Jack Layton May Have Sold Out for Nothing

I mentioned yesterday being surprised that every single NDP voted in favour of bombing the hell out of Libya.

Layton performed his usual posturing, saying yes drop those 1000 bombs, but then I'm going to say enough. What an amazing blowhard he has turned out to be.

Well, Jack, you may have sold out a little too soon. Apparently Gaddafi is now negotiating with the rebels.

I know that the NDP could not stop Harper, but a "no" vote would have been symbolic. For years those on the left have been critical of the Liberals, for too often supporting American Imperialism. The NDP would never do that, or so we were led to believe.

Well, guess what? Not only would they, but they did.

And in a surprising twist, the Republicans are questioning the U.S. reason for the "mission". (bombs for oil)

Republican leaders demanded a written justification of military involvement in Libya from President Barack Obama on Wednesday as the traditionally hawkish party shows signs of losing its appetite for war.

This puts the NDP just right of the Republicans.

Poor Harper. If there is a truce, and peace is negotiated with Gaddafi's son, and a promised election on their terms, what is he going to do with all those damn bombs? $130 million worth.

What a screwed up country we've become. And just think. Another 4-5 years of a Harper majority with Jack Layton "holding the bully's coat". I'm so thrilled.

What is Really Going on in Libya?

I can't help feeling that this so called "mission" in Libya is just more blood for oil. You can't save people by bombing them, and yet we are bombing the hell out of the place.

I'm no fan of Muammar Qaddafi, but the oil companies were, and in 2008, lobbied the U.S. government on Qaddafi's behalf.

Steve Mufson writes in the Washington Post:

It struck some visitors to the Houston office of ConocoPhillips chief executive Jim Mulva as peculiar that he displayed a photograph of himself and Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi.

They were an odd couple: a veteran of corporate politics at a U.S. oil company and the colonel who had survived four decades of confrontation with the West while maintaining repressive rule over his North African nation.

But we learn from Wikileaks, that the love affair ended when the Libyan dictator began making demands that the oil companies pay more. Big mistake.

After making some very compelling arguments against extending the "mission", I was surprised that the NDP supported the continuation of this war.

Apparently, only Elizabeth May voted for sanity.

Canada has also announced its support for the National Transitional Council, which surprisingly already boasts a bank and national oil company. Its interim leader, Mustafa Abdul Jalil , seems a decent sort, but what do we really know of this group?

In 2007, Westpoint tied several factions to Al Qaeda and according to the UK Telegraph:

The result of the present inquiry is that the Libyan branch of Al Qaeda represents a continuum with the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group centered in Darnah and Benghazi. The ethnic base of the Libyan Islamic fighting group is apparently to be found in the anti-Qaddafi Harabi tribe, the tribe which makes up the vast majority of the rebel council including the two dominant rebel leaders, Abdul Fatah Younis and Mustafa Abdul Jalil. The evidence thus suggests that the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, the elite of the Harabi tribe, and the rebel council supported by Obama all overlap for all practical purposes.

Peter MacKay now admits to not knowing much about the NTC, but shouldn't he have done a bit of research first?

Mustafa Abdul Jalil is an Islamic fundamentalist, which doesn't mean terrorist, but what kind of government would be replacing Qaddafi? And are we now going to train and arm the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group?

In the video below you'll hear a former CIA agent say that we should not get involved. He sees a repeat of the Taliban, that Ronald Reagan trained and armed.

I think we are making a huge mistake. If the oil companies want Libya's oil, they should pay for it like everyone else.

So Who's the Elitist Now?

Rhys Kesselman, Canada Research Chair in Public Finance and a professor at Simon Fraser University’s School of Public Policy, has an op-ed in the Globe and Mail discussing the Harper government's new tax policies, clearly designed to benefit the highest wage earners.

Neoconservatives love to talk about "lower taxes", but they don't really mean lower taxes for everyone. They have designer tax cuts, allowing claims for gym memberships. We can expect fitness centres to tout this tax break, locking more and more people into expensive contracts.

They design "family" tax benefits, to only target their version of the "family", no single parents allowed.

And while they move toward a zero tax for corporations, they raise taxes on workers with a payroll tax, and implement user fees. Most of these fees are again a transfer of funds from the public, to the private sector, who take over services once provided by the government for free.

Jim Flaherty has tapped into George Bush's favourite line of "tax relief", using a median figure, but when broken down, only the wealthiest citizens reap any real benefit.

The wonderful Linda McQuaig, again reminds us that this systematic transfer of wealth to the top, is hurting everyone. And yet to hear the neocons talk, those who are suffering the most, are the ones hurting the economy.

I watched Bill Maher this week, and one topic of conversation was Republican rhetoric, that not only defies logic, but also defies history.

Sarah Palin suggested that Paul Revere rode to the British camp and told them that they must uphold their second amendment right to bear arms, despite the fact that there was as of yet, no such amendment on the books, and indeed, no constitution.

Another Republican presidential candidate, Rick Santorum, suggested that U.S. soldiers fought in WWII so that Americans wouldn't be forced to have healthcare. Silly Obama. He should have known that before touting his socialist ideas.

But as Maher reminded his audience, they are the kind of people who would probably get elected, because despite the fact that what they spout is pure nonsense, they spout it with conviction, never changing their story.

The Conservatives just keep chanting "low taxes, low taxes, low taxes" and we believe them, even if logic and the increased difficulty of stretching our pay cheques, prove otherwise.

Another argument made by the neoconservatives, is that cutting taxes for the wealthiest, drives down the price of consumer goods (that's the "job creation" part - jobs in Third World countries).

And yes we can now buy cheap TVs and DVD players, but the cost of housing is on the rise and food through the roof. We can buy cheap crap but basic survival is getting very expensive.

The Reform/Alliance/Conservative Party was never a populist party, but perhaps the most top down party in the history of Canada. They tapped into the populism of social credit for support, but their platform was written by Stephen Harper, right from the National Citizens Coalition handbook (Stephen Harper and the Future of Canada, by William Johnson, McClelland & Stewart, 2005, ISBN 0-7710 4350-3).

It is a party run by and for the corporate sector.

But darn it all if they don't sound convincing when they pretend that they work for us.

Why Are we Allowing the Media to Write the Narrative?

I've found myself getting upset the past few days reading columns about the Harper majority.

There is an overwhelming attempt to rewrite Stephen Harper's political story.

Angelo Persichilli tells us that yes Harper was in the Reform Party but left because "he was disappointed" in them.

He left in part because of a power struggle between he and Preston Manning, and in typical vindictiveness, that has come to define him, held a press conference accusing Manning of pilfering money from the party.

He wasn't, but that didn't matter. The damage was done.

However, what Persichilli missed was the fact that Stephen Harper had become disenchanted with Parliament, and felt that he could do more for the movement, heading up the National Citizens Coalition, without the restraints of politics. And indeed he did.

With the help of top Republican strategist (Richard Nixon's campaign manager), Arthur Finklestein, he attempted to make the term "liberal" a dirty word.

Others in covering the Conservative convention have suggested that the "new" Conservative party is a marriage between Red Tories, or what Harper spat out as "pink liberals", and the Reform-Alliance. A bigger myth than Harper turning his back on Reform.

But the best piece of nonsense this week comes from Bruce Anderson in the Globe: Why ‘Stop Harper’ protests are no canary in majority coal mine

On the surface the article appeared to be critical of Canadians. We weren't upset that Tony Clement handed over $50 million dollars to a handful of people in his riding, that was used on some of the most ridiculous projects known to man. And when he gave them the money, he demanded no receipts, so consequently we have no idea what was spent where, though I hear the lighthouse on a stump was a real bargain.

It made Muskoka look like a miniature golf course.

Anderson also mentions the fact that Harper used a military jet to go to a hockey game, but that we forgave him because he took his daughter. How cute. Of course I'm sure she'd have rather stayed home with her dad spending quality time, and not be the victim of a photo-op with Conservative cronies and 11 bodyguards.

I remember when Stephen Harper was critical of Brian Mulroney for using his family in photo-ops.

He also speaks of a gentler mood in Parliament, which makes me wonder if he too does crossword puzzles during Question Period.

It's gone from cocka-doodle-dooing, to inane tripe.

But his most bone-headed remark was suggesting that "Strong leaders, with clear ideas for the future, passionately argued: This is the recipe for the success enjoyed in the last election by Stephen Harper and Jack Layton."

When did Stephen Harper passionately argue clear ideas? He spent the early weeks of the campaign stuck on a "coalition threat", while limiting questions to five.

And even then with the limited number of questions, he refused to answer those he was uncomfortable with, or had no script for. In fact, when reporters pressed, the crowd on cue yelled and hollered and drowned them out.

It's funny, I was just reading a story on Gaddafi's son, who has a PhD from the London School of Economics, and was pressing for reform, long before the Canada led war on his country.

He refused an appointment in his father's government and actually invited human rights activist to come and speak on how to improve the lives of the Libyan people.

But at the event, his father's supporters "yelled and hollered and drowned them out".

Maybe all dictators work from the same playbook.

But this begs the question, why are we allowing the media to create the narrative, by rewriting history?

It's like they've given Stephen Harper a do-over.

Forget the human rights abuses at the G-20. Forget the vilifying of watchdogs and hostile takeovers of arm's length government agencies. Forget the 200 page manual instructing Conservative MPs in the art of disrupting committees, investigating their wrong-doing.

Forget the more than 200 million spent on self-promotion ads, the ethics czar given hush money and the death grip on information.

We have a "new and improved" Stephen Harper now that he has what he wanted. Complete control to do whatever he feels like.

Including destroying the careers of any journalists who do attempt to tell the truth, I suppose.

Maybe it would be best to just not say anything at all.

What in the Heck Has Happened to Barack Obama?

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

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

From today's Washington Post:

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

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

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

Why is Obama supporting this?

He's getting as bad as Stephen Harper.

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

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

Conservative MP Leon Benoit Doing Crossword Puzzles During Question Period

Robert Fife just tweeted that Conservative MP Leon Benoit was doing crossword puzzles during question period.

Well he's certainly earning his $150,000+

Sorry that his work is cutting into his leisure.

Not that he does anything of any importance, except provide staff for corporate lobbyists.

As a Political Analyst Angelo Persichilli Makes a Great Shoe Salesman

Angelo Persichilli finally came out of the closet a few months ago and admitted that he was indeed a Conservative. Phew!

And I thought he was a liberal.

Persichilli certainly isn't the only right-wing columnist in the country, but at one time I thought I remembered enjoying his work. But that was a very long time ago. Now he doesn't even try.

Harper has "moved to the centre"? Of what? Persichilli's universe? I mean he can't be serious.

And though I'm sure he hopes that "the Liberal party is at risk of extinction", I think he needs to pick up a history book.

Party support comes in waves.

The Conservatives under R.B. Bennett, won a majority in 1930 with 134 seats. By 1935 they were reduced to 39.

In 1958, the Conservatives under John Diefenbaker won 208 seats (Liberals 48 with no viable third party). By 1963 they were reduced to a minority, and then knocked on their keister.

In 1984 Brian Mulroney won 211 seats. By 1993, his party was reduced to just 2 and eventually folded.

The NDP's success this time around was due to a wave, that headlines announced before it actually took place. They will have a lot of trouble getting it to hold, unless they do something bold, and not just try to pretend to be Liberals, in the same way that the Harperites are pretending to be Tories (or according to Persichilli, also pretending to be Liberals).

This next five years will be hell, as Canada has now taken on an aggressive foreign policy. We are in the market for 1300 bombs, and according to University of California's Michael Allen, we are taking over the "Democracy" (violent coup) business.

This will forever change who we are and how we are viewed by the rest of the world. If the NDP support this, they are no longer NDP. And the fact that the Conservatives are inititating this, means that they are no longer conservative. Not in the Canadian tradition.

Pay attention Angelo. There's no excuse for your drivel.