The Canadian Manifesto 8: Purgatory and the Divine Right of Kings

Rick Perry, the frontrunner in the Republican presidential candidate race, created a bit of a stir during a recent debate, by boasting that as governor of Texas, he had sent 234 inmates to their death.

But while the mediator seemed to be a little shocked by this claim, the Republican audience cheered. He had set a new record in the United States, the previous one held by George W. Bush, who had enacted what Perry called "ultimate justice", on a mere 152.

While clearly this gave Bush and Perry a feeling of power, it was actually something more. European monarchs believed that their powers came directly from God, meaning that they governed by "divine right".

The new Religious Right/Neoconservative/Republicans, feel the same way. God has entrusted them to rule over the people, and they would do that using "God's Law", as appearing in the Old Testament.

However, this is more than just "an eye for an eye", but punishment for creating "mortal sins" that are a "grave violation of God's law" that "turns man away from God", causing his "exclusion from Christ's Kingdom".

They had to be dealt with severely and since God had bestowed the "divine right of kings" on Perry and Bush et al, it was up to them to enact His law in their earthly kingdoms.

George Bush defended his position, by saying “I take every death penalty case seriously and review each case carefully…. Each case is major because each case is life or death.”

Yet when journalist Alan Berlow, used the Public Information Act to gain access to confidential death penalty memos from Bush’s legal counsel, Alberto R. Gonzales, he discovered that there were no such reviews conducted.

The name was presented with a briefing on the crimes they were convicted of, and then rubber stamped "die sinner". Those weren't the words used of course, but it was with that sentiment.

Had they actually reviewed the case of Terry Washington, a mentally challenged man of thirty-three, with the communication skills of a seven-year-old, Bush might have shown mercy. (1)

But there is no mercy for those banished from Christ's Kingdom.

Rick Perry not only refused to weigh evidence before putting people to death, but tried to stop an investigation into the wrongful execution of Cameron Todd Willingham, a father convicted of murdering his children when he "set fire" to his home. Scientific evidence suggested that this was not an arson case and therefore, not a murder case.

The Texas Tribune reports that the Willingham case was not the only one that warranted scrutiny. Perry allows his religion to guide him, ignoring rational thought and common decency.

When questioned he just uses his fall back position. It was what God wanted and his divine duty to carry it through.

In 1998, a survey was conducted in the United States concerning the death penalty.  It revealed a high level of support for it, from Evangelical Christians.  When broken down further, those Evangelicals who believed in a vengeful God were more apt to agree with putting people to death, than those who believed in a loving God.

Not surprisingly, the lowest level of support came from black respondents.

This speaks to the fact that blacks are more likely to be convicted of crime, and less likely to receive justice.  The same can be said for poor people.

In his book, Crazy for God, son of Francis Schaeffer, the architect of the Religious Right, tells us that the movement was as much about race as religion.

In their book, Divided by Faith, Michael Emerson and Christian Smith, argue that "Evangelicals desire to end racial division and inequality, and attempt to think and act accordingly. But, in the process, they likely do more to perpetuate the racial divide than they do to tear it down."  This is because of a "theological world view that makes it difficult for them to perceive systematic injustices in society."

Therefore, when it comes to their penchant for the death penalty, it would stand to reason that they would feel that they would be more likely to receive justice, and less likely to be wrongly accused.

Criminal Justice and Purgatory

American conservative, William F. Buckley Jr., once wrote of punishment for crime, or more specifically community service as a punishment for some crime, as being a kind of purgatory, a place where it is believed that some sinners go to be cleansed before entering heaven.

And since punishment for crime, is a kind of penance, why not treat it as such?  Invoking the views of Irving Kristol, Buckley ponders spiritual punishment.  As an example, he says that if a young man is caught defacing a synagogue, he should be assigned a "half-dozen books of Jewish literature to study". (2)

I was raised Catholic and remember my weekly "confessions" before I could receive Holy Communion.  I'd memorize my little speech before entering the confessional.  "Bless me father for I have sinned.  It has been one week since my last confession, and since then I have lied three times, hit my brother twice and stole a cookie".  Most of this I made up, not because I was without sin, but because I honestly couldn't account for them all.  I would be excited if there was one particular one that stood out.

As contrition, I would then be told to say a number of Hail Marys and Our Fathers, which I dutifully carried out, and the cycle would begin again.

However, it meant nothing.  Just rote and ritual.

If a "sinner" is assigned biblical passages or divine literature as penance, there is less of a chance for true remorse.  Yes, a few might be converted, but on the whole, I think it is a weak strategy for crime prevention.

Besides, clearly Buckley misunderstands the purpose of Purgatory.  It is not merely a resting place.  Those sent there were required to feel the pain of the fires of Hell.  Though temporary, pain is a requirement.  Does he really want pain associated with scripture or divine literature?

Perhaps. 

No doubt those believing in a vengeful God would.

Necon Tim Hudak wants to bring back chain gangs in Ontario. Repent! Repent! Repent!

In the documentary Memorandum, filmed twenty years after the liberation of prisoners from the death camps in Germany, they speak of a Nazi tormentor, who would break from torturing Jews to recite scripture aloud.  Purgatorial Justice reminds me of that Nazi officer, who obviously believed that he was "cleansing" their immortal souls. 

Stephen Harper's Divine Right

In January of this year, Harper made headlines when he told Peter Mansbridge that he believed in the death penalty.  This wasn't news to those who had followed his career.  He drafted policy for the Reform Party, and reinstating the death penalty was high on the list of priorities.

In fact, they also believed that children as young as ten should be sent to prison.  Fortunately, when they presented a motion to that affect, it was turned down with a resounding "NO".

Another Reform MP, Art Hanger, planned a visit to Singapore to study the art of "caning", to deal with young offenders.  When it was made public, he cancelled his trip. (3)

Harper's Reformers believe in swift and absolute "justice" to enact God's law.

The media is missing his agenda.  While he claims that he won't reopen debate on abortion, roll back women's rights or reinstate the death penalty, he is in fact doing all of those things under their radar.

Facing criticism for his silencing of the press, he held a media event, allowing young people to ask him questions.  Of course, all had to be presented in advance, so his answers could be scripted.

But not only were the answers penned by the boys in the backroom, but the questions were also being tweaked.

Youths who participated in a question-and-answer session with Prime Minister Stephen Harper on Monday say their questions were edited by the Prime Minister’s Office. Other youths had earlier explained that the questions were selected by Vision Internationale, a non-profit Christian group, and then edited by Harper’s office. (4)

And when Anna Fricker, a young ambassador for the group, discovered that her question on maternal health had been edited, to remove the mention of abortion, she spoke out:

Fricker was then interrupted by an organizer who would not identify herself except to say, "I’m supposed to be handling the media." "I would appreciate if you could just work with us so that we can keep this consistent message," she said. "I’m just supposed to keep this under control." (4)

A Christian organization hired to stifle dissent and suppress free speech.

A Manitoba judge appointed by Harper, allowed a rapist to go free because he claimed that the victim had dressed "too sexy".  Another in Ontario contemplated that drunkenness could be used as a defense against some crimes, presumably domestic violence and "date rape".

Stephen Harper doesn't have to get his hands dirty.  All of this is being done behind the scenes, incrementally.

"All lasting change is incremental" - Richard Nixon (from his memoirs Seize the Moment)

 Mark Warner, a former Conservative candidate who was replaced because he refused to remove the fact that he had attended an International Aids Conference from his campaign literature, believes that Harper is using backroom machinations to bring back the death penalty to Canada, by setting precedent.



What would have happened if Harper had been prime minister when David Milgaard or Donald Marshall were falsely convicted of murder? Would he simply do what Bush and Perry did, suggest that he had carefully reviewed their cases before implementing his "divine right"?

When the Harperites speak of Christian government and God's law, it's important that we understand what that means, before we all end up in Purgatory.

Sources:

1. Death in Texas, By Sister Helen Prejean, The New York Review, January 13, 2005 .

2. Happy Days Were Here Again: Reflections of a Libertarian Journalist, By William F. Buckley, Jr., Adams Publishing, 1993, 1-55850-471-0, p. 262

3. Caning trip cancelled. (Reform Party justice critic Art Hanger cancels trip to Singapore to evaluate the caning of criminals), Maclean's Magazine, April 1, 1996  

4. The Chronicle Herald, May 18, 2010

Stephen Harper's Perfect Crisis

“Pulling their children from ‘union-run’ schools should be a viable option for all parents.” Stephen Harper

I just started reading Naomi Klein's book The Shock Doctrine and from the introduction, it sets the stage for what a Harper majority might look like.

She begins by discussing Katrina and the horrible devastation the storm caused. But in the midst of the chaos, were the smiling faces of the neoconservative interlopers. They failed to see the human misery, but instead saw an opportunity for profit. Levelled land on which to build a free market empire.

The news racing around the shelter that day was that Richard Baker, a prominent Republican Congressman from this city, had told a group of lobbyists, "We finally cleaned up public housing in New Orleans. We couldn't do it, but God did." Joseph Canizaro, one of New Orleans' wealthiest developers, had just expressed a similar sentiment: "I think we have a clean sheet to start again. And with that clean sheet we have some very big opportunities." All that week the Louisiana State Legislature in Baton Rouge had been crawling with corporate lobbyists helping to lock in those big opportunities: lower taxes, fewer regulations, cheaper workers and a "smaller, safer city"—which in practice meant plans to level the public housing projects and replace them with condos. Hearing all the talk of "fresh starts" and "clean sheets," you could almost forget the toxic stew of rubble, chemical outflows and human remains just a few miles down the highway. (1)

Leading the charge for God's chosen people, the corporatists, was the late Milton Friedman, a man who has played an integral role in the neoconservative/neoliberal/free market movement.

And he began in an area near and dear to his heart. Privatizing eduction.

One of those who saw opportunity in the floodwaters of New Orleans was Milton Friedman, grand guru of the movement for unfettered capitalism and the man credited with writing the rulebook for the contemporary, hyper-mobile global economy. Ninety-three years old and in failing health, "Uncle Miltie," as he was known to his followers, nonetheless found the strength to write an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal three months after the levees broke. "Most New Orleans schools are in ruins," Friedman observed, "as are the homes of the children who have attended them. The children are now scattered all over the country. This is a tragedy. It is also an opportunity to radically reform the educational system."

Friedman's radical idea was that instead of spending a portion of the billions of dollars in reconstruction money on rebuilding and improving New Orleans' existing public school system, the government should provide families with vouchers, which they could spend at private institutions, many run at a profit, that would be subidized by the state. It was crucial, Friedman wrote, that this fundamental change not be a stopgap but rather "a permanent reform." (1)

Friedman had been a regular speaker at the Fraser Institute and has been following Canada's own right-wing revolution.

And Canada's right-wing revolution, includes the desire to 'radically reform the educational system'.

The Reform Party had public education in their cross hairs:

The Reformers gathered in Saskatoon saved perhaps the loudest cheers, whistles, and applause for [founding member William] Gairdner's last shot: 'And my favourite proposal, by the way, is returning choice to education by privatizing every school in the country'. (2)

When Jim Flaherty was finance minister in Ontario, he did "Uncle Miltie" proud. From the National Review:

We don't often look to Canada for inspiring leadership. But Jim Flaherty — the finance minister of Ontario, its largest and wealthiest province — is poised to make his constituency a model of smaller government and respect for individual freedom.

Flaherty is running to succeed premier Mike Harris at the helm of Ontario's governing Progressive Conservative party in the party's leadership election on March 23. His full-bodied, conservative platform of tax cuts, privatization, and school choice has set the agenda for the contest ... Flaherty first caught the attention of grassroots conservatives with his unexpected announcement in last year's budget of a $3,500 ($2,300 USD) per-child tax credit for parents who send their children to independent schools. The measure, according to Laura Swartley of the Milton and Rose D. Friedman Foundation for School Choice, is the most generous education tax credit in North America. It alone has won Flaherty the support of social conservatives and minority religious groups. (3)

The quote at the top of the page from Stephen Harper, was in response to Flaherty's private school subsidy. (Hill Times, 2001)

In his 2007 federal budget, he provided "bursaries" for elementary school students.

The Harper government is giving a tax break to families who send their kids to elite private schools, raising the ire of public education advocates. Under a little-noticed measure in last month's budget, scholarships and bursaries to attend elementary and secondary school will now be fully tax exempt. Finance officials estimate the new exemption will mean "significant tax savings" for about 1,000 students – or, by extension, their parents.

Officials insisted that the exemption applies to scholarships for either public or private schools. But they couldn't supply any examples of public schools – which are funded from the public purse and don't charge tuition fees – awarding scholarships or bursaries.

Entering into his majority, Harper has his Katrina; the "global economic crisis", and a record deficit and debt.

His clean sheet that will provide those very big opportunities that Friedman envisioned. And with Mike Harris lap dog, Tim Hudak, poised to become premier in Ontario, and former student of Tom Flanagan, Danielle Smith in Alberta, it will create the perfect storm.

Education, however, will only be one area, where taxpayer money will build, and the corporate sector will profit.

In New Orleans they laid off all 4,700 unionized teachers, with only a handful hired back, but at greatly reduced wages. And the savings of course were not given back to the taxpayers but into the pockets of the already wealthy.

Milton Friedman is giddy in his grave.

Continuation

Milton Friedman and the Chilean Experiment

Milton Friedman and the Destruction of Argentina

Milton Friedman, the Southern Cone and "Authoritarian Democracy"

Raul Prebisch and Developmentalism

Sources:

1. The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, By Naomi Klein, Vintage Canada, 2007, ISBN: 978-0-676-97801-8, Pg. 4-7

2. Preston Manning and the Reform Party, By Murray Dobbin, Goodread Biographies/Formac Publishing, 1992, ISBN: 0-88780-161-7, pg. 165-166

3. Looking North: Election time in Canada, By David Curtin, March 18, 2002

George Bush Banned from Switzerland for War Crimes. What About Stephen Harper?

A kind of funny, but not so funny, story from Switzerland. George Bush was planning a trip there but had to cancel those plans after calls that he be arrested for war crimes.

Former US President George W Bush has cancelled a visit to Switzerland amid concerns he could be arrested. The former leader had been due to speak at a charity gala, making the keynote speech at Keren Hayesod's annual dinner on February 12.

But human rights groups in the country have been calling for the Swiss government to arrest him over allegations he ordered the torture of prisoners. Court officials have said criminal complaints against Mr Bush have been lodged in Geneva but Swiss officials said he would enjoy some diplomatic immunity as a former head of state.

What about Stephen Harper? The International Criminal court is still investigating his case. The wheels of justice move slowly, but the case is still open.

Andrew Coyne is Puzzled But the Answer is Quite Simple

There was a lot of back slapping and hallelujahs from the Harper gang, when they celebrated their fifth anniversary.

But there was also a lot of reflection by Canadians, who wondered whether the past five years were as rosy as the neocons would like us to believe.

Much of the criticism came from the centre and left, but there was also a few murmurs from the right, especially the more moderate conservatives.

Andrew Coyne called the Harper style: A know-nothing strain of conservatism.

He starts out in his column wondering why half of the country believe that we are heading in the right direction, yet Harper is barely able to hold onto a third support in the polls.

The answer to that is quite simple. With a media blackout, the Canadians who believe we are headed in the right direction, have no idea what is going on behind the scenes. Ontarians, like myself, have some idea, because when Jim Flaherty looked after finances for Premier Mike Harris, he had everything hidden under his desk. When he left office and the books were opened, it was a nightmare.

Our "balanced budget" turned out to be six billion dollars in the red.

But another factor to consider, is that while half of Canadians believe we're on the right track, many don't attribute our success to Stephen Harper and his government, but measures put in place before his arrival, that have kept us out of trouble. Again, if those same people realized how many of those safety measures the Harper government has torn down, they might feel differently.

But Harper's low polling numbers are a direct result of his actions. As Coyne points out, "Clearly, it’s the way they govern, rather than the results—their tail-gunner style of politics, notably—that is the issue."

And he lists several undemocratic actions.

The census debacle "... what on Earth the Conservatives could have been thinking. Playing to the base?" That's a Karl Rove tactic, who constantly told Bush when he had doubts, to always "play to the base". When Guy Giorno, Canada's answer to Karl Rove, was Harper's chief of staff, he told Harper to "play to the base" by leaving safe abortions out of maternal health.

And their anti-intellectualism that has to exclude expert opinions - again George Bush.

I think my colleague John Geddes came closest in his piece last week. It isn’t just that the Tories habitually ignore the expert consensus on a wide range of issues—crime, taxes, climate change—it’s that they want to be seen to be ignoring it. It’s the overt antagonism to experts, and by extension the educated classes, that marks the Tory style. In its own way, it’s a form of class war.

And the sneering references to Michael Ignatieff because he not only taught at Harvard but earned his PhD there. No different from Mike Harris who referred to Rhodes Scholar Bob Rae as "the Professor" with just enough spittle on his chin. If your qualifications don't equal your opponent's, then tear down your opponent's qualifications in as ignorant a fashion as possible ... playing to the base. That 30% that won't desert you, and believe that anyone educated at Harvard must be the devil. Harvard educated Obama is getting the same nonsense from the Tea Party. And as Coyne reminds us:

The intellectuals that conservatives generally rail against are those they disagree with. But the Harper Conservatives are just as hostile to the interventions of experts on what one might suppose to be their own side. The decision to cut the GST, rather than income taxes, was made in defiance not of radical economists, but of the orthodox free-market variety.

... The result is a uniquely nasty, know-nothing strain of conservatism. The Thatcher Tories, unlike their forebears, weren’t anti-intellectual: her cabinet contained some of Britain’s most fertile social and political minds. Ronald Reagan, though hardly an intellectual, did not demonize expert opinion, or pit the educated classes against the rest.

Again, the anti-intellectualism is George Bush and the Republican strategists he surrounded himself with, including Frank Luntz, the man who has played a huge role in the Canadian Reform movement.

But that kind of politics failed to resonate with Canadians. All the cunning and personal attacks have wore us down. "After so many miscues, unforced errors, too-clever tricks and utter botch-ups, does anyone still cling to the “strategic genius” view of Stephen Harper?"

He's just annoying now. Add that to his economic myths, and I think we have enough to vote him out of office. Hallelujah!

Corporations Line Up to be the First to Tap Into New Legal Cheating

"It's amazing I won. I was running against peace, prosperity, and incumbency." - George W. Bush, June 14, 2001 (speaking to Swedish Prime Minister Goran Perrson, unaware that a live television camera was still rolling)

When the story was sent to me about the new accounting rules, that allow corporations to legally misrepresent their financial picture to lure unsuspecting investors, I've been reading everything I could find on the subject, even going out and buying forensic auditor Al Rosen's new bookSwindlers. And the story is an alarming one. Rosen starts out by saying:

Judging from the stories that run in the newspaper, you probably think that Canada is a pretty safe place to invest your money. After all, we just survived one of the worst economic downturns since the Great Depression. Some of the biggest names in the world of banking and finance have disappeared, but not a single Canadian bank collapsed*. Canada must be doing something right, right?

If you believe that, we have some bad news. The risks you take by investing in Canada have never been greater. And the so-called protection that Canadians think they receive from regulators, lawmakers, and auditors has never been weaker.

The bluster over tackling white collar crime with stiffer sentences, was all for show. Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty have removed all stumbling blocks that prevented corporations from playing fast and loose in the market place. And this is not simply about wealthy people risking some of their bags of gold, but it effects anyone whose savings or pensions are tied up in mutual funds.

Jim Flaherty has always been a gambler. He gambled with sub-prime mortgages and AIG. He's gambling with derivatives, something Warren Buffet refers to as "Weapons of Mass Destruction". And he's using a Goldman-Sachs employee to handle the impending disaster.

Now he's gambling with allowing the falsification of documents to help the corporate sector potentially destroy our once sound financial system.

Flaherty and Harper are Canada's answer to George W. Bush. According to Rosen:

Corporate lobbying power and the absence of an organized investor voice in Canada means that most regulatory actions favour corporate interests. Canada is the only major country in the world that allows the same people who audit public companies to financially control the process that sets the auditing rules. This basic and fundamental conflict of interest means that auditors can set rules that cater to their paying corporate clients over the needs of investors.

There's a lot of money involved in these financial cons. Based on our extensive experience with auditor negligence and executive dishonesty, we estimate that investors have lost hundreds of billions of dollars to scams in Canadian financial markets. Even if you haven't invested a penny in the stock market yourself, these losses affect you. Anyone who collects a pension, saves for his children's education, or simply pays her taxes like an honest citizen suffers from the disinterest of our regulators and lawmakers in prosecuting dishonest corporate executives, aided by acquiescent auditors. (1)

When Enron collapsed under the weight of it's own corruption, 85,000 people lost their jobs and any avenue to collect severance or pensions they had paid into. And instead of toughening the laws, the Harper government has broken down the barriers to more corruption.

Thanks to our self-regulated auditors, Canada will soon adopt** new accounting and auditing standards called International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). Under IFRS, corporate managers will have even more freedom to distort and manipulate their financial reports to make themselves look better than they really are. Despite the devastating impact it will have on investors and the utility of financial statements in general, auditors succeeded in pushing through the change because of complete disinterest from lawmakers and a lack of recognition by investors that auditors have no interest in upholding their needs. Canadians simply assume that a self-regulatory body like the auditors would look after public interests, not just their self-interests. (1)

Being Honest Costs too Much

The fact that Enron was able to commit fraud on such a level was through having friends in the White House. Not only George Bush, who received millions in campaign contributions from them, but also his appointed Secretary of the Army, Thomas White.

The indiscretions of former army secretary Thomas White (2001-03), the vice president of Enron Energy Services before his appointment by President Bush, include actions he took after joining the administration—such as conducting eighty-four meetings and phone calls with Enron while in office, many taking place before he divested himself of Enron stock and in the weeks after September 11, when one would have thought him busy with other matters. .... According to the Washington Monthly, Enron booked profits up-front from multiyear deals made during White's tenure as vice president over Enron's Energy Services, which allowed executives like White, "whose bonuses were tied to performance, to collect millions of dollars before the company had realized any profit."

Jeff Skilling, succeeding to the CEO position after Ken Lay, was most proud of convincing the SEC to allow Enron to count projected earnings from long-term energy contracts as current earnings, despite the possibility that the money wouldn't be collected for as long as twenty years, if ever. This enabled Enron to meet analysts' estimates at will by claiming future revenue as current revenue whenever the company needed it. (2)

And this is exactly the kind of practice that the Harper government has now made legal. And Canadian auditors and corporations are lining up, hoping to cash in at the expense of the vulnerable. They claim that being honest is far too expensive.

The main reason that auditors pushed through the change was for money. They are in the process of raking in untold millions for switching all public companies over to the new accounting rules. And the auditors do not bother mincing words about it either. They plainly state that continuing to maintain Canadian accounting rules is "no longer cost effective" for them. After all, since they no longer have any incentive to act on behalf of investors, why take on the added cost to maintain and improve accounting standards at the annoyance of their paying corporate clients?

In a move that's the envy of capitalists everywhere, the auditors turned what was previously a cost centre into a very lucrative profit centre. And they now have their sights set on converting non-public companies and private enterprises to IFRS. Auditors just continue printing money at the expense of investors and business owners for no discernable benefits in return.

And though Harper and Flaherty are behind the changes, Rosen also lays some of the blame for this potential financial tsunami on an "uninterested and conflicted media." But then the corporations who own 99% of our media, are hardly going to risk losing such a gift.

Footnotes:

*Courtesy of 125 billion dollars from the Canadians taxpayer. Hush money so they didn't blow the whistle on Flaherty's sub-prime mortgage scheme.

**Came into effect on January 1, 2011　

Sources:

1. Swindlers: Cons and Cheats and How to Protect Your Investments From Them, By Al Rosen and Mark Rosen, Madison Commerce, 2010, ISBN: 978-1-897330-76-0, Introduction

2. The Book on Bush: How George W. (mis) Leads America, By Eric Alterman and Mark Green, Penguin Books, 2004, ISBN: 0-670-03273-5, Pg. 67

Just When You Thought the Republicans Couldn't Get Any Stupider

I read a headline today and I thought it was a joke: Republicans eye a return to George. W. Bush's budget. Are they kidding me? George Bush almost bankrupted the country and they want a rerun of that?

And Obama is now reaching out to big business. I am not anti-corporation, but the only reaching out that should be done to big business, is an extended hand demanding some of the taxpayers money back. Corporations have become dependants of the state and governments appear to be quite willing to be enablers to their addictions.

They need a time out.

One million homes were repossessed in the United States last year. That's where Obama's attention should be. Not on pandering to corporations. They had their turn. The trough is empty.

And Republican money launderer Tom Delaye, is blaming the Liberals for his troubles. Of course he is. Heaven forbid he should take responsibility for his criminal activity.

This should be a very interesting and frightening two years.

The "Clash of Civilizations" or the "Smash of Civilizations"? The True Nature of This War

On January 24, 2003, a group of New York-based collectors and dealers; members of an organization called the American Council for Cultural Policy, met with the Bush administration and Pentagon officials.

The purpose of the meeting was to encourage Bush to ignore international laws, by allowing the treasures of ancient Mesopotamia (now Iraq), to fall into the hands of private collectors.

This group of wealthy Americans, had been coveting these prized objects for some time, giving them a commercial value, rather than the historical and religious value bestowed upon them not only by the people of Iraq but indeed anyone seeking to preserve our ancient cultural heritage.

So while George Bush was promising scholars and historians that he would do his utmost to protect the ancient holdings, in the land referred to in archaeological circles as "the cradle of civilization", he had already made a commitment to the American Council for Cultural Policy, that he would make sure they got what they craved.

I mean what good was all that wealth, when they couldn't obtain the unobtainable?

And Bush didn't disappoint. According to Chalmers Johnson (d. 2010):

On April 11, 12, 13, and 14, 2003, the United States Army and United States Marine Corps disgraced themselves and the country they represent in Baghdad, Iraq's capital city. Having invaded Iraq and accepted the status of a military occupying power, they sat in their tanks and Humvees, watching as unarmed civilians looted the Iraqi National Museum and burned down the Iraqi National Library and Archives as well as the Library of Korans of the Ministry of Religious Endowments.

Their behavior was in violation of their orders, international law, and the civilized values of the United States. Far from apologizing for these atrocities or attempting to make amends, the U.S. government has in the past five years added insult to injury. Donald Rumsfeld, then secretary of defense and the official responsible for the actions of the troops, repeatedly attempted to trivialize what had occurred with inane public statements such as "Democracy is messy" and "Stuff happens." (1)

During those five years, thieves had stolen at least 32,000 items from some 12,000 archaeological sites across Iraq with no interference from the occupying power.

In 2006, the World Monuments Fund took the unprecedented step of putting the entire country of Iraq on its list of the most endangered sites. The torching of books and manuscripts in the Library of Korans and the National Library was in itself a historical disaster of the first order. Most of the Ottoman imperial documents and the old royal archives concerning the creation of Iraq were reduced to ashes.

... about a million books and ten million documents were destroyed by the fires of April 14, 2003. Robert Fisk, the veteran Middle East correspondent of the Independent of London, was in Baghdad the day of the fires. He rushed to the offices of the U.S. Marines' Civil Affairs Bureau and gave the officer on duty precise map locations for the two archives and their names in Arabic and English, and pointed out that the smoke could be seen from three miles away. The officer shouted to a colleague, "This guy says some biblical library is on fire," but the Americans did nothing to try to put out the flames.

At a conference on art crimes held in London a year after the disaster, the British Museum's John Curtis reported that at least half of the forty most important stolen objects had not been retrieved and that of some 15,000 items looted from the museum's showcases and storerooms about 8,000 had yet to be traced. Its entire collection of 5,800 cylinder seals and clay tablets, many containing cuneiform writing and other inscriptions some of which go back to the earliest discoveries of writing itself, was stolen. (1)

Notwithstanding the murder of a million people, the destruction and theft of Iraq's archaeological treasures, represents one of the most horrific acts in world history.

The Smash of Civilizations

In Lawrence Martin's book, Harperland, he reveals that when it comes to foreign policy, our current PM does not see the world as a global community, but as a "clash of civilizations". (2)

Those three words are no lightweights. What they represent is the Neoconservative total war strategy.

However, Chalmers Johnson instead refers to this disgraceful display as a "smash of civilizations", and I think that's a better term. Because "clash" suggests the equality of enemies. And since we are fighting those with fewer and less sophisticated weaponry, it is hardly a fair fight.

And "smash" is a better term to describe the attempted annihilation of not only a religion, but a culture.

Johnson likens the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan to the "total destruction" of ancient Baghdad by the Mongols in AD 1258, under the leadership of Genghis Khan's grandson, Hulagu Khan.

According to historian Steven Dutch:

Iraq in 1258 was very different from present day Iraq. Its agriculture was supported by canal networks thousands of years old. Baghdad was one of the most brilliant intellectual centers in the world. The Mongol destruction of Baghdad was a psychological blow from which Islam never recovered. Already Islam was turning inward, becoming more suspicious of conflicts between faith and reason and more conservative. With the sack of Baghdad, the intellectual flowering of Islam was snuffed out. Imagining the Athens of Pericles and Aristotle obliterated by a nuclear weapon begins to suggest the enormity of the blow. The Mongols filled in the irrigation canals and left Iraq too depopulated to restore them." (3)

And it's not too difficult to compare the actions of the allied forces In Iraq to those of the Mongols eight centuries ago.

The Grand Library of Baghdad, containing countless precious historical documents and books on subjects ranging from medicine to astronomy, was destroyed. Survivors said that the waters of the Tigris ran black with ink from the enormous quantities of books flung into the river. Citizens attempted to flee, but were intercepted by Mongol soldiers who killed with abandon .... Ian Frazier of The New Yorker says estimates of the death toll have ranged from 200,000 to a million. The Mongols looted and then destroyed mosques, palaces, libraries, and hospitals. Grand buildings that had been the work of generations were burned to the ground. (3)

The Neoconservatives seek to accomplish the same "psychological blow" from which Islam may never recover. This is not simply about oil, but "total destruction", with oil being a benefit, meaning that the West will never be again challenged for the crude in the Middle East.

Iraq, before the Americans put Saddam Hussein in power, was also a thriving country, and Baghdad, one of the most modern cities in the world. But what is it now?

And the "smash' was about more than just the theft and destruction of artifacts. It was something much bigger.

At the six-thousand-year-old Sumerian city of Ur with its massive ziggurat, or stepped temple-tower (built in the period 2112-2095 BC and restored by Nebuchadnezzar 11 in the sixth century BC), the Marines spray-painted their motto, "Semper Fi" (semper fidelis, always faithful) onto its walls. The military then made the monument "off limits" to everyone in order to disguise the desecration that had occurred there, including the looting by U.S. soldiers of clay bricks used in the construction of the ancient buildings.

Until April 2003, the area around Ur, in the environs of Nasiriyah, was remote and sacrosanct. However, the U.S. military chose the land immediately adjacent to the ziggurat to build its huge Tallil Air Base with two runways measuring 12,000 and 9,700 feet and four satellite camps. In the process, military engineers moved more than 9,500 truckloads of dirt in order to build 350,000 square feet of hangars and other facilities for aircraft and Predator unmanned drones.

They completely ruined the area.

On October 24, 2003, the Army and Air Force Exchange Service built its own modern ziggurat. It "opened its second Burger King at Tallil. The new facility, colocated with [a] Pizza Hut, provided another Burger King restaurant so that more servicemen and women serving in Iraq could .. get a whiff of that familiar scent that takes them back home."

... At Babylon, American and Polish forces built a military depot, despite objections from archaeologists. John Curtis, the British Museum's authority on Iraq's many archaeological sites, reported on a visit in December 2004 that he saw "cracks and gaps where somebody had tried to gouge out the decorated bricks forming the famous dragons of the Ishtar Gate" and a "2,600-year-old brick pavement crushed by military vehicles." Other observers say that the dust stirred up by U.S. helicopters has sandblasted the fragile brick facade of the palace of Nebuchadnezzar II, king of Babylon from 605 to 562 BC.

... "Between May and August 2004, the wall of the Temple of Nabu and the roof of the Temple of Ninmah, both of the sixth century BC, collapsed as a result of the movement of helicopters. Nearby, heavy machines and vehicles stand parked on the remains of a Greek theater from the era of Alexander of Macedon [Alexander the Great]." (1)

They've ruined the area for future archaeological excavations.

This is not a "clash", but a "smash". A heart wrenching, inhumane attempt to completely destroy an adversary.

I had been going to blog on this after Christmas, thinking that perhaps it wasn't appropriate during this time, but then I realized that there couldn't be a better time. As we share a message of "Peace on Earth and Goodwill Toward Men", we might be reminded for a moment of what those words are supposed to mean.

And this isn't it.

Sources:

1. Dismantling the Empire: America's Last Best Hope, By Chalmers Johnson, Metropolitan Books, 2010, ISBN: 978-0-9303-2, Pg. 40-51

2. Harperland: The Politics of Control, By Lawrence Martin, Viking Press, 2010, ISBN: 978-0-670-06517-2, Pg. 79

3. Battle of Baghdad (1258), Multilingual Archive, Powered by WorldLingo

Has Stephen Harper Been Looting the Canadian Treasury?

Nobel Prize winning economist, George Akerlof, once accused George W. Bush of "looting", finding no other term for what amounted to the worst fiscal policy in 200 years.

Bush had raided Social Security, launched expensive wars that he had to borrow money to finance, and jeopardized the future of programs like Medicare.

A perverse logic that if he went on a massive spending spree, while reducing revenue by granting unheard of tax cuts for the wealthy, he would drain the treasury, meaning that Congress would not be able to pass any additional spending bills.

Unless they were for war, of course.

Like Stephen Harper, Bush had been left with an enormous surplus, but blew the bank long before the economic downturn. In Bush's case he actually helped to expediate the crisis.

It's hard not to see a pattern here. While Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty are promising more "bad news" and an "austerity budget" in the not too distant future, it's time to look at this government's spending habits.

- 130 million dollars on television ads

- 45 million dollars on signs

- millions to private religious schools, which included hundreds of thousands on an indoor soccer field, that is closed to the public.

- 100,000 to make a spending announcement in Cambridge Ontario because MP Gary Goodyear was in trouble over an alleged adoption scheme.

- 15 billion dollars to build more prisons while Canada's crime rate is the lowest in history.

- 100 million spent on opinion polls, while completely ignoring the "opinions" or wishes of Canadians.

- Billions in tax "incentives" to the tar sands.

- 50 billion in corporate tax cuts.

- 1 billion for the G-20 that resulted in the worst human rights abuses in this country. The bill included almost 100,000 dollars spent at mini-bars.

- 30 million dollars to change our census, despite the fact that no one wanted it changed.

- 50 million poured into Tony Clement's riding to help his re-election bid.

- Hundreds of thousands on first class travel, because heaven forbid they should be forced to fly economy.

- 19 billion for fighter jets that Americans are concerned may have safety issues. And though promising Canadians service contracts, we learn that Canadian firms can bid on them with no guarantees.

- 650 million dollars in loans to an American firm, Pratt Whitney. The latest 300 million granted in a single day, even though no payments had been made on the 350 million "loaned" four years ago. Pratt Whitney had a profit last year of more than four billion dollars.

- The most expensive photo-ops known to man.

- Two million dollars so that Harper can tape his own film to give to the media.

- Millions to bribe provinces to accept the HST (Harper Sales Tax)

- 50 million dollars to Afghan President, Hamid Karzai's brother.

- Unprecedented use of military jets, while instructing the crew to not release the names of people travelling with Harper. As of November 2009, there were 1,900 such flights.

- 130 million to settle a frivolous lawsuit without any attempt to fight it.

- Suing the Canadian people, by suing the Canadian Wheat Board and Elections Canada, on behalf of the Conservative Party.

- Almost one million dollars in tax credits claimed by Conservative candidates, in the "in and out" election financing scheme.

- 300 million for an election in 2008, breaking his own election laws.

- Hundreds of millions of dollars wasted when Harper prorogued Parliament.

The list goes on.

These are enormous sums of money, taken from us with little in exchange. What value did Canadian tax payers get for this transfer of funds?

Are we better off, knowing that Harper's caucus can travel in style? Are we better off realizing that Harper can fly his friends around in our military jets, that may help with party fundraising, but does little for out of work Canadians.

Are we happier with his HST? Are we smiling, living vicariously through the orgy at the mini-bars? Can we ignore expensive medial bills if it means we have fighter jets to keep us safe from the Russians and prisons to keep us safe from who knows what? Did I mention that our crime rate is the lowest in our history?

This is looting on a massive scale. Absolutely massive.

And yet the Harper government is blaming us for expecting too much.

How selfish are we that we want perks like healthcare and education? That we want to live in a just society? That we want clean air and clean water and a climate bill that actually fights global warming? That we want our veterans and seniors rewarded for their service to our country? That we want to end poverty and homelessness?

It's time to pull the plug on this government. We can no longer afford them.

The Power of Audacity and Canada's First Five Years of George Bush

It was always there. We saw it. A strong connection with George Bush that was often dismissed as hyperbole when mentioned, and playing the Bush card became akin to playing the Hitler card.

And yet as we scrambled to figure out who Stephen Harper was, and what he wanted with us; what we may not have realized was that south of the border, others experienced the same confusion when G.W. first hit the scene.

I picked up The Book on Bush, by Eric Alterman and Mark Green, at a library sale and started reading it last night, and I had such a lightbulb moment, it almost blinded me.

It was written during Bush's first term, as both an exposé and a warning. But had I read it then, I wouldn't have appreciated the relevance to Canada.

I certainly do now.

Alterman and Green start out by saying that during the 2000 campaign, most Americans, including many Democrats, saw Bush as non-threatening, and while they preferred Gore, would not have been too upset if Bush beat him.

When George W. Bush ran for president in 2000 he was presented to the nation by his campaign handlers and a sympathetic media as a nice-enough fellow who didn't take himself or much of anything else—save perhaps his family and religion—too seriously. Though polls consistently showed that a majority of voters held views closer to those of Democratic candidate Al Gore—and, indeed, a 52 percent majority did end up voting for Al Gore or Ralph Nader—even most of Bush's opponents did not see his presidency as much of a threat to their beliefs. (1)

With Stephen Harper it was a little different. During the 2004 election campaign, Canadians were a little frightened of him. He looked mad all the time and had emerged from those Reform Party nuts. So Harper's challenge was to re-invent himself into something less intimidating. And he did. And Canadians fell for it, hook, line and sinker. Polls even showed that he was the most trusted of the political leaders. Quite an accomplishment for a man that few really knew anything about.

The authors of the Book on Bush stated that after elected, G.W. pulled the old bait and switch. With Harper is wasn't quite as obvious, because he wasn't guaranteed four years. With only a minority, he wasn't even guaranteed four months.

But the similarities are still striking.

A "belief that America's forty-third president would govern from the happy middle of the partisan divide." "Bush is an incrementalist." And yet he "proceeded to embark on the most radical presidency in modern times."

All of this has a familiar ring. But hold on to your hat. You ain't seen nothin' yet.

How George Bush Governs Canada

In Allan Gregg's review of Lawrence Martin's book Harperland, he says:

Even though it has become a cliché to refer to Stephen Harper as a control freak, the power of Martin’s argument hits you like a jackhammer. Those of us who follow these things quite closely remember a number of occasions when the Conservatives have found themselves in hot water because of allegations of abuse of power, but we tend to forget just how frequently this has occurred and the myriad forms this malfeasance has taken over the last four and a half years.

Similarly, we remember the early Bush-Harper connections, but "tend to forget" the frequency, or perhaps more importantly, fail to understand, just how fundamental the similarities actually are. Alterman and Green write of Bush:

... his hard-right agenda strikes out in so many directions simultaneously that it's nearly impossible for the average citizen to keep up. In his first term as president, Bush has sought to explode precedents in almost every area of governance, whether the policy in question be foreign or domestic, popular or unpopular, old or new, effective or not. He has done so in contempt of the opinions of not only his opponents but also many of the corps of professional experts who are charged with nonpartisan evaluation of government programs purely from a standpoint of efficacy. (1)

A paragraph like that is one written often now, when referring to the Harper government. They act contra to the wishes of Canadians or the advice of experts. "Conclusions produce "facts" rather that "facts' helping to draw conclusions" (1)

And while their "hard-right agenda strikes out in so many directions simultaneously", that is not an accident. I see it as order hidden behind a cloak of disorder. It appears scattered but is not.

Neoconservatism is a political theology. Nothing is random. Nothing organic.

A Few Compelling Revelations from the Book on Bush

All of these are only from the introduction, which I read over a few times, I found them so shocking. These are my top ten:

1. Bush reduced press conferences by 75% and only answered questions presented in advance. "By the fall of his third year, the father Bush had held sixty-one press conferences; his son by the same time, nine."

2. Bushed ignored the polls and editorials that expressed the wishes of Americans, and instead began "...any policy consideration with three fundamental questions: What does the religious right want? What does big business want? What do the neocons want?"

3. "Karl Rove [suggested] that the way to a second term is to "activate the base"... to satisfy his core conservative constituencies. And if facts clash with the established orthodoxy, he'll stick with his base, not the facts."

4. "... it's traditional for presidents to be observant, to regularly invoke God and attend church. Difficulties can arise, however, if either a public official appears indebted to religious zealots or bases policy significantly on his particular religious beliefs ... Karl Rove would likely rather risk an international holy war than a drop in Bush's support among Christian conservatives."

5. "... the marriage of big business and politics isn't just the world that Bush grew up in; from oil to the Texas Rangers to fund-raising, it's all he's ever known. Ralph Nader teased in 2000 that "George Bush is a corporation running for president disguised as a person" ... "Mr. Bush is a business school graduate who has stuffed his administration with multimillionaire chief executives. There can be no doubt where his sympathies lie." "

6. "By the time the two authors of this work set down to examine Bush policies in major areas of domestic and foreign policy, it was everywhere evident that they were not simply ad hoc reactions to problems as they arose. Rather, they were conscious attempts to reorder the priorities of the U.S. government both at home and abroad and permanently alter Americans' relationship with their government, with one another, and with the rest of the world ... Others have noted that his foreign policies have caused the United States to be reviled across the world as never before, without in any way appreciably increasing our security."

7. "Still others focus on Bush's favoring of the wealthy over the poor, and the contempt, rhetoric notwithstanding, with which his administration treats average Americans."

8. "Sometimes the president seems to think that vagueness, non sequiturs, and tautology are enough to explain away his political problems ... Another frequent maneuver is to talk left/govern right to the point that Bush seems to think he can get away with anything if he declares its opposite.

9. "... of Bush's program of tax cuts for the wealthiest few. Almost no one with even a college degree in economics really expects them to offer a cure for the myriad problems that ail the economy, and in many respects they are the problem itself. But all of this is hard to prove in the face of Bush's repeated assertions about his "jobs and growth" package. Bush, meanwhile, speaks as if the future will fall into line with his beliefs once it recognizes his personal resolve."

10. "President Bush is actively seeking "to roll back the twentieth century." The draining of the public treasury to benefit the very rich is just the start of an effort designed to reduce government to a size where, as close Bush ally and conservative political organizer Grover Norquist has so memorably said, you can finally "drown it in the bathtub." "

The way in which Eric Alterman and Mark Green, sum up George W. Bush, they could have easily been writing about Stephen Harper.

We aim to demonstrate, based on the evidence presented by expert analyses, the likely consequences of an environmental policy run for the benefit of the energy industry; an economic policy that beggars the poor, comforts the rich, and destroys the basis of fiscal solvency for the nation; an education policy that "leaves behind" those most in need; a science policy that flatters the prejudices of theological fundamentalists; and a foreign policy that creates hatred and terror where none existed before, undermining our alliances and threatening our security.
In each of these cases, the Bush modus operandi has been to say one thing and do another, whether promising tax saving for everyone but giving the lion's share to the wealthy few or vowing to protect America from threats while inflating nonexistent ones and ignoring those against which we can be defended.

How does he do it? There are a variety of methods that add up to what playwright Arthur Miller terms Bush's "power of audacity." (1)

The "power of audacity". How succinct.

Continuation:

George Bush and Stephen Harper Share Rhetoric on Environment

Sources:

1. The Book on Bush: How George W. (mis) Leads America, By Eric Alterman and Mark Green, Penguin Books, 2004, ISBN: 0-670-03273-5, Pg. 1-11

Barbara Bush Disses Sarah Palin. Does She Forget Who Her Son Is?

Barbara Bush was on Larry King with her husband, and when asked about Sarah Palin:

"Thought she was beautiful. And she's very happy in Alaska," Bush said, chuckling. "I hope she'll stay there."

How much better the world would have been if she had kept her son in Texas.

Hello Pot. Meet Kettle.

I always liked Barbara Bush, but c'mon.

An Attempt to Remove All Reminders of Stephen Harper's War

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

On June 3, 2008; Canada's then Ambassador to Afghanistan, Arif Lalani, was interviewed on a U.S. radio program via telephone.

What the morning talk show host, Renee Montagne, wanted to know was why Canada was suffering a disproportionate number of losses in the war. The highest ratio of all NATO forces.

Whenever you hear that a NATO soldier has been killed in the Taliban heartland of Kandahar, it's probably a Canadian soldier. Canada only has 2,500 troops in Afghanistan but they are fighting in one of the most dangerous regions of the country. So while Canadian troops make up only a small fraction of NATO forces, they've suffered the highest number of fatalities proportionately. (1)

Soon after being elected in January of 2006, Stephen Harper made Afghanistan his first official visit anywhere as prime minister. There he gave his now infamous "cut and run" speech, which was simply a scaled down version of one that George Bush had presented at the U.S. Naval Academy* a year before.

"You can't lead from the bleachers. I want Canada to be a leader," Harper told about 1,000 troops at the Kandahar airfield base the day after he arrived on an unannounced visit to Afghanistan. "Your work is about more than just defending Canada's national interests. Your work is also about demonstrating an international leadership role for our country."

"There will be some who want to cut and run, but cutting and running is not my way and it's not the Canadian way," he said, to a round of applause. "We don't make a commitment and then run away at the first sign of trouble. We don't and we will not, as long as I'm leading this country." (2)

Up to that time, 10 Canadian soldiers and a diplomat had been killed, and 26 Canadian soldiers had been injured. But that was about to change. To impress George Bush, Stephen Harper sent our men and women into the most dangerous areas of battle. According to Rick Hillier: "It was Stephen Harper's decision to move Canadian troops from Kabul and reposition them in southern Kandahar province, where they are now at much more danger of being killed by roadside bombs." (3)

And speeches were not the only thing Harper borrowed from his mentor. He also made the decision to discontinue flying the flag at half mast as a show of respect to fallen soldiers, and forbid the media from capturing for history, the images of flag draped coffins.

"Look, don't bring the Airbus in, or if you bring the plane in, turn it away from the cameras so that people can't see the bodies coming off, or do it after dark, or do it down behind the hangars, or just bar everybody from it," Hillier quotes the PMO staffers as saying. "They clearly didn't want that picture of the flag-draped coffin on the news."It is Canadian military policy that every Canadian soldier killed in Afghanistan will be honoured as a war hero. Harper's disrespect for soldiers was the last straw for Hillier and prompted his early retirement at the age of 53. (4)

Harper expected backlash for this decision, from the media that he had already silenced, but was unprepared for the reaction of Canadians, especially from military families.

Nothing "casual" About Our Losses

Last week Canada revealed itself once again as a truly unique nation. In a world where dead warriors are commonplace and taken for granted, this country stopped, paid attention, lowered the flags and gave full military honours to four soldiers, who died inexplicably and tragically at the hands of our allies. (Lesley Hughes, April 2002)

Hughes was referring to the "friendly fire" deaths of four Canadian soldiers, the first reports of our country's losses in this war. And a nation mourned. Bill Leger, the father of Sgt. Marc Leger, spoke in reference to Stephen Harper's 2006 decision to ban the media from covering the flag draped coffins of fallen soldiers:

"... in 2002 it was a great thing for us to have the media there. It was something that we felt at that time, and still feel the same way, that it was a Canadian thing. It was something that we wanted to show all Canadians what the cost of their liberty is. It's nothing else but that. And it's still heart-warming to see the faces and everything else when people were lined up on the 401, in 2002, all the way from Trenton to Toronto. They wanted to be there. They had to be there. I was told that often, over and over again. And those are the memories that I have, and those are the things that I carry with me all my life." (5)

And Leger's mother was interviewed more recently:

Ask Claire Leger what the past decade has meant to her, and she'll tell you a story of abiding sorrow ... After the tragedy, Leger and her husband Richard planted four small Canadian flags in the garden of their home near Ottawa, in memory of Marc and his comrades, Cpl. Ainsworth Dyer, 24; Pte. Richard Green, 21 and Pte. Nathan Smith, 26.

Seven years later, the Legers haven't sought ''closure'' from their grief. As the war years have ticked by they've maintained a steady vigil, dutifully marking the death of every Canadian soldier in Afghanistan. ''Every time I have to go put a little flag in our garden, it feels like I'm burying our son all over again,'' she says. ''I send a card to every family that loses a soldier and I often get a card back, with a picture of their son or daughter.''''There's less and less attention paid to those who are killed and it's heartbreaking to me,'' says Leger. ''I wish I could share with other families the support we had when Marc died. We were embraced by Canadians. That's what kept me going - I felt people actually cared.''Leger is a fierce critic of what she considers an unwinnable war, and says Canada's participation has made us ''puppets'' of the Americans. (6)

Stephen Harper then did an about face, finding a way to make himself look good, and with the help of the ad firm Hill and Knowlton, quickly turned the war into a giant photo-op. Canada had not witnessed a propaganda campaign of this magnitude since the last world war. But it was not about "King and Country" this time, it was about Stephen Harper and ... well ... Stephen Harper.

His first defense minister, Gordon O'Connor had been an employee of H&K, lobbying for military contracts. In the United States, the ad firm was well known for using dirty tricks to sell wars:

Hill & Knowlton, then the world's largest PR firm, served as mastermind for the Kuwaiti campaign. Its activities alone would have constituted the largest foreign-funded campaign ever aimed at manipulating American public opinion. By law, the Foreign Agents Registration Act should have exposed this propaganda campaign to the American people, but the Justice Department chose not to enforce it. Nine days after Saddam's army marched into Kuwait, the Emir's government agreed to fund a contract under which Hill & Knowlton would represent "Citizens for a Free Kuwait," a classic PR front group designed to hide the real role of the Kuwaiti government and its collusion with the Bush administration. (7)

Canadians were no longer going to oppose the war. Belligerent nationalism would reign supreme, and they were going to instead cheer from the bleachers. Rah, rah, rah!

And what did they use to whip us into a frenzy?

Hill & Knowlton's yellow ribbon campaign [my emphasis] to whip up support for "our" troops, which followed their orchestration of Nayirah's phony "incubator" testimony, was a public relations masterpiece. The claim that satellite photos revealed that Iraq had troops poised to strike Saudi Arabia was also fabricated by the PR firm. Hill & Knowlton was paid between $12 million (as reported two years later on "60 Minutes") and $20 million (as reported on "20/20") for "services rendered." The group fronting the money? Citizens for a Free Kuwait, a phony "human rights agency" set up and funded entirely by Kuwait's emirocracy to promote its interests in the U.S. (8)

So in Canada, H & K not only had one of their own (O'Connor) as Minister of Defense, deciding which of their clients got what military contracts; they were also able to sell a yellow ribbon campaign that had been mothballed, to a country not known for outward displays of such aggression.

And to make sure that everyone stayed on message, Stephen Harper completely controlled the media, by completely controlling that message.

The Harper government used a pervasive message-control tool to persuade Canadians their foremost purpose in Afghanistan was building schools and fostering democracy rather than waging a war that was turning bloodier by the day.

An investigation by The Canadian Press shows the Conservatives systematically drafted “Message Event Proposals” as part of a quiet campaign to persuade Canadians their country was primarily engaged in development work to rebuild a shattered nation rather than hunting down and killing an emboldened insurgency.The government used MEPs literally to script the words it wanted to hear from the mouths of its top diplomats, aid workers and cabinet ministers in 2007-2008 to divert public attention from the soaring double-digit death toll of Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan. (9)

And when reports began to surface as early as 2007, that Canadians could be charged with war crimes:

WASHINGTON–Prime Minister Stephen Harper's office used a "6,000-mile screwdriver" to oversee the denial of reports of Afghan detainee abuse when the scandal first erupted in 2007, according to a former senior NATO public affairs official who was then based in Kabul. The former official, speaking on condition his name not be used, told the Toronto Star that Harper's office in Ottawa "scripted and fed" the precise wording NATO officials in Kabul used to repudiate allegations of abuse "at a time when it was privately and generally acknowledged in our office that the chances of good treatment at the hands of Afghan security forces were almost zero."

"It was highly unusual. I was told this was the titanic issue for Prime Minister Harper and that every single statement that went out needed to be cleared by him personally ... [my emphasis]" (10)

In February, the Hill Times reported on the suffering of our men and women who saw service in Afghanistan:

More than 6,000 Canadian Forces members and discharged veterans who are receiving physical or psychiatric disability benefits from Veterans Affairs Canada have either served in Afghanistan or have a disability that has been related to their service in Afghanistan, the department says. The majority of the soldiers receiving benefits are likely suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder or war-related psychiatric conditions, according to global figures the department and the Canadian Forces provided The Hill Times. They also do not appear to be included in Afghanistan combat or non-combat casualty figures the Canadian Forces compiled, even though the veterans and serving members who have psychiatric conditions likely have them as a result of serving in the Afghan war. (11)

And when this report came out, Harper's head media cheerleader, Jane Taber, turned it into a hyper-partisan sideshow. I have never been so ashamed.

So given Stephen Harper's callous disregard for human life, and anal control of the media, should we be surprised to learn that he is now attacking our veterans? Should we be surprised to learn that he has fired the man advocating for them? Or should we be surprised to learn that he has forbidden our broken soldiers from telling their stories?

A half dozen Afghan war veterans who wanted to talk about how their injuries affected their lives were told by senior military staff they were not to attend a press conference held earlier this week by Veterans Ombudsman Pat Stogran. The instructions come as the debate over how injured veterans are being treated reached a highpoint in Ottawa earlier this week, when Stogran held a news conference and criticized Veterans Affairs Canada and the government for not doing enough for the country's injured military personnel. Other veterans, no longer serving in the Canadian Forces, also spoke out at the conference about the failure of government to provide for them. (12)

Are you mad yet? Are you ashamed? Are you Canadian?

This may have been Stephen Harper's War when he changed our direction from Peacekeepers to Peacemakers, but this is now our war, as we go into battle against a government who would allow our veterans to be treated like this.

Are you in?

Footnotes:

George Bush (April 2005): "Some are calling for a deadline for withdrawal. Many advocating an artificial timetable for withdrawing our troops are sincere — but I believe they're sincerely wrong. Pulling our troops out before they've achieved their purpose is not a plan for victory. Setting an artificial deadline to withdraw would send a signal to our enemies — that if they wait long enough, America will cut and run and abandon its friends... To all who wear the uniform, I make you this pledge: America will not run in the face of car bombers and assassins so long as I am your Commander-in-Chief. (Applause.)"

Sources:

1. Canada Bears Brunt of Fighting in South Afghanistan, Interview with Arif Lalani, National Public Radio, June 3, 2008

2. Canada committed to Afghan mission, Harper tells troops, CBC News, March 13, 2006

3. A Soldier First, By Rick Hillier, Harper Collins Publishers, 2009, ISBN - 13:9781554684915

4. General Rick Hillier criticizes Stephen Harper, Lilith News, October 20, 2009

5. Canadian Government Imitates Bush Regime: Dishonors Their War Dead Too, Afraid To Let The Public See The Cost Of Empire, Associated Press, April 26, 2006

6. Afghanistan war: Canada's defining event of past decade, By Richard Foot, Canwest News, 2009

7. How PR Sold the War in the Persian Gulf, Center for Media and Democracy

8. How Bush Sr. Sold The Bombing Of Iraq, by Mitchel Cohen, December 28, 2002

9. Ottawa’s Afghanistan message: It’s development, not war, Government scripts told top diplomats how to frame the mission, Mike Blanchfield and Jim Bronskill, The Canadian Press, June 7, 2010

10. PMO issued instructions on denying abuse in '07: Former NATO official says response to reports was 'scripted' in Ottawa, By Mitch Potter Washington Bureau, November 22, 2009

11. Afghanistan veterans on disability now 6,000 Forces, Veterans Affairs reluctant to disclose casualty records after eight years of war, By Tim Naumetz, the Hill Times, February 8, 2010

12. Wounded vets claim they were muzzled by brass: Soldiers were willing to discuss injuries, but steered away from ombudsman's press conference, By David Pugliese, The Ottawa Citizen, August 21, 2010

Just How Far Will Stephen Harper Take New Direction on Crime?

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

In August of 1983, Betty Lou Beets reported the disappearance of her husband, Jimmy Don Beets. His fishing boat was found drifting on Lake Athens in Texas, suggesting that he had drowned. A year later, a dwelling belonging to Jimmy Don was destroyed by fire, and the insurance investigators suspected that it was the result of arson, so refused the claim submitted by his widow, Betty Lou.

The attorney she hired to represent her was E. Ray Andrews, who advised his client that since her late husband was a firefighter, she was probably eligible to receive death benefits and a pension, if they could present evidence that he was deceased. In 1985, the City of Dallas Fire Department, agreed to provide benefits to Beets, but before receiving her first cheque, acting on a tip, the police uncovered the body of Jimmy Don, buried underneath an ornamental windmill in the yard of the trailer they shared.

On June 8, 1985, Betty Lou was charged with the capital murder of Jimmy Don and invoking the "murder for remuneration and the promise of remuneration on the theory that she killed her husband in order to obtain his insurance and pension benefits and his estate" (1), was sentenced to death. This despite the fact that when she killed her husband she wasn't aware of the fact that she would even be entitled to such benefits.

But the jury never got to hear that. And they also were never allowed to hear evidence of a lifetime of abuse, physical and sexual, that Betty Lou had endured, beginning with rape by her father at the age of five. Nor did they hear of the abuse she suffered at the hands of her husband, including evidence of such abuse, or that she had been in a serious car accident that left her with permanent brain damage.

But what was even more compelling, was the fact that her lawyer, E. Ray Andrews, for his fee, had Betty Lou sign over all media and book rights to him, through a relative.

“He said he was going to get rich on all this, and the case was going to be the biggest thing that ever happened to him,” Bob Miller, commander of the local Veterans of Foreign Wars post, told Beets' appellate lawyers in a 1991 affidavit. “He said the case was going to turn into a big movie, and he had all the rights to it. It was something that he talked about pretty often.” Miller also said Andrews regularly drank heavily at the post prior to going into court to argue the case.

After becoming district attorney, Andrews was arrested by the FBI in 1994 for soliciting a $300,000 payoff to drop a death penalty case against a businessmen accused of killing his wife. He resigned from the prosecutor's office, gave up his law license, and cried at his sentencing, saying he was a longtime alcoholic, prescription drug abuser and heavy gambler. He was sentenced to three-and-a-half years in federal prison. (2)

And yet with all of this evidence, then Texas governor, George W. Bush, refused to grant a 30-day reprieve, so that Betty Lou's attorneys could seek a new trial. After declining a last meal, and telling those around her that she was frightened, at 6:18 p.m on February 24, 2000; 62-year-old Betty Lou Beets was put to death at a state prison in Huntsville, Texas.

Should she have gotten off? Of course not. When they unearthed the body of her husband, they discovered another husband buried nearby. But the death penalty should never have been on the table. This was a woman who clearly needed psychiatric help.

During his six years as governor of Texas, George W. Bush presided over 152 executions, more than any other governor in the recent history of the United States. This included the execution of Terry Washington, "a mentally retarded man of thirty-three with the communication skills of a seven-year-old. Washington’s plea for clemency came before Governor Bush on the morning of May 6, 1997. After a thirty-minute briefing ...Bush checked “Deny”—just as he had denied twenty-nine other pleas for clemency in his first twenty-eight months as governor." (3)

Another woman put to death by Bush, was Karla Faye Tucker.

If the jury that sentenced Karla Faye Tucker .. had known of her drug-ridden childhood prostitution, would they have found mitigating circumstances to spare her life? (3)

Her crimes were horrendous, and she should have been given life in prison for them, but did she get a fair trial, that brought down her death sentence?

In his autobiography, Bush claimed that the pending execution of Karla Faye Tucker “felt like a huge piece of concrete…crushing me.” But in an unguarded moment in 1999 while traveling during the presidential campaign, Bush revealed his true feelings to the journalist Tucker Carlson. Bush mentioned Karla Faye Tucker, who had been executed the previous year, and told Carlson that in the weeks immediately before the execution, Bianca Jagger and other protesters had come to Austin to plead for clemency for her. Carlson asked Bush if he had met with any of the petitioners and was surprised when Bush whipped around, stared at him, and snapped, “No, I didn’t meet with any of them.” Carlson, who until that moment had admired Bush, said that Bush’s curt response made him feel as if he had just asked “the dumbest, most offensive question ever posed.”

Bush went on to tell him that he had also refused to meet Larry King when he came to Texas to interview Tucker but had watched the interview on television. King, Bush said, asked Tucker difficult questions, such as “What would you say to Governor Bush?”

What did Tucker answer? Carlson asked. “Please,” Bush whimpered, his lips pursed in mock desperation, “please, don’t kill me.” Carlson was shocked. He couldn’t believe Bush’s callousness ... (3)

So should someone this callous be given this ultimate power? The decision to kill another individual? And before you suggest that these crimes were hanis and Bush did the right thing, you might ask yourself why he did grant clemency to Henry Lee Lucas, a man described as one of the worst serial killers in U.S. history?

There were certainly reasons to review his situation, given that Lucas confessed to crimes he couldn't have committed, but the fact remains that he did kill several people. But at the time, Bush was making a run for the presidency and wanted to appear to be a "compassionate governor."

But as Sister Prejean wonders, why are politicians given the “divine right of kings,” the absolute power over life and death, when they are motivated more by expediency than by conscience? And given the number of convictions overturned when new evidence is presented, should the death penalty be an option?

So What Does This Have to do With Us?

When the Reform Party was first established, part of their original policy was that the death penalty should be re-instated in Canada. Do I need to remind you that Stephen Harper was the key author of that policy book?

Stockwell Day, not only championed the death penalty, but also believed that it should apply to children as young as 12. His justification for this is the Old testament.

So when Canadian Ronald Smith was sentenced to death in Montana for the murder of two men, it came as no surprise that Day announced that he would not step in. Even the right-wing Jonathan Kay opposed his decision:

It goes without saying that Smith is a malignant creature, and deserves no earthly interregnum between incarceration and Hell: By Smith’s own admission, his two murders were motivated by nothing more than a desire to experience the ultimate evil. But it is an inescapable fact that our Parliament long ago rejected the death penalty as immoral. Until this collective national judgment is formally reversed, it is inappropriate for our government to stand mute as a Canadian is subjected to a punishment in the United States that we ourselves would never permit. (4)

And there is a fear that this has now set a precedent, that could ultimately be used to challenge Canada's position on capital punishment.

Stephen Harper has been an admirer of Bush's and the two men share the same ideology. And part of that ideology is the fact that people are not created equal. When president of the National Citizens Coalition, citing the group's successful campaigns, Harper stated that: "Universality has been severely reduced: it is virtually dead as a concept in most areas of public policy." (5)

There are no grey areas. If you are rich it's because God wants you to be rich and if you're poor, it's because you're lazy. Nothing anyone says, will change their minds. They will say what needs to be said for political gain, but they will listen to no one.

As noted in the following video, when discussing the Harper government, they have a "Failure to consult. To have the rest of society contribute to the debate." This is part of a pattern when it comes to Canada's justice system, or pretty much any decision made by the Reformers. Their word is the final word.

We've seen it with the closing of the prison farms. With their intention to spend ten billion dollars on more prisons, when Canada's crime rate is the lowest in our history. With the scrapping of the gun registry, despite protest from the police who use it on a regular basis.

We might be tempted to think of people like Clifford Olson and Paul Bernardo, and wonder if they should in fact be put to death, but then we must also consider people like David Milgard, Stephen Truscotte, Paul Morin and Donald Marshall Jr, who were all convicted of crimes they didn't commit.

Do we really want this kind of absolute power put into the hands of someone like Stephen Harper? Do we really want to bring back the death penalty? We have been moving toward a just society, and that should involve tackling the root causes of crime, not seeking more and crueler ways to exact revenge.

You need to ask yourself what kind of Canada you want to live in and what kind of Canada you want to leave to your children. One that is fair and just, or one that is cold and vengeful?



Sources:

1. Betty Lou BEETS, Petitioner-Appellee,v. Wayne SCOTT, Director Texas Department of Criminal Justice,Institutional Division, Respondent-Appellant. No. 91-4606. United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

2. Texas executes 62-year-old great grandmother Betty Lou Beets, By Jerry White, WSWS, February 26, 2000

3. Death in Texas, by Sister Helen Prejean, The New York review of Books, January 13, 2005

4. Stockwell Day, the death penalty, and the monster from Red Deer, by Jonathan Kay, National Post, November 02, 2007

5. Speech to the Colin Brown Memorial Dinner, National Citizens Coalition, 1994.