01T12:55:00.000-08:00

John Kenneth Galbraith, once said of Richard Nixon: "Our nation stands at a fork in the political road. In one direction lies a land of slander and scare; the land of sly innuendo, the poison pen, the anonymous phone call and hustling, pushing, shoving; the land of smash and grab and anything to win. This is Nixonland. America is something different."

Lawrence Martin in his book Harperland, writes: " [A]mong this breed of new conservative was a different temperament. It was an attitude not readily found in the traditional Canadian middle-of-the-road parties, but more common to a strain of American Republicans. It was a current of bitterness, an anger ..."

David Emerson, the Liberal who crossed the floor for a cabinet position in the Harper government, admitted that he "couldn't fathom the intense level of acrimony. He had never seen this kind of thing with the Liberals. But with Harper and his men, it was woven deep." He spoke of them as "viscerally hating their political opposition", saying that "Sometimes it was just startling to me."

Former Liberal MP Keith Martin, who also served in both parties, described the Conservatives as politicians who had been in an environment "that has bred a hatred". (Harperland p.3)

It's as though they can't help themselves.

Historian Richard Perlstein said of Nixon that he was a "serial collector of resentments", and those resentments created the kind of visceral politics that Nixon engaged in. Says Perlstein, "By the end of the 1960s, Nixonland came to emcompass the entire political culture of the U.S. It would define it, in fact, for the next fifty years." (Nixonland p. 46)

You would think that with Harper winning his majority, he might try to play nice. In fact, didn't many journalists suggest that the only reason Harper was so combative and controlling was because he had a minority?

We learned recently of prank phone calls in Liberal, Irwin Cotler's riding of Mount Royal. The calls originated with a company called Campaign Research, used by many Conservative candidates during the last federal campaign.

Blogger Sixth Estate reminds us that Campaign Research was founded by several Conservative insiders, including Nick Kouvalis, the Rob Ford election aide from Toronto, and Aaron Wudrick, the Conservative campaign manager who was caught a few years ago calling for the creation of Conservative “shell organizations” and “front groups” on university campuses. He worked for Peter Braid.

The Conservatives have finally admitted that they were behind the phone calls.

There is nothing illegal in what they did, just slimy.

We have had five years of this kind of politicking and it's growing weary. Can we expect another five years, or worse, as in the case of Nixon's influence, fifty?

I would much rather try to eat looking at the picture of the men at the top of the page, than try to eat, listening to this story. It comes down to who are the biggest asses.

Not So Much Reform as Special Interest Groups

2011-12-01T07:53:00.000-08:00

Jeffrey Simpson has an interesting column this week: Remember the Reformers? They’re still here In it he suggests that the Conservatives are now putting policies in place written for the Reform Party, two decades ago.

However, while the cowboy law and order agenda was early Reform Party, most initiatives are in response to the special interest groups who helped Stephen Harper's rise to power. He now has to repay many, many favours.

The gun laws are to compensate gun lobbies, like the National Firearms Association, most connected with the American NRA. In fact two gun groups handled Conservative MP Chris Alexander's campaign.

The Canadian Wheat Board was never really a target of Reform, but the National Citizens Coalition. They launched a campaign against the board, reportedly on behalf of Karlheinz Schreiber.

In fact, in the early days, the Party almost had a mutiny on their hands when they suggested cutting farm subsidies. Their rural members threatened to leave, until they tweaked it.

The tough immigration laws, that enticed neo-Nazis to infiltrate the Reform Party, came from groups like C-Far, run by Paul Fromm. Fromm was allowed to sell memberships at at least one Reform Assembly, until his ties to neo-Nazi groups was revealed. Peter Brimelow, creator of V-Dare, another anti-immigration group, was also an early influence.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation not only fought against immigration policies, but multiculturalism, which might seem odd given that their former president is now the head of Immigration and Multiculturalism.

But it's a ruse. He exploits immigrant communities but his immigration policies are very selective. Those not of the right sort can work here temporarily, providing cheap labour for corporations, but if they step out of line, they are immediately shipped back.

When our unemployment rate was at its highest, so was the influx of temporary workers. You do the math.

Jason Kenney was recently caught in a lie, suggesting that he had only made two patronage appointments to his refugee board. Turns out it was 16. Not so much a math error as a question of his integrity.

Even the latest attacks on Native communities by the Conservatives come from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. Harper has distorted the numbers to make it appear that he has given Attawapiskat $90 million that they squandered, using it as an excuse to take over, but it's just that. An excuse.

And suggesting that he wasn't aware of the horrendous conditions on the Reserve, again not true, given that they have apparently visited several times, and reported nothing.

They just want control, in much the same way that they took over Barriere Lake, making it easier for big lumber.

We are now being governed by special interest and right-wing fringe groups. All the devils who now own Stephen Harper's soul.

Another "Occupy" Movement That Should Inspire

2011-11-30T09:20:00.000-08:00

Smedley Darlington Butler (1881-1940), was at the time of his death, the most decorated marine in the United States. However, the final years of his life were spent in publicly denouncing wars, which he decided were being fought for corporate interests; speaking at pacifist rallies and advocating for veterans.

On August 21, 1931, invited to address an American Legion convention in Connecticut, he made the first no-holds-barred antiwar speech of his career. It stunned all who heard it or read it in the few papers that dared to report it:

I spent years . . . being a high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer for capitalism. . . .; I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1931. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City [Bank] boys to collect revenue in. I helped in the rape of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street

In China in 1927 1 helped see to it that Standard Oil [now Exxon] went its way unmolested.... I had ... a swell racket. I was rewarded with honors, medals, promotions.... I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate a racket in three cities. The Marines operated on three continents... (1)

In the spring and summer of 1932, a large group of WWI vets, their families and affiliated groups, marched on Washington to demand that their war bonuses, which were not redeemable until 1945, be paid immediately, since many were then unemployed and suffering after the Crash, that led to the Great Depression.

Known as the Bonus Army, or Bonus Expeditionary Force, it was led by Walter W. Waters, a former army sergeant, but was boosted by the presence of Butler, then the most popular military figure in the country. 20,000 members strong, they "occupied" Washington, setting up camp at Anacostia flats. Their request for early payments were denied, but they soldiered on.

On July 28, 1932, two bonus marchers were shot by police, causing the entire mob to become hostile. President Hoover ordered their eviction, and General Douglas MacArthur, with his cavalry, went on the attack.

After the cavalry charged, the infantry, with fixed bayonets and adamsite gas, an arsenical vomiting agent, entered the camps, evicting veterans, families, and camp followers. The veterans fled across the Anacostia River to their largest camp and President Hoover ordered the assault stopped. However Gen. MacArthur, feeling the Bonus March was a Communist attempt to overthrow the U.S. government, ignored the President and ordered a new attack. Fifty-five veterans were injured and 135 arrested. (2)

Time magazine told of one vet, William Hushka, who had joined the group, jobless and penniless. Last week William Hushka's Bonus for $528 suddenly became payable in full when a police bullet drilled him dead. (3) Two month old Gertrude Mann, died of malnutrition in Washington's Gallinger Hospital and in the same hospital, Bernard Myers, 11 weeks old, affected by tear gas, would also succumb.

The entire thing was blamed on Communists and the media painted MacArthur as a hero, but not everyone was impressed. Dwight D. Eisenhower, then an aid to MacArthur said, "I told that dumb son-of-a-bitch not to go down there..." and Butler declared himself a "Hoover-for-Ex-President-Republican".

It would appear that the "Occupy Washington" movement of 1932 was a failure, but the sight of American soldiers attacking American veterans, resonated in the court of public opinion, and Hoover lost the 1932 election in a landslide to Franklin D. Roosevelt.

When a second march and occupation took place in May of 1933, FDR provided the marchers with a campsite in Virginia and dished out three meals a day. He later issued an executive order allowing the enrollment of 25,000 veterans in the Civilian Conservation Corps, a public relief program, exempting them from the normal requirement that applicants be unmarried and under the age of 25. Congress, where Democrats held majorities in both houses, passed the Adjusted Compensation Payment Act in 1936, authorizing the immediate payment of the $2 billion in WWI bonuses.

The incident also impacted Eisenhower, who would later, as Butler did, warn of the Military-Industrial Complex, and wars fought for corporate interests. Unfortunately, few listened, and the practice has only escalated.

Demonstrators in the Occupy Movement, face evictions everywhere, the latest in Los Angeles. They are tear gassed, shot at with bean bags fired from rifles, hit with rubber bullets, kicked, drenched and arrested, but they are simply not going away.

And the message is resonating with the public. This is not an attack on the rich, but a message to governments to stop pandering to the 1%, and pay attention to the rest of us. We are the citizens, the voters, the taxpayers, the human capital, who far too often become targets when spending cuts are needed.

This has the potential to be a major political movement and if politicians ignore this, they will be Hoovered. (voted out, not attacked with a vacuum cleaner)

My little three-year-old grandson, when he feels that he's not getting our attention, will indignantly proclaim that we are not "using our ears". He's a pretty smart guy. Maybe he should address Parliament, Congress, the Senate, and everyplace else, where people are not using theirs.

Sources:

1. The Plot to Sieze the White House: The Shocking TRUE Story of the Conspiracy to Overthrow FDR, By Jules Archer, Syhorse Publishing, 1973, ISBN: 10-1-60239-036-3, p. 118-119

2. HEROES: Battle of Washington, Time Magazine, August 08, 1932

3. Ibid

A Guest Blogger With an Important Message About the Treatment of Some Military Personnel

2011-11-30T04:34:00.000-08:00

On Remembrance Day we do our duty by wearing our poppy, attending a special service and paying homage to all veterans and those serving in the Armed Forces. Little else can generate such passion, as witnessed every November 11.

Politicians of all stripes often exploit this emotion, especially when garnering support for war, and photo-ops with uniformed troops is money in the bank.

The Conservatives even hid behind our troops to avoid answering questions about Afghan Detainee abuse, allowing them to shoulder the blame. Veteran Ombudsman Pat Stogran, was fired by Stephen Harper for speaking out against the treatment of Vets.

Stogran hit out at the Department of Veterans Affairs for being "deliberately obstructionist and deceptive," rather than helping injured soldiers. Stogran also said one government official told him that soldiers were less of a liability if they died in war, rather than coming back to Canada injured.

So given the attitude toward those injured in war, it should come as no surprise that military personnel, not injured in war, but still hurt in the line of duty, could expect even less.

I was contacted by Brian C. Bradley, a Veteran of the Canadian Forces, who wanted to share his story, so the following comes directly from him, an honoured guest on my blog.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
My name is Brian C. Bradley. I am a Veteran of the Canadian Forces.

In 1966 I completed my army reserve basic training. In 1989 I completed my army reserve officer training, and began nearly five years of service in the Canadian Navy training as a Combat Systems Engineer (CSE, or 044A in Canadian military classifcations). This same ‘five years of service’ began with basic officer training at Chilliwack, B.C., continued with second-language training at St. Jean-sur-Richelieu, Quebec, and a year in Esquimalt, followed by just under three years of service in Halifax, NS.

While training in Esquimalt, I was billeted to the HMCS Qu’Apelle, where I suffered a fall in the shower onboard that warship, injuring my spinal cord at three levels.

Because the accident occurred while the HMCS Qu’Appelle was away from her home port, I was confined to my rack, and provided with painkillers until returning to Esquimalt five days later. On arriving there, I was rushed by ambulance to the base hospital.

In March 1996 I applied to the Veterans’ Review and Appeal Board (VRAB; a division of Veterans Affairs) for a disability pension. On three separate occasions within the first year of application (refer to Table ‘A’ on next page) the VRAB ruled against my application for a disability pension. I then obtained a ruling from the Trial Division of the Federal Court (Fed. Ct.) that the matter be referred back to a differently-constituted panel of the VRAB board (Fed. Ct. case T-157-98).

In the next year, the allegedly differently-constituted VRAB panel ruled twice more against my claim. The matter was once again brought before the Trial Division which ruled that the matter be referred back to a differently-constituted panel and awarded me costs (Fed. Ct. case T-2137-99).

Because this next allegedly differently-constituted VRAB panel failed to provide a decision within the next year, I filed a motion of Contempt of Court with the Trial Division. While the Trial Division (i.e., the Hon. Mr. Justice Martineau) would not grant this motion by citing the VRAB in contempt, it did again award me costs, even though none were requested, and supplied a step-by-step procedure to obtain justice in my case.

With no legal training, I attempted to bring the VRAB before the Trial Division again, after being once again denied a disability pension by the VRAB’s next (and sixth) decision. I lost this decision despite having provided professional testimony from a neurosurgeon, an orthopaedic surgeon and a general practitioner with more than 35 years of experience.

Other than being supplied with additional pain killers and 3 or 4 brief sessions of physiotherapy, my real injuries were not treated at that base hospital, nor at the base hospital in Halifax, where I was sent about two months later as part of the next phase of training.

Upon release from the Canadian Navy in 1993 I was assessed by a civilian general practitioner in Lower Sackville, NS, who immediately identified a C5/C6 radiculopathy (upper spinal cord condition), along with indications of other potential spinal cord level involvement, that had resulted from the accident onboard the HMCS Qu’Appelle.

This same GP initially referred me for assessment to a diagnostic service in Halifax (i.e., spinal cord MRI), an orthopaedic surgeon, and an internal medicine specialist. All of these physicians agreed that the three levels of spinal cord injuries (i.e., C5/C6; T11/T12 & L2/L3) were most likely the result of the accident that had occurred while I was serving onboard HMCS Qu’Appelle

None of these submissions by physicians were contradicted by testimony from similar professionals on behalf of the VRAB, yet the Trial Division of the Fed. Ct. ruled against my claims.

I was encouraged to re-approach the Trial Division based upon the experience of a lady who won her case in the Appeal Division in Ontario using my first two cases (i.e., T-157-98 & T-2137-99) as precedents.

To render such a re-approach at such a late stage in the events, I was encouraged to concentrate on my lower back injuries .... thereby, allegedly attesting to settlement for the upper back injuries .... with neither of these settlements ever occurring!

Not more than four years ago, The Trial Division ruled again in my favour (T-401-05) and referred the matter back again to a differently-constituted panel of the VRAB board. That same board ruled on four more separate occasions against my application for a disability pension, forcing the matter back to the Trial Division for ultimate resolution (T-617-09).

The VRAB fully exhausted the total number of decisions to which they were entitled in my application, recognizing that an award to me of a disability pension would mean financial ruin and subsequent political suicide for the government ‘in charge’ at the time of such a decision, given the tens of thousands of other veterans who remained deprived of such benefits.

The Hon. Mr. Justice Phelan (T-617-09) decided: "THIS COURT'S JUDGMENT is that the application for judicial review is granted and the Appeal Board's decision is quashed." Unfortunately, such a ruling does nothing more than refer the same matter back to the Respondent (e.g., Veterans’ Affairs), thus prolonging the history of my claims and thereby moving the VA's actions from the ridiculous to the sublime.

While Canadian governments over the past 80+ years have continued to disregard their legislated obligations to veterans of the CF and Mounted Police, how do you think these same governments are treating(?) the remainder of Canadian citizens?

On top of all of this, I have had to represent myself in the Trial Division of the Fed. Ct. on several separate occasions with at least 6 of these applying to my claims with the VRAB [refer to case numbers: T-157-98, Bradley v. Canada (Attorney General), 1999 CanLII 7476 (F.C.) or

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/1999/1999canlii7476/1999canlii7476.html; T-2137-99, Bradley v. Canada (Attorney General), 2001 FCT 793

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2001/2001fct793/2001fct793.html; T-2137-99, Bradley v. Canada (Attorney General), 2003 FCT 12 (CanLII)

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2003/2003fct12/2003fct12.html; T-67-03, Bradley v. Canada (Attorney General), 2004 FC 996 or

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2004/2004fc996/2004fc996.html; T-401-05, Bradley v. Canada (Attorney General), 2005 FC 1470

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2005/2005fc1470/2005fc1470.html; and T-617-09, Bradley v. Canada (Attorney General), 2011 FC 309 or http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc309/2011fc309.html]

In all of these decisions (including the latter two), the Hon. Justices supported my claims and rejected the VRAB's decisions. The greater weight of factual evidence by specialists in the fields of medicine applicable to my spinal cord injuries supported my claims, as did the greater majority of the above-listed decisions.

Who but a politician who allegedly represents his electorate but didn't see 'adequate votes' in seriously supporting this applicant's claims, would ignore these facts and not attempt to ensure this applicant receive something resembling the actual service of justice .... not to mention the adherence to legislated laws by a Fed. government dept. (i.e., VRAB)?

History has been written, how more often do we have to ignore it before learning our lessons? To support our (i.e., all veterans') efforts 'click on' the following and join our group:

http://homecomingvets.wordpress.com/2011/04/21/canadian-veterans-advocacy-is-galloping-ahead-with-projects-and-website/

http://www.canadianveteransadvocacy.com/rv2011.html

http://forum.kijiji.ca/post-7587682.html

Email author: bcbrad3@gmail.com
Yours truly,
Brian C. Bradley

Proof That Abolishing the Gun Registry Was Always For the NRA

2011-11-29T16:13:00.000-08:00

Unless hunters and farmers are snipers, the Conservative abolishment of the gun registry was always, as suspected, for the NRA. ALWAYS! ALWAYS! ALWAYS!

Not one single farmer or hunter ever crossed their mind, except to solicit funds or votes. NRA! NRA! NRA!

The neocons turned down an NDP amendment to at least force registration of sniper rifles, but the heartless SOBs said NO! It didn't help that the NDP put the wrong gun on their advertising leading up to the motion.

I think this will hurt them in Quebec, especially since one of those presenting the amendment, NDP MP Nathan Cullen, had voted in the past to end the registry. The Bloc are already regaining ground (NDP 37, Bloc 27) and Quebecers are very passionate about this issue.

In other news, it would appear that Harper lied about directing public servants to remove 'Canada' from government parlance and replace it with 'Harper'.

And the Liberals are rising in the polls.

Several recent polls have suggested the Liberals have rebounded as much as 10 points since their election drubbing, pulling even or even slightly ahead of the NDP, which supplanted the Liberals as official Opposition.

That last election was a fluke, but a fluke that we're all paying for.

Our only hope for the next four years is the "Occupy" movement and we need to get behind it.

Hooligans and How the Cultural Left Can Beat the Political Right

2011-11-29T09:13:00.000-08:00

This week in the Winnipeg Sun, a column by Tom Brodbeck; Hooligan Harper haters: Crime bill protestors partisan hypocrites, irked me on many levels.

From the eye rolling "Harper haters" that's been done to death, to the notion of opposition to Bill C-10, being a partisan issue.

I contacted Mr. Brodbeck and asked if he had actually spoken with any of the protesters. He dismisses anyone who challenges this government's policies, as simple "Harper haters", without asking those protesting how they actually feel about Mr. Harper.

Why is it that when Liberal governments bring in tougher sanctions for serious crimes they’re seen as being thoughtful and concerned about public safety?

But when Prime Minister Stephen Harper brings in harsher sentences for sex offenders and killers, he’s a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal who wants to jail everyone and throw away the key. It’s a bit of a double standard.

Many are simply angry over the Draconian crime bills, that are even being denounced by the law and order state of Texas.

Brodbeck also dismisses the protesters as "hooligans". A hooligan by definition is "a rough lawless young person." In the image he provides, I see no roughness, unless you count a profanity on a sign, and I see no laws being broken. In a healthy democracy dissent is not only allowed but should be welcomed, as proof that we do indeed live in a democracy. As Lawrence Martin reminds us in his book, Harperland: The Politics of Control:

“In the run-up to the election, Stephen Harper had rolled out the rhetoric on the need for clean and transparent government, expressing frustration with Paul Martin's Liberals over their alleged secrecy and obstructionism. "When a government starts trying to cancel dissent or avoid dissent," Harper declared in a statement to be later viewed as notable for ironic content, "Is frankly when it is rapidly losing its moral authority to govern.”

However, with so much "dissent" over Bill C-10, rumour has it that Stephen Harper is planning to simply again prorogue. According to Lori Turnbull in the Globe and Mail:

Rumour has it that Prime Minister Stephen Harper is planning yet another prorogation of Parliament. This means the work of the House of Commons, including its committees, would stop and our elected officials, as a group, would be rendered incapable of performing their basic functions, including holding the government to account in Parliament.

The prorogation rumours are not surprising, given the other tactics the government has employed to “manage” opposition scrutiny. During the current parliamentary session, the Conservative government has invoked strict time limits on House debates on complex bills, including its omnibus crime legislation, and forced committee proceedings behind closed doors, out of the public eye.

Stifling dissent, operating behind "closed doors", and limiting debate. This man has no shame and clearly no "moral authority to govern".

Hats off to the Hooligans

If a "hooligan" is simply someone who opposes government policies or practices, then I think we must pay homage to history's "hooligans". Like Harriet Beecher Stowe (above) who protested against the 1850 Fugitive Slave Law that prohibited assistance to fugitives. Wrote Stowe: "I feel now that the time is come when even a woman or a child who can speak a word for freedom and humanity is bound to speak... I hope every woman who can write will not be silent."

Though arguably not a youth at 40, when she wrote Uncle Tom's Cabin, she inspired others, young and old, by injecting an anti-slavery message into popular culture. And of course her work with the abolitionist movement is legendary.

But what of other "hooligans"?

Like Barbara Johns, who at the age of 16, took over her black high school and shut it down, leading to the legal crisis that wound up in the U.S. Supreme Court as Brown v. Board of Education, the case that ended legal segregation in America.

Or Claudette Colvin, who at 15 in 1955, defied segregation laws by refusing to surrender her bus seat for a white passenger, choosing instead to be arrested. Civil Rights leaders contemplated organizing a bus boycott then, but were concerned with Colvin's age. How much traction could the movement obtain by backing a "hooligan"? It wasn't until 42-year-old Rosa Parks, inspired by the young activist, did the same, that they had their heroine.

And what of the "hooligan" Joan of Arc, or the less well known, Sybil Ludington, who like Paul Revere took a famous ride. At just 16, Ludington rode twice the distance Revere did, through a rainstorm no less, to warn the countryside that Red Coats were sacking Danbury, Connecticut.  Ludington alerted militia men, and the militia was able to stop the invasion, chasing the Red Coats back to their ships. A "rebel" on the right side of history.

Or how about the 15-year-old Louis Braille, who created the Braille writing system, while a student at Paris's Royal Institution for Blind Youth. Teachers at the school revolted, banning students from using it, claiming that the paper-punching note-taking was noisy and disruptive. Braille has changed the lives of so many people living without sight, because he was a rebel.

Young "hooligans" like Brigette Depape, who challenged authority with the 'Stop Harper' sign on the Senate floor; or Emma Sullivan, who refused to apologize to a governor for a disparaging remark she left on Twitter, are inspirational. I hope Pat Martin is now following Sullivan. If we can't even Tweet dissent, where is our democracy?

Or maybe Brodbeck should wonder about another political agitator, or "hooligan", born into a time of occupation and oppression. Arriving at an annual festival, with a very large following, he attacked the greedy bankers, was later arrested and put to death. His name was Jesus of Nazareth.

We can't dismiss youth simply because they are young, nor can we dismiss those wonderfully crazy enough to believe they can change a vote, a policy, a bill, or the world.

We go along to get along until someone doesn't.

Why I Believe That the Cultural Left Can Beat the Political Right

There is a very interesting book, written by Michael Kazin, American Dreamers: How the Left Changed a Nation. In it he discusses, as the title implies, the contributions made by the Left to Western culture.  Naturally, the New Right is trying to topple them all, and yet they are not succeeding, I think because the notions of justice and injustice are fundamental to who we are.

Critics have blamed liberals for not doing enough to denounce right-wing rhetoric, but the nature of liberalism is in support of free speech. The Right likes to use "free speech" as their rallying cry, but the fact is that they only promote "free speech', when that speech is what they want to hear.

Kazin argues that liberal, or left culture, can impact the political, when their message resonates with voters, even when they are not involved with a political party. Chances are pretty good that the young people in Brobeck's photo, are not affiliated with any.

Abraham Lincoln, a Republican, was not really anti-slavery. In fact, abolitionist Frederick Douglass, called Lincoln "the white man's president". In 1864, one year after the Emancipation Proclamation, Douglass threw his support to Lincoln's opponent, John Fremont (he was not able to actually vote until 1869).   Lincoln only began to listen to the abolitionists, mid-way through the Civil War, when he realized that emancipation could speed victory for the North. Almost 200,000 black soldiers then joined the fight, recruited by Douglass himself.

A cultural movement inspired a political change.

The post WWI militant union activists, did not gain real validity, until FDR realized that he needed labor votes.   Lyndon Johnson gave up on the white South, to denounce Barry Goldwater. He won in a landslide, and passed Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts.

Says Kazin, "For a political movement to gain any major goal, it needs to win over a section of the governing elite", but that doesn't mean that they began the movement on behalf of any political party. They only worked through, or against, the government of the day.

In a January 2003 column, headlined It's not Canadians who've gone to the right, just their media, Lawrence Martin quoted an unnamed European diplomat as saying "You have a bit of a problem here. Your media are not representative of your people, your values. Too many political commentators are right of centre while the public is in the middle.  There is a disconnect."

If you judged the Canadian mood based on our media, you might think that Canada is indeed a right-wing country. However, that is not the case. We repeatedly prove in opinion polls, that we are progressive, and care about things like poverty, war, climate change, human rights, etc.

If Stephen Harper had to rely solely on his base for votes, he would probably be leading a third or even fourth place party. In fact, his Reform-Alliance had stagnated by 2003, propped up primarily by the West. It was only when he bought out the rights to the PC party and began calling himself a "Tory" that he was able to garner more mainstream support.

He himself wasn't pleased with the new name. He had referred to the PCs as "elitist" and called Red Tories "Pink Liberals" promising to "jettison them" from the party once he took over.

In January of 2004, he told the Hamilton Spectator, when asked if his Reform-Alliance Party would now be called 'Tories':

"It's actually not a label I love… I am more comfortable with a more populist tradition of conservatism. Toryism has the historical context of hierarchy and elitism and is a different kind of political philosophy. It's not my favourite term, but we're probably stuck with it." (Stephen Harper, Hamilton Spectator, January 24, 2004)

He may have felt that he would be "stuck with it", but capitalizing on the "Tory" name has given him enormous political advantage, since many people who vote for him, believe they are actually voting "Tory". The media has perpetrated a grave injustice, by allowing him to keep up the facade.

Returning again to Martin's Harperland:

The merger was a ruse of sorts. This was no equal partnership. The merged party had five times as many Alliance MPs as old Tory ones. In the election before this merger, the Alliance Party had won sixty-six seats, the Tories only twelve. Before long, Harper won the leadership of the new party, making the domination of the Reform-Alliance wing even more pronounced. This wasn't so much a merger as the Alliance Party's annexing of an auxiliary group.

This is actually good news for the "Occupy" movement, because most Canadians are not right-wing, but have an ingrained sense of justice and faith in democracy. If the 99% of those who feel that they are not being given equal opportunities for success, or the roughly 2/3 who did not vote for the New Right party of Stephen Harper, or even those who voted Conservative, having fallen for the bait and switch, come together; we could see positive political change.

We won't alter Harper's ideology, but his own party could demand that he loosen the reins, if they are forced to wear his full frontal assault on our democratic institutions, with his unheard of control. They can't enjoy being muzzled and scripted.

We could also inspire opposition parties to include our demands in their platforms. They'd be crazy not to.

Says Kazin, "The divergence between political marginality and cultural influence stems, in part, from the kinds of people who have been the mainstays of the left."

Not necessarily, those who march, clash with police, get arrested or want to overthrow the government; but those who have been able to articulate their grievances. People like Martin Luther King Jr., Harriet Beecher Stowe and Tommy Douglas.

The Occupy Movement has our attention, as they are beginning to articulate their message, and Canadians are listening.

So hats off to the "Hooligans" and thumbs down to a column that condemns them without cause.

Dog Whistle Politics and the Return of Old Dance Partners

2011-11-28T06:51:00.000-08:00

"Borrowed in part from the legacy of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, Canadian neo-conservatism owes much of it's character to the right-wing populist tradition of the West. "Indeed, Canadians became exporters of neo-con innovation in the 1990s. 'I would say Margaret Thatcher and Mr. [Preston] Manning are the two non-Americans we learned most from'', said U.S. Republican House Speaker, Newt Gingrich in 1995.

I know him [Preston Manning] because I watched all of his commercials. We developed our platform from watching his campaign.' Like cowboy culture, Canadian neo-conservatism is a growth industry, spawning a whole generation of Will James outlaws in hot pursuit of political power." (Slumming it at the Rodeo: The Cultural Roots of Canada's Right-Wing Revolution, Gordon Laird, 1998, Douglas & McIntyre, ISBN: 1-55054 627-9, Pref. xiv-xv)

The political cartoon above, first appeared in the Alberta Report Magazine on March 27, 1995, under the caption 'Preston Manning and Newt Gingrich dancing in newt suits'. The two men formed a lasting friendship as they worked out ways to promote combative style politics.

Republican pollster Frank Luntz, was then working with Canada's Reform Party, but took his leave to help Newt draft his Contract With America. Ralph Reed of the U.S. Christian Coalition wrote a corresponding document Contract With the American Family, to bring in the Religious Right.

Jason Kenney and company travelled to Washington in 1995 to attend a Christian Coalition conference, and soon after:

... Even more ominous for democratic rights in [British Columbia] is the recent hatching of the B.C. clone of Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition. With 1.7 million active members and a $25 million (US) annual budget, the U.S. organization has become a formidable lobbying force in American politics, installing its anti-choice, anti-gay agenda and candidates at all levels of government, from school boards to Congress .... the Christian Coalition of Canada materialized after dozens of conservative Christians in this country thronged to Washington, DC, last fall [1995] to attend a major convention of the U.S. organization.

"Advisors" to the new CCC reportedly include Ted and Link Byfield (owners of the ultra-conservative B.C. Report and Alberta Report magazines), Jason Kenny (head of the Canadian Taxpayers Association), and Alex Parachin (head of the Christian Broadcasting Associates in Toronto, the Canadian branch plant of Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network).

The B.C. chapter is sure to be a factor in the upcoming election, giving a boost to Reform Party candidates and any others who will go on record opposing abortion ... While Don Spratt may be telling readers "Nobody has anything to fear from the Christian Coalition," progressive activists and journalists will have to make sure the electorate knows better." (The Christian Coalition Comes to Canada, by Kim Goldberg, The Albion Monitor, May 5, 1996)

"Journalists will have to make sure the electorate knows better"? Yeah. Good luck with that. A decade and a half later and they still don't get it.

Even Kelly Block's recent attack on our aboriginal communities, stems from American neoconservatism. She's working on behalf of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, described as a pyramid scheme. And CTF is a spin-off of Grover Norquist's Americans For Tax Reform.

Both traverse the country with their debt clocks and force conservative politicians to sign pledges not to increase government revenue. Jason Kenney had Mike Harris sign it in 1995. Enough said.

I now watch American political commentary programs, because it's the only way I know what Harper's next move will be. And it is also the only way to understand the politics of the Conservative Party of Canada. They are part of the Conservative movement that began in the U.S. in the 1940s, imported by Ernest Manning, and they have been in lock step ever since.

We just didn't notice until they came to power in 2006. It has been said that the Harperites introduced Western style politics, but in fact, it was American style Conservatism.

Listening to someone like Evan Solomon, is like having a hockey commentator call the plays at a baseball game. He's not even in the ballpark.

Dog Whistles and Playing to the Base

A letter in Time magazine this week, discusses why many Republicans don't trust Mitt Romney. "They are distrustful of his recent public conversions on abortion, gun control and gay rights, or turned off by his Massachusetts health care law." (November 18, p. 20)

Those conversions of course, refer to the fact that he used to respect gay rights and women's reproductive rights, feared guns, and was committed to improving the health of his constituents, or at least assuring that all had access to good health care. All of these things are now kacky poo poo to the Republican base.

How did they let it get this far?

It's because they only played to that base with dog whistle politics. Saying the right thing to stir up the ignorant and now they are forced to draft policy to appease the ignorant, or risk being unelectable.

On Chris Matthew's Hardball this week, they discussed the rise of Newt Gingrich, who now has the perfect blend of ignorance and moderation, to make everyone happy. At least for now. Newt used to be deemed too right wing. His politics haven't changed, only the expectations of the conservative base.

One panelist on the program, Chicago Tribune columnist, Clarence Page, said that segregation is making a comeback. Instead of signs reading "Blacks to the back of the bus" or "Whites only", Anglo Republican politicians are simply ignoring the concerns of black communities, and turning others against them by suggesting that they are demanding too much.

Be more like the Huxtables and not depend so much on us white folks. You had it better under slavery, so go with that.

Michelle Obama was booed recently by NASCAR fans, prompting Rush Limbaugh to praise them for going after the "uppity" first lady. It was blown out of his dog whistle as "uppity n.....", and the base sang Hallelujah.

Our own Fox News North painted First Nation struggles as being against "white people and Indians" with another banner "we're on your side". The "Indians indulged" makes it pretty clear whose side they're on.

Harper government policies are also a promotion of the new form of segregation. He doesn't attack women, but instead removes the word "equality" from the Status for Women mandate, puts an end to affirmative action and pay equity initiatives, closes 12 of the 16 Status for Women offices and eliminates their research funding.

His government doesn't overtly attack minorities, but closes down Human Rights Commission offices, so that those suffering from discrimination have no place to address their concerns.

Gawd, I wish our media would catch up. Maybe we should send them all dog whistles for Christmas, because they sure as hell are not trying to communicate to us.

When it was discovered that neo-Nazis had infiltrated the Reform Party, Preston Manning fell back on his father's tired line, when the media exposed his extremist elements.

"A bright light attracts bugs."

But as my own father might say: "So does shite."

Kelly Block to Finally Reveal What Was Really Going on in Her Office

2011-11-25T05:51:00.000-08:00

If only that were true.

In December of 2010, a staffer in Kelly Block's office, leaked details of a confidential pre-budget House Finance Committee report, to several key lobbyists. When caught, the Conservatives claimed that he was a "rogue" staffer and would be dealt with.

Their modus operandi when caught red handed. Blame it on the help.

Block's aide, Russell Ullyatt, was not new to controversy. He was named in the case of Conservative MP Rob Clarke, a former RCMP officer, who during his 2008 campaign, was allowing uniformed officers to deliver his lawn signs. The image was both unprofessional and frightening, though not the first time that the RCMP interfered in elections on behalf of the Harperites.

In fact, they are still doing it.

The government was able to cleverly control the message of Ullyatt's motor mouth, by suggesting that they were looking at ways to make sure that it wouldn't happen again, and of course Block gave him the sack.

However, what they refused to address was something far more serious. Apparently Ullyat was running a very lucrative business from INSIDE Block's office, using taxpayer money to print and distribute, according to his own website, more than 5 million direct mail fundraising letters on behalf of Conservative clients.

Throughout both House Affairs Committee meetings last week, opposition MPs honed in on Mr. Ullyatt's credibility and especially his ownership of a political mailing company BestMail.ca. Mr. Mulcair, who also has an office on the sixth floor of the Confederation Building near Ms. Block's office, said he had seen "skids with boxes piled high and a very elaborate printing machine" in the hallway outside Ms. Block's office.

If you look at the bestmail.ca website, it's pretty chintzy, with a Conservative blue banner and little else. Apparently he has no staff, according to the company profile, but then why would he need his own staff, when he could simply use Kelly's, which is paid for by us.

The other strange thing about his website is that under contact info it simply leads you back to bestmail.ca Obviously his clients knew where he could be reached.

As usual, the Harperites circled the wagons, protecting Block, and Block herself, refused to be accountable, feigning ignorance, which in a Member of Parliament may be worse than deceit. How can we trust her to make decisions when she can't, or won't, explain over 5,000,000 mail outs, allegedly produced and distributed by her own staff? Surely she doesn't believe that she has 5,000,000 constituents?

Liberal MP Yasmin Ratansi (Don Valley East, Ont.) asked in Question Period on Dec. 16 whether the government would call in the RCMP to investigate what she called "a serious allegation of potential fraud being conducted out of [Ms. Block's] office." Government House Leader John Baird (Ottawa West-Nepean, Ont.), who had accompanied Ms. Block to her witness chair before the House Affairs Committee earlier that day, responded that the government would always be prepared to look at that.

They never did.

The opposition also revealed that her office had exorbitantly high printing expenses, which she signed off on. They scripted her responses to committee and limited her time for questioning.

I bring this up now, because hypocritically, Block has now been charged with presenting a private member's bill to hold First Nation communities to account, by revealing the salaries of their leaders. The implication of course is that they are perhaps corrupt, and even if this proves not to be so, the damage will be done.

The Reformers claim that Band members deserve "the same provisions as other Canadians in terms of transparency and accountability."

"Other Canadians" meaning anyone other than a member of their own government. I don't know how Block will be able to discuss any of this with a straight face. I mean, seriously. She's being called a "rising star", but only because she clearly knows how the game is played.

You do as you're told and you'll be just fine.

This is clearly a witch hunt, but maybe the First Nation communities should announce that they are in the process of investigating Kelly Block and her connections to Russell Ullyatt and bestmail.ca

Somebody's got to do it.