That's what Ignatieff told us.
It seems like a stupid thing to say, but it's not the first.
The retort is blatantly simple. The "sides" in this discussion are not "conservative politicians" and "liberal politicians". One does not choose "sides" between two sets of elites.
The side that the NDP has taken is that of the recently unemployed, the victims of the banking shenanigans that caused the economic mess in which we find ourselves. They took the side of some of the worse off.
Maybe it's not a side that entered in to Mr. Ignatieff's thoughts. Maybe he's a little too mired in politics to realize that he's supposed to be on the side of the people, not the side of a political party.
Mr. Layton's move was surely calculated. I'm sure polls and party financing entered in to it. To pretend otherwise is naive. These things are always calculated.
But in this case he did pick a side: the side of people. It may mean voting with the Liberal Party - occasionally. It may mean voting with the Conservative party - somewhat less frequently. But straying from one party to another doesn't mean he doesn't have a philosophical guideline, which seems to be Ignatieff's implication.
Nice try, Iggy. Better luck next time.
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Monday, September 21, 2009
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Who will invade the United States?
Earlier this week, it was announced that the Federal government was going to bail out Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, the two giant mortgage insurers in the United States. This is, of course, in direct violation of the free market ethic which states clearly that failing businesses must be allowed to fail. Propping up nonviable enterprises supposedly only leads to a weakened economy. This is the economic Darwinism model.
In response to this former baseball pitcher Jim Bunning (R-KY) said, "I thought I woke up in France. But no, it turns out socialism is alive and well in America."
Well, I'm sorry to say that it gets worse, Jim.
Not only are the Fed and the American government bailing out corporations, they're also Nationalizing them.
Nationalize? Isn't that the root word of "Nazi" as well as the soul of godless Communism? I can't believe George Bush and his toadies have given over to socialism.
The only question is now: will anyone invade the U.S. and overthrow this communist dictatorship? If there's one thing we know it's that socialism never, ever, ever works. It just leads to impoverished people living the everyday horror of public medicine and public education. It leads to having your nation blockaded and sanctioned and all sorts of turmoil.
In fact, in every South American country that has tried it, there have been vicious coups: in Chile in 1973; in Venezuela at least twice in the last six years; in Nicaragua in the 1980s. Yes, socialism leads to violence.
So who will rescue the poor American people from this socialist evil? Who will march an army in to the United States, occupy Washington D.C., get loans from the IMF and World Bank and impose austerity measures on the government of the United States? Maybe China or Russia could do it, in the name of liberation of course. In theory Canada and Mexico could do it but the Canadian snowmobile army doesn't run very well in the American winter and I've been told that Mexicans never learn to speak English so they'd run in to language problems.
But it maybe impossible for the Chinese Army to reach North America for lack of transport capacity. And alas the Russians are busy fighting with the Georgians. We can only hope that George Bush and his people see the error of their ways and return to the only real workable model for democracy: cutthroat free market capitalism. Any other option is simply not freedom.
In response to this former baseball pitcher Jim Bunning (R-KY) said, "I thought I woke up in France. But no, it turns out socialism is alive and well in America."
Well, I'm sorry to say that it gets worse, Jim.
Not only are the Fed and the American government bailing out corporations, they're also Nationalizing them.
Nationalize? Isn't that the root word of "Nazi" as well as the soul of godless Communism? I can't believe George Bush and his toadies have given over to socialism.
The only question is now: will anyone invade the U.S. and overthrow this communist dictatorship? If there's one thing we know it's that socialism never, ever, ever works. It just leads to impoverished people living the everyday horror of public medicine and public education. It leads to having your nation blockaded and sanctioned and all sorts of turmoil.
In fact, in every South American country that has tried it, there have been vicious coups: in Chile in 1973; in Venezuela at least twice in the last six years; in Nicaragua in the 1980s. Yes, socialism leads to violence.
So who will rescue the poor American people from this socialist evil? Who will march an army in to the United States, occupy Washington D.C., get loans from the IMF and World Bank and impose austerity measures on the government of the United States? Maybe China or Russia could do it, in the name of liberation of course. In theory Canada and Mexico could do it but the Canadian snowmobile army doesn't run very well in the American winter and I've been told that Mexicans never learn to speak English so they'd run in to language problems.
But it maybe impossible for the Chinese Army to reach North America for lack of transport capacity. And alas the Russians are busy fighting with the Georgians. We can only hope that George Bush and his people see the error of their ways and return to the only real workable model for democracy: cutthroat free market capitalism. Any other option is simply not freedom.
Monday, September 15, 2008
Pushing Back Against Empire
The government of the United States and its sycophants in the media are happy to trash talk the United Nations whenever they can.
On the rare occasions in which the U.N. actually stops the United States from doing something, or at least declares its opposition, the U.S. will declare it unrealistic and ineffective.
Of course, when the U.N. does try to do the right thing, the U.S. will use its veto in the security council to prevent any actual action. The U.S. has used its veto more than any other nation with such power. In fact, it has used its veto more than all of the other four nations combined.
For decades now, especially through the Cold War, most of the nations that weren't under Soviet thrall would support the U.S. as the lesser of two evils. When the U.S. knocked over democratically elected - but left-leaning - governments in Iraq, Iran, Chile, Nicaragua and other places, it was opposed by some and tolerated by many others as part of the "fight against communism".
In Nicaragua, the United States committed terrorism. It helped a group of rebels it invented (the "Contras") to attack non-military targets throughout Nicaragua with the intent to bring down the democratically elected Sandanista government. The whole while, the Sandanista themselves were called terrorists bent on destruction. The two sides had their day in court and the U.S. was found guilty of terrorism.
Normally, what the United States tells people to do is what they end up doing. This is especially true in the United Nations where it is considered important to placate the Americans.
But not today.
The United Nations members have voted to make Father Miguel d'Escoto, a former Sandanista government official, the head of the General Assembly.
That can't sit well in the Bush Administration. Look at it. The very same sociopathic crowd that gave us the terrorist attacks on the Nicaraguans is now going to have to deal with a guy who was the target of those very attacks.
Talk about uncomfortable. Imagine if they have to have dinner together or something.
What it tells me is that the American power is waning. From Venezuela to Bolivia and down in to Chile. In Iraq and Saudi Arabia. The ability of the Empire builders in the United States to force their will upon developing nations around the globe and in the United Nations in New York is weakening.
Sunshine through the clouds in my opinion.
On the rare occasions in which the U.N. actually stops the United States from doing something, or at least declares its opposition, the U.S. will declare it unrealistic and ineffective.
Of course, when the U.N. does try to do the right thing, the U.S. will use its veto in the security council to prevent any actual action. The U.S. has used its veto more than any other nation with such power. In fact, it has used its veto more than all of the other four nations combined.
For decades now, especially through the Cold War, most of the nations that weren't under Soviet thrall would support the U.S. as the lesser of two evils. When the U.S. knocked over democratically elected - but left-leaning - governments in Iraq, Iran, Chile, Nicaragua and other places, it was opposed by some and tolerated by many others as part of the "fight against communism".
In Nicaragua, the United States committed terrorism. It helped a group of rebels it invented (the "Contras") to attack non-military targets throughout Nicaragua with the intent to bring down the democratically elected Sandanista government. The whole while, the Sandanista themselves were called terrorists bent on destruction. The two sides had their day in court and the U.S. was found guilty of terrorism.
Normally, what the United States tells people to do is what they end up doing. This is especially true in the United Nations where it is considered important to placate the Americans.
But not today.
The United Nations members have voted to make Father Miguel d'Escoto, a former Sandanista government official, the head of the General Assembly.
That can't sit well in the Bush Administration. Look at it. The very same sociopathic crowd that gave us the terrorist attacks on the Nicaraguans is now going to have to deal with a guy who was the target of those very attacks.
Talk about uncomfortable. Imagine if they have to have dinner together or something.
What it tells me is that the American power is waning. From Venezuela to Bolivia and down in to Chile. In Iraq and Saudi Arabia. The ability of the Empire builders in the United States to force their will upon developing nations around the globe and in the United Nations in New York is weakening.
Sunshine through the clouds in my opinion.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Harper: Canadians becoming Conservative
Stephen Harper has declared that you and I (Canadians in general) are becoming more conservative.
The first thing I wanted to see were examples. I wanted to see if he meant social conservative or financial conservative.
I know we aren't getting to be more socially conservative, what with our attitudes toward abortion, birth control, decreasing church attendance and everything else. Fortunately, this was not his thesis. He was arguing that Canadians are more amenable to financial conservatives ideas.
Such as?
"On Saturday, Harper said the fiscal prudence he advocated as a young member of the Reform Party in the late 1980s has now become conventional wisdom."
That's interesting. While I understand that the word "conservative" implies balanced budgets, all the Conservative, or Progressive Conservative, governing that I have seen involved deficits. Mike Harris, Ernie Eves, Brian Mulroney. I'm only in my 30s though, so maybe there were other Conservative governments which I don't remember.
In the G&M article, "free trade ... and spending restraint" are also mentioned. Is there really that much support for "free trade"? You have to remember that most Canadians did not support NAFTA. I don't think most of us like it even now. It was just the wealthy political types and the journalists and their media masters who loved it so much.
As for spending restraint, good luck with that Mr. Harper. You just barely restrained your government from going in to annual deficit, and that by cancelling that icebreaker and those "much needed" supply ships for the military. I believe that it was the month of May 2008 that showed the first deficit in years. How did your philosophy of "spending restraint" bring us down from surpluses so quickly?
No, I don't think Canadians are becoming more conservative, in the financial or social sense. It was the Liberal side of things that balanced the budget. The only reason you're ahead, Mr. Harper, is Stephane Dion's lack of charisma.
The first thing I wanted to see were examples. I wanted to see if he meant social conservative or financial conservative.
I know we aren't getting to be more socially conservative, what with our attitudes toward abortion, birth control, decreasing church attendance and everything else. Fortunately, this was not his thesis. He was arguing that Canadians are more amenable to financial conservatives ideas.
Such as?
"On Saturday, Harper said the fiscal prudence he advocated as a young member of the Reform Party in the late 1980s has now become conventional wisdom."
That's interesting. While I understand that the word "conservative" implies balanced budgets, all the Conservative, or Progressive Conservative, governing that I have seen involved deficits. Mike Harris, Ernie Eves, Brian Mulroney. I'm only in my 30s though, so maybe there were other Conservative governments which I don't remember.
In the G&M article, "free trade ... and spending restraint" are also mentioned. Is there really that much support for "free trade"? You have to remember that most Canadians did not support NAFTA. I don't think most of us like it even now. It was just the wealthy political types and the journalists and their media masters who loved it so much.
As for spending restraint, good luck with that Mr. Harper. You just barely restrained your government from going in to annual deficit, and that by cancelling that icebreaker and those "much needed" supply ships for the military. I believe that it was the month of May 2008 that showed the first deficit in years. How did your philosophy of "spending restraint" bring us down from surpluses so quickly?
No, I don't think Canadians are becoming more conservative, in the financial or social sense. It was the Liberal side of things that balanced the budget. The only reason you're ahead, Mr. Harper, is Stephane Dion's lack of charisma.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Serious Things Shouldn't Make Me Giggle
But this did:
Venezuela ejects U.S. Ambassador
It's really not a laughing matter, but it still made me smile. I wish my government had this kind of courage. For example, when Maher Arar was being held in Syria, being tortured, and the U.S. government was refusing to cooperate in returning him. That would have been a good time to send the U.S. Ambassador for a walk (I think it was Paul Celucci at the time).
My favourite part of the article:
He doesn't need to provide evidence. The fact that the Bush Adminstration instantly supported the military coup, before it became news, is more than enough evidence that they don't support democracy in Venezuela.
The evidence is out there for everyone to see.
Still ... "Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has announced that the U.S. ambassador has 72 hours to leave Venezuela" ...
Venezuela ejects U.S. Ambassador
It's really not a laughing matter, but it still made me smile. I wish my government had this kind of courage. For example, when Maher Arar was being held in Syria, being tortured, and the U.S. government was refusing to cooperate in returning him. That would have been a good time to send the U.S. Ambassador for a walk (I think it was Paul Celucci at the time).
My favourite part of the article:
Chavez accused the group of current and former military officers of trying to assassinate him and topple the government with support from the United States. He didn't offer evidence. U.S. officials have repeatedly denied Chavez's accusations that Washington has backed plots against him.
He doesn't need to provide evidence. The fact that the Bush Adminstration instantly supported the military coup, before it became news, is more than enough evidence that they don't support democracy in Venezuela.
The evidence is out there for everyone to see.
Still ... "Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has announced that the U.S. ambassador has 72 hours to leave Venezuela" ...
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Who is David H. Wilkins?
Oh, he's the ambassador to Canada from the United States. That's explains this nonsense that only the National Post would print. (My blood pressure was a bit low and I needed something annoying to bring it back up).
Where else would you get the notion that freedom is on the march? No, I'm not kidding. He actually wrote that "freedom is on the march and Al Qaeda is badly diminished."
Who is this guy kidding? His entire article is nothing but lies and distortion.
In reference to Iraq
Sorry. I can't believe that I'm the most vociferous opponent you have, but I don't admit to the success of the surge. The Anbar awakening that is often touted as evidence of success occurred before the surge. Has there been a sudden drop off in violence since the surge? No. Are American soldiers dying less? No.
Welcome to Canada. We may not like our media, but at least they aren't cheerleaders for the government. That means we hear things that Americans don't, like the fact that Al Qaeda is recruiting like crazy ever since the Afghan and Iraq wars started. I think that tidbit comes from "U.S. officials" who tell us, in the same article, that Al Qaeda is strong in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The same article tells us, "...nine American soldiers were killed at a remote base in Kunar province Sunday in the deadliest attack in several years."
Yeah. Sounds like the war on terror is an unparalleled success.
Look Mr. Wilkins. I realize you're not allowed to say anything contrary to the Bush Administration's desires. But you're in Canada now. If you
a) keep up with the "freedom is on march" nonsense while you hold one of our citizens in your torture jail.
b) try to tell us "al-Qaeda [is] badly diminished" when we see more and more death in Afghanistan.
c) tell us that America has a "commitment to freedom for the Afghan people" while we die on the route of a natural gas pipeline.
Then you should expect us to laugh at you and dismiss as one of George Bush's jingoistic liars.
Where else would you get the notion that freedom is on the march? No, I'm not kidding. He actually wrote that "freedom is on the march and Al Qaeda is badly diminished."
Who is this guy kidding? His entire article is nothing but lies and distortion.
In reference to Iraq
Even the most vociferous opponents of the surge are now forced to admit the success of the surge strategy.
Sorry. I can't believe that I'm the most vociferous opponent you have, but I don't admit to the success of the surge. The Anbar awakening that is often touted as evidence of success occurred before the surge. Has there been a sudden drop off in violence since the surge? No. Are American soldiers dying less? No.
Welcome to Canada. We may not like our media, but at least they aren't cheerleaders for the government. That means we hear things that Americans don't, like the fact that Al Qaeda is recruiting like crazy ever since the Afghan and Iraq wars started. I think that tidbit comes from "U.S. officials" who tell us, in the same article, that Al Qaeda is strong in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The same article tells us, "...nine American soldiers were killed at a remote base in Kunar province Sunday in the deadliest attack in several years."
Yeah. Sounds like the war on terror is an unparalleled success.
Look Mr. Wilkins. I realize you're not allowed to say anything contrary to the Bush Administration's desires. But you're in Canada now. If you
a) keep up with the "freedom is on march" nonsense while you hold one of our citizens in your torture jail.
b) try to tell us "al-Qaeda [is] badly diminished" when we see more and more death in Afghanistan.
c) tell us that America has a "commitment to freedom for the Afghan people" while we die on the route of a natural gas pipeline.
Then you should expect us to laugh at you and dismiss as one of George Bush's jingoistic liars.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Barber Wants the NDP to Go Away
John Barber's latest thoughts on the NDP
It's a long article, but there's no need to read the whole thing (not that I'm stopping you or anything). The crux of it is this.
Yep. Those damn third parties! Why don't they understand that the world needs a two-party system just like in the United States! All these extra parties are only distracting us from picking the lesser of two evils.
I don't care for Harper. I think a Harper majority would be a disaster for Canadians - and I don't even have any daughters. But I've looked at the Liberal history and you know what? I'm not proud of how they handled Arar. I'm not happy with the giant surpluses the federal government had while people wait six months for MRIs. I'm not happy with our lack of action in the Liberal years on the automobile mileage and pollution limits. I'm not happy with the minimum wage or the way we handled drug abuse, homelessness or the cost of education.
We can't permit the Liberal Party to hold us hostage simply because the Conservatives would be worse. The NDP should exist and should be there, hopping around on its left leg. If Dion and the rest of his bunch want to knock the NDP down, then look at the NDP platform. If the Liberals really give a damn about keeping the Conservatives out of power, then they should kick the left leg out from under Jack Layton and declare proper left-leaning planks in their platform.
But don't go blaming the NDP for existing and offering what the voters want. The voters know exactly what they're doing. They're voting their consciences. They're voting NDP even though they know that it might let a Conservative in. You know why? Because they don't believe that the Liberal Party will do them any better than the Conservatives. There is no guarantee that, denied a way to cast an NDP vote, an NDP voter will vote Liberal. It's just not that simple.
The voters are consistently teaching the Liberals a lesson. That lesson is: do what we want or we won't vote for you; we will vote for the candidate and the party that represents what we want; learn what we want and offer us that.
Until the Liberal party learns that lesson, they deserve everything they get - or don't get.
It's a long article, but there's no need to read the whole thing (not that I'm stopping you or anything). The crux of it is this.
NDP perversity revealed itself nakedly in the last election, which brought an enormous tranche of Tories to power as a result of ruinous left-wing vote splits.
Yep. Those damn third parties! Why don't they understand that the world needs a two-party system just like in the United States! All these extra parties are only distracting us from picking the lesser of two evils.
I don't care for Harper. I think a Harper majority would be a disaster for Canadians - and I don't even have any daughters. But I've looked at the Liberal history and you know what? I'm not proud of how they handled Arar. I'm not happy with the giant surpluses the federal government had while people wait six months for MRIs. I'm not happy with our lack of action in the Liberal years on the automobile mileage and pollution limits. I'm not happy with the minimum wage or the way we handled drug abuse, homelessness or the cost of education.
We can't permit the Liberal Party to hold us hostage simply because the Conservatives would be worse. The NDP should exist and should be there, hopping around on its left leg. If Dion and the rest of his bunch want to knock the NDP down, then look at the NDP platform. If the Liberals really give a damn about keeping the Conservatives out of power, then they should kick the left leg out from under Jack Layton and declare proper left-leaning planks in their platform.
But don't go blaming the NDP for existing and offering what the voters want. The voters know exactly what they're doing. They're voting their consciences. They're voting NDP even though they know that it might let a Conservative in. You know why? Because they don't believe that the Liberal Party will do them any better than the Conservatives. There is no guarantee that, denied a way to cast an NDP vote, an NDP voter will vote Liberal. It's just not that simple.
The voters are consistently teaching the Liberals a lesson. That lesson is: do what we want or we won't vote for you; we will vote for the candidate and the party that represents what we want; learn what we want and offer us that.
Until the Liberal party learns that lesson, they deserve everything they get - or don't get.
Conservative Defecations
Was the puffin pooping on Dion really a surprise?
Do you have any right to be surprised?
When an organization, from the top down, is dedicated to a certain philosophy, there should be no surprise when that philosophy percolates all the way down to the front lines and back up again. When the Conservative leaders decided to go negative from the beginning of the campaign it became a race, a challenge, to see who could trash Dion the best.
Sure you could make gambling ads. Sure you could show that silly arms-wide-open photograph of Dion over and over again. You could even lie about Dion wanting to cancel the child benefit. The more it was done, the more adulation was heaped on the doers, the further it went.
Eventually, someone makes an ad of a bird defecating on your political opponent. Don't pretend you're surprised. That's exactly what you meant, exactly what you wanted. It just turns out that your black, black heart doesn't look nice in the light of day.
And yet ...
If I were to make an ad about the Conservatives ...
Minister Gordon O'Connor, former Minister of Defence, who gave orders to turn prisoners over to be tortured by others. If that's not taking a giant dump on our national honour, I don't know what is.
How about having a Prime Minister who sends the message to international conferences that tells everyone that we won't really be doing anything about global warming. That's gotta leave skid marks on the Maple Leaf and bars.
And there's always the way Harper scolded McKay for suggesting that we would continue talking diplomatically with the new democratically elected government of Palestine, working to find peace in the region. No, the right answer, Mr. McKay, is to tow the American line before the Americans even towed it. Isolate the democratically elected leaders because we didn't like what the people chose and support the corrupt Fatah party the people had rejected instead.
Yeah. It's a wonder you can see the red or white through the shit these people have spread on our flag.
It's going to take several years to rinse it clean. We had better get started now.
Do you have any right to be surprised?
When an organization, from the top down, is dedicated to a certain philosophy, there should be no surprise when that philosophy percolates all the way down to the front lines and back up again. When the Conservative leaders decided to go negative from the beginning of the campaign it became a race, a challenge, to see who could trash Dion the best.
Sure you could make gambling ads. Sure you could show that silly arms-wide-open photograph of Dion over and over again. You could even lie about Dion wanting to cancel the child benefit. The more it was done, the more adulation was heaped on the doers, the further it went.
Eventually, someone makes an ad of a bird defecating on your political opponent. Don't pretend you're surprised. That's exactly what you meant, exactly what you wanted. It just turns out that your black, black heart doesn't look nice in the light of day.
And yet ...
If I were to make an ad about the Conservatives ...
Minister Gordon O'Connor, former Minister of Defence, who gave orders to turn prisoners over to be tortured by others. If that's not taking a giant dump on our national honour, I don't know what is.
How about having a Prime Minister who sends the message to international conferences that tells everyone that we won't really be doing anything about global warming. That's gotta leave skid marks on the Maple Leaf and bars.
And there's always the way Harper scolded McKay for suggesting that we would continue talking diplomatically with the new democratically elected government of Palestine, working to find peace in the region. No, the right answer, Mr. McKay, is to tow the American line before the Americans even towed it. Isolate the democratically elected leaders because we didn't like what the people chose and support the corrupt Fatah party the people had rejected instead.
Yeah. It's a wonder you can see the red or white through the shit these people have spread on our flag.
It's going to take several years to rinse it clean. We had better get started now.
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
Burn, Baby, Burn!
There's no need to worry about the environment. There's no need to let the free market actually work or anything.
Nope.
Bloomberg says that we're talking about something like $600M in tax revenues the federal government is giving in order to encourage the use of fossil fuels.
I know you're the party of Alberta but does it really make sense, right when people are finally realizing that fossil fuels are a limited and polluting resource, right when people are seriously considering efficiency, conservation and alternatives in their everyday lives, to offer legislation that will set us back and discourage all the positive outcomes of high oil prices?
There's also this thing called the free market. I know the Conservatives only pay it lip service, otherwise they wouldn't be pledging money to reopen a failed auto plant in a disputed riding of Windsor, but doesn't it make sense to leave taxes where there are and let the free market teach us which fuels to use.
If you want to spend money, try putting it in to trains. They're cheap, fast and safe. There's already a national network from which to build.
But there's no money in trains, is there? There are no train voters, are there? No. It would just be the right, sensible thing to do, and we can't have that.
Nope.
Conservative Leader Stephen Harper unveiled his first pledge -- to halve federal excises taxes on diesel and aviation fuel within four years
Bloomberg says that we're talking about something like $600M in tax revenues the federal government is giving in order to encourage the use of fossil fuels.
I know you're the party of Alberta but does it really make sense, right when people are finally realizing that fossil fuels are a limited and polluting resource, right when people are seriously considering efficiency, conservation and alternatives in their everyday lives, to offer legislation that will set us back and discourage all the positive outcomes of high oil prices?
There's also this thing called the free market. I know the Conservatives only pay it lip service, otherwise they wouldn't be pledging money to reopen a failed auto plant in a disputed riding of Windsor, but doesn't it make sense to leave taxes where there are and let the free market teach us which fuels to use.
If you want to spend money, try putting it in to trains. They're cheap, fast and safe. There's already a national network from which to build.
But there's no money in trains, is there? There are no train voters, are there? No. It would just be the right, sensible thing to do, and we can't have that.
Harper and the Nothing
Did you ever read "The Neverending Story"? You could have watched the movie. It was almost 10% as good as the book.
The enemy in the book was "Nothing". It was eating up all of "Fantastica" (or "Fantasia", if you must) with its utter non-being.
Apparently, the same thing has happened to the Conservative campaign. They've already cut taxes and increased military spending so much that they are running in to deficit and had to curtail the purchase of a new arctic icebreaker and new supply ships for the military.
So what is there to campaign on now? They certainly don't want to talk about those abortion bills that they were slipping in to Parliament. The last thing they want is to let on that big social conservative changes are coming when they get a majority. Neither will they discuss how their self-inspection philosophy led to the deaths of 13 people.
So what can they do?
Well, they can make attack ads about Dion not knowing the English term "car pool". Or they could pretend that the green tax shift is actually a tax increase instead of a shift from income tax to pollution tax. They can make all kinds of attack ads.
But apparently the media aren't going for it ... even in the early morning grogginess of a 6a.m. news conference.
If I may be so bold as to make a prophecy.
We will continue to see no substantive policy announcements with a darkening cloud of listeria scandal coming in over the next few days. The listeria scandal will settle in to a low pressure zone directly over Conservative Campaign Headquarters. Expect continued caterwalling and negativity and other distracting trickery through the next few weeks as their poll numbers drop and Canadians realize how empty the Conservatives truly are.
The long rage forecast includes a foaming at the mouth tirade from John Baird and a degree of bitterness among social conservatives as they realize how they've been used.
(h/t to Steele on the quote)
The enemy in the book was "Nothing". It was eating up all of "Fantastica" (or "Fantasia", if you must) with its utter non-being.
Apparently, the same thing has happened to the Conservative campaign. They've already cut taxes and increased military spending so much that they are running in to deficit and had to curtail the purchase of a new arctic icebreaker and new supply ships for the military.
So what is there to campaign on now? They certainly don't want to talk about those abortion bills that they were slipping in to Parliament. The last thing they want is to let on that big social conservative changes are coming when they get a majority. Neither will they discuss how their self-inspection philosophy led to the deaths of 13 people.
So what can they do?
Well, they can make attack ads about Dion not knowing the English term "car pool". Or they could pretend that the green tax shift is actually a tax increase instead of a shift from income tax to pollution tax. They can make all kinds of attack ads.
But apparently the media aren't going for it ... even in the early morning grogginess of a 6a.m. news conference.
... Conservative MPs Jason Kenney and Lawrence Cannon faced a series of tough questions.
The pair made no substantive policy announcements, instead targeting Dion and his platform.
If I may be so bold as to make a prophecy.
We will continue to see no substantive policy announcements with a darkening cloud of listeria scandal coming in over the next few days. The listeria scandal will settle in to a low pressure zone directly over Conservative Campaign Headquarters. Expect continued caterwalling and negativity and other distracting trickery through the next few weeks as their poll numbers drop and Canadians realize how empty the Conservatives truly are.
The long rage forecast includes a foaming at the mouth tirade from John Baird and a degree of bitterness among social conservatives as they realize how they've been used.
(h/t to Steele on the quote)
Monday, September 08, 2008
Listeria: the Deregulating Policy of Death
I don't see why anyone should pussyfoot around this issue.
The Conservative policy for food inspections is deregulation and self-inspection. The Conservative policy is to save tax dollars and trust the free market to correct cheaters.
Of course, when cheating kills people and takes 70-90 days to detect, the free market is only going to correct the situation only after a lot of people have died.
So far, 13 people have died because of a deregulated meat inspection regime.
Why should anyone pussyfoot around this issue? This is Conservative philosophy failing us. This is the exact reason that we oppose the Conservative party - because their policies of deregulation are mortally dangerous to actual human beings.
It is not manipulating a tragedy to point out where the blame lies and make sure the same people don't get more opportunities. If we don't stop the Conservatives, especially if they get a majority, you can look for more and more death and destruction of their mindless policy of deregulation, self-policing and privatization. You can look for more people taking profit at the expense of Canadian citizens.
And don't let them wiggle out of it, like that Ottawa Citizen article today that tried to blame the contamination of Canadian made products, sold to Canadians, on globalization.
There is no wiggle room. Call these people on their nonsense and keep them out of government.
The Conservative policy for food inspections is deregulation and self-inspection. The Conservative policy is to save tax dollars and trust the free market to correct cheaters.
Of course, when cheating kills people and takes 70-90 days to detect, the free market is only going to correct the situation only after a lot of people have died.
So far, 13 people have died because of a deregulated meat inspection regime.
Why should anyone pussyfoot around this issue? This is Conservative philosophy failing us. This is the exact reason that we oppose the Conservative party - because their policies of deregulation are mortally dangerous to actual human beings.
It is not manipulating a tragedy to point out where the blame lies and make sure the same people don't get more opportunities. If we don't stop the Conservatives, especially if they get a majority, you can look for more and more death and destruction of their mindless policy of deregulation, self-policing and privatization. You can look for more people taking profit at the expense of Canadian citizens.
And don't let them wiggle out of it, like that Ottawa Citizen article today that tried to blame the contamination of Canadian made products, sold to Canadians, on globalization.
There is no wiggle room. Call these people on their nonsense and keep them out of government.
Sunday, September 07, 2008
Harper: Standing up for Nothing
Yet another of these election ads. Can I call them "election ads" now? Now that the Governor-General has violated the law to which she assented and allowed Mr. Harper to call an illegal election?
Yes, let's call them election ads now, especially this one about how "Canada has to stand for something".
Harper says:
"We're trying to do something a little different on the world stage. First of all, we're trying to have real capabilities. But not just military capabilities. But the ability to contribute meaningfully to global security and humanitarian development.
There has been a view in the past among some previous governments that Canada's role in the world has been to go along to get along.
We believe this country has to stand for something."
Nice. Meaningless, of course. It's amazing that his speech writers have managed to isolate rhetoric and completely free it of context or policy.
What are we supposed to get from this? Stephen Harper is different. Stephen Harper wants to contribute. Oh, global security, humanitarian development! Wow! He's not just going to "go along", he's going to stand for something.
And ...
And ...
Oh, and the ad ends there without telling us what he stands for.
The thing is, Canada already has real capabilities on the international stage. We've been recognized for decades as an honest, diplomatic broker. We invented peacekeeping. We already stand for a few things: international law; morality in foreign policy; opposition to torture (at least until Gordon O'Connor started handing over prisoners to be tortured).
What we don't have is the giant cluster-bombing, depleted uranium spreading, aircraft carrying, army of world domination that can be used to force other people in to doing things they don't want to do. And the Conservative party hates that. They want to be back in World War I or II, when Canada had a relatively large military presence - and enemies to go with it.
Is the viewer of this ad supposed to be stupid? Is the viewer supposed to honestly believe that line, "But not just military capabilities" that he threw in there? How can you not be talking about military capabilities when your first example of "capabilities" is "global security"? Believe it or not, we are all already aware that Harper's definition of "global security" is to fight alongside the Americans in whatever resource thieving war they're in this week while using "terrorism" as an excuse.
At last we have to throw in an insult against those pathetic, naive Canadians who still believe in peacekeeping. Yes, let us speak of the gullible majority that thinks peace should be tried relentlessly before acquiescing to war. The veiled accusation here is that peace loving Canadians, the ones who search for diplomatic ways to avoid war, only ever really avoid war by surrendering and appeasing with their habit of "go along to get along". In reality, "go along to get along" is the mantra of the Harper government: go along with the foreign policy of the United States in order to get along with the United States and grab a small piece of the pie. And you can forget morality while you're going along.
So what does Stephen Harper actually stand for? He doesn't stand for any of the things that Canadians stand for. He stands for having a former general and former lobbyist, Gordon O'Connor, as a Minister of Defence. He stands for greed and politics and the collection of personal power.
It turns out consequently that Harper stands for nothing at all. And if we let him have a majority government, we won't stand for anything either.
Yes, let's call them election ads now, especially this one about how "Canada has to stand for something".
Harper says:
"We're trying to do something a little different on the world stage. First of all, we're trying to have real capabilities. But not just military capabilities. But the ability to contribute meaningfully to global security and humanitarian development.
There has been a view in the past among some previous governments that Canada's role in the world has been to go along to get along.
We believe this country has to stand for something."
Nice. Meaningless, of course. It's amazing that his speech writers have managed to isolate rhetoric and completely free it of context or policy.
What are we supposed to get from this? Stephen Harper is different. Stephen Harper wants to contribute. Oh, global security, humanitarian development! Wow! He's not just going to "go along", he's going to stand for something.
And ...
And ...
Oh, and the ad ends there without telling us what he stands for.
The thing is, Canada already has real capabilities on the international stage. We've been recognized for decades as an honest, diplomatic broker. We invented peacekeeping. We already stand for a few things: international law; morality in foreign policy; opposition to torture (at least until Gordon O'Connor started handing over prisoners to be tortured).
What we don't have is the giant cluster-bombing, depleted uranium spreading, aircraft carrying, army of world domination that can be used to force other people in to doing things they don't want to do. And the Conservative party hates that. They want to be back in World War I or II, when Canada had a relatively large military presence - and enemies to go with it.
Is the viewer of this ad supposed to be stupid? Is the viewer supposed to honestly believe that line, "But not just military capabilities" that he threw in there? How can you not be talking about military capabilities when your first example of "capabilities" is "global security"? Believe it or not, we are all already aware that Harper's definition of "global security" is to fight alongside the Americans in whatever resource thieving war they're in this week while using "terrorism" as an excuse.
At last we have to throw in an insult against those pathetic, naive Canadians who still believe in peacekeeping. Yes, let us speak of the gullible majority that thinks peace should be tried relentlessly before acquiescing to war. The veiled accusation here is that peace loving Canadians, the ones who search for diplomatic ways to avoid war, only ever really avoid war by surrendering and appeasing with their habit of "go along to get along". In reality, "go along to get along" is the mantra of the Harper government: go along with the foreign policy of the United States in order to get along with the United States and grab a small piece of the pie. And you can forget morality while you're going along.
So what does Stephen Harper actually stand for? He doesn't stand for any of the things that Canadians stand for. He stands for having a former general and former lobbyist, Gordon O'Connor, as a Minister of Defence. He stands for greed and politics and the collection of personal power.
It turns out consequently that Harper stands for nothing at all. And if we let him have a majority government, we won't stand for anything either.
Saturday, September 06, 2008
Harper: Arrogance
The latest Conservative Election Ad.
Oh, wait. It's not an election ad because it was on television today and there's no election call yet. So it's not an election ad. That would be illegal, campaigning before the election has been called. So this is some kind of ... other ... ad ... for something.
Regardless.
It's Stephen Harper talking about how we owe everything to military veterans.
"What you always remember when you meet a Canadian veteran is that everything we have in this country was earned. And those men and women went out and put their lives on the line for this country. Never forget what they contributed. But more important, never forget how precious it is - how precious what we have is."
This is followed by a title screen which says, "Canada. We're better off with Harper"
Okay, let's start with the technicalities. Most Canadian veterans didn't put their lives on the line for this country. No one has attacked us in 200 years. All of the Canadian veterans "you meet" volunteered their lives for this country, but they were used to defend other countries, other people, other resources. Most famously they defended Britain, liberated France, Belgium and the Netherlands in two World Wars. Then they kept the peace in Cyprus and around the world. Now they're in Afghanistan ostensibly to help reconstruct the country though they spend most of their time fighting along the path of a proposed natural gas pipeline.
Now even more seriously. Believe it or not, Mr. Harper, we have never forgotten how precious what we have is. We never forget the war of 1812, the Red River Rebellion, the fight over Representation by Population, the repatriation of the Constitution. We never forget our intrepid veterans of both World Wars or those who are dying in Afghanistan. So why are you using this to make us think we're "better off with Harper"? Are you trying to suggest that those who oppose you have forgotten those sacrifices.
I won't lie to you. This ad offends me on a level so deep that I have hard time understanding what ticks me off the most. Somewhere in there is an arrogance. Somewhere in there is a narrow minded "only conservatives love the military". Somewhere in there Stephen Harper is riding on the coattails of the noble volunteers that make up our armed forces.
The last bit is the worst. "Never forget how precious what we have is".
Really.
That from an arrogant politician who hates everything about this country and wants to reshape it in to the United States? That from the man who called his own country "a northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term"? From the man who only backed away from his plan to privatize our health care system when we told him Tommy Douglas was the greatest Canadian? That from the guy who can only measure foreign policy effectiveness by counting the number of guns we have?
I think not, sir. I think you have forgotten what is precious to us.
Oh, wait. It's not an election ad because it was on television today and there's no election call yet. So it's not an election ad. That would be illegal, campaigning before the election has been called. So this is some kind of ... other ... ad ... for something.
Regardless.
It's Stephen Harper talking about how we owe everything to military veterans.
"What you always remember when you meet a Canadian veteran is that everything we have in this country was earned. And those men and women went out and put their lives on the line for this country. Never forget what they contributed. But more important, never forget how precious it is - how precious what we have is."
This is followed by a title screen which says, "Canada. We're better off with Harper"
Okay, let's start with the technicalities. Most Canadian veterans didn't put their lives on the line for this country. No one has attacked us in 200 years. All of the Canadian veterans "you meet" volunteered their lives for this country, but they were used to defend other countries, other people, other resources. Most famously they defended Britain, liberated France, Belgium and the Netherlands in two World Wars. Then they kept the peace in Cyprus and around the world. Now they're in Afghanistan ostensibly to help reconstruct the country though they spend most of their time fighting along the path of a proposed natural gas pipeline.
Now even more seriously. Believe it or not, Mr. Harper, we have never forgotten how precious what we have is. We never forget the war of 1812, the Red River Rebellion, the fight over Representation by Population, the repatriation of the Constitution. We never forget our intrepid veterans of both World Wars or those who are dying in Afghanistan. So why are you using this to make us think we're "better off with Harper"? Are you trying to suggest that those who oppose you have forgotten those sacrifices.
I won't lie to you. This ad offends me on a level so deep that I have hard time understanding what ticks me off the most. Somewhere in there is an arrogance. Somewhere in there is a narrow minded "only conservatives love the military". Somewhere in there Stephen Harper is riding on the coattails of the noble volunteers that make up our armed forces.
The last bit is the worst. "Never forget how precious what we have is".
Really.
That from an arrogant politician who hates everything about this country and wants to reshape it in to the United States? That from the man who called his own country "a northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term"? From the man who only backed away from his plan to privatize our health care system when we told him Tommy Douglas was the greatest Canadian? That from the guy who can only measure foreign policy effectiveness by counting the number of guns we have?
I think not, sir. I think you have forgotten what is precious to us.
Friday, September 05, 2008
Peacekeeping: We Don't Do It Anymore
Way back when, I wrote a mildly over-the-top piece on how much Conservatives hate Canada. Basically, the values that most Canadians hold are not the values that the Conservatives - or even the Liberals - seem to hold.
The most obvious of these views is the value we place on peacekeeping.
Even the Ministry of Defence knows this. They conducted a study and found that most Canadians still want our soldiers to be doing peacekeeping.
The Canadian Press article starts out with some simple facts about the feelings of Canadians. Percentages of this and that. What it comes down to is that most of us think of ourselves as a peacekeeping nation.
Then the article gets shifty. After mentioning one comment from one person about not being able to picture "a Canadian soldier carrying guns.", we have this quote:
Right. Nice lie. This is the how the news media slips opinion in to news.
This misleading statement would make you think that traditional peacekeeping opportunities have disappeared. They haven't. What has disappeared is the desire of our military and political leaders to undertake those missions.
Rwanda was there, desperately needing help to prevent a genocide. Dallaire even knew what to do. But the rest of the world, Canada's government included, opted to do nothing. They let "traditional peacekeeping" fail in a grand and horrible way, with 800 000 dead, so they could pretend that "traditional peacekeeping" was itself dead.
And now the Canadian Press is helping them with this pretence. And at the end of article they're going to lament how little we trust journalists.
Referring to failed Bosnia-Serbia intervention, the article continues:
Really? The soldiers saw it as a sign of weakness? Who is writing this article? Where is the survey that demonstrates this? Is this the infantry or the military brass? Besides which, it doesn't matter what the soldiers think. It is the civilian population that selects the missions. If those enrolled don't like peacekeeping, they don't have to stay enrolled.
Yeah. We stupid, ignorant Canadians have these stupid, romantic morals and values. God, we're so fricking naive, aren't we?
But there is hope, because there are these two comments, the first from Desmond Morton, a military historian at McGill University:
What? You're actually going to acknowledge, in a national paper, that Canadians aren't just Americans with a National Inferiority Complex? You're actually admitting that there are some values that are different between one country and the other? Be careful. Jeffrey Simpson is going to call you a "knee-jerk anti-American" any second now (any evidence you present notwithstanding).
And this comment:
Well, that's good. At least people are learning. That's very promising.
But of course, we have an excuse from the Canadian Association of Journalists, Mary Welch:
We're not shooting the messengers. We're "shooting" the liars who tow the government line and get our soldiers shot. We're expecting journalists to stand up, not roll over. If you find us distrusting you, it's because we've caught you lying too many times.
The fact is that Canadians should be in charge of what their military is doing. At this time, we are not. The Liberals failed to steer the military in to the post Cold War peacekeeping force that we wanted. The Conservatives are taking that military force and using it aggressively. Neither party deserves to be leading this country if they aren't carrying the morals and values of Canadians with them.
The most obvious of these views is the value we place on peacekeeping.
Even the Ministry of Defence knows this. They conducted a study and found that most Canadians still want our soldiers to be doing peacekeeping.
The Canadian Press article starts out with some simple facts about the feelings of Canadians. Percentages of this and that. What it comes down to is that most of us think of ourselves as a peacekeeping nation.
Then the article gets shifty. After mentioning one comment from one person about not being able to picture "a Canadian soldier carrying guns.", we have this quote:
Traditional peacekeeping, which usually meant monitoring ceasefires, largely disappeared with the end of the Cold War.
Right. Nice lie. This is the how the news media slips opinion in to news.
This misleading statement would make you think that traditional peacekeeping opportunities have disappeared. They haven't. What has disappeared is the desire of our military and political leaders to undertake those missions.
Rwanda was there, desperately needing help to prevent a genocide. Dallaire even knew what to do. But the rest of the world, Canada's government included, opted to do nothing. They let "traditional peacekeeping" fail in a grand and horrible way, with 800 000 dead, so they could pretend that "traditional peacekeeping" was itself dead.
And now the Canadian Press is helping them with this pretence. And at the end of article they're going to lament how little we trust journalists.
Referring to failed Bosnia-Serbia intervention, the article continues:
That frustrating experience shaped the attitude of a generation of soldiers, who were eager to shed the United Nations blue beret, which they saw as a symbol of weakness and indecision.
Really? The soldiers saw it as a sign of weakness? Who is writing this article? Where is the survey that demonstrates this? Is this the infantry or the military brass? Besides which, it doesn't matter what the soldiers think. It is the civilian population that selects the missions. If those enrolled don't like peacekeeping, they don't have to stay enrolled.
Yet the public clings to the romanticized notion of brave soldiers standing between belligerents.
Yeah. We stupid, ignorant Canadians have these stupid, romantic morals and values. God, we're so fricking naive, aren't we?
But there is hope, because there are these two comments, the first from Desmond Morton, a military historian at McGill University:
“I think the (peacekeeping) values are profound, and while I may think they may not be wholly realistic, they are rather more attractive than the values I encounter in the United States”
What? You're actually going to acknowledge, in a national paper, that Canadians aren't just Americans with a National Inferiority Complex? You're actually admitting that there are some values that are different between one country and the other? Be careful. Jeffrey Simpson is going to call you a "knee-jerk anti-American" any second now (any evidence you present notwithstanding).
And this comment:
“Many participants claimed not to trust the media to report events in Afghanistan accurately,” the survey said.
Well, that's good. At least people are learning. That's very promising.
But of course, we have an excuse from the Canadian Association of Journalists, Mary Welch:
“In these kinds of situations there's always a shoot-the-messenger kind of mentality,” Ms. Welch said.
We're not shooting the messengers. We're "shooting" the liars who tow the government line and get our soldiers shot. We're expecting journalists to stand up, not roll over. If you find us distrusting you, it's because we've caught you lying too many times.
The fact is that Canadians should be in charge of what their military is doing. At this time, we are not. The Liberals failed to steer the military in to the post Cold War peacekeeping force that we wanted. The Conservatives are taking that military force and using it aggressively. Neither party deserves to be leading this country if they aren't carrying the morals and values of Canadians with them.
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
Hypocrisy or Irony?
(When there's enough sick people to take care of, you end up doing all your blogging at once, in the evening, when you get them to bed.)
It's hard to tell, sometimes, whether what you're seeing is hypocrisy or irony. If Kurt Vonnegut had written the plot, I'd know. If it were Mike Harris telling me that teacher testing was meant to "improve education" when we had Snobelen on tape telling us that we wants to take the government "out of the education business", I'd know it was hypocrisy.
So when the Conservatives tell me that they changed meat packing plant inspections because of their belief in the free market, I have to wonder if they really believe in the free market.
The Conservatives go completely off message when they send $80 million to a dead Ford plant in Windsor in a painfully, embarrassingly transparent attempt to buy votes. If the free market is really working properly, Mr. Harper, why don't you let that Ford plant die while the people who are invested in proper technology prosper? Why are you propping up a company that the all-knowing, benevolent god you call the Free Market has decided to kill?
Is that hypocrisy, or are you merely running your government ironically now? Next up you'll be telling us that it's okay for a Prime Minister to manipulate election dates to his own best advantage, or dropping those anti-abortion bills, or appointing Senators, or stealing MPs from other parties right after election day, or ... well, never mind.
(h/t to Jay at the Sleveen Institute)
It's hard to tell, sometimes, whether what you're seeing is hypocrisy or irony. If Kurt Vonnegut had written the plot, I'd know. If it were Mike Harris telling me that teacher testing was meant to "improve education" when we had Snobelen on tape telling us that we wants to take the government "out of the education business", I'd know it was hypocrisy.
So when the Conservatives tell me that they changed meat packing plant inspections because of their belief in the free market, I have to wonder if they really believe in the free market.
The Conservatives go completely off message when they send $80 million to a dead Ford plant in Windsor in a painfully, embarrassingly transparent attempt to buy votes. If the free market is really working properly, Mr. Harper, why don't you let that Ford plant die while the people who are invested in proper technology prosper? Why are you propping up a company that the all-knowing, benevolent god you call the Free Market has decided to kill?
Is that hypocrisy, or are you merely running your government ironically now? Next up you'll be telling us that it's okay for a Prime Minister to manipulate election dates to his own best advantage, or dropping those anti-abortion bills, or appointing Senators, or stealing MPs from other parties right after election day, or ... well, never mind.
(h/t to Jay at the Sleveen Institute)
Conservative and Liberal Embezzling
So if you're a Liberal or a Democrat, you might run a scandal like this.
1. Create Sponsorship fund
2. Send millions of dollars in Sponsorship money to your buddies for no actual work.
The scam is costly, but the amount of money the embezzler gets is equal to the amount of money lost by the taxpayer. The taxpayer lost 10 or 100 million, all of which went to the embezzler. There were no side effects.
It's a scam and you should catch those people, fine them, put them in jail. In general, we do seem to catch them.
If you're a Conservative or a Republican, the way to scam the taxpayer out of money is more complicated.
1. Invest money in a Defence contractor, become a lobbyist for the Defence Industry, or get on the Board of Directors for such a company
2. On a trumped up pretence (WMD, terrorist links, spreading democracy), start a trillion dollar war in Iraq or expand a multibillion dollar war in Afghanistan
3. Of the massive amounts of money spent, skim a small amount off the top via stock options or later appointments to the Board of Directors or reinstatement as a lobbyist
First of all, the Republican way of embezzling money is fantastically inefficient. While Dick Cheney will undoubtedly collect millions, as will his pals at KBR and Halliburton, the cost to the U.S. taxpayer is in the trillions of dollars.
The second difference are the side effects. While a straight up embezzling scam might cost you some credibility with taxpayers, starting a pointless power-grabbing war in the Middle East can actually have consequences for generations. We're talking millions of dead people.
The third major difference is that the Republicans and the Conservatives don't get caught. You can't criticize what they've done - not in the mainstream - without getting shouted down for being unpatriotic or for failing to "support the troops". Mark my words, Bush and Cheney - for all they've done - will never be punished with jail time or fines. Gordon O'Connor will never be jailed for his switcheroo from lobbyist to Minister of Defence or be held responsible for permitting our soldiers to hand over their prisoners to the Afghan authorities who would torture them.
And that last one is the worst difference of all. Because just as aggressive war was considered the supreme war crime because it contained all of the other crimes within it, the failure to catch and punish those who perpetrate this type of embezzling contains within it all of the future debt and death of embezzlements to come.
1. Create Sponsorship fund
2. Send millions of dollars in Sponsorship money to your buddies for no actual work.
The scam is costly, but the amount of money the embezzler gets is equal to the amount of money lost by the taxpayer. The taxpayer lost 10 or 100 million, all of which went to the embezzler. There were no side effects.
It's a scam and you should catch those people, fine them, put them in jail. In general, we do seem to catch them.
If you're a Conservative or a Republican, the way to scam the taxpayer out of money is more complicated.
1. Invest money in a Defence contractor, become a lobbyist for the Defence Industry, or get on the Board of Directors for such a company
2. On a trumped up pretence (WMD, terrorist links, spreading democracy), start a trillion dollar war in Iraq or expand a multibillion dollar war in Afghanistan
3. Of the massive amounts of money spent, skim a small amount off the top via stock options or later appointments to the Board of Directors or reinstatement as a lobbyist
First of all, the Republican way of embezzling money is fantastically inefficient. While Dick Cheney will undoubtedly collect millions, as will his pals at KBR and Halliburton, the cost to the U.S. taxpayer is in the trillions of dollars.
The second difference are the side effects. While a straight up embezzling scam might cost you some credibility with taxpayers, starting a pointless power-grabbing war in the Middle East can actually have consequences for generations. We're talking millions of dead people.
The third major difference is that the Republicans and the Conservatives don't get caught. You can't criticize what they've done - not in the mainstream - without getting shouted down for being unpatriotic or for failing to "support the troops". Mark my words, Bush and Cheney - for all they've done - will never be punished with jail time or fines. Gordon O'Connor will never be jailed for his switcheroo from lobbyist to Minister of Defence or be held responsible for permitting our soldiers to hand over their prisoners to the Afghan authorities who would torture them.
And that last one is the worst difference of all. Because just as aggressive war was considered the supreme war crime because it contained all of the other crimes within it, the failure to catch and punish those who perpetrate this type of embezzling contains within it all of the future debt and death of embezzlements to come.
Palin's Inexperience
I don't care.
I really, really don't care.
Yes, I think they picked her because she was a woman with all kinds of weird skeletons in her closet. The plan was to pander to the religious right while simultaneously making her look like the embattled woman to draw in the bitter Hillary fans.
But I really don't give a flying fornication about her inexperience.
Politicians don't necessarily need loads of experience. That's what ministers and secretaries are for. Sure, it's nice if you have some clue how things work and whether you're a governor or a senator, you've got that clue. It'd be nice if you had an idea about the geopolitical ramifications of the war in Iraq rather than telling people than god wants you to win the war.
Whatever.
What matters is her politics. And her politics are just wrong.
She's in favour of teaching creationism. That makes her not just ignorant but contagiously ignorant.
She's in favour of abstinence only sex education. You don't need to mention any part of her personal life to know that abstinence only sex education does nothing but spread STDs and increase teen pregnancies.
She thinks the war in Iraq is a religious mission.
She's apparently opposed to abortions even in the cases of rape, incest, danger to the mother and hopeless cases.
The list of her actual opinions on issues from censorship to religion to foreign policy are bad enough.
I don't really care about her "inexperience". It looks like her experience is a hundred times worse. The things she would do intentionally would do far more damage than anything she might do by accident.
I really, really don't care.
Yes, I think they picked her because she was a woman with all kinds of weird skeletons in her closet. The plan was to pander to the religious right while simultaneously making her look like the embattled woman to draw in the bitter Hillary fans.
But I really don't give a flying fornication about her inexperience.
Politicians don't necessarily need loads of experience. That's what ministers and secretaries are for. Sure, it's nice if you have some clue how things work and whether you're a governor or a senator, you've got that clue. It'd be nice if you had an idea about the geopolitical ramifications of the war in Iraq rather than telling people than god wants you to win the war.
Whatever.
What matters is her politics. And her politics are just wrong.
She's in favour of teaching creationism. That makes her not just ignorant but contagiously ignorant.
She's in favour of abstinence only sex education. You don't need to mention any part of her personal life to know that abstinence only sex education does nothing but spread STDs and increase teen pregnancies.
She thinks the war in Iraq is a religious mission.
She's apparently opposed to abortions even in the cases of rape, incest, danger to the mother and hopeless cases.
The list of her actual opinions on issues from censorship to religion to foreign policy are bad enough.
I don't really care about her "inexperience". It looks like her experience is a hundred times worse. The things she would do intentionally would do far more damage than anything she might do by accident.
Tuesday, September 02, 2008
The Palin Ploy
The word you're looking for is "stagecraft". While the networks made a big deal out of the impeachment hearings by calling them "stagecraft", I would charge that the selection of Sarah Palin is a more accurate example of the genre.
She's been a governor for only two years. Her sole foreign policy experience is being "near Russia" (because there are no other countries near Alaska). There is this hilarious CNN clip in which a Republican operative dodges every which way to avoid the foreign policy question, which the Republicans hold as all important. Notice how he never, ever answers the question of how Palin could possibly be qualified for this job.
Her teenage daughter is unmarried and pregnant.
On top of all this, she is, in point of fact, a woman.
And that, my friends, was the point of choosing her.
The whole reason John McCain, the guy who calls his wife names and has a horrible appeal to feminine voters, chose Palin is because she is an extremely objectionable female.
What do they want to happen? They want to see the news covered with attacks on her inexperience and her pregnant teenage daughter. They want the world to come crashing down on her. For one, it makes McCain look good, but that's not the real purpose. The real purpose is to have everyone attacking a woman.
This is their last ditch attempt to get all of those disgruntled Hillary voters over to their side. All of those voters who believe that Barack beat Hillary because he's black and she's a woman (not because of actual differences is policy) are up for grabs as far as the Republicans are concerned. If they can somehow convince those bitter voters that Sarah Palin is the political reincarnation of their own Hillary, victim of sexual discrimination, maybe they can squeak out an election victory.
She's been a governor for only two years. Her sole foreign policy experience is being "near Russia" (because there are no other countries near Alaska). There is this hilarious CNN clip in which a Republican operative dodges every which way to avoid the foreign policy question, which the Republicans hold as all important. Notice how he never, ever answers the question of how Palin could possibly be qualified for this job.
Her teenage daughter is unmarried and pregnant.
On top of all this, she is, in point of fact, a woman.
And that, my friends, was the point of choosing her.
The whole reason John McCain, the guy who calls his wife names and has a horrible appeal to feminine voters, chose Palin is because she is an extremely objectionable female.
What do they want to happen? They want to see the news covered with attacks on her inexperience and her pregnant teenage daughter. They want the world to come crashing down on her. For one, it makes McCain look good, but that's not the real purpose. The real purpose is to have everyone attacking a woman.
This is their last ditch attempt to get all of those disgruntled Hillary voters over to their side. All of those voters who believe that Barack beat Hillary because he's black and she's a woman (not because of actual differences is policy) are up for grabs as far as the Republicans are concerned. If they can somehow convince those bitter voters that Sarah Palin is the political reincarnation of their own Hillary, victim of sexual discrimination, maybe they can squeak out an election victory.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Sponsorship vs Listeria
Every government has its scandals. When the Liberals first came to power (federally), they came in on a promise to scrap the GST. They promptly dropped this promise and things were quiet on the scandal front for some time.
Just before we switched to a Conservative government, there came the Sponsorship scandal. Of $250M that was supposed to be spent to improve the nation's image among Quebecers who might consider independence, some $100M is supposed to have been spent on "Liberal friendly ad firms" for doing very little work.
It was embezzlement or fraud, call it what you like.
Whatever it was, it was not an innate part of the Liberal platform. There is nothing implied by a liberal mentality that says, "We will support a culture of unaccountability that will allow embezzlement". This was a matter of corruption, not philosophy. Corruption is simply something that happens when people are in power for too long. Chretien was a master manipulator of elections and election timing. His party became corrupt when they began to feel invulnerable and entitled to their positions.
The point is that it wasn't a problem with the philosophy of the party. Most Canadians agree with the general philosophy of the party: balanced budgets; social services; social progress.
On the other hand we have the Listeria outbreak. If it turns out, as most of us suspect, that the outbreak was caused by the recently relaxed testing procedures for Listeria monocytogenes (which seems like a pretty reasonable assumption from which to start), then we have a problem of a completely different order.
The reason that the Conservative government cut inspections was because it is an innate part of the party's philosophy. What do the Conservatives believe in? Less government. More private enterprise. Private is better than public. Lower taxes. Less services. More military. Less social service.
While the Sponsorship scandal was a large embezzlement fiasco brought on by long developed corruption, the Listeria outbreak - if it is indeed the result of a lax inspection regime and not, say, terrorism or sabotage - is evidence that the core philosophy of the Conservative party is flawed. It would mean that the free market does not solve all ills and that low taxation is not in everyone's best interest.
Whenever I discuss this issue with free market favouring coworkers, they like to use the example of a gas station. If a gas station owner were to water down his gas he would lose business because people would find out and stop buying gas from him. This example fails miserably in real life. Yes, the free market works fine for restaurants and gas stations because a) we are all experts on whether our cars break down ten feet from a gas station or when restaurants skimp on portions and b) the time from cheating to being caught is very small. If I drive up to a gas station and see five cars broken down two car lengths from the pumps, I know something is wrong here.
Listeria doesn't work that way, though, does it? Neither does education or health care. You might not realize that your child has been given a bad education for twenty years. You might not realize that your private health care system is deeply flawed until you're dying of cancer and your insurance company uses every trick in the book to deny you coverage and let you die.
And Listeria? It has a 70 to 90 day incubation period. You're not going to see people dying from it for at least two months after it's been in the food system. Then you're going to see them dying for three months after that.
And after people have been dying for three months? Then the free market will kick in and punish the corporation and inspection regime that caused the problem.
Well. Hallelujah for the free market. It told us afterward what we needed to know in advance.
There will be people who tell us not to make political hay out of death. But this is a political issue. This is a political issue that cuts to the heart of each party's philosophy. Can we trust the free market to protect our health or not?
If the lax inspection regime allowed Listeria to kill these people, then we know the answer: it can't.
Just before we switched to a Conservative government, there came the Sponsorship scandal. Of $250M that was supposed to be spent to improve the nation's image among Quebecers who might consider independence, some $100M is supposed to have been spent on "Liberal friendly ad firms" for doing very little work.
It was embezzlement or fraud, call it what you like.
Whatever it was, it was not an innate part of the Liberal platform. There is nothing implied by a liberal mentality that says, "We will support a culture of unaccountability that will allow embezzlement". This was a matter of corruption, not philosophy. Corruption is simply something that happens when people are in power for too long. Chretien was a master manipulator of elections and election timing. His party became corrupt when they began to feel invulnerable and entitled to their positions.
The point is that it wasn't a problem with the philosophy of the party. Most Canadians agree with the general philosophy of the party: balanced budgets; social services; social progress.
On the other hand we have the Listeria outbreak. If it turns out, as most of us suspect, that the outbreak was caused by the recently relaxed testing procedures for Listeria monocytogenes (which seems like a pretty reasonable assumption from which to start), then we have a problem of a completely different order.
The reason that the Conservative government cut inspections was because it is an innate part of the party's philosophy. What do the Conservatives believe in? Less government. More private enterprise. Private is better than public. Lower taxes. Less services. More military. Less social service.
While the Sponsorship scandal was a large embezzlement fiasco brought on by long developed corruption, the Listeria outbreak - if it is indeed the result of a lax inspection regime and not, say, terrorism or sabotage - is evidence that the core philosophy of the Conservative party is flawed. It would mean that the free market does not solve all ills and that low taxation is not in everyone's best interest.
Whenever I discuss this issue with free market favouring coworkers, they like to use the example of a gas station. If a gas station owner were to water down his gas he would lose business because people would find out and stop buying gas from him. This example fails miserably in real life. Yes, the free market works fine for restaurants and gas stations because a) we are all experts on whether our cars break down ten feet from a gas station or when restaurants skimp on portions and b) the time from cheating to being caught is very small. If I drive up to a gas station and see five cars broken down two car lengths from the pumps, I know something is wrong here.
Listeria doesn't work that way, though, does it? Neither does education or health care. You might not realize that your child has been given a bad education for twenty years. You might not realize that your private health care system is deeply flawed until you're dying of cancer and your insurance company uses every trick in the book to deny you coverage and let you die.
And Listeria? It has a 70 to 90 day incubation period. You're not going to see people dying from it for at least two months after it's been in the food system. Then you're going to see them dying for three months after that.
And after people have been dying for three months? Then the free market will kick in and punish the corporation and inspection regime that caused the problem.
Well. Hallelujah for the free market. It told us afterward what we needed to know in advance.
There will be people who tell us not to make political hay out of death. But this is a political issue. This is a political issue that cuts to the heart of each party's philosophy. Can we trust the free market to protect our health or not?
If the lax inspection regime allowed Listeria to kill these people, then we know the answer: it can't.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
C-484 and Cranial Explosions
I can't remember where I read it but I do recall clearly a prediction that the social conservative wing of the Canadian Conservative party could not long survive alongside the libertarian wing of the same party.
One wing wants to tell you what to do with your body. The other doesn't want anything to do with you at all. The reason the leadership long kept the abortion question off the platform and out of the media was that it shone a bright spotlight on the fissure between the Ontario-style PCs (who were neither progressive nor conservative, when you get down to it) and a certain number of Alberta style conservatives (former Reformers) who believe in a 6000-year-old earth and the government having the right to tell people when to have sex.
Bill C-484 shone a light on that fissure. It was an attempt to sneak language in to our laws that would give a fetus the same rights as a human being. Yes, it would be done sideways - simply by making it a crime to assault a pregnant woman. But it would use language that would refer to the fetus as a "child", damage to which must be accounted. The CMA came out and declared that the bill could be used to limit a woman's choice to have an abortion.
This is dangerous. Not so much for women once everyone realized how the bill could be manipulated. It probably wouldn't make it past its last reading now that the information is out. It's much more dangerous to the Conservative party as a hand grenade dropped in that long-hidden fissure. So Stephen Harper came out and did the politically prudent thing: he canned the bill.
At least we can now see who the social conservatives are in the party and who are the "don't tax me, I'm rich and I don't want to help you out" conservatives. The social conservatives are exploding as I write.
Yep. Without anti-abortion, the conservative party is "soulless". Apparently, the only morals are the morals of the social conservative. The rest of us, with our abhorrence of the death penalty and admiration of drug rehab programs, sex education and rehabilitative prisons, don't count.
I'll be the last to argue that the Conservative party has a soul. As far as I'm concerned - and the evidence in ditching C-484 supports this - the social conservative "soul" of the party was never anything more to the neo-conservative leadership than a useful voting block. No working class people in their right minds would ever think about supporting a party made up of rich, old, white men who do nothing but give themselves tax cuts and take us in to war for the profit of private companies. It's just not smart.
But if you can make them believe, on a confusion of the meaning of the word "conservative" that blowing up a path for a pipeline in Afghanistan, making war with muslims far away and cutting taxes and social services has something in common with Jesus ... well ... you can run a government.
At least for a little while. Then that social conservative base notices that you're a hypocrite and they dump your ass at the next election.
One wing wants to tell you what to do with your body. The other doesn't want anything to do with you at all. The reason the leadership long kept the abortion question off the platform and out of the media was that it shone a bright spotlight on the fissure between the Ontario-style PCs (who were neither progressive nor conservative, when you get down to it) and a certain number of Alberta style conservatives (former Reformers) who believe in a 6000-year-old earth and the government having the right to tell people when to have sex.
Bill C-484 shone a light on that fissure. It was an attempt to sneak language in to our laws that would give a fetus the same rights as a human being. Yes, it would be done sideways - simply by making it a crime to assault a pregnant woman. But it would use language that would refer to the fetus as a "child", damage to which must be accounted. The CMA came out and declared that the bill could be used to limit a woman's choice to have an abortion.
This is dangerous. Not so much for women once everyone realized how the bill could be manipulated. It probably wouldn't make it past its last reading now that the information is out. It's much more dangerous to the Conservative party as a hand grenade dropped in that long-hidden fissure. So Stephen Harper came out and did the politically prudent thing: he canned the bill.
At least we can now see who the social conservatives are in the party and who are the "don't tax me, I'm rich and I don't want to help you out" conservatives. The social conservatives are exploding as I write.
Yep. Without anti-abortion, the conservative party is "soulless". Apparently, the only morals are the morals of the social conservative. The rest of us, with our abhorrence of the death penalty and admiration of drug rehab programs, sex education and rehabilitative prisons, don't count.
I'll be the last to argue that the Conservative party has a soul. As far as I'm concerned - and the evidence in ditching C-484 supports this - the social conservative "soul" of the party was never anything more to the neo-conservative leadership than a useful voting block. No working class people in their right minds would ever think about supporting a party made up of rich, old, white men who do nothing but give themselves tax cuts and take us in to war for the profit of private companies. It's just not smart.
But if you can make them believe, on a confusion of the meaning of the word "conservative" that blowing up a path for a pipeline in Afghanistan, making war with muslims far away and cutting taxes and social services has something in common with Jesus ... well ... you can run a government.
At least for a little while. Then that social conservative base notices that you're a hypocrite and they dump your ass at the next election.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)