Prime Minister Said he Created a Million Jobs ... Oh! You Thought I Meant Our Prime Minister

I try to keep up with politics everywhere so follow political junkies from several different countries.

What I've discovered, in this mostly conservative sphere, is that the top news stories, no matter where they originate, are eerily similar. In fact, I often have to rely on the media source to assign it to a nation.

One headline that's popping up everywhere, contains the phrase "million jobs".

In the last Ontario election, Conservative candidate Tim Hudak, gave the term a life of its own, when he presented his Million Jobs plan, worked out on an abacus that was missing a few beads.

I think we can all agree that Tim Hudak is a few beads short of an abacus, but he did give us a new slogan "Hudak Math", that replaces things like "defies logic", "utterly senseless" and "you stupid moron".

One headline, while a bit older, comes from the UK Guardian, asking if British Prime Minister David Cameron and his coalition 'really created one million private sector jobs?' Clearly something they had boasted of.

But when the numbers were crunched, and the analysis scrutinized, the million jobs was only true if you used the Hudakian theory of mathematics. You just make stuff up.

Stephen Harper uses the theory, when he boasts that his government has created a million jobs. Remove the Hudakian component from the computation, and the results are staggeringly different, as graphs from Press Progress reveal.

We are actually down 638,810 jobs. Harper must have thrown a bit of Rob Ford Haze into the mix, a dangerous and potentially lethal combination.

Another Conservative, Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbot, believes that Cameron and Harper are amateurs. Why stop at one million, when you can promise to double that? After all, it doesn't have to be true. You just have to sell it with conviction.

Before being elected, under the headline: Fact checker: Can Tony Abbott create two million jobs in a decade? we learn that there is a whole lot of wishful thinking wrapped up in conservative bluster, but it seems to have worked.

However, doesn't his election promise sound a lot like that of Hudak's? Freaky.

Of course American Conservatives can't let any of them show up their nonsense. Under an L.A Times headline in response to Obama's employment strategy, they promised to create five million jobs. No time frame though for their Million Jobs Plan.

We know that Tim Hudak visited members of the U.S. Tea Party for insight, so would it be a stretch to imagine that Cameron, Abbot and Harper sat down for a spot of the brew?

Although, actually, I see them all in a cave, sacrificing a liberal on an altar, while dancing around a pot of steaming crude and rusty nails, chanting:

Double, Double, Toil and Trouble
Fire burn and cauldron bubble
Give us a slogan, the best selection
To fool them all in the next election.

I think they need a new potion, because this one is just making us ill.

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

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.

Sarah Palin Playing the Race Card is Absurd

Sarah Palin's new book, America by Heart, comes out today, and according to the UK Guardian, reads like a treatise by a would-be US presidential candidate.

Palin claims to be tired of Obama's apologies for America, and suggests that he is almost embarrassed to be American.

If that's true, he has plenty of reasons to be embarrassed, not the least of which is Sarah Palin.

But what I find disturbing is that she is pulling out the race card, which may be a bit of a preview of her election campaign, should she decide to throw her hat in the ring.

One of the most controversial parts of her book deals with race. McCain avoided this during the White House campaign, partly because he did not want to be accused of having fought an election in which he had made Obama's colour an
issue. Ignoring the advice of some Republicans, including Palin, his vice-presidential running mate, he also refused to exploit provocative comments made by Wright, Obama's long-time pastor and mentor in Chicago.

After suggesting that she belongs to a group of "patriotic Americans", as opposed to the current president, she quotes Michelle Obama as stating that she had "never felt proud of her country until her husband started winning elections".

She got it wrong, however, because what she really said was: "What we have learned over this year is that hope is making a comeback. It is making a comeback. And let me tell you something--for the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country. And not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change. And I have been desperate to see our country moving in that direction, and just not feeling so alone in my frustration and disappointment. I've seen people who are hungry to be unified around some basic common issues, and it's made me proud."

An entirely different meaning, but it won't matter. The people who read Palin's book will believe it, and an "us against them" mentality will be the result. And of course the "us against them" is getting dangerously close to becoming "whites" against "blacks".

Read Palin's next comments that follow that misquote:

"In retrospect, I guess this shouldn't surprise us, since both of them spent almost two decades in the pews of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright's church listening to his rants against America and white people."

You can almost see the white sheets.

Anger vs Hurt

My first experience with bigotry, that I can remember, was when I was in elementary school. We had a new student join us mid-term, who was of German descent. He was tall, blonde and very good looking. And he was nine.

One day at the end of class, our teacher dismissed the new student but asked that the rest of us remain behind.

One at a time she had us stand up and disclose what we knew of our heritage. "My grandmother was from Ireland, my grandfather Poland", that kind of thing. The exercise was to remind us that we were all descended from immigrants.

She then moved on to name calling. She said that if we called a classmate stupid, it was just a word, unless that person was a slow learner. She used other examples that I can't remember, but what I took from that was the difference between saying something that might make someone angry, and saying something that would hurt.

Apparently at recess, some boys had called the young German boy a 'Nazi' and an 'Aryan' something or other. Both terms no doubt came from parents, since I doubt they really knew what they meant at that time. But for the boy whose family had escaped Nazi Germany, those words hurt because he knew exactly what they meant.

They were not just words.

I hear the argument from white nationalists all the time, that if blacks can be proud of their race, why can't they? If they can be called "whitey" why can't they use the "N" word?

But the difference is that white people in America have no history of oppression. Black power was used to make African Americans proud of what they had been able to overcome, and though the struggle is far from over, attitudes had been changing.

"Whitey" may make a person mad, but it does not hurt. Overall, there is no history of pain.

Not that either is right, but there is a fundamental difference between the two.

While few come right out and say it, the problem with Obama, for many who have joined the Tea Party gang, is that he is black. It's below the surface, but it is there. Read their signs.

"He is Muslim" (a terrorist). "He is a socialist" (a Communist). He is Kenyan (black). He embodies all of their hatred and fear.

He's actually a Christian, social-Democrat, born in Hawaii, with a black father and white mother. In other words, an American. But it doesn't matter.

If Sarah Palin uses a kind of "white pride" associated with patriotism, and the good old USA, this could very well ignite a race war, as opposed to a political campaign.

Let's hope she doesn't run. Or if she does run, keeps running. The political climate in the United States is volatile enough.

John McCain Criticizes the Cost Overruns of the F-35.

Despite criticism from all quarters, Stephen Harper is determined to go ahead with the purchase of the F-35s.

John McCain once said of these expensive and ill designed jets:

“I share our allies and friends’ deep disappointment about the cost overruns and the difficulties that have, we’ve experienced in development of this aircraft.” “It’s shameful almost the way that these cost overruns have continued in most major weapons systems that we develop in the United States. It’s got to stop.

It’s got to be fixed-price contracts. We’ve got to stop the cost-plus contracts.” “I can assure our friends that I will keep a very close watch on it, because the cost overruns so far have been absolutely outrageous.”

But this is Harperland. Expert opinions mean nothing to our king.

Detainees, Prisoners of War and the Geneva Convention

"He was involved in construction projects for the Japanese: for the war effort, against his will, and against the Geneva Convention. His body, gradually weakened through beatings, forced exercise, bitter cold, poor diet and debilitating disease, could no longer take it, and he succumbed, like many others before him, and many others after him."

The above story is about an American soldier held in a Japanese POW camp during WWII; a camp from which he never returned.

Stories like this were all too familiar, and while most wartime prisoners were treated fairly, there were a great many who were not, from both sides of the conflict.

Similar tales arose from the Vietnam prisoner camps, as senator and former presidential candidate, John McCain, can attest to. After the news broke about the atrocities at Bagram prison in Afghanistan, he introduced the McCain Amendment 1977, which prohibited the inhumane treatment of prisoners. It was at about that time that Rick Hillier signed a new deal with regards to Afghan detainees ... a deal with little or no oversight.

It was inked during an election campaign, so no one was really paying attention.

When the Globe and Mail first broke the story of prisoner abuse in Afghanistan, and Canada's role in handing over prisoners for such abuse, in 2007; there was immediate outrage. But the Reformers stood their ground, and an aggressive PR campaign deflected the criticisms. Defense Minister Gordon O'Connor was replaced with Peter Mackay, and the whole thing was put on the back burner.

Enter Richard Colvin. A well respected diplomat, who blew the lid off the whole nasty affair.

In an attempt to clean up my blog and organize archived posts, I'm using this page to link articles and show a chronology of Canada's role in the Detainee issue. Remember, I am not criticizing our soldiers. They are doing a job and doing it well. But some military leaders and members of our current government, must be held accountable, because they did this in our name.

*******************************************

What we Knew and When

Timeline of Harper Government War Crimes in Afghanistan

2006 and Before

2007

2008

2009

*******************************************

More Postings on Detainees and Torture

A Country's Shame and a Nation's Heartache

Luis Moreno Ocampo of the International Criminal Court Could Charge Canada With War Crimes

Harper's Control of the Message Kept us in the Dark About Afghanistan

Military Conducting Their Own Investigantion into Torture, But Will it be Enough?

*******************************************

NAFTA Leak Was Only Step One in Trying to Promote McCain

The NAFTA leak that came out of the PMO may have stalled things for Barack Obama, but fortunately he was able to recover, despite Harper's best attempts.

Now on to phase two, where McCain attempts to continue the assault by singing the praises of free trade ... to Canadians!??

Does anyone else find it a little odd that the Conservative Party of Canada would invite the Republican candidate to visit, during a presidential campaign?

What was the message here? Were they trying to warn Americans that our government would open the door to McCain if they voted for him, but not the other guy ... who was black ... and a Democrat???

Were they sending a message to the oil companies that they were on board with the right guy to advance their interests?

Who knows? I just find the whole think a little strange.

John McCain's Ottawa Visit Puts Canada In The Middle Of U.S. Election Campaign
June 13, 2008
CityNews.ca Staff

Guess who's coming to dinner? Or should that be lunch? It's the man who would be the next president of the United States. John McCain will be in Ottawa next week for an address to the Economic Club of Canada.

And it's a preview of how this country may actually play a part in what happens down south during the long awaited November vote. McCain's main topic is one that's getting a lot of attention on both sides of the border: free trade.

The Republican candidate is a fan of more open borders, a feeling not necessarily shared by his opponent Barak Obama, who wants to reopen the North American Free Trade Agreement.

The Democrat thinks it's time to take a second look at provisions surrounding labour and environmental standards, something McCain opposes. "You know what message that sends?" the war veteran-turned-Senator asks. "That no agreement is sacred to him."

It's an issue that may play a role in the race for the White House, a once-every-four-year event in which Canada rarely plays any part. But things may be different this time around. Recent polls in the U.S. suggest some 64 per cent of the voters believe free trade has hurt an already ailing American economy and at least 54 per cent are against negotiating any new agreements with other countries.

But McCain thinks retraining workers to help them adapt to changing employment conditions is the key and that killing NAFTA would only hurt his nation in the long run. "Our exports are one of the only bright spots in our whole economic picture, we all know that," he explains.

Although Obama is on record four years ago as saying that NAFTA was good for his home state of Illinois overall, he now appears to have changed his stance. "I don't think NAFTA has been good for Americans, and I never have," he stated during his campaign against Hillary Clinton.

All of this is raising eyebrows north of the border, with Canadians - already caught up in one of the most competitive U.S. campaigns in decades - suddenly finding themselves right in the middle of an election where they have no say.

It's leaving Liberal MP Bob Rae suspicious of what's behind it all. "It's hard not to wonder what this is all about given the previous history of this story and I'm sure he would not have come unless he was told by the government of the day that it was a good idea," he suggests.

But either way it's going to make an already fascinating race even more interesting here. "It does put Canada in the middle of the campaign," Rae agrees.

Though Harper tried to distance himself, we got the message loud and clear.

John McCain Brings Trouble to Ottawa Over Evangelicals, Oil and NAFTA
By Douglas Todd
June 20, 2008

Republican presidential candidate John McCain visits Ottawa at an awkward time for Canada's Conservatives. McCain's visit and speech could indirectly emphasize Stephen Harper's ties to evangelicals, to an under-fire free-trade deal and to mounting criticism, including by an ecumenical group of leading Christians, of what they're calling Canada's sell-out to the U.S. on oil.

Even though Harper appears to have left town for McCain's visit, the high-profile foray into Ottawa could well remind Canadian voters that Harper, as much as he tries to keep it quiet, is a devout evangelical Christian.

In the last few weeks McCain has had to distance himself from two highly controversial U.S. televangelists whose endorsements he had gratefully accepted a few months earlier. One of them is powerful mega-pastor John Hagee, who has called the Catholic church "the great whore" and said the flooding of New Orleans was God's punishment for the city's acceptance of homosexuals. (Remember Harper's friend, Republican Jim Sensenbrenner voted against aid to Katrina victims)

The other is Rod Parsley, who urges all-out war to destroy Islam. Parsley claims Mohammed was possessed by demons. (Watch Parsley's anti-Muslim preaching).

As well, McCain wants to boast about how he, like Harper and unlike Democratic Party presidential candidate Barack Obama, is thoroughly pro-free trade, especially on NAFTA. But the Republican senator's visit comes within weeks of Kairos, the social justice group that includes leaders of the Anglican, Catholic, Mennonite, Evangelical Lutheran and United Churches, accusing former Conservative Brian Mulroney and Harper of continuing to sell out Canada's oil and gas supplies through NAFTA.

Kairos is helping raise public awareness about what it considers one of the least-covered major news stories of the past decade -- the "proportionality" clause in the NAFTA agreement that forbids Canada from setting oil and gas policies that are different from those in the U.S.

Working with the Parkland Institute at the University of Alberta, Kairos says that "despite Canada running out of natural gas, and importing nearly half the oil we consume, NAFTA dictates Canada’s government cannot reduce the percentage of oil and gas we now export to the United States, even in times of domestic shortages."

The Parkland/Kairos report argues the only solution to this and other potential scenarios is for Canada to pull out of NAFTA’s “proportionality” clause.

Go here to read the Parkland/Kairos report, which urges Canada to develop a more sustainable, ecological and independent long-term energy strategy.

Read more on McCain's connection to Hagee and Parsley (and how Obama will probably benefit from religion in the U.S. more than McCain.)

If you're interested in Harper's loyalty to the evangelical church, go here.

Fine kettle of fish you've gotten us into Mr. Harper.