Harper's Assault on Libya NOT Sanctioned by UN

I wondered why Harper took the extension of the so-called "mission" in Libya to Parliament. He didn't have to. As prime minister he alone can decide whether or not to go to war.

One of the arguments was that it was sanctioned by the UN. However, what got passed in Parliament was a motion to ignore the UN mandate and go right for a Bush style "regime change".

A continuation of the Bush Doctrine, now dubbed the Harper Doctrine.

These are the actions that the UN Security Council prescribed for the international community in terms of dealing with the man who wanted oil companies to pay more.

1.imposing a no-fly zone over Libya;
2.imposing an arms embargo;
3.prevention of the provision of armed mercenary personnel and
4.the freezing of financial assets, both state owned and private, held outside Libya.

And those measures came with the following specific demands:

“the immediate establishment of a cease-fire and a complete end to violence and all attacks against, and abuses of, civilians;” and “ the need to intensify efforts to find a solution to the crisis which responds to the legitimate demands of the Libyan people…with the aim of facilitating dialogue to lead to the political reforms necessary to find a peaceful and sustainable solution.”

But John Baird and Peter Mackay claimed that the Libyan "mission" cannot be achieved until the regime of Moammar Gadhafi is overthrown. I've heard similar lines before but always from American neocons.

Gadhafi should only be overthrown if that's what the majority of Libyans want, but we don't know, or obviously even care, what the majority of Libyans want. And they can't tell us because they are too busy dodging the damn bombs we're dropping on them.

The NDP used to be the party that peace activists flocked to, but every single one of them approved of this. They try to take the high road by suggesting that we can only completely destroy this country if we increase humanitarian aid.

The war profiteers were high fiving in the background because they are all too often the recipients of "humanitarian aid". The most humanitarian thing to do would be to stop dropping bombs.

The rebel forces have been unable to capitalize because there are not enough of them to move in. A ragtag group of Islamic fundamentalists, some according to West Point with ties to Al-Qaeda , and former Gadhafi forces who may or may not remain loyal to the cause.



Only Elizabeth May can claim any moral authority here. I am so proud of her.

I keep thinking of the young NDPer with the T-shirt 'I still hate George Bush'. I think she needs to put it away now.

Roland Paris, director of the Centre for International Policy Studies at the University of Ottawa, believes that we are creating another quagmire.

After stumbling into an Afghan mission based on mistaken assumptions, surely we have an obligation to scrutinize the details of any plans for international participation in Libya’s reconstruction…

For starters, is there a plan to deploy ground forces in Libya? If so, under what circumstances? Who would provide troops? How quickly could they be deployed, where would they go, what would they do?

Another priority may be restoring basic services to the population, including food, medical supplies, health care, electricity, fuel, policing and justice. How can international actors help to provide these services without engendering problems of dependency, economic distortion and local resentment that are sometimes the unintended effects of massive aid interventions?

What about the work of rebuilding Libya? The rebel council’s democratic principles offer a foundation, but a thin one. What role will the UN and other outsiders play? The notion that Libyans should “own” their political transition makes sense, but what does this mean in practice? What if Libya can’t support Western-style democracy? In the wide spectrum between Col. Gadhafi and Thomas Jefferson, what outcomes would be acceptable, and to whom?

All important questions, but ones that we may have the answers to. The rebel forces already have a bank and a national oil company, courtesy of Canada and the USA.

And they have also hired the most expensive lobbying firm on the planet. Who is paying them I wonder?

I see another decade of war. Harper already bored with Afghanistan, leaving a stronger Taliban and an insanely corrupt government behind, will probably move our troops to Libya.

Lawrence Martin told us in his book Harperland, that our current warring prime minister, does not seek peace in the world, but follows the neocon doctrine of a 'Clash of Civilizations'.

Jack Layton had better start paying attention. His job is to oppose this government, not hold their hand while they are out buying bombs.

He suggested as much to the Liberals when they were the official opposition. Now he needs to put his money where his mouth is.

The Neoconservative Passion for Alexis de Tocqueville

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

Neoconservative doctrine was written by academics and based on the writings of scholars, from Plato to Aristotle, Locke to Rousseau, and everything in between.

But one of the scholars often quoted, is Alexis de Tocqueville, a nineteenth century political thinker, who like many shaping the minds of young neocons, was born into wealth as a member of the aristocracy.

And he wrote of poverty as a man who had never known it, only observed it, yet his 1835 Essay on Pauperism, is used to justify the right's reluctance to help the poor.

What Tocqueville saw as a basic problem, was the definition of poverty.

"Among civilized peoples, the lack of a multitude of things causes poverty... In a country where the majority is ill-clothed, ill-housed, ill-fed, who thinks of giving clean clothes, healthy food, comfortable quarters to the poor? The majority of the English, having all these things, regard their absence as a frightful misfortune; society believes itself bound to come to the aid of those who lack them.... In England, the average standard of living a man can hope for in the course of his life is higher than in any other country of the world. This greatly facilitates the extension of pauperism in that kingdom."

So poverty is a state of mind? A comparative?

If our poor people are better off than the poor in central Africa, are they really poor?

Imagine going to your boss and asking for a raise and she tells you that you are already overpaid when compared to workers in Third World countries.

But workers in Third World countries aren't spending $1.30 a litre for gas to get to work, or 8 bucks for a box of cereal.

The definition of poverty has to be relative to how the rest of the population lives.

I'm not a socialist, and don't believe that if one family has a wide screen TV, then all families should have a wide screen TV.

However, I do believe that in a country with such vast natural resources as Canada, that everyone should be clothed, fed and housed. And everyone should have equal access to healthcare and education.

Neoconservatives do not.

David Frum is right when he says that government should never protect us "against the miseries caused by idleness", but is wrong when he says that only the indigent, or most destitute in society should be helped by government.

Remember the old Chinese proverb: “Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish; and you have fed him for a lifetime.”

Neocons believe in the power and responsibility of the individual. Striving for equality will only bring those better off down to the level of those with very little. And they use that philosophy to justify pandering to the rich and ignoring the poor. A plantation mentality where the rich, (whose wealth is proof that they are smarter and more deserving than most), will in turn, take care of the poor.

What rot.

But it's that rot that determines Stephen Harper's actions.

“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)

I'm very concerned with the approaching perfect storm in Ontario. A Harper majority (with a cabinet of many ex Mike Harris disciples), Harris protege Tim Hudak, (whose wife Deb Hutton was Harris's gatekeeper), as premier of the province and Rob Ford as mayor of Toronto.

Like most neoconservative governments, Mike Harris's created the highest number of homeless people in the history of our province. And what was worse, he didn't care. One of his henchmen, Jim Flaherty, simply suggested that we throw them all in jail.

And if a person froze to death living in their car, at least they had a car.

Ford is already talking about selling off public housing in Toronto. Maybe he hopes to drive the poor out of his city, but will only drive them into the streets.



Hudak wants to eliminate or drastically reduce the public service, suggesting that because they make a good wage, small businesses can't compete with government in the labour market. What the fool doesn't realize is that those good wages keep many small businesses afloat.

When Mike Harris ran Ontario, we had a Liberal government federally. When Brian Mulroney was prime minister, we had Liberal and NDP governments in Ontario.

If Hudak takes Ontario, there will be no counterweight.

It's absolutely terrifying.

Zombie Youth and the Canadian Property Rights Research Institute

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

In November of 2009, the Canadian Press learned that a government program designed to recruit the best and brightest from Canada's universities, had been politicized for partisan interests.

Before being granted an interview, those seeking to enter the Accelerated Economist Training Program, had to first write an essay on the Conservative ad campaign, labelled the Economic Action Plan.

"It smells a little bit," said Leslie Pal, professor of public policy at Ottawa's Carleton University. "It places an unfortunate implication of inviting people to write glowing things about the economic recovery plan."

Pal said he sees no rationale for asking people looking for a job with the government to comment on current government policy, especially when that policy is so contentious. "I think this is not a good idea."

A further indoctrination of Canada's youth into the neoconservative cult.

In his book Not a Conspiracy Theory: How Business Propaganda Hijacks Democracy, Donald Gutstein writes of a program that the Fraser Institute runs to catch them when they're young.

The Fraser Institute launched a program in 1988 that would have far-reaching impact on advancing the corporate agenda. This program, aimed at students, is actually a half-dozen initiatives through which the institute "is cultivating a network of thousands of young people who are informed and passionate about free-market ideas and who are actively engaging in the country's policy debate"

Some of those involved in the program include Jason Kenney, Ezra Levant, Danielle Smith (possibly the next premier of Alberta), Rob Anders and a young man named Matthew Johnston.

Johnston came to the public's attention for his part in a radio hoax, on behalf of his boss Rahim Jaffer.

Due to a scheduling conflict, Jaffir had Johnston take his part in a radio interview. Jason Kenney and Ezra Levant paid the man off, suggesting that "$40,000 buys a lot of silence".

But Matthew Johnston was also behind the formation of a right-wing organization: Canadian Property Rights Research Institute. Other members included Danielle Smith, a former student of Calgary School's Tom Flanagan, and Rob Anders, both members of the Fraser's youth program.

Rahim Jaffer had taken CanPRRI's case to Parliament when Revenue Canada refused to grant them non-profit, tax-exempt status. It folded soon after.

However, a look at one of their publications, shows more than a connection to the Fraser and the Harper government. They are linked to a network of think tanks and advocacy groups, many created under the guidance of Milton Friedman, Friedrich Von Hayek and other Chicago school alumni.

With a Harper majority and accelerated attempts to put his stamp on every aspect of government, will only neoconservative youth be allowed access into the halls of political power?

Will there be more tests?

When Carolyn Bennett was in Kingston recently to discuss our crumbling democracy, she spoke of the different criteria for those entering political life.

At one time, they got into politics to make a difference, often in their chosen field. As a doctor she was concerned with health issues.

But now she says that many Conservative candidates are only interested in party politics. They have no interest whatsoever in the betterment of the country, only in furthering an agenda. This includes their staff.

Bob Rae refers to them as "25-year-old jihadis", who often make the decisions for the elected MPs.

I shudder to think what kind of country we will become as a result.

I Wish it Was a Return to the 1960s and Not the 1990s

Robert Benzie had a piece in the Toronto Star this weekend: Return to the 1960s, in which he asks "One Party?"

It is well researched and well written, comparing today to 1963, when we had a conservative prime minister (Diefenbaker) and a conservative premier (Robarts) in Ontario.

He adds a bit more deja vu with the fact that there was a progressive democrat, with a pretty wife, in the White House, and the Green Bay Packers were football heroes.

However, I would like to challenge his story.

First off, Stephen Harper is no John Diefenbaker, because Dief believed in Canadian sovereignty. Harper does not.

And Diefenbaker stood up to JFK when he wanted Canada to accept nuclear warheads (Kennedy & Diefenbaker: The Feud That Helped Topple a Government, By Knowlton Nash, McClelland & Stewart, 1991, ISBN: 0-7710-6711-9). Canadian diplomat, George Ignatieff, tried to broker a compromise but Dief would have none of it.

Ignatieff, although a diplomatic realist, was also an indefatigable champion of disarmament, and he sought to provide Diefenbaker with a formula that he could use with Kennedy in articulating the near-incomprehensibility of Canada's official position on warheads. The urbane diplomat proposed that the prime minister say he would accept warheads on two conditions: first, if there were joint control in their use — a joint control of Diefenbaker's particular definition; and second, only if an all-out effort at disarmament were launched first and if, at the end, it was determined that there could be no progress.

That formula would buy Diefenbaker some time and it might well wash politically in Canada, even if it wouldn't in Washington. "Making clear-cut decisions was not part of Diefenbaker's nature," Ignatieff later remarked. (McClelland & Stewart, 1991)

By comparison, Harper has erased our borders, allowing the U.S. military to cross on a whim, their FBI to conduct investigations on Canadian citizens, and the U.S. Coast Guard to patrol our waters.

And he has committed Canada to the Missile Defense (Star Wars) program.

When Stephen Harper was trying to broker his buy America/Sell Canada deal, he became the brunt of jokes with U.S. diplomats. He was calling every day sweetening the pot. (Wikileaks) "What if I throw in two provinces and the CN Tower? You have to accept this damn country if I pay you to take it?"

John Diefenbaker would have kicked his behind.

And Mike Harris lapdog, Tim Hudak, is no John Robarts.

Robarts supported public healthcare, even endorsing NDP MLA Kenneth Bolton when running in the London riding of Middlesex south. And he believed in having two official languages, opening the door to French education in Ontario schools. He promoted public education, the expansion of teacher colleges, built York University, and launched the Ontario Scholarship fund.

He also believed in science and was responsible for the construction of the Ontario Science Museum.

All anathema to the neoconservative agenda of for-profit schools, private healthcare, and a pox on scientific research unless it's to develop weaponry.

Instead of 1963, should Ontarians have a memory lapse and elect Harrisite Tim Hudak, this situation is more 1993, when a chain of events opened the door to ignorance as a prerequisite for power.

It started with the Reform Party's electoral success, and the Progressive Conservatives electoral death blow. But for those who believe that the Reformers replaced the PCs in the West, most of their gain was at the expense of the other populist western offering, the NDP.

- The anti-government campaign of Preston Manning and the Reform Party, inspired Newt Gingrich in the U.S., who used the same tactics, and many of the same people, to propel the Republicans to victory. Now Newt Gingrich is running for president.

- The National Citizens Coalition, that spent more than a half million dollars to destroy the government of Bob Rae, and $50,000 to get "Steve" Harper elected as an MP, threw money behind Mike Harris, though Harris wasn't their first choice. They had actually approached Toronto born and raised Harper to run as a neocon premier. He declined. That same NCC, that Harper once ran, also played a role in Harper's majority victory.

-After their success, the Reformers turned their attentions on Ontario, even adopting ridings with staff from their own campaign.

When we look at the legacy of Diefenbaker and Robarts, what is the the legacy of Harris and Harper?

- A privatization nightmare. Ditto for Harper.

- Sale of prime public land for campaign contributions. Jim Flaherty is planning a fire sale of public property.

-Abuse of tax dollars on signs and self-promotion ads, engineered by Guy Giorno. Ditto for Harper.

- Disdain for the poor. Ditto for Harper.

Deaths at Walkerton because of deregulation. Deaths from Listeriosis because of deregulation.

Riot police to stifle dissent. Riot police to stifle dissent.

So while I wish it was a return to the sensible conservative governments of 1963, I'm afraid it's only a return to Republican/Tea Party/Reform Party offerings, that have created the age of ignorance.

We Knew it Was Just a Matter of Time. Libya Open for Business!

It didn't take long for the vultures to swoop down on Libya. News that Washington's largest lobbying group, Patton Boggs, has been hired to sell the rebel army as the new government of the oil rich country, should come as no surprise. The firm has been behind international trade deals for decades, and has obviously found a willing trade partner.

And Halliburton has already been hovering over Libya.

"We hope Iraq will be the first domino and that Libya and Iran will follow. We don't like being kept out of markets because it gives our competitors an unfair advantage," John Gibson, chief executive of Halliburton's Energy Service Group ("Halliburton Eager for Work Across the Mideast," International Oil Daily, May 7, 2003)

And now that the Harper Doctrine has replaced the Bush Doctrine, those vultures are ready to land.

Of course, they will claim that they are just doing God's work. Hallelujah!

"I am going to put an end to all that is holy and fill the world with violence, so that Neocons can extract the oil from the bowels of the earth. Thou must be clear minded and self-controlled, while thou bombeth the crap out of everything so that the profits of disciples, Halliburton and SNC Lavelin, can flow with the crude down the river of greed. So sayeth the lord of free markets" - Their god

Why Has Our Atomic Energy Been Sold to a War Profiteer?

SNC Lavelin is in the news a lot.

As one of the primo war profiteers, they are often the object of protests. They have been involved in scandal and yet have been granted contracts to help rebuild and provide private security in Afghanistan.

They have been tainting our water and further destroying our reputation abroad.

They built the notorious fence at the G-20 in Toronto, going way over budget.

And while much of the developed world has been critical of Libya's detention centres, SNC Lavelin is building them.

So why were they just gifted our atomic energy for a mere $15 million?

And they are going to apply their wonderful "business ethics" to turn Canada's nuclear energy into a profit making machine.

Forget that there are 800 jobs at risk. Good paying union jobs, that are the backbone of our economy.

And forget that this sale and new goal to make money, will no doubt increase our energy costs.

Isn't it all about making the wealthy wealthier?

I imagine SNC Lavelin is browsing the Harper Garage sale, as we speak, where everything not nailed down (and even stuff bolted to the floor) will be on the market. Cheap. Real cheap.

I mean Tony Clement sold them a highway when he was with the Mike Harris government.

Lock up your daughters and hide your sons, folks, or they'll slap a sticker on them.

Nothing is sacred in Harperland.

Mushy Middles, Dirty Words and Why we Must Rebuild the Centre

When I posted on why Jack Layton should drop the "brothers and sisters" socialist talk if he hoped to survive the next four years, I received several comments and many emails, telling me that I was wrong.

Many of his followers actually fully support the socialist label, because like Stephen Harper, they believe that Canadians should only have two clear choices. Right or left. Neoconservatism or socialism.

They have no problem with a Harper majority, because they believe that Canadians will become disillusioned with the right, so will jump to the left next election for solutions.

One said that the reason they set out to destroy the Liberals, was because they hated the "mushy middle". The Liberals (and PCs) were able to borrow from both right and left, while attempting to stave off the excesses of both. Not always successfully, but that strong centre has made us who we are as Canadians.

Or at least who we were.

But this reader was convinced that with no "mushy middle", Canadians would get tired of their "empty wallets" and look to the NDP to fill them.

Good luck with that.

Barack Obama was one of the most progressive political leaders that the United States has had in a very long time. And yet the right-wing noise machine, through the Koch Brothers sponsored Tea party, and the Republican Neanderthals, have all but destroyed him.

First by painting him as a "socialist" and then making "socialist" a dirty word. A very clever strategy.

Because the question became not whether some form of socialism might be good for Americans (especially with healthcare), but whether or not Obama was one. And since you had to ask it must be something to be feared.

The same tactic used in identifying him as an Islamic. They actually had polls asking Americans if they thought that Obama was Muslim, as if being Muslim was a disease.

Look at the two images, both produced by Fox News, North and South.





Anything strike you as familiar?

The neocons in the U.S. were even able to destroy ACORN, an umbrella group of community organizers, that has done so many good things.

They first used dirty tricks, and then once they felt that they had discredited the organization sufficiently, they then linked it constantly to the president. It was once something he was proud to put on his resume, now his affiliation, is something he is supposed to be ashamed of.

Obama's ACORN, Ignatieff's Coalition, Layton's Socialism.

Negative connotations to legitimate things.

How many times did the Harperites use "socialists" during the coalition crisis? A coalition of "separatists and socialists". Now the socialists have destroyed the separatists and the picking off of "the socialists" will be like taking candy from a baby for Harper.

Because he has all of the Tea party money and nonsense behind him, and next time around I doubt Layton will get much media support, when they are promised a zero tax rate.

"Mushy middle" parties strived for balance.

The Right-Wing Noise Machine

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.

Ralph Goodale responded to Cheney by saying that "conservation was a characteristic of an advanced, intelligent society." (p. 133)

McQuaig goes on to reveal how a Canadian anti-Kyoto group sprang up overnight, sponsored by the oil companies, to defend Dick Cheney's position.

To give some idea of what Jack Layton would be up against if he still plans to go it alone, that group, Responsible Environmental Solutions, was headed up by Guy Giorno and included Harper's former environmental minister, John Baird.

Layton would later allow Stephen Harper to talk him into bringing down the Liberal government on the day that Kyoto was to be ratified, and agreed not to attack Harper during the campaign.

As a result, we will go at least a decade with NO CLIMATE CHANGE plan.

Assorted right-wing think tanks, advocacy groups and noise machines, will never allow the NDP to get elected, and if by some miracle they do, will never allow them to govern.

The Fraser Institute was started to challenge the NDP government of Dave Barrett in British Columbia. Ontarians for Responsible Government (a branch of the National Citizens Coalition) was established to challenge the NDP government of Bob Rae in Ontario.

They won't need to establish a new think tank to take down Jack Layton, because they already have numerous groups, all corporate financed, most American neoconservative inspired.

By destroying his allies, Layton has made himself a big fish in a very small barrel.