When is Money Good Money?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Conference Board of Canada also cited another statistic: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And a lower borrowing rate only encourages more debt, and Canada now has one of the highest debt to income ratios in the world. 
 
Mitt Romney's financial statements should come as no surprise, because they are not unlike most millionaire's or billionaire's today.  The only way to make any real money is to become a vulture, capitalizing on the misfortune of others.
 
We all know what happens in Third World countries when that attitude prevails.

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

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

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

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

The 99%.

We rock.

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

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

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

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

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

According to Wikipedia:

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

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

Bankers on the side of the "Occupy" Movement?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ed Clark also offers some advise to the Occupy movement:

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

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

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

We've propped them up long enough.

Another "Occupy" Movement That Should Inspire

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The incident also impacted Eisenhower, who would later, as Butler did, warn of the Military-Industrial Complex, and wars fought for corporate interests.  Unfortunately, few listened, and the practice has only escalated.

Demonstrators in the Occupy Movement, face evictions everywhere, the latest in Los Angeles.  They are tear gassed, shot at with bean bags fired from rifles, hit with rubber bullets, kicked, drenched and arrested, but they are simply not going away.

And the message is resonating with the public.  This is not an attack on the rich, but a message to governments to stop pandering to the 1%, and pay attention to the rest of us.  We are the citizens, the voters, the taxpayers, the human capital, who far too often become targets when spending cuts are needed.

This has the potential to be a major political movement and if politicians ignore this, they will be Hoovered. (voted out, not attacked with a vacuum cleaner)

My little three-year-old grandson, when he feels that he's not getting our attention, will indignantly proclaim that we are not "using our ears".  He's a pretty smart guy.  Maybe he should address Parliament, Congress, the Senate, and everyplace else, where people are not using theirs.

Sources:

1. The Plot to Sieze the White House: The Shocking TRUE Story of the Conspiracy to Overthrow FDR, By Jules Archer, Syhorse Publishing, 1973, ISBN: 10-1-60239-036-3, p. 118-119

2. HEROES: Battle of Washington, Time Magazine, August 08, 1932

3. Ibid

Hooligans and How the Cultural Left Can Beat the Political Right

This week in the Winnipeg Sun, a column by Tom Brodbeck; Hooligan Harper haters: Crime bill protestors partisan hypocrites, irked me on many levels.

From the eye rolling "Harper haters" that's been done to death, to the notion of opposition to Bill C-10, being a partisan issue.

I contacted Mr. Brodbeck and asked if he had actually spoken with any of the protesters.  He dismisses anyone who challenges this government's policies, as simple "Harper haters", without asking those protesting how they actually feel about Mr. Harper.

Why is it that when Liberal governments bring in tougher sanctions for serious crimes they’re seen as being thoughtful and concerned about public safety?

But when Prime Minister Stephen Harper brings in harsher sentences for sex offenders and killers, he’s a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal who wants to jail everyone and throw away the key. It’s a bit of a double standard.

Many are simply angry over the Draconian crime bills, that are even being denounced by the law and order state of Texas. 

Brodbeck also dismisses the protesters as "hooligans".  A hooligan by definition is "a rough lawless young person."  In the image he provides, I see no roughness, unless you count a profanity on a sign, and I see no laws being broken.  In a healthy democracy dissent is not only allowed but should be welcomed, as proof that we do indeed live in a democracy.  As Lawrence Martin reminds us in his book, Harperland: The Politics of Control:

“In the run-up to the election, Stephen Harper had rolled out the rhetoric on the need for clean and transparent government, expressing frustration with Paul Martin's Liberals over their alleged secrecy and obstructionism. "When a government starts trying to cancel dissent or avoid dissent," Harper declared in a statement to be later viewed as notable for ironic content, "Is frankly when it is rapidly losing its moral authority to govern.”

However, with so much "dissent" over Bill C-10, rumour has it that Stephen Harper is planning to simply again prorogue.  According to Lori Turnbull in the Globe and Mail:

Rumour has it that Prime Minister Stephen Harper is planning yet another prorogation of Parliament. This means the work of the House of Commons, including its committees, would stop and our elected officials, as a group, would be rendered incapable of performing their basic functions, including holding the government to account in Parliament. 

The prorogation rumours are not surprising, given the other tactics the government has employed to “manage” opposition scrutiny. During the current parliamentary session, the Conservative government has invoked strict time limits on House debates on complex bills, including its omnibus crime legislation, and forced committee proceedings behind closed doors, out of the public eye.

Stifling dissent, operating behind "closed doors", and limiting debate.  This man has no shame and clearly no "moral authority to govern".

Hats off to the Hooligans

If a "hooligan" is simply someone who opposes government policies or practices, then I think we must pay homage to history's "hooligans".  Like Harriet Beecher Stowe (above) who protested against the 1850 Fugitive Slave Law that prohibited assistance to fugitives.  Wrote Stowe:  "I feel now that the time is come when even a woman or a child who can speak a word for freedom and humanity is bound to speak... I hope every woman who can write will not be silent."

Though arguably not a youth at 40, when she wrote Uncle Tom's Cabin, she inspired others, young and old, by injecting an anti-slavery message into popular culture.  And of course her work with the abolitionist movement is legendary.

But what of other "hooligans"?

Like Barbara Johns, who at the age of 16, took over her black high school and shut it down, leading to the legal crisis that wound up in the U.S. Supreme Court as Brown v. Board of Education, the case that ended legal segregation in America.

Or Claudette Colvin, who at 15 in 1955, defied segregation laws by refusing to surrender her bus seat for a white passenger, choosing instead to be arrested.  Civil Rights leaders contemplated organizing a bus boycott then, but were concerned with Colvin's age.  How much traction could the movement obtain by backing a "hooligan"?  It wasn't until 42-year-old Rosa Parks, inspired by the young activist, did the same, that they had their heroine.

And what of the "hooligan" Joan of Arc, or the less well known, Sybil Ludington, who like Paul Revere took a famous ride.  At just 16,  Ludington rode twice the distance Revere did, through a rainstorm no less, to warn the countryside that Red Coats were sacking Danbury,  Connecticut.  Ludington alerted militia men, and the militia was able to stop the invasion, chasing the Red Coats back to their ships.  A "rebel" on the right side of history.

Or how about the 15-year-old Louis Braille, who created the Braille writing system, while a student at Paris's Royal Institution for Blind Youth.  Teachers at the school revolted, banning students from using it, claiming that the paper-punching note-taking was noisy and disruptive.  Braille has changed the lives of so many people living without sight, because he was a rebel.

Young "hooligans" like Brigette Depape, who challenged authority with the 'Stop Harper' sign on the Senate floor; or Emma Sullivan, who refused to apologize to a governor for a disparaging remark she left on Twitter, are inspirational.  I hope Pat Martin is now following Sullivan.  If we can't even Tweet dissent, where is our democracy?

Or maybe Brodbeck should wonder about another political agitator, or "hooligan",  born into a time of occupation and oppression.  Arriving at an annual festival, with a very large following, he attacked the greedy bankers, was later arrested and put to death.  His name was Jesus of Nazareth.

We can't dismiss youth simply because they are young, nor can we dismiss those wonderfully crazy enough to believe they can change a vote, a policy, a bill, or the world.

We go along to get along until someone doesn't. 

Why I Believe That the Cultural Left Can Beat the Political Right

There is a very interesting book, written by Michael Kazin, American Dreamers: How the Left Changed a Nation.  In it he discusses, as the title implies, the contributions made by the Left to Western culture.  Naturally, the New Right is trying to topple them all, and yet they are not succeeding, I think because the notions of justice and injustice are fundamental to who we are.

Critics have blamed liberals for not doing enough to denounce right-wing rhetoric, but the nature of liberalism is in support of free speech.  The Right likes to use "free speech" as their rallying cry, but the fact is that they only promote "free speech', when that speech is what they want to hear. 

Kazin argues that liberal, or left culture, can impact the political, when their message resonates with voters, even when they are not involved with a political party.  Chances are pretty good that the young people in Brobeck's photo, are not affiliated with any.

Abraham Lincoln, a Republican, was not really anti-slavery.  In fact, abolitionist Frederick Douglass, called Lincoln "the white man's president".  In 1864, one year after the Emancipation Proclamation, Douglass threw his support to Lincoln's opponent, John Fremont (he was not able to actually vote until 1869).   Lincoln only began to listen to the abolitionists, mid-way through the Civil War, when he realized that emancipation could speed victory for the North.  Almost 200,000 black soldiers then joined the fight, recruited by Douglass himself.

A cultural movement inspired a political change.

The post WWI militant union activists, did not gain real validity, until FDR realized that he needed labor votes.   Lyndon Johnson gave up on the white South, to denounce Barry Goldwater.  He won in a landslide, and passed Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts.

Says Kazin, "For a political movement to gain any major goal, it needs to win over a section of the governing elite", but that doesn't mean that they began the movement on behalf of any political party.  They only worked through, or against, the government of the day.

In a January 2003 column, headlined It's not Canadians who've gone to the right, just their media, Lawrence Martin quoted an unnamed European diplomat as saying "You have a bit of a problem here. Your media are not representative of your people, your values. Too many political commentators are right of centre while the public is in the middle.  There is a disconnect."

If you judged the Canadian mood based on our media, you might think that Canada is indeed a right-wing country.  However, that is not the case.  We repeatedly prove in opinion polls, that we are progressive, and care about things like poverty, war, climate change, human rights, etc.

If Stephen Harper had to rely solely on his base for votes, he would probably be leading a third or even fourth place party.  In fact, his Reform-Alliance had stagnated by 2003, propped up primarily by the West.  It was only when he bought out the rights to the PC party and began calling himself a "Tory" that he was able to garner more mainstream support.
 
He himself wasn't pleased with the new name.  He had referred to the PCs as "elitist" and called Red Tories "Pink Liberals" promising to "jettison them" from the party once he took over.
 
In January of 2004, he told the Hamilton Spectator, when asked if his Reform-Alliance Party would now be called 'Tories':

"It's actually not a label I love… I am more comfortable with a more populist tradition of conservatism. Toryism has the historical context of hierarchy and elitism and is a different kind of political philosophy. It's not my favourite term, but we're probably stuck with it." (Stephen Harper, Hamilton Spectator, January 24, 2004)

He may have felt that he would be "stuck with it", but capitalizing on the "Tory" name has given him enormous political advantage, since many people who vote for him, believe they are actually voting "Tory".  The media has perpetrated a grave injustice, by allowing him to keep up the facade.

Returning again to Martin's Harperland:

The merger was a ruse of sorts. This was no equal partnership. The merged party had five times as many Alliance MPs as old Tory ones. In the election before this merger, the Alliance Party had won sixty-six seats, the Tories only twelve. Before long, Harper won the leadership of the new party, making the domination of the Reform-Alliance wing even more pronounced. This wasn't so much a merger as the Alliance Party's annexing of an auxiliary group.

This is actually good news for the "Occupy" movement, because most Canadians are not right-wing, but have an ingrained sense of justice and faith in democracy.  If the 99% of those who feel that they are not being given equal opportunities for success, or the roughly 2/3 who did not vote for the New Right party of Stephen Harper, or even those who voted Conservative, having fallen for the bait and switch, come together; we could see positive political change.

We won't alter Harper's ideology, but his own party could demand that he loosen the reins, if they are forced to wear his full frontal assault on our democratic institutions, with his unheard of control.  They can't enjoy being muzzled and scripted.
 
We could also inspire opposition parties to include our demands in their platforms.  They'd be crazy not to.
 
Says Kazin, "The divergence between political marginality and cultural influence stems, in part, from the kinds of people who have been the mainstays of the left." 
 
Not necessarily, those who march, clash with police, get arrested or want to overthrow the government; but those who have been able to articulate their grievances.  People like Martin Luther King Jr., Harriet Beecher Stowe and Tommy Douglas. 
 
The Occupy Movement has our attention, as they are beginning to articulate their message, and Canadians are listening.
 
So hats off to the "Hooligans" and thumbs down to a column that condemns them without cause.

Despite Evictions and Arrests, Occupy Wall Street Message is Getting Through

The actions of those in the Civil Rights Movement were not always supported by the majority of Americans, especially the violence.  But the messages presented at the sit-ins and marches did begin to resonate.

However, what probably helped the movement the most, was the response of segregationists like George Wallace.   "In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever". 

His confrontations with students played out like a Klan lynching, and Americans noticed, overwhelmingly supporting an end to segregation, and discrimination that defined where blacks could live, work and be educated.

As "Occupiers" in the anti-Wall Street movement are being evicted, many citizens are applauding the police crack down.  But the message of inequality is sinking in, being helped by the parallel universe of the Republican debates.  We know that there are many people hurting, victims of not only the "economic crisis", when the rich got even richer, but of a concerted effort to remove the public from public policy.

The message presented by the GOP hopefuls, is that poor people should be allowed to starve, sick people without medical insurance, allowed to die, and if you're unemployed, you're just lazy.  The same message they've been spouting for fifty years.

The right wing noise machine has monopolized the political conversation for too long, and people are beginning to tune out.

In Mississippi, voters rejected a measure that would have defined a fertilized egg as a person, even though pro-life groups poured a lot of money into getting it passed.  They were hoping that this would set a precedent, and help a larger bill, the Sanctity of Life Act, sponsored by Georgia Republican Rep. Paul ‘When Will Someone Shoot Obama’ Broun. If they can't get it passed in Mississippi, there's hope.

In Ohio, an anti-union bill that was signed into law earlier this year, was repealed by voters with a 23 point margin. 

Regardless of the margin, last night was historic as no Governor of Ohio has ever seen voters repeal any portion of their agenda within the first year in office. First, the ability of anyone to pull off a referendum so early in a new Governor’s term is itself incredibly rare. Second, this is the only time it worked. 

A grassroots group called We Are Ohio, need to be commended. They were discredited at every turn, called communists and traitors, but they never quit.

Canadian unions are challenging Tony Clement's budget cuts, and we need to back them up.  In Ohio, Democrats and Republicans worked together.  This is not a partisan issue but a We are Canada one.

Maine reinstated same day voter registration after the Republicans tried to make it more difficult to vote.  Russel Pearce, the architect of Arizona’s racist profiling law, just got voted out of office, in an historic recall and the state of Delaware is suing Wall Street for questionable mortgage practices.

You don't have to live in a park and pee in a porta-potty, to know that what is happening is wrong.  The Occupy Wall Street group has struck a nerve and the ridiculous Republican presidential hopefuls, a shot of common sense and common decency, sorely lacking in the GOP.  They represent everything that is wrong with the Conservative movement.  It is pure evil.

We SHALL Overcome.

It's Not About Occupying Wall Street But How Best to "Occupy" Ourselves

In the 1960s, college and university campuses, known for their apathy, began to erupt into political activism. Rosa Parks, the black woman who refused to move to the back of the bus, inspired many to stand up, or perhaps more appropriately, "sit-in", for racial equality. Her actions had sparked the Montgomery Bus Boycott, and a young preacher, Martin Luther King Jr., who led the boycott, wrote a book: Stride Toward Freedom.

Motivated by King's words, on February 1st, 1960;  four black students from North Carolina Agricultural and Technical School, David Richmond, Franklin McCain, Ezell Blair, and Joseph McNeil, sat down at a "whites-only" Woolworth's lunch counter and ordered coffee. Following store policy, the lunch counter staff refused to serve them.

The next day, 27 young people appeared at that lunch counter to protest the store's actions, and engaged in a "sit-in". The third day there were 60, and the fourth, more than 300.

Their actions ignited a wave of student sit-ins, and despite beatings, arrests and the sting of fire hoses, the protests continued to grow, in much the same way that the Occupy Wall Street protests are growing today.

Many who marched for equality then, were from the privileged white class, but knew that segregation was fundamentally wrong.  Many Occupy Wall Street protesters have jobs.  Others are retired and don't need jobs.  They just understand that 1% of the citizens should not control all the wealth, and more importantly, that governments should not be catering to that top 1%.

As Bill Maher said this week, they do not oppose capitalism, but only those who have abused it.

I read a column on a U.S. site, critical of people like Susan Sarandon and Kanye West, lending support to the occupiers.  After all, they are hardly one of the 99%.  But having money does not mean that you can't empathize.

To the movement, 'Wall Street' is not a noun.  It is an adjective to greed and injustice.

The actions taken on that bus in Montgomery or that lunch counter at Woolworths, did not single handedly change the world, but were the catalyst for much needed change, that has greatly influenced how we feel today.

When it was learned that Republican presidential hopeful, Rick Perry, had a ranch named "niggerhead", the public reacted with shock.  Fifty years ago they would not have batted an eye.

Since the 1960s, the right-wing has tried to push back the Civil Rights Movement, in the same way that they are trying to discredit this one.  They have failed.  Their money has bought power, making it easy for someone like Stephen Harper to enjoy it, but they have not been able to change our core values.

In 2009, Conservative insider Tom Flanagan, wrote a follow-up to his 1995 Waiting for the Wave -- WFW: The Reform Party and the Conservative Movement.  I thought there might be some revelations, but it still has just enough fact to make the non-fiction category, but barely.  This must be what he meant when he said that something "doesn't have to be true, just plausible".  I'll call this book convoluted plausibility, and leave it at that.

However, I took exception to his list of Reform Party accomplishments, aside from the way they connived themselves to political victory.  Flanagan suggests that Reform's legacy is that politicians now talk about "families", saying that (the late) Jack Layton was just as likely to propose policies to help hard-working families, as Stephen Harper. (p. 215)

Would that be the same Stephen Harper who boasted that one of his National Citizens Coalition accomplishments, was killing the baby bonus?  It wasn't scrapped of course, but adjusted based on family income.  And let's not forget this one:  "Universality has been severely reduced: it is virtually dead as a concept in most areas of public policy... These achievements are due in part to the Reform Party..."  - (Stephen Harper, speech to the Colin Brown Memorial Dinner, National Citizens Coalition, 1994.)

What Reform attempted to do was redefine what constitutes a family, by marginalizing any who don't fit their mould of stay at home mother, working dad, conforming children.

Before Harper was born, politicians put families on the agenda.  It was called The Welfare State, and it has served us well.

Jim Flaherty and Mark Carney, now claim to understand why the Occupy Wall Street protesters are angry.  Flaherty says:  “Income distribution is important and there is a concern that a very, very small group of people have very large incomes and that others do not have those same opportunities.”  He fails to mention that his policies have helped to create that gap.

If he was sincere, he would vow to roll back corporate taxcuts and refuse to continue with the Mike Harris/George Bush "red tape commission", that will remove all safety and environmental standards that impede the top 1% from getting richer, while putting the bottom 99% at risk.

A perfect example of this is with Maple Leaf Foods.  The Harper government began allowing food processing plants to inspect themselves, resulting in the death of 20 Canadian citizens, who didn't get the memo.

Yet now those "job creators", who have not only benefited from deregulation, but have also enjoyed enormous tax breaks, are going to layoff 1550 workers.

The whole neoconservative agenda is a crock.  Just ask Rick Salutin.

The Occupy Wall Street movement has the potential to change how we view financial inequality, in the same way that the Civil Rights Movement changed how we viewed racial inequality, and the Womens Movement, gender inequality. 

In Kingston, Ontario;  there is a small group of protesters, camped out in a city park.  They are breaking bylaws, but our mayor has promised not to move them, because their message is too important.  Local citizens come by on a regular basis, with food and messages of support.

It is quiet, non-violent, civil disobediance.

We can no longer rely on politicians to do what is right.  We are the ones who must draft policy and set the agenda.  It only takes a few, and then a few more, and a few more, and a few more ................

Swindlers Revisited: Why Canada's Occupy Wall (Bay) Steet Movement is Important

A friend left a comment on my blog yesterday, reminding me of a book I had read several months ago, Swindlers.  She was just in the process of reading it herself.  Timely, given the current protests against Wall Street greed.

Anyone questioning why citizens have taken to the streets, need to read this book.

In it, the Rosens (father and son), tell us of how Jim Flaherty and Stephen Harper have signed Canada on to a new set of rules governing corporations.

Thanks to our self-regulated auditors, Canada will soon adopt [Came into effect on January 1, 2011]  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. (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)

They are now legally allowed to lie on their financial statements to lure potential investors.  When I wrote of this before, I received an email asking why it mattered.  After all, it was just rich people cheating other rich people.

However, this affects all of us, because it could mean company pension plans, RRSPs, mutual funds ... things we don't think about every day but they could have a serious affect on our future financial well being.  More from the book:

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. (ibid)

Good PR (propaganda) at taxpayers expense, has led us to believe that we are financially sound.  We're not.  Since coming to office, the "Harper government" has been on a deregulation drunk.

During one binge, they flooded the market with sub-prime mortgages and the next day found themselves in bed with AIG.  Some morning after.

Another weekend of partying and they bailed out our banks to the tune of $125 billion.  The drunkenomic hangover.

More from the Rosens:

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.

If power is intoxicating, unchecked power is inebriating. 

A few more brown-bagged calamities:

A former Goldman-Sachs employee is running the bank of Canada and has brought along a colleague to act as his assistant.  The same Goldman-Sachs who helped to create the last economic crisis, and the same Goldman-Sachs who warned their clients not to invest in Canada.

Another Goldman-Sachs employee has been signed on to handle Canada's foray into derivatives.  Investor Warren buffet calls derivatives "weapons of mass destruction", but that won't stop Flaherty.  He's even putting some of our Canada pension funds into this risky venture.

Stephen Harper's chief of staff came right off Bay Street to secure the purchase of the F-35s for one of his clients.

And yet Flaherty claims that Canadians have little to protest.

Chantel Hebert is suggesting that instead of protesting Canadians should vote.  Maybe if the media kept us better informed, we would.  Every time they refer to this government as "Tories", they are putting another nail in our coffin.

A Queens University political science professor was asked recently why people are protesting.  She said that the question should not be "why?" but what took them so long.

Mea Culpa Occupy Wall Street Canada

When I posted on the success of the occupy Wall Street movement in Canada I said that Harper, Flaherty and Clement were there. 

I was referring to the above photo from the National Post.

I now realize they were just men in costume, dressed up as Harper, Flaherty and Clement.

Silly me.

I Am So Proud to be Canadian Today

I was afraid that the Occupy Wall Street protests in Canada may not be well attended, given the human rights abuses at the G-20.

But Canadians rock. Being locked in cages, beaten by police and kettled on the streets like livestock, scared no one.

The National Post has some great photos. I love the first one, though I'm not sure why Harper, Flaherty and Clement would show up at this event.

I was also surprised to learn that Canada not only joined the movement, but may have inspired it. According to the Global Post:

It was a homecoming of sorts this weekend as the Occupy Wall Street movement made its way north. Thousands turned out in peaceful protests in more than a dozen cities across Canada, with the largest rally— about 4,000 protesters— appropriately enough in Vancouver, the capital of the country’s laid-back left coast and home to the spark that lit the fuse.

Last July, in a moment of inspiration that’s already become iconic, the Vancouver-based Adbusters magazine printed a centrefold poster urging the angry and disaffected to occupy Wall Street.

How cool is that?

Hippies on Wall Street. Why Not??

There is a recent suggestion that the "Occupation" of Wall Street has become a "hippie haven".  I actually see people of all ages and from all walks of life, but if you want to discredit the movement, dismiss them with a seemingly negative connotation.

However, would it be so bad if the demonstrations took on a 60s flair?

The Religious Right want to take us back to the Reformation.  The Neocons to the 1950s, before the Civil Rights movement.

The Hippie generation created a lot of positive change, and maybe we need that kind of spirit again.  No Joan Baez yet, but Rage Against the Machine, Kanye West and rapper Talib Kweli have entertained the crowd.

They also have the support of Susan Sarandon, Mark Ruffalo and of course, the wonderful Michael Moore.

More inspiring, however, was the appearance of a group called The Protest Chaplains, who travelled from Boston with their signs:   "Blessed are the poor" .  What a wonderful contrast to the Tea Party who imply that God thinks the poor are just lazy.

If social media is any indicator the protests appear to be gaining traction.

The times they are a changin'.