About Race, Misogyny, Music and Fathers. Where Do I Start?

Recently, during an Up the Debate leaders forum on women's issues, Justin Trudeau was asked  about what causes misogyny in young men.  He answered

“I don’t know where exactly to point my finger.  I think there’s probably an awful lot of factors that come together to shape societal behaviour — whether it’s certain types of music? There’s a lot of misogyny in, you know, certain types of music. There’s issues around pornography and its prevalence now and its accessibility, which is something I’m really wrapping my head around as a father of kids who are approaching their teen years. And there’s also just the shifting parental roles as well. There’s a lot of communities in which fathers are less present than they have been or they might be in the past, and there’s more need to have engaged positive role models.”

In the videotape, the original question concerning misogyny and young men, was edited out, and replaced with a question about the causes of violence against women.

Paula Simons, in her piece for the National Post, focused on racial stereotyping,  using journalist Desmond Cole's accusations that Trudeau was talking about black people, when he referenced music.  Simons also claims that one "could equally well hear those words as a reference to domestic violence in the aboriginal community."

It is risky to stir up racial hatred, when many communities are working so hard to fight violence against women.  Both the Liberals and NDP have promised such help, and for all the narrow mindedness of the Harper government, they have delivered, though not nearly enough.

The Cree Women of Eeyou Istchee Association, is just one group fighting gender inequality and tackling the sensitive subject of male aggression.  And they are doing it by involving men, so that the healing process can begin.

If we are not allowed to talk about this in an intelligent manner, how can we justify funding for something that we don't want to believe exists?  Community leaders are the best to gauge what they need, not race activists or journalists.

Desmond Cole took to Twitter, even setting up a separate thread to discuss Justin Trudeau.  Why did we allow this man to hijack such an important issue?  This was supposed to be about women and gender inequality, not him and his own causes.  Racism is an important topic, but this was not about race.  Our concerns have now been lost. I'm hoping this was not the intent, though I think it was more about partisanship.

Music and Rape Culture

In a piece The Lines Are Never Blurred, on the feminist site I am a Woman, I am Not a Man, But I am Equal to No One, the topic was rape culture and music.

One of the most dangerous results of a patriarchal society is the presence of a rape culture. This term refers to “practices which excuse, normalize, or even promote rape or sexual violence,” especially against women Rape culture includes both “institutional sexism” in the government and misogyny in pop culture

...Pop culture is another area where rape culture is clear and evident. Popular music, especially that written by men, often refers to women as “hoes,” “bitches,” and “sluts.” Performers such as Eminem, Flo Rida, and Robin Thicke rap and sing about how they would like to sleep with the females in their songs, yet they objectify and insult the objects of their lust. The song “Blurred Lines,” by Robin Thicke, is full of references to non-consensual sex and other characteristics of rape culture, and is a prime example of how popular the objectification of women and the trivialization of rape has become. The lyrics of “Blurred Lines,” as well as the lyrics of other songs by equally popular artists, encourage a misogynistic attitude by promoting messages straight from the mouths of rapists and those who make excuses for them.

Those are the words of a feminist, and for the record, Eminem and Robin Thicke, are both white. She does not see this as a race issue but blames it on "the male-dominated rap music industry".

Of course it's not just rap music, but many genres that objectify women. The Artiface, in a piece about pop culture and violence against women, singles out Maroon Five, and their song Animal.

In a 2010 piece for the Toronto Star, Antonia Zerbisias, discusses the influence of television, advertising and music, that promote a rape culture.

"There are rape jokes. Rape songs. Music videos that covey a sense of sexual entitlement to men while portraying women as insatiable, available."

She is certainly not being racist, even if somehow we are supposed to conclude that she means black rappers.

We have to remember that Justin Trudeau is not just a politician, but is also a father. However, he did not get his talking points from Bigots R Us, but from the writings of feminists, who have been sounding the alarm for years. He may have also learned a lot from his wife Sophie Gregoire, who won recognition from the  UN Women National Committee  Canada, for her "volunteer and activist work on mental health, eating disorders as well as for women- and children-related issues."

To suggest that Justin Trudeau is racist, or has minimized issues facing women, is ridiculous.  Any media ignoring the intent of the debate, and making it all about unfounded racism, is as Zerbiasis suggests, just feeding into the culture.  I hope she gives them hell.

And About That Fatherhood Thing

In Chicago, in February of 2013; President Obama gave a speech that raised a few eyebrows. In it he said: “there are entire neighborhoods where young people, they don’t see an example of somebody succeeding. And for a lot of young boys and young men, in particular, they don’t see an example of Fathers or grandfathers, uncles, who are in a position to support families and be held up and respected.”

Both liberals and conservatives alike, attacked what they saw as a patriarchal attitude. However, it launched a movement This Is Fatherhood ” that includes some very high profile, and dare I say African American, public figures. They are not saying that women can't raise children on their own, only that fathers need to be more accountable, and that male role models need to step up and show by example, how women and girls should be treated.

The prime minister, is not our parent and their government not our keepers.  We need individual communities, regardless of race or creed, to lobby for designated funds to promote gender equality, and speak out against rape culture and violence.  Only they know what is needed and how best to deal with it.

That is not to say, that violence does not occur in homes across the country, which is why we need to address things like income equality, poverty, alcoholism, drug addiction, etc.   If a woman is financially dependent on her mate,  she may feel trapped and more willing to take abuse.

None of these things can be handled in one debate, especially when the concerns raised during that debate, have been lost.  But at least it brings these things to the forefront during this election campaign.  Or at least it would have, if it hadn't been hi-jacked by someone with their own agenda, and a media preferring sensationalism to honest reporting.

And we wonder why they don't take us seriously.

One of the most Powerful Countries in the World Can no Longer be Trusted

There is a Public Relations firm operating in both the United States and Canada, Ketchum Inc., that has for the past several years, been working with Vladimir Putin, to sell Russian influence in the United States.

They run an English language website, ThinkRussia.com and when tensions first began to rise in the Ukraine, postings included 'a look back at the Sochi Olympics, a feature on international women's day in Russia, and a piece detailing a crackdown on bitcoin.' Nothing on Ukraine. Indeed, if you visit the site today, you get no sense of the turmoil currently taking place.

Ketchum also maintains a Twitter account for Russia, @mfa_russia They have over 48,000 followers, and while much if it is non-confrontational, they do question the actions of NATO and its members.

They also, however, give us a view of the conflict outside the Western sphere, as Russia seeks humanitarian aid from China, to assist those living in what we refer to as Pro-Russian territory.

Remember. These sites are being maintained by one of the world's largest PR firms, originating in the United States, and being paid for by the Russian government. How can this be?

The Destabilization of a Powerful Nation

Stephen F. Cohen, described as a 'scholar of Russian studies', wrote a book in 2000, Failed Crusade: America and the Tragedy of Post-Communist Russia. I had read it several years ago, but picked it up again to read as a refresher.

In it he writes of the invasion of Russia by the United States, throughout the 1990s. Not a military invasion, but a social and cultural one with an army of bankers, investors and Evangelicals, hoping to turn the country into an American style democracy.

They called it shock therapy, as the middle class was gutted, the most vulnerable left to fend for themselves and Christian Orthodoxy allowed to play an important role in public policy. (Simon Shuster, Time, August 4, 2014)

Cohen questioned the logic of destabilizing a country with nuclear weapons. He is now a seemingly lone voice, in once again questioning the U.S. And their role in Ukraine.

The Coup and the Chorus of Voices

I started following this story back in February, when a tape was leaked of a telephone conversation between U.S. Diplomat, Victoria Nuland, and Ukrainian Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt. In it we hear Nuland angrily state "f... the European Union!"

Initially, Nuland denied that it was her on the tape, blaming the Russians for trying to discredit her, but eventually admitted to the slur and apologized for her insensitivity.

However, that tape revealed a lot more than a diplomat with a potty mouth, but also showed America's apparent involvement in the coup. Not because Nuland or Pyatt spoke of it directly, but because many asked themselves who these people were and why were they so upset with the European Union? This was when rumblings of another U.S. sponsored "regime change" was underway.

Victoria Nuland is married to Robert Kagan, co-founder with arch Neoconservative, William Kristol, of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

PNAC worked closely with the Bush Administration and their so-called War on Terror and Kagan personally supported the invasion of Iraq. He also wrote a book in 2003; Of Paradise and Power: America and Europe in the New World Order, in which he states:

When it comes to setting national priorities, determining threats, defining challenges, and fashioning and implementing foreign and defense policies, the United States and Europe have parted ways ... '

He then coined the term "Americans are from Mars and Europeans are from Venus"' which understandably upset, well, the Europeans. Did he also coin the term "F... the EU"?

And what about Geoffrey Pyatt, the Ukranian Ambassador?

Soon after landing in the Ukraine, he engineered the purchase of a television outlet called Hromadske.TV, with embassy funds and contributions from wealthy Americans. What's interesting though, is that he also received almost $100,000 from the Embassy of the Netherlands.

A secret Wikileaks cable revealed a statement made by a departing US envoy to the Hague, "Dutch pragmatism and our similar world-views make the Netherlands fertile ground for initiatives others in Europe might be reluctant, at least initially, to embrace."

Damn I hope MH17, with so many Dutch passengers, wasn't targeted because of that, given that Hromadske TV played an integral part in the Revolution, and is now the most quoted in the Western media.

In December, 2013, Radio Free Europe wrote of the upstart new station: Out Of Ukrainian Protests, A New Media Outlet Is Born

Disinformation, misinformation, rumors, and speculation have been widespread throughout the crisis as throngs of protesters have taken to the streets to protest Yanukovych's scuttling of a landmark pact with the European Union in favor of closer ties with Moscow.

But apparently, only Hromadske could get to the truth. However, Hromadske may have also launched the Revolution. According to Mustafa Nayem, the man credited with the igniting spark:

The press gained freedoms under Yanukovych. But it wasn’t until 2013 that a group of us left our jobs at companies owned by oligarchs or political partisans and began to create a truly independent media. In the first months of the presidency of Viktor Yanukovych we formed Stop Censorship! to protest persecution of the press.

Three years later, we founded the first Internet TV channel in the country that operates through donations from our viewers—Hromadske.tv, where I work now as editor in chief. The media showed everything that was happening—helping people to believe that if we all act together, we can accomplish great things.

So who controls the message? You be the judge, because that is not the purpose of this post.

The Destabilization of a Powerful Nation

When I mentioned in the heading, a powerful nation that can't be trusted, I was referring to the United States. Not that we can trust Russia. I think that's a given.

Nor does it necessarily mean that the United States can't be trusted. However, because of past sins, and bogus reasons for war, American credibility is fading.

According to a 2013 Gallup poll, they were seen as the biggest threat to world peace, at 24%. Next to them was Pakistan at 8%, India 6%, Israel and Russia 5% and Afghanistan, Iran, And North Korea all tied with 4%.

Of course, the right-wing blames this on Obama, but the reputation as a war monger, began long before he came to power. In fact, you could say it started in 1898 when the U.S. no doubt blew up its own ship, The Maine, and used it as justification for the Spanish-American War. From then on, Imperialism became an integral part of public policy.

Many influential Europeans are even suggesting that 9/11 was an inside job. But this post is not to debate that either, but to ask ourselves what happens when a country like the United States loses credibility, at a time of profound crisis.

In May of this year, journalist Finian Cunningham, had a piece posted on Paul Craig Roberts Institute for Political Economy site, entitled: Putin Should Send Troops Into Ukraine

Despite Western claims, the facts show that the unrest and violence in Ukraine has stemmed from Western subversion in that country, beginning with the CIA-backed street agitation in Kiev last November that led to an illegal coup against the elected government of Victor Yanukovych in February. We could go further back to the CIA-sponsored Orange Revolution of 2004 and the $5 billion invested by Washington for regime change from the early 1990s onwards.

The neo-Nazi paramilitaries and their political leaders who usurped power in Kiev have gone on to unleash a campaign of terror against ethnic Russians in the east and south of the country, and anyone else who opposes the regime’s power grab.

It should be noted that Paul Craig Roberts is no left-wing nut, but a supply-sider Republican, who was part of the Reagan Administration. Yet he allows a guest posting that blames American foreign policy for the Ukraine crisis.

Cunningham continues

In the southern city of Odessa, more than 40 anti-Kiev protesters were killed when a building they were seeking refuge in was set ablaze by hundreds of neo-Nazi storm troopers acting on the tacit direction of the junta in Kiev and its Western state sponsors ... Eyewitnesses in Odessa say that when people jumped from windows to escape the blaze they were “finished off” by neo-Nazis on the ground who had minutes before set the building alight with petrol bombs.

These forces comprise remnants of the Ukrainian national army loyal to the fascist junta, as well as Right Sector neo-Nazi paramilitaries outfitted as a “national guard”, and very possibly the involvement of US-backed mercenaries and Special Forces.

Ketchum Inc, is not alone in supporting Russia, though it's not so much about supporting Russia as not trusting the USA.

It took months, for the European Union to endorse severe sanctions, and since many of those Europeans will be hurt in the process, they may cave before Putin. If the purpose is to ignite a coup against the Russian leader, that doesn't appear imminent, as he had already took measures to decrease foreign investments.

The United States had the only vote against a a UN investigation into Israeli violence in Gaza, revealing what little international influence they now have. Had Canada's international voice still meant something, we would have surely joined them, but Harper lost our seat at the UN council.

At a time when we need strong American leadership, that country has been destabilized with shock therapy that has gutted the middle class, left the most vulnerable to fend for themselves and allowed Christian Orthodoxy to play an important role in public policy. Sound familiar?

Tea Party politics Russian style, or American style, is still Tea Party politics. They tanked the Russian economy in 1998, and put the American economy on the brink several times. How can anyone now look to the U.S. for guidance, when the Tea Party now control the GOP and Congress?

The American people are weary of war, and the rest of the world growing weary of the USA.

Let's hope the goddess of diplomacy can defeat the god of war, and this mess ends peacefully, because no matter what neoconservatives believe, there can be no winners in a nuclear war.

More Government Propaganda While Canada Once Again Stands Alone

A very strange Oped piece appeared in the Globe and Mail on the weekend, written by none other than Stephen Harper. It was a follow up to a government announcement that we would be giving the Ukrainian military another 220 million dollars, on top of the 300 million already provided, to assist in their battle with rebel forces.

It reads like a typical propaganda piece, laying all of the blame on Russia's doorstep, for the horrific downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17, that killed 298 innocent civilians.

Had this appeared under a different byline, it would simply reflect the views of the author. However, when it comes from the leader of a country, it is something much more.

An official position. And that position is pretty clear. Russia is our sworn enemy.

The United Nations is investigating the incident, and most in the international community are taking a wait and see approach, before becoming judge, jury and executioner.

While there are calls to strip Russia of their right to host the The World Cup in 2018, British Prime Minister David Cameron, is calling for cooler heads to prevail, and FIFA see it as a potential "force for good". It might just be the golden ticket for a diplomatic solution to the crisis, since sanctions don't appear to be working.

Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbot, has actually called Vladimir Putin personally, to discuss the situation. This is something that is no longer an option for Canada, as our government has already burned too many bridges with the Russian leader, making us irrelevant.

Australians still don't approve of Abbot, but do believe he is leading the way in diplomacy, with a position contradictory to Harper's.

It is not inconceivable that the shooting down of the passenger flight was an accident. As the National Post points out, '-Iran Air Flight 655—shot down on July 3, 1988, not by some scruffy rebel on contested soil but by a U.S. Navy captain in command of an Aegis-class cruiser called the Vincennes.'; it's happened before.

The Reagan administration tried to cover it up, but eventually the truth came out, as it no doubt will in this latest tragedy.

Conservative MP, Peter Goldring, is joining Sarah Palin, in calling for an all out war with Russia, reminding us of Harper's Reform Party and their bumper sticker foreign policy. Simple and dangerous solutions to complex issues.

Obama may provide equipment that would help to reveal 'specific locations of surface-to-air missiles controlled by Russian-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine so the Ukrainian government could target them for destruction', but with only 17% of Americans supporting military engagement in the area, I doubt he would consider doing anything more.

Besides, the optics may not be good, given that Joe Biden's son now works for a Ukranian company that is pushing for energy independence from Moscow.

So what is Harper's endgame here? Is he trying to earn some respect, given his abysmal record on foreign policy?

In 2003, when Leader of the Opposition, he spoke out in favour of Canada joining the U.S. In Iraq, and now that country is in shambles, with 63% of Republicans believing that it was a mistake.

He escalated our involvement in Afghanistan, and now the Taliban is stronger than ever, even winning in areas they never held before the invasion.

Canada led in the regime change in Libya, and despite spending $800,000 on a "victory" celebration, Libya is in a bloody mess. Republicans blame Obama, but who should we blame?

Engaging in a war of words, with an enemy he will never have to actually fight, (despite the views of the crazy wing in his Party), is a safe way to inflate his ego. However, I think there may be another motive.

Vladimir Putin was tanking in the polls, until he took a firm stand on Western interference in the Ukraine. Now his popularity with Russian citizens is overwhelming.

Is Stephen Harper hoping that by taking a firm and very public stand with Russia, that Canadians will view him as not so bad after all, despite his horrendous policies?

Could be.

Sadly, it might just work.

Clearly Liberalism is Not Dead Though Conservatism May be On Life Support

When Stephen Harper was with the Reformers, promoting an American style conservative movement, he mocked Canada's historic Conservative Party, because they boasted to be descended from Sir John A. MacDonald. "So what!" he said.

Recently the Harper government conducted a poll to determine the top ten Canadians who inspired us. From top to bottom:

1. Pierre Trudeau
2. Terry Fox
3. Tommy Douglas
4. Lester B. Pearson
5. Chris Hadfield
6. David Suzuki
7. Sir. John A. MacDonald
8. Wayne Gretzky
9. Jack Layton
10. Romeo Dallaire

What first struck me about the list was that no women were included.

What about Agnes McPhail, the first female MP and her work on prison reform? The Famous Five who fought and won the right for women to become "persons", not chattel? Louise Arbour who became the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights? The list goes on.

Most who made the cut are self explanatory, since they contributed a great deal to building Canada as a nation, and strengthened our international reputation.

Jack Layton was a puzzle though. He enjoyed some political success but I can't think of anything he did that would stand the test of time.

He joined Stephen Harper in fighting against the Kyoto accord and even campaigned against the carbon tax, claiming that it would hurt families, despite the fact that it was revenue neutral.

Elizabeth May recounted her experience with Layton and his political move.

I remember phoning Jack Layton to beg him not to bring down the government on the opening day of the climate conference. I had known and liked Jack since he was on Toronto City Council. He had been enormously helpful, volunteering as an auctioneer in local Sierra Club events. He told me when he ran for leader of the NDP that he was only seeking a role in federal politics to deal with the climate crisis. I had believed him. As he threatened to sabotage the most important global climate negotiations in history, I recall leaving a message on his cellphone: "How will you look at yourself in the mirror if you do this?"

... It is only with hindsight that I have come to believe that the climate negotiations were not merely collateral damage to the incidental timing of November 2 8. I now believe that Harper and Layton had a shared desire to pull the plug before the Martin government had a chance to look good on the world stage. I think it is extremely likely, given the way Layton downplayed the climate threat in 2006, that a conscious decision was made by NDP strategists. They had to make sure the key issue remained Liberal corruption for the NDP to avoid losing votes to the Liberals. (Losing Confidence: Power, Politics, and the Crisis in Canadian Democracy, By Elizabeth May, McClelland & Stewart, 2009, ISBN: 978-0-7710-5760-1, Pg. 2-7)

A similar strategy backfired in the recent Ontario election.

I liked Jack Layton but he was not at the heart NDP, at least not in the Tommy Douglas tradition. He spent the most on travel, he exploited subsidized housing" and a study conducted by McMaster University, revealed that he was the nastiest MP.

I can think of many others more deserving, but there is a bigger issue with the list.

What does this say to Stephen Harper?

Our heroes fought for a Just Society, gave us National Healthcare, Peacekeepers, fight for the Environment and the plight of the downtrodden. Except for MacDonald, none were Conservative, though our first prime minister was nothing like our current, as Harper himself reminded us.

Clearly, Canada has not moved to the right, as some suggest. We cherish everything that Stephen Harper fights against.

It's also interesting as we watch American politics, in the days of the Tea Party, that they actually share the same values.

NBC recently conducted a poll asking who was the best President in the past 25 years. Bill Clinton was number one and Barack Obama number two.

As an interesting coincidence, the son of Canada's first choice will be running for Prime Minister in 2014, while the wife of America's first choice, may be running for President in 2016.

Harper conducted the poll in preparation for our 150th anniversary in 2017. We just have to make sure that the poll is his only involvement in the process.

How can we expect someone who wants to destroy everything our inspirations built, speak for our country?

How Canadians Forced the Republicans to Miss the Bus

The Neocons South of the border, are in a flap ... again.

Not satisfied with bringing their country to the brink of collapse with their silly posturing over raising the debt ceiling, they are now attacking Obama for riding in a bus.

Maybe it's just that he refuses to sit at the back.

The Secret Service has ordered two custom made buses from the Quebec-based manufacturer Prevost (Go Canada), at a cost of 1.6 million per.

This is an outrage that the taxpayers of this country would have to foot the bill so that the campaigner-in-chief can run around in his Canadian bus and act as if he is interested in creating jobs in our country,” the chairman of the Republican National Committee, Reince Priebus, said Tuesday.

Other conservatives were snarkier. Wrote Dana Loesch, a “tea party” activist and CNN contributor, on Twitter on Tuesday, “Nothing says 'Let's tour America and talk about jobs!' than a big, black, hearse mobile of doom.”

As usual, they failed to do their homework (or go to school), because in 2004, George W. Bush also rode around in a bus, made by the same manufacturer.

oops!

It must be so tiring to be so ignorant.

Debt Ceiling Crisis? Obama Should Just do What Reagan and Bush Did

Ronald Reagan incurred more debt than all previous presidents combined, and was forced to raise the debt ceiling 17 times. No trumpets blared.

George H.W. Bush, inherited this massive debt and was forced to raise the debt ceiling 7 times. No beating of drums.

Bill Clinton inherited this massive debt, raised the debt ceiling 4 times, but raised taxes on the top 2%, and balanced the books.

George W. Bush cut taxes on the rich and waged wars on the credit card, leaving Obama with the biggest mess of all. Yet the first time he wants to raise the debt ceiling, so that the Nation can conduct business, the Tea Party Republicans pitch a childish fit.

Creating a catastrophe, where none existed, literally holding the country at ransom.

All for political showmanship.

What are they hoping will happen here? That they will be deemed to be the party worried that their country is going into debt, hoping that people will forget who got the U.S. into this mess?

Republican debt ceiling lift: 29 times

Democrats (including Obama): 5 times.

You do the math.

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.

What in the Heck Has Happened to Barack Obama?

Each visit would begin in more or less the same way, usually early in the morning or late at night, as a CSIS agent would ring the doorbell and flash his credentials.

Then the questions would begin: How long have you known Stefan Christoff ? Is Stefan Christoff an anarchist? Is he planning to protest at the G8 summit? But it's only when Canadian Security Intelligence Service agents continued to drop in on Christoff's friends and acquaintances, after the Vancouver Olympics and now into summit season, that the local activist became alarmed. "The first couple of visits were disconcerting, but now it has become a pattern," said Christoff, 29, a vocal opponent of the Harper government and an advocate for human rights( When CSIS rings your doorbell, By Catherine Solyom, The Gazette June 11, 2010)

From today's Washington Post:

FBI agents took box after box of address books, family calendars, artwork and personal letters in their 10-hour raid in September of the century-old house shared by Stephanie Weiner and her husband (shown with Obama above) ... The search was part of a mysterious, ongoing nationwide terrorism investigation with an unusual target: prominent peace activists and politically active labor organizers. The probe — involving subpoenas to 23 people and raids of seven homes last fall — has triggered a high-powered protest against the Department of Justice and, in the process, could create some political discomfort for President Obama with his union supporters as he gears up for his reelection campaign.

... They are “public non-violent activists with long, distinguished careers in public service, including teachers, union organizers and antiwar and community leaders,” said Michael Deutsch, a Chicago lawyer and part of a legal team defending those who believe they are being targeted by the investigation.

Several activists and their lawyers said they believe indictments could come anytime, so they have turned their organizing skills toward a counteroffensive, decrying the inquiry as a threat to their First Amendment rights. Those who have been subpoenaed, most of them non-Muslim, include clerical workers, educators and in one case a stay-at-home dad. Some are lesbian couples with young children — a point apparently noted by investigators, who infiltrated the activists’ circle with an undercover officer presenting herself as a lesbian mother.

Why is Obama supporting this?

He's getting as bad as Stephen Harper.

While the Tea Party carry signs of him sporting a Hitler moustache, the progressives will have signs showing the president with a big nose and cold as steel eyes.

"Where does Barack Obama think he is? Canada?"

Jack Layton's First Big Test

With President Obama talking tough with Israel this week, Harper and his new international bully John Baird, made it clear that they would be standing with Israel.

No surprises there.

The gist of Obama's remarks were that the United States should only respect the original boundaries of Israel, laid out in 1967, as they move toward a two-state solution to peace. I think many Canadians would agree.


But the real test here is for Jack Layton. Does he, as a social democrat, support the Democrat president, or stand with Stephen Harper?

If he really wants to present a clear choice to neoconservatism, this is a perfect opportunity. Maybe he'll wait for poll results, or maybe he'll simply remain quiet, given tensions within his own party on the subject.

That was his first test on the issue and he failed.

Today, Tuesday June 15, is a day the NDP‘s Jack Layton will face a leadership test. He is poised to make a decision to punish one of his MPs and it could stain his leadership for a long time to come.

As reported yesterday in the Vancouver Sun and other Canwest papers the party is in a state of near hysteria over what should have been a minor flap ... In this case Vancouver East MP Libby Davies got bushwacked by a pro-Israel activist posing as a neutral -- if not pro-Palestinian -- blogger. After a rally for the Palestinians criticizing Israel's deadly assault on the aid flotilla, a man approached Libby asking for an interview. As she always does, because she never hides her views, she complied. He immediately set her up with what he called a "background question." He asked when the occupation began, 1948 or 1967.

Libby hesitated then said 1948. She made the point that the date was not important -- that whatever the date the occupation was the longest in the world -- and far too long.

The next day the interview appeared on YouTube. But in 24 hours it had gone nowhere -- just 28 views. Then the most vociferous supporter of Israel in the NDP caucus, Thomas Mulcair, got wind of it and it escalated out of control. He went on a relentless campaign to punish Libby. The spin he helped create was that if Libby believed the occupation began in 1948 then she, ipso facto, believes that Israel has no right to exist. Libby has always gone to great lengths to make it clear that she supports Israel's right to exist and the two-state solution endorsed by the NDP. But suddenly Jack Layton was in full-panic mode. He apologized to the Israeli ambassador. He hung Libby out to dry. He forced her to issue a public apology.

She had absolutely nothing to apologize for, and yet he made her apologize anyway.

As leader of the official opposition, however, he will be expected to say something. Does he risk division by challenging Mulcair or take a strong stand against Israeli Apartheid?

Blustering about the Liberals now, would only make him appear weak and indecisive.

He could just issue a statement awash in ambiguity, enough to keep the media at bay, but it would not be enough to separate himself from Stephen Harper.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

With All Due Respect Mr. President. War in Itself is a Senseless Act of Violence

President Obama paid a surprise visit to Afghanistan recently, hoping to meet with Afghan President Karzai, but as it turned out, only a phone call was possible.

But he did visit with soldiers, and spoke of one battalion that had just lost six of it's members, through what he referred to as a "sensless act of violence".

It is a war. What in a war would be considered a sensible act of violence?

Violence is not a sensible act, it is a reactionary one. The reaction to anger or fear. It can be both offensive and defensive.

And if you shoot at people, there is a reasonable expectation that they will shoot back at you.

I remember Rick Hillier once calling car bombers cowards. When you are being bombarded with the firepower of the U.S. and other NATO countries, you use what is available to you. It is preservation and opposition to an invasion.

This war has reached such levels of inhumanity that we can no longer separate the enemy from the ally. The Karzai government, which has benefited from an enormous transfer of wealth from the West, has given little in exchange.

We have asked for no accountability and therefore have received none.

We live in a society where children are held in the utmost regard. When one is abducted the Nation holds it's breath. When they are victimized we rise up in anger, demanding that those who would do harm to a child are dealt with severely.

And yet we ask our soldiers to act as silent witnesses to the rape and torture of children.

And we justify it because it is war. Our soldiers are coming home broken and we wonder why.

WikiLeaks has provided us with a window of opportunity. We have been invited to play an active role in determining the direction of our involvement in Afghanistan.

We can no longer give our government a blank cheque to feed rampant corruption and brutality.

It's time to rethink Afghanistan.

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.

The Tea Party, Obama and Nuclear Nonproliferation

The press has come aboard the Tea Party express, some seeing it as the voice of the people, while others, the voice of the criminally insane.

But we can no longer discount the influence of this astroturf, corporate funded, movement.

They've accomplished what we didn't think was possible. They've elected people dumber than George W. Bush. Sarah Palin seems the next logical step as president.

But what frightens me the most is that they will now heavily influence foreign policy.

President Obama recently signed a nuclear nonproliferation deal with Europe. But with the shift in power, he is now having to meet with the "Republicans" to sell them on it. That is not going to be easy.

The Tea Party is steeped in religious fuundamentalists, and according to the L.A. Times, this "waiting for Armageddon" crew has already ordered their white linen robes and golden breast plates.

They see a nuclear war as the final clash of civiliations and any efforts by them to stop it, would be tantamount to interfering with God's will.

Can they be reasoned with, or will the same voices whispering in Stephen Harper's ear, like John Hagee, dictate?

This is a very serious situation and one we can't take lightly.

Damn I wish we had a media in Canada.

Why I Can no Longer Vote NDP. At Least Not for Now.

After the party of Sir John A. MacDonald folded in 2003, I began voting NDP. I had read somewhere that Flora MacDonald was, so I figured what was good enough for Flora was good enough for me.

But after watching the horrendous attacks on President Obama for the past two years, with cries of his being a 'Socialist' and even a 'Communist' , I realized that if the NDP ever formed a government, corporate Canada and their myriad of think tanks, would never allow them to govern.

One of my favourite columnists, Gerald Kaplan, wrote a piece recently, The hidden history of Bob Rae’s government in Ontario. I had covered this in another posting, outlining how the National Citizens Coalition and their spin-off Ontarians for Responsible Government, spent enormous amounts of money, running constant attack ads, that included the NCC classic billboards.

But Kaplan reveals that the assault on Rae and the NDP in Ontario, went much deeper.

... within months Mr. Rae's government faced an unrelenting, brutal four-year onslaught that was unprecedented in Canadian history. The attacks came from all sides. It is no exaggeration to say hysterical fear-mongering and sabotage was the order of the day. Launched within the very first year of the new government, the attackers included every manner of business big and small, both Canadian and American-owned, almost all private media, the police (especially in Toronto), landlords and lobbying/government relations firms. Their goal was clear, and they had the money and power to achieve it.

They were determined to undermine the government every step of the way, to frustrate the implementation of its plans and to assure its ultimate defeat. In all three goals they were successful. The considerable achievements of the government – often forgotten or dismissed –were wrought in the face of a deep recession and ferocious obstruction.

In Thomas Walkom's book Rae Days, he suggests that the story is one of political naivete and broken promises, and calls Rae "lazy" and "inconsistent". The only critique I would agree with is the naivete. Bob Rae did a good job during a double dip recession, but he was forced to continually play defense. He naively thought he was running the province.

But if he gave business concessions, the left were enraged. If he gave the left concessions, business was enraged. And unfortunately, business had all the money necessary to manipulate public opinion.

President Obama has recently accused the Republicans of using foreign money to fund their attack ads against him in the run-up to the mid-term elections.

"It could be the oil industry" funding the ads, Obama told a Democratic rally today in Philadelphia. "It could be the insurance industry, it could even be foreign-owned corporations. You don't know because they don't have to disclose."

He's probably right. Canadians were responsible for some of the ads against Obama's healthcare plan, and Americans funded Stephen Harper's anti same-sex marriage campaign, that helped him get him elected in 2006.

It's sad because Obama is a good president with a genuine concern for his country. But the Republicans and Fox News have poisoned the well to the extent that there may no longer be any hope of restoring sanity to American politics.

And Harper's neocons are determined to do the same here. They will create their own tea party, and stop at nothing to make sure sure that multinational corporations are still running our country. They would view the NDP as their biggest obstacle and it would be guerrilla warfare.

It's sad really, because the NDP are more social democrat that socialist. But it won't matter. I can see the placards now.

I'm not really anti-corporation, and believe that we need a healthy business community, but at present they are getting the most, while contributing the least, and that has to stop.

We need to get our country back so that I no longer have to decide on what party I support, based of which one will be the least likely to be destroyed by the corporate sector and their neoconservative puppets.

Tommy Douglas deserves better.

Creating a Big Tent Requires Building Bridges Not Burning Them

When Barack Obama was building support for his leadership and presidency, he played it very smart.

He knew that many Republicans had grown weary of George Bush and Karl Rove style politics, so he reached out to them in a spirit of cooperation, and in his case did it in part by invoking the legacy of Ronald Reagan, a man who has become an icon to the GOP.

Now no doubt Obama realized that much of the Reagan legacy is a myth, and while his Republican opponents stirred up images of the Gipper, he could have very easily broken down that myth. But that would have been akin to telling young children that there was no Santa Claus.

So instead of reminding the Religious Right that Reagan legitimized abortion in California, or the no-tax crowd that he was behind what was then the largest tax increase in American history (as president in 1982, just a year after his much better-known rate cut), he instead tapped into the two positives of the Reagan presidency: hope and optimism.

Senator Barack Obama made it clear in early 2008 that Reaganism was playing some role in his thinking as he mapped out his own more progressive route to the White House—but the specifics of what Obama was getting at were open to debate. "Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not, and a way that Bill Clinton did not," Obama told the editorial board of the Reno Gazette Journal in January 2008. Seeking to elaborate, the Democratic senator said that "we want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing." (1)

Obama was not going to be their enemy, even though many of Reagan's policies went against everything he stood for:

More than twenty years after Reagan's presidency, one must dig hard to learn of his failure to connect with black voters or other minority groups, or that he failed to address issues such as AIDS or homelessness in any meaningful way, or the sense that many had in the late 1980s that America had been overrun by greed. (1)

Michael Ignatieff knows that in order to reach out to disgruntled former Progressive Conservatives (like myself), he won't do it be denouncing conservatism. He will do it by only denouncing the policies of this current government that go against the very nature of conservatism, and in many cases, the very nature of Canadians.

NDP insider Brian Topp, has a column in the Globe and Mail, in which he discusses Ignatieff's "big tent" theory:

This spring’s curious debate over the idea of building a single big progressive party highlighted the deep vein of loathing and fear that many in Michael Ignatieff’s Rosedale/Bay Street-centred blue Liberal faction hold for progressive policies and people. As they have made clear both publicly and privately in many venues, they feel closer to the Conservatives than to the New Democrats on many issues.

This being so, even after an election debacle on the scale suggested by these numbers, perhaps Mr. Harper could hope to work out another informal modus vivendi with the blue Liberals, whose party would be returning to the repair shop for another long visit. In which case, on these seat projections, Mr. Harper would govern with a de facto 212-seat majority, much as he is doing now.

I like Brian Topp very much but he is dead wrong. The Liberals have never really been left or right, and in fact throughout the 60's to the 90's, the electorate voted on platform, rather than ideology, because there was little difference between the two major parties.

Stephen Harper suggested this himself, when he said that they must eradicate Red Tories, whom he called "Pink Liberals" from his Reform movement, if agreed to take over the old PC Party. The trick for him, as his then campaign manager Tom Flanagan put it, was to convince Canadians that they were moving to the left when they were not. (2)

The NDP on the other hand, have always been to the left and as a result have made themselves enemies of big business. There is nothing wrong with that and I agree with most of their policies. In 2006 they would have been the ideal party to govern. We had a massive surplus and the economy was strong.

But during an economic upheaval, they are not seen, right or wrong, as the party to be able to handle the financial store. It's a time for realistic options.

I think that both the NDP and Liberals agree that more stimulus is needed, and less money going to prisons and fighter jets. They also both agree that this is not the time to be giving massive corporate tax cuts and they both support maintaining the long from census.

But those on the right will never vote NDP. They still equate them with Communism (which is wrong). But if there is a good centrist party, which I believe the Liberals are, they could support that.

Now I'm not talking about Harper's "base". That small group that poisons the comments sections of on-line publications with attacks on women, gays and ethnics. They are the old pro-Anglo, pro-gun crowd, that have found a home in the Reform movement and are going nowhere.

Topp also brings up the Ontario coalition when Bob Rae as leader of the NDP entered into an agreement with the Liberals of David Peterson, as a precedent to form a government if Harper ends up with another minority.

There is a definitive Canadian precedent. Frank Miller’s Conservatives were handed 52 seats in the 1985 Ontario election. But David Peterson’s Liberals formed a government with 48 seats, thanks to an accord with Bob Rae’s 25 New Democrats.

And it was a good coalition. With the pressure of the NDP Ontario moved forward.

The agenda that Rae demanded was wildly popular with the electorate, and the Ontario economy—recovering nicely, it seemed, from the early eighties recession—was more than able to accommodate the necessary increase in government spending. Environmental laws were toughened, the scope of rent controls widened. Money was spent on child care and affordable housing. Equal rights for homosexuals were entrenched in the province's human rights code. First steps were taken towards pay equity for women. And most important, the Liberals moved to ban extra billing by doctors, an increasingly common practice across the province. The doctors reacted by going on a limited strike. The government stared them down. The strike collapsed. (3)

But look what happened when Bob Rae became premier. The right-wing became his 'Tea Party', especially the National Citizen's Coalition (Harper's old stomping ground) and their spin-off group Ontarians for Responsible Government. They were relentless:

Throughout the government of NDP leader Bob Rae, Gerry [Nicholls. Harper's VP when he was President of the NCC] headed the NCC project group, “Ontarians for Responsible Government”. Among numerous activities this group erected anti-Rae billboards throughout the province. This style of billboard advocacy was imitated nationwide and was featured in Campaigns and Elections magazine. Besides overseeing and co-coordinating the NCC's overall political and communication strategies, Gerry also acted as the group’s media spokesman, edited its newsletters and wrote its op-eds, news releases and fundraising letters. (4)

And Bob Rae actually handled the economy quite well, considering that we were in the middle of a double dip recession:

The National Citizens Coalition put up billboards with Rae and Stalin side by side, and rich stockbrokers led a protest parade to Queen's Park and shouted for Rae's head. He never had a chance. Bay Street and big business shunned him and his government like they were lepers. Still, Rae managed to save the jobs of the Algoma Steel Workers in Sault Ste. Marie, Ont., and the jobs of the workers in the De Havilland plant in Toronto. The media was hostile to Rae's government. Today the media keeps talking about his NDP government, but never mention that he presided over the worst Ontario recession since the Great Depression. (5)

These groups would do the same to Jack Layton. What we need is a good centrist party who can work with both sides, and help to move this country forward.

We need the NDP. We need the Bloc. We need the Green. And we even need the Conservatives, those who represent the Libertarian crowd, for balance. They all have so many good ideas and a genuine concern for this country. But we also need Michael Ignatieff as prime minister. I believe that with every fibre of my being.

If you read his Rights Revolution you know where he stands on the issues that are important to us. And he has a very strong caucus, including an astronaut, Marc Garneau, who believes in science. Remember science?

And he will listen to experts. Remember experts?

And he will let his MPs talk. Remember when our elected officials got to talk.

Ah. I can hardly wait.

Sources:

1. Tear Down This Myth: The Right-Wing Distortion of the Reagan Legacy, By Will Bunch, Free Press, ISBN: 978-1-4165-9762-9 5, Pg. 20-21

2. The Man Behind Stephen Harper: The new Conservative Party has tasted success and wants majority rule. If Tom Flanagan and his Calgary School have their way, they’ll get it without compromising their principles.
by Marci McDonald, The Walrus, October 2004

3. Promised Land: Inside the Mike Harris Revolution, By John Ibbitson, 1997, ISBN: 0136738648, Pg. 35

4. About Gerry from Gerry Nicholl's blog.

5. Bob Rae would make a great prime minister, By Larry Zolf, CBC News Viewpoint, May 9, 2006

"If You Think Education is Expensive Try Ignorance"

I almost cried when I read this column by Susan Delacourt, because it reminds me of what we have lost in the last four and half years. She shares excerpts from a story on Barack Obama who has been quietly returning intellect and science to government.

Yet there is one extremely consequential area where Obama has done just about everything a liberal could ask for—but done it so quietly that almost no one, including most liberals, has noticed. Obama’s three Republican predecessors ere all committed to weakening or even destroying the country’s regulatory apparatus: the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Occupational Safety ad Health Administration (OSHA), and the other agencies that are supposed to protect workers and consumers by regulating business practices. Now Obama is seeking to rebuild these battered institutions. In doing so, he isn’t simply improving the effectiveness of various government offices or making scattered progress on a few issues; he is resuscitating an entire philosophy of government with roots in the Progressive era of the early 20th century. Taken as a whole, Obama’s revival of these agencies is arguably the most significant accomplishment of his first year in office.

I can't tell you how much I miss intelligent debate, and expert opinions. Science. I so miss science. And compassion.

This visceral, combative, divisiveness that defines neoconservatism is wearing me down.

Michael Ignatieff has it so right. "If you think education is expensive, try ignorance."

I swear at the celebration when Harper and his gang of thugs are sent packing, I'm bringing a bunson burner and science book, if he doesn't have them all burned.

Will the United States Save us From Jason Kenney?

Since I am now clearly an enemy of the state, because I seek a peaceful solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, and have no desire to throw all the Jews in boats and 'lovingly assist' them back to Israel; I am going to continue to speak up before they shut me up. (like anyone could)

The Harper regime is attempting to pass legislation making it illegal to suggest that Israeli aggression is wrong, or that we must put an end to the apartheid.

They are doing this under the guise of anti-Semitism, by suggesting that if we denounce Israel, we are in fact denouncing all Jews. Yes, ridiculous I know, but this government is not playing with a full deck. In fact, I'm not sure they even hold a single card. We need debate not legislation.

When the world rallied against the South African apartheid, it was not because we were against South Africa, the people of South Africa or whites everywhere.

We were against the apartheid of South Africa, that oppressed the native people. And our efforts resulted in ending this barbaric practice.

Can you imagine if the government of the day forbid us from speaking up? And yet that is exactly what's happening today.

So why are we not morally outraged?

I suspect a lot of it has to do with the flow of information, or lack thereof. The simple fact is that our citizens are not privy to events as they unfold, and our media lives in constant fear. Or at least those in the media who still give a damn.

One man in the above video is David Frum, a former George Bush speech writer and Harper insider. His sister was one of the patronage senate appointments, anointed by the exalted one.

Frum is debating George Galloway, the British MP that Jason Kenney would not allow into our country because he did not share this government's Zionist view of the middle east, or their search for the rapture at the detriment of those in their path. Like myself, he believes that these 'new' friends of Israel, have an agenda. A terrifying agenda.

Fortunately George Bush and the Republicans are not in power, because they were definitely on board with this nonsense. But Barack Obama is not nuts, so maybe he will be the one to stop this insanity.

When our foreign policy is being based on a Biblical prophesy, we no longer have any legitimacy.

David Frum and Spin Doctoring

Despite the fact that Frum has taken out an American citizenship, he is still a regular in the National Post's poison pen club. I try to avoid the National Post whenever possible, and Frum even more so; but since this just keeps getting uglier, and this man won't go away, I have to show you how they twist this.

Remember those visceral attacks on the Liberals because they weren't nuts?

Well Frum tried to do the same thing with the current U.S. President.

Extracting a straight answer from Barack Obama is admittedly like nailing the proverbial Jello to the wall ... Jeffrey Goldberg goes to work to try to elicit a clear response from the presumptive Democratic nominee on the question of Israel, Zionism and his own personal feelings about the American Jewish community.

GOLDBERG: I’m curious to hear you talk about the Zionist idea. Do you believe that it has justice on its side?

Hmm. The Zionist idea is not about Justice. It's about inflicting horror, a step above terror. But clearly this is an attempt to tie Zionism in with the American Jewish community, when in fact most in that community don't support the Zionist idea themselves. This is stereotyping at it's worst.

The United States government is clearly sending a message to these so-called 'friends' of Israel to smarten up. Of course Kenney and Frum will no doubt start calling Obama an anti-Semite, but he won't care. And the reason he won't care is because he's not nuts. In the same way that most Jewish people think that Kenney and his ilk are.

John Hagee, the leader of this troop of the insane, once stated that Hitler was doing God's work. Enough said.

Israeli leader urges calm over row with Washington
By AMY TEIBEL (AP)

JERUSALEM — Israel's prime minister tried to play down a serious diplomatic dispute with the United States on Sunday, urging calm after another stern rebuke from Washington over plans to build 1,600 new apartments for Jews in contested east Jerusalem.

Israel's already strained relationship with the U.S. hit a new low last week when Israel announced the construction plans during a visit by Vice President Joe Biden. The timing of the announcement deeply embarrassed the Obama administration and put plans for indirect peace talks with the Palestinians in jeopardy. The U.S. responded with repeated condemnations, including a lecture from Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton over the weekend.

IS THIS REALLY YOUR CANADA?

Will it Be the Americans Who Pull Out of NAFTA?

With all of our concerns over Stephen Harper's implementation of his plans to create deeper ties with the United States, who would certainly appear to be getting the better end of any deals; not everyone south of the border is impressed.

A small group of U.S. lawmakers unveiled legislation on Thursday to withdraw from the North American Free Trade Agreement in the latest sign of congressional disillusionment with free-trade deals.

The bill spearheaded by Rep. Gene Taylor, Mississippi Democrat, would require President Barack Obama to give Mexico and Canada six months notice that the United States will no longer be part of the 16-year-old trade pact.

So the NAFTA leak from Harper's office that hurt Obama's campaign, and our government's actions for privatization, making all of our services open to NAFTA bids; could be for not.

We may instead be getting a six month notice from the U.S.

I certainly hope so. NAFTA has been horrible for Canada. And it would appear from the Reuter's article, that it hasn't been a walk in the park for the Americans either.

"At a time when 10 to 12 percent of the American people are unemployed, I think Congress has an obligation to put people back to work," Taylor said.

He argued NAFTA has cost the United States millions of manufacturing jobs and hurt national security by encouraging companies to move production to Mexico. The high unemployment rate makes it the "perfect" time to push for repeal even though past efforts have failed, he said.

"You'll see the American people rally behind this, in my humble opinion," said Rep. Walter Jones, a North Carolina Republican who is one of about 28 co-sponsors of the bill.

King Stephen's head will pop off if his precious NAFTA is abolished. And me? I'll be dancing in the street.

I may not have to work to get my Canada back after all. Maybe the Americans will just give it back. Do you think we could make one more deal though? Stephen Harper for future considerations?

The U.S. Doesn't Mention Canada in the New Climate Deal

Many in the Canadian media have been feeding Harper's enormous ego, by suggesting that he saved the day at Copenhagen, and Jim Prentice is strutting around like the cock of the walk.

But when you read accounts from places outside this country, Canada doesn't even get an honourable mention. In fact they get many dishonourable mentions as recipients of the Colossal Fossil' award.

So what exactly did we do?

The U.S. didn't want their pictures taken with us. Our Prime Minister was not invited to the private talks that President Obama had with world leaders.

Did we sign anything? Has anyone seen any proof that we are part of this deal?


"After much predictable wrangling, China, India, Brazil, South Africa, and the United States, led by a desperate President Barack Obama, prompted a nonbinding commitment to limit the increase in world temperatures to 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels by 2050."

Were we pencilled in later?

The article actually spoke of something else rather interesting though .. a new world order?

The moral was not that international conferences couldn’t please everyone. ... First, every nation, from major to the most minor, now possesses some level of veto power. It’s as if the world is brimming with the likes of Senators Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman. These guys can say no to the Senate bill on health-care reform and kill it, much as blocs of even the most inconsequential of nations can say “no” and thereby slow or perhaps even stop the train.

Second, African nations in particular seem to have gotten religious about bloc power. At Copenhagen, and for the first time, all of them banded together to pressure rich countries to pay for and save them from the scourges of global warming. Instead of taking the conditions of Western economies into account and pocketing the $100 billion offer of the United States, they insisted on more and risked all. When an Ethiopian leader tried to broker a compromise with the West, his colleagues slapped him down. And the Sudanese leader certainly revealed where many African heads were when he compared the climate change deal to the German Holocaust against the Jews. And African voices are made louder by their new alliance with China, the richest poor nations among them.

Third, China is emerging both as the No. 2 power in the world and as the No. 1 spoiler of multilateral action—from global warming to sanctions against North Korea. China positions itself as the champion of poor nations, and still pretends to be one itself. .. Never mind that China obsessively focuses on feathering its own economic nest, often at the expense of poor nations. Never mind that China is the second largest economy in the world and the biggest holder of foreign financial reserves, mainly American. Never mind that despite America and Western Europe having been the biggest global warmers in the past, China is today the largest emitter of greenhouse gases.

Fourth, in addition to China’s being stronger than it used to be, the United States is weaker than before and spread thin in military commitments and wars. In particular, America is weaker economically, the weakest it’s been comparatively in almost 60 years. It hardly ever was in a position to dictate solutions even at the height of its powers, but today, even its clear position of primacy has been diluted. Presidents can’t pay for cooperation or threaten punishments on the economic front as they once did. Americans can’t afford it.

Where does this leave Canada? Harper hooked his cart to GW's wagon, but he appears to now be out of the loop. That Obama dislikes him is no longer a secret. I can't say I blame him. I don't much like Stephen Harper either.