Gotta admit...

This gorgeous, sleek machine makes me drool.

I once saw a stealth fighter up close. Gawd, that's one sexy damn thing!

The F-35 comes with a hefty, apparently morphing and not-to-be-disclosed, price. And 60 of these things have been ordered, without an open and fair bidding process, by the Government of Harper; the latter not to be confused with the Government of Canada, although it freely avails itself of Canadian tax dollars.

So, no thanks. At $6 billion, $30 billion, $40 billion..., the F-35 is a sexy thrill I can live without.

Recommend this post

Local Conservative Candidate to be No-Show at ACMs

From La Presse:

Portant les couleurs conservatrices dans Nanaimo-Cowichan, John Koury a dit qu'il ne voulait pas prendre part à un débat où la députée et candidate néo-démocrate Jean Crowder amènerait ses partisans. «Je pense qu'il est plus utile de passer mon temps à rencontrer les gens dans leur porte d'entrée de leur maison», a-t-il dit.

Throughout the country, Conservatives are failing to show up at All Candidates Meetings or debates; yet these ACMs provide local citizens the best opportunity to compare candidates and party platforms as interpreted by those candidates. (The best way to assess platforms regardless of candidate interpretation is to visit the various party websites, download the platforms and do an item-by-item comparison yourself.)

The no-shows of 35+ Conservative candidates to ACMs continues a Stephen Harper theme. It is no longer a matter merely of perception: Harper and his brand of the Conservative Party of Canada are afraid of, and have no respect for the majority of Canadians.

Recommend this post

My Fellow Canadians: Where do you get your news?

Do you get paper delivery each morning? Read the national, provincial or local headlines from newspapers at work? Catch up on the news from papers left at Tim Hortons?

Do you instead get your news from the airwaves, via radio? From TV? Or online, from traditional or alternative news magazine and newspaper sites?

Regardless of where you get your news, its delivery begins with the journalist or reporter.

Everything you know about the goings-on in government and politicians' activities during and between election campaigns depends crucially on journalists getting that information for you, unless you do the digging yourself.

When a government or politician severely restricts or bars journalists consistently from doing their work, that government or politician is effectively restricting or barring YOU from getting crucial information.

That information in aggregate ultimately shapes the views of we citizens about the functioning of our government and the activities of our elected politicians. That information together tells us what we must know to make an informed ballot decision at times of elections.

This is why all Canadians should feel deeply disturbed that Steven Harper, as both the current Prime Minister of Canada and now as a federal candidate, consistently restricts and more often bars, both reporters' presence from key events and prohibits their questions.

Contrast this with the full access to media and the public by leaders of the opposition parties.

An attack on freedom of the press is an attack on you and me.

If you don't get that or don't care, then you are responsible for the further erosion of Canada's democracy.

Recommend this post

Post Revival 2.0: We are Separatists

This is starting to become an annual event!

What is it about this time of year that makes Canada's federal parties suppose they can write off citizens' rights, in the service of their own self-interests? Perhaps they think we won't notice.

The prompt for this reprise of a reprise of an original post written two years ago is another collective, self-interested act by all parties, done in full knowledge of its result being further erosion of the democratic rights of a large swath of the electorate.

***
January 2009

For a long time, I've pondered the benefit of my community, now Vancouver Island, being part of the political entity that is the Dominion of Canada. Not because of any dislike for Canada's land, waters or people - that aspect of being Canadian makes me go all mushy inside - but because I can't see how a nation so large, structured as Canada is politically, can fairly represent and administer and distribute justice to all of its people.

As long as Canada maintains the power structure that it has now, then I would prefer that British Columbia be a nation unto itself - i.e., separate from Canada. Even better, that Vancouver Island go it alone.

Our top-tier government has only grown more powerful over the decades, not less. It has been steadily sucking political power from the nation's provinces, territories, regions and municipalities. Thus the federal government, together with its puppet masters, has steadily been eroding the ability of citizens in their communities to directly influence change.

More and more, citizens are taken as irrelevant by our politicians. The support of the federal government by large corporations powers the agenda of Canada's politicos. Their concern for the people functions only as an electoral device to "win" a mandate to govern, one that is rigged by our outdated voting system. And then the winning party governs for the CEOs. For "ordinary" Canadians (to which our political parties so fondly refer), to think otherwise is to be delusional.

Recently, I emailed these reflections to Daphne, and asked: Have you ever thought about things like this?

We don't always agree and I wasn't expecting agreement here.

"Yes," replied Daphne, "have pondered this and have talked to others over the years... At one time, I printed T-shirts which depicted Vancouver Island as forming the Vancouver Island Liberation Organization, hence breaking away from the rest of Canada."

Vancouver Island Liberation Organization T-shirts, anyone?

We are not alone in wanting to detach ourselves from the rest of Canada, friend Daphne explained. An emerging notion is that of Cascadia. The boundaries of Cascadia vary but in most proposals, all or part of British Columbia, Oregon and Washington state are included.

While some notion of Cascadia might be workable in the future, Daphne and I prefer thinking only in terms of BC or Vancouver Island separating from Canada.

Seriously, we're fed up with successive governments which are supposed to be OF, FOR and BY the people being instead OF, FOR, and BY Canada's CEOs. And a heckuva job those CEOs have been doing lately!

Consider one example which exemplifies the joined-at-the-hip relation between Canada's government and big business.

Successive governments have been selling off our¹ resources under the guise of the Security and Prosperity Partnership "agreement" endorsed by the leaders of Canada, Mexico and the USA. (Don't be fooled. The name keeps changing, but the agenda remains the same.)²

Instrumental to the SPP is our very own Grand Ayatollah, one Tom d'Aquino, president and CEO of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives. Mr. d'Aquino is one busy guy! Read the article. You'll understand why we two, having trashed our rose-coloured glasses long ago, prefer to divorce ourselves from Canada Inc.

¹ A sizeable chunk of "our" natural resources are on and in traditional native land and water.
² Excellent Canadian sites for information on the SPP include Global Research and the Council of Canadians.

[This post was co-written by Daphne Moldowin and Chrystal Ocean.]

Recommend this post

IggyLibs and HarperCons: Ottawa's sabre rattlers

Bob Rae says, "You can't promote peace unless you put force behind the law and behind the collective will of the international community."

First, times have been when the "international community" has been wrong.

Second, right or wrong depends on whose interests shape the agenda.

Military superpowers head the so-called international community. Such powers, rather than promoting peace through example, prefer instead to use violence to promote more quell violence. They have found this useful for boosting their own economies.

Recommend this post

Stephen Harper's Agenda is Showing

But that's OK. Harper has ensured that most Canadians are too overburdened, too stressed, too oblivious or too stupid to care.

His master stroke has just been played...

How to convince the gullible (whilst ensuring more of them) that Canada's federal government should not fund social programs or transfer funding to provinces for such programs and services:

1. Remove the key resource upon which evidence for the need of social programs is based - like removing a tree's roots.

2. Boast to Canadians of the responsibility of their federal government not to throw money away on programs for which there is no evidence of need.

3. Ensure Canadians' blind acceptance of #2 by dumbing-down Canada's post-secondary institutions; promoting FOX-style media and denying less-amenable media organizations information; and giving preference to the non-scientific, non-evidence-based views of crazy fundamentalists who occupy positions both inside and outside the Conservative government's cabinet and caucus.

In three words: Control all information.

Recommend this post

Why Cons are forever stuck around 33 percent

An Angus Reid poll did a comparison among Canadians, Britons and USians on the question of "the origin and development of human beings on earth."

That's my emphasis. Am guessing Angus Reid doesn't want to rule out humans having originated and/or developed elsewhere in the universe.

To the results!

68% of Britons and 61% of Canadians believe human beings evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years.

47% of Americans believe God created human beings in their present form within the last 10,000 years in tune with creationism.

Now go to page four and you'll see the regional breakdown for Canada:

	BC	AB	MB/SK	ON	PQ	ATL
Human beings evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years	64%	51%	50%	60%	66%	64%
God created human beings in their present form within the last 10,000 years	21%	31%	39%	25%	17%	28%

The rest are 'Not sure'.

Summary: If one applies critical thinking to the question of human origins, one tends LESS to vote Conservative. Alternatively, if one REFUSES to apply critical thinking to that and other questions, and instead blindly accepts the 'teachings' of certain authority figures - e.g., priests, politicians, FOX-style media -, one tends MORE to vote Conservative.

Rather than religion being the opiate of the masses, it's more a dumb-downing, anti-education tool of certain frequently as stupid, power mad, self-promoters among the elite.

ETA: Here's an example of such a self-promoter. Rona Ambrose supports, through her actions, inclusion of religious-based practices and language that have no place in Canada's criminal code.

Recommend this post

UPDATE - A Message from Ignatieff's Liberal Senators

"Fuck you, Canada!"

Courtesy of the following, no-show Liberal senators, on the matter of the Conservatives' 900-page omnibus 'budget' bill:

* Tommy Banks
* Sharon Carstairs
* Pierre de Bane
* Francis Fox
* Serge Joyal
* Nick Sibbeston
* David Smith

Source (of the names, not the message): the great Kady O'Malley.

Let us not forget also the Liberals in the House of Commons, who undertook their duties in similar abysmal fashion.

Given the Ignatieff Liberals' fear of Harper's Conservative bullies in government, voters are likely to suspect they'd be as fearful of said bullies in Official Opposition. On either side of the HoC, the HarperCons are more effective than the Iggy-Lib wimps currently occupying the latter position and vying to form government dreaming nostalgically of their days of former glory.

ETA: Before Liberal partisans start shouting "but it's the CONSERVATIVES who're introducing these policies!," let me remind you that the Conservatives form the government and as such are doing what they think to be right for the country. Whereas your leader and his kowtowing MPs form the Official Opposition; he and they are supposed to be OPPOSING. VIGOROUSLY. An effective Official Opposition is Canada's only defence against a tyrannical government. Which is why Canada has one right now!!!

ETA2: I've probably nixed the chance of getting a Liberal t-shirt, eh? Darn!

ETA3: "Travel commitments" prevented at five of the seven Liberal senators from their commitment to Canadians. Must be nice to have vacation time, something that many 'ordinary' Canadians don't have; they're too busy working two and more part-time jobs, just trying to survive.

Recommend this post

Free T-Shirts

There's a Twitter conversation going on amongst journalists regarding the arrival in their post boxes of opposing Iggy t-shirts, one each from the Liberal and Conservative camps. The latter, apparently, says 'Just visiting'. Dunno what the other says - perhaps some reference to a whiff of sulfur.

Anyway, Rosie Barton just complained that she hadn't received one of the Liberal t-shirts. To which I responded, Neither have I!

Why should journalists get all the freebies, eh? Why shouldn't Canadian bloggers and citizen journalists be included? I mean, my t-shirt supply has worn down (literally) to one, the others having been converted to dust rags.

I therefore submit this suggestion to Canada's political parties (including the provincial ones): send bloggers free t-shirts too!

Myself being a non-partisan and an equal-opportunity enthusiast, I assure all political parties that their t-shirts will be given equal exposure.

Recommend this post

If the Liberal Party Aims to be Rid of the Elitist Label

... then it had better rethink postures like this:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper is snubbing opposition parties by ending a long established practice of inviting foreign heads of state to meet with them.

No one who follows Canadian politics will be surprised at the above. But then there's this:

Meanwhile, Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff has met with U.S. President Barack Obama and he also met Mexican President Felipe Calderon in May.

“It seems totally normal to me that the leader of the official opposition would have meetings, and the leaders of the third and fourth parties would not,” Ignatieff spokesman Michel Liboiron said.

Except, by long established practice, the exclusion of all but the leader of the official opposition isn't 'perfectly normal'.

If the label fits, wear it: elitist.

Recommend this post

NOW what is our Ineffectual Opposition going to do?

The Harper Government - yes, let's call it what it is; over 60% of Canadians are unrepresented by this government - will make official on Tuesday that political staffers are now banned from testifying before parliamentary committees.

The purported reason, according to political staffer Dimitri Soudas: "Ministers are the ones who are accountable and answer to Parliament."

To Iggy & Layton, neither of whom "want an election" (the Canadians that I know DO): How are you going to work your next climb-down? Without enabling more damage to our democracy?

ETA: The manoeuvrings by Canada's political parties to avoid an election in order to ensure their own survival, actions that risk our country's democratic institutions, is why I dislike party politics and favour the Single Transferable Vote, a proportional representation electoral system. STV is not only the fairest system for voters; it also enables more independents to be elected.

Recommend this post

Lessons on Framing - Coalition Governments

As important as the question regarding whether the Liberal Party and NDP would consider being part of a coalition government is whether the Conservative Party would.

Why are virtually all media, journalists, other writers and democratic reformers ignoring this?

Just because Canadians won't vote in enough MPs to give a single party a majority is no reason why Canada must be stuck with perpetual minorities.

Coalition governments are majority governments.

If the Liberals and Conservatives want a majority government all they need do is be honest with Canadians and negotiate with the third- and/or fourth-place parties after an election.

Unfortunately, given the political environment Canada's party leaders have created, in collusion with most media, honesty and negotiation are unlikely democratic tools to be removed from their toolboxes. Indeed, those tools must be rusty from disuse.

Recommend this post

On Leadership Popularity

... and party (mis)fortunes.

Despite issue after issue, which should have brought an end to his reign, Stephen Harper continues to lead in the popularity contest among leaders of the four major national parties. His party also leads the dismal pack.

That both leadership and Conservative party numbers are out front is not surprising. The two stats almost always go in tandem, in terms of place.

In leadership numbers, Michael Ignatieff has, more often than not, done worse than his party.

The same cannot be said of Harper.

You'd think the hapless Liberals would put two and two together.

Recommend this post

How Harper Can Get His Majority

If Stephen Harper wants a majority government, there's a simple solution for getting one. All he need do is transform Canada's electoral system into one of proportional representation. And do it fast.

As shown consistently by polls, the Liberals as led by Michael Ignatieff continue to draw dismal public support. Meanwhile, the Conservatives hang onto their base. Any new election under our single member plurality system (or 'first-past-the-post') would therefore deliver yet another Conservative minority government.

True, the Ignatieff Liberals make for a piss-poor Official Opposition. As a result, Canada's minority Conservative governments since January 2006 have managed to rule almost as a majority, slowly achieving much of their agenda which includes the whittling away of women's rights.

But there are some things the Conservatives simply cannot do without a majority of votes in the House of Commons. They therefore use playground oneupmanship, sneak tactics and burying of the truth. Against our Ineffectual Opposition, it's no contest.

Still, Canadians have refused to be bullied into giving Harper the majority he craves. Ergo, my suggestion that he bring in proportional representation.

With proportional representation, every government is a majority government, usually a coalition of two or more parties. In Canada's current case, the Greens would likely get seats, enough to play kingmaker.

All Harper need do is woo the Greens over to his side. Given the man's thirst for power and tendency toward expediency, accomplishing this should be a walk in the park.

Recommend this post

Status of Women Minister Buys $880K Ottawa House

... and mortgages it for the full purchase price of $880,000. No money down. House was bought in November.

Helena Guergis, Minister of Status of Women Canada, gets a salary of $157,731. That includes a $56,637 top-up for her Cabinet position. As far as I know her husband, one Rahim Jaffer, is currently unemployed. He will begin receiving a lucrative pension at age 55, thanks to his brief career as a Member of Parliament.

Normally I consider the personal lives of MPs to be off-bounds, but this case points to two issues that I think cross over into the public sphere.

First, what was the woman thinking?! Has she no sense of economy? Has she no clue what it's like to maintain a budget? Even to consider buying a house that's six times one's annual salary, one that's subject to the fickle political winds of change, seems ludicrous to me.

And I have to laugh at the irony, given something that happened to me a few days ago. It highlights the stark differences between life for many women in Canada - women for whom Status of Women Canada is supposed to be a champion for change - and those few like Guergis.

I live in the lowest decile category of income. I've a lifelong dream of owning my own tiny home, on a tiny piece of land. To keep the dream alive, I occasionally visit mls.ca, run a search, and see if anything comes up. Then I check the ads out and run a bunch of 'what ifs' in my head. That's how I keep the dream alive.

A few days ago, I found an ad for a 5th wheel, sited in a mobile home park about two hours by car north of here. Asking price: $11,500. I contacted the realtor and we exchanged emails back and forth. Right away, I contacted friend Daphne; we discussed the pros and cons via emails and one Skype call. We talked and talked some more. I agonized over the possibilities. Ultimately I decided against, before ever going to see the trailer.

Even assuming I could get the price down to under $10,000, it would take more than half of my remaining savings; and my income, beginning in July when I turn 60, will be approximately $8,000 per year. The issues to be considered weren't just the price of the trailer, but the pad rent ($334/month), the security of the pad (might the owners be thinking of selling?), security in the other sense (is it a safe area?), the maintenance costs (does the roof need replacing? if not now, when? what else needs fixing/maintaining?), heating, the cost of products locally (is it more expensive to buy there than here?), accessibility to shopping and services for someone with no vehicle, and so on.

Which brings me to my second point...

How can Guergis possibly relate to the problems women like me face when she has no clue how to manage her own finances? And what the HELL is she doing overseeing any government Ministry, let alone the Status of Women Canada?

I ask, because unless there's a rich daddy somewhere, Guergis & Co. will be heading to bankruptcy court in the not too distant future.

Recommend this post