neo-con process manual

step 1: ride the wave of disgust fueled by the previous government's inquiry into the twice-previous government's mismanagment of keeping the country together.
step 2: clamp down, hard, on all party members and what can say (to who, when and where).
step 3: run national campaign over budget, then compensate by breaking (sorry, "reinterpreting") election law.
step 4: rename the previous government's accountability bill, sneak in a few nasty changes, and tout as own.
step 5: run into problems with Elections Canada? if stonewalling fails, launch personal credibility attacks and/or distracting lawsuits.
step 6: run into problems with public support? if smearing the opposition fails, return the favours of a few reporters (whose professional ethics may be questioned) who have been friendly to the party - handpick them for a secret by-invitation-only press conference. attack the personal credibility of any challengers.
step 7: have the house leader declare this "a positive step in transparency."

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080422/ad_scheme_080422?s_name=&no_ads=

Beware of cultural undertows

Canadian Islamic Congress launches human rights complaints against Maclean's
http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20071130_111821_7448

Scope and mandate for Human Rights Commissions need to be revisited - pronto.

forever a pair

Huh. I just noticed how I usually use two labels together: polirant (no good that the neo-cons are up to) and integrity (the minimum standard I hold a government to).

some of the sheen is finally wearing off

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/04/15/rcmp-tories.html?ref=rss

Pfah. The Conservatives - what a sorry bunch of crooks. What a disgrace how their banana-republic, dictatorial, above-the-law attitude has led the federal parties into lawsuits!

Let's play spot the differences

Canada's Chief of Defence Staff, Gen Rick Hillier, announced his retirement yesterday. Some conflict about the announcements that came through by email today:

From the CDS' email to all DND and the CF (emphasis added):

"I have chosen to retire from the Canadian Forces and end my tenure as your Chief of the Defence Staff in July of this year. [...] I will continue to serve as your CDS until relieved of my duties by my successor, to be named in due course by our Prime Minister."

From the Prime Minister's [propaganda] Office (emphasis added):

"Prime Minister Stephen Harper issued the following statement on the planned retirement of General Rick Hillier as Chief of the Defence Staff:"

What's wrong with this? On the one hand, we have a surprise announcement (as far as timing goes, anyway) from the CDS, saying he has "chosen" to retire. On the other hand, we have the PM's communications office saying it was a "planned" retirement. But, if it was planned (at least by the PM's office), and the PM is responsible for naming the successor, shouldn't they already know who the successor will be? I suspect this is yet another example of the PMO (Propaganda Minister's Office) trying to colour the facts in their favour.

conservative secrets

Insightful response from a socio-political junkie law clerk friend of mine:

Sorry it took so long to get back to you.
In addition to everything else that "conservatives" have in common, one
strand is a belief in the need for secrecy. And this manifests in many
forms. Conservatives tend to be more religious, for example, and so tend to
believe in universal "mysteries." Conservatives tend to be stricter in
terms of crime and punishment (both at home and on the society-wide basis),
which includes as part of the approach a fundamental belief that authority
(god, state, or leadership) really should not be questioned. To me, there
is a direct relationship between this mindset and the themes discussed in
the article (which, I should say -- and I am sure you picked up on this --
is the same charge constantly leveled at the Bush administration). It
comes down to a belief that those in power have certain knowledge that is
special and out of reach except on a need-to-know basis.
I should also add that American conservatives (Republicans) have hit on a
very easy lever with which to deflect or diminish criticism of this
ultra-secrecy: simply claim that disclosing the information would either
directly undermine national security in a time of war, OR that disclosing
the information would be the equivalent of weakening the special powers of
the executive, which cannot be allowed to happen because this is a time of
war and the executive needs to be all-powerful to confront the "enemy of
the 21st century." In other words, we have power and we will be secretive,
and if you challenge that, you are undermining national security: you are a
traitor.
Can you say "slippery slope"?
My second point flows from the maxim that all politics is local. The
article mentions that the Harper government denied that a conversation
occurred between the prime minister and the president of Mexico, whereas
the Mexican government released a detailed summary of the conversation in
question. This merely reflects political considerations unique to each
country. My bet is that there was nothing to be gained by the Canadian
government admitting that the conversation happened, whereas the Mexican
authorities are always trying to convince Mexicans that they matter, that
their leaders are on an equal footing with foreign leaders, and so on. In
other words, it benefits Mexican politicians to "tell all" when it comes to
talking to foreign leaders. Not so, the reverse.
SPQR aeternum!

Subject: curious to know what you make of this:

PUBLICATION: The Toronto Star
DATE: 2008.04.07
EDITION: Ont
ILLUSTRATION: Allauddin Khan AP file photo Canadians have an
interest in what isgoing on in Afghanistan, says assistant federal
information commissioner Suzanne Legault. ;
BYLINE: Richard Brennan
SOURCE: Toronto Star
COPYRIGHT: © 2008 Torstar Corporation
Government keeps public in the dark, critics warn; Canadians denied
information to which they are entitled
Canadians are increasingly being kept in the dark by the federal government
and its agencies on matters ranging from the war in Afghanistan to the most
routine information, experts say.
Critics are alarmed at the growing trend to deny basic information that
Canadians are entitled to, especially in the two years since the
Conservative government came to power with a promise to be open and
accountable.
Suzanne Legault, assistant federal information commissioner, says that
government and its institutions have to "move from disclosing information
on a need-to-know basis to disclosing information on the right-to-know
basis."
Legault said the John Manley-led panel report into the Afghanistan mission
"hit the nail on the head when it said the government has to understand
that Canadians have an interest in what is going on in Afghanistan and
various issues that the government is tackling."
"The government has to do a better job at disclosing information," she told
the Star last week.
Former Ontario Liberal MPP Sean Conway, who spent 28 years in politics
before leaving in 2003, said the simple truth is that Canadians have a
right to know.
"It is one of the assumptions of a democratic society that its citizens are
going to be provided with timely, relevant and understandable information,"
said Conway, a former cabinet minister and now special adviser at Queen's
University.
Conway said when governments frustrate that flow of information "they are
doing something quite destructive to one of the key pillars of democratic
society."
During its more than two years in power, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's
Conservative government has often been criticized for being unnecessarily
secretive.
Just recently, Harper's aides refused to confirm whether the Prime Minister
talked with Mexican President Felipe Calderon. But Mexican officials
released a page-long news release not only confirming the two leaders spoke
but providing highlights of the topics they discussed.
Meanwhile, Legault said Canadian should not have to resort to using the
Access to Information Act to get information that should be readily
available.
"The Access to Information Act should only kick in as an exception. It
should not be the norm," Legault said.
"The norm should be that we proactively disclose information."
Legault noted that complaints filed under the Access to Information Act
have doubled in the past year, to 2,164 from 1,050. But she is quick to
point out that 70 institutions, including the Canadian Broadcasting
Corporation, are now subject to the act, as a result of changes included in
the Conservative's Accountability Act.
Legault said the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada is
investigating additional layers of approval needed before information is
released that are creeping into the process, as well as the routine
applications for extensions.
Critics say the access to information act is also proving to be less and
less useful.
National security and other exemptions are cited to deny the release of
information. And even when Canadians are lucky enough to pierce the wall of
secrecy, the information is either so heavily edited that it is virtually
useless, or is so dated because of delays that it's no longer timely.
The Conservative government promised during the last election campaign that
it would be more accountable and transparent in the wake of the Liberal
sponsorship scandal.
Recent stories by The Canadian Press show the lengths the government or its
agencies will go to restrict information.
The national wire service found that government refused to release
information on compensation paid to Afghan civilians or their families for
accidental deaths or injuries.
The Canadian Press' access to information request was returned almost
entirely censored.
The agency also discovered through another access to information request
that the RCMP is now refusing to release information on the use of Tasers
that must be recorded each time an officer draws the electronic weapon.
The information - such as whether the person on whom the Taser was used was
armed or injured - used to be released, but the national police force
unilaterally decided to stop.
Taser report forms obtained under the Access to Information Act show the
Mounties have used the weapons more than 4,000 times since introducing them
seven years ago.
"In the last 15 years, as governments advertise great openness often
through legislated mandate like freedom of information and other such
policies, ... citizens get less information," Conway said.
On Parliament Hill, access to Harper and his cabinet has been so restricted
that it's a standing joke among reporters. The Hill Times recently carried
a story on how Harper goes to great lengths to avoid reporters by taking
the freight elevator and slipping out the back door.
Harper runs a very tightly controlled government where MPs are expected to
toe the line and where permission must be granted in many cases before they
are allowed to talk to reporters.
Conway said he has been struck by Harper's reluctance to make himself
available.
"Mr. Harper, now Prime Minister for over two years, has certainly made no
bones of his desire to run a highly centralized government and ... intends
to give the Canadian public such information as he thinks they should have
at that particular time."
With files from Bruce Campion-Smith and Tonda MacCharles

Greenwashing exposed at Enbridge

Submitted a small rant to Enbridge today. They're our natural gas supplier, and they've been promoting their eBill service as "Easy. Convenient. Environmentally friendly." Pfah.

MAKE EBILLS ECOFRIENDLY
Your marketing people may claim that your new (since end of January) ebill format is more visually appealing, but it's anything but "environmentally friendly." In fact, it is unnecessarily wasteful of resources and abusive of my pocketbook.
-- Cut the eBill down to two pages so it can be printed on a single sheet, double-sided. I can save paper AND storage space in my filing cabinet that way.
-- Also, remove the colour backdrop - it looks fancy, but it burns through my ink like there's no tomorrow!
If not, I'm going to cancel eBill and have the fancy printing and mailing done at YOUR cost!

I think everybody should wake up from the matrix and take the time to call a spade a spade - and take back some control!

Drop the penny, support Bill C-531

Sent this to my MP, the Honourable Gordon O'Connor:

Sir,
I fully support the withdrawal of the one cent coin ("penny") from circulation. The good people in your department could calculate the exact numbers for you, but purchasing power of the dollar today is less than one-twentyfifth over the past 130 years or so; it therefore doesn't make any sense to continue squandering financial and environmental resources to support its production and distribution. No sense throwing good money after bad, so to speak.
The rounding method proposed for section 8 subsection 2 is reasonable. The resistance from the Royal Canadian Mint (and their spin doctors' attempts to control the damage the results of their November study inflicted upon them) is understandable, and the nostalgic value of the penny should be acknowledged, but as will all things, there comes a time when we must let go. The time has come to recognize that the penny has become obsolete, merely a heavy, expensive reminder of days gone by when you could actually buy something with it.
The only logical alternative would be to enact a "new canadian dollar" worth ten of today's dollars. Then the penny would be worth a dime, and worth fighting for.

Sincerely,

post-existence

In the end, nobody goes to a heaven or a hell except in the hearts and minds of those whose lives they've touched.

Heaven being that place in our hearts where we preserve the memories of loved ones who have moved on; hell is that place where we shackle our spirits to memories of those who have crossed us.

religion and the survival of mankind

Humanity is blessed with enough different religions, each effective to varying degrees against any particular threat, that, on the whole, allows it (humanity) to survive any and all threats to its existence. The power they (religions) will enjoy will ebb and flow over time in response to perceived threats. Meanwhile, the conflicts between them are necessary to keep mankind's skills, wits and swords sharp and groups cohesive; ready to fight for a common objective, if ill-aimed and (generally) misunderstood.

Religion, in that sense, is the ideological codification of knowledge and the ritualization of survival tips and tricks that have enabled the tribe/race/species to perpetuate itself thus far, and that, ultimately, allow it to carry its part of the greater Knowledge so that one day, It can all be put together again.

head shaker

ugh.
Dems vs Republicans today, ballers/crips tomorrow.
The future is in great hands alright!

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/15851207/detail.html

oil prices

mmm... is it time we adopt the gold standard again? or some other more stable commodity? apparently the authority of the US dollar is being threatened.

Iran to OPEC: Stop selling Oil in US Dollars
Monday, 2008-04-07

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is urging OPEC members to form a joint bank and stop pricing oil trades in U.S. dollars.

According to the Iranian government's Web site, Ahmadinejad told OPEC Secretary General Abdalla Salem el-Badri the cartel "should establish a joint bank as well as having joint currency."

Oil is priced in U.S. dollars on the world market, and the currency's depreciation has concerned producers because it has contributed to rising crude prices and eroded the value of their dollar reserves.

Iran has repeatedly urged OPEC members to shift sales away from dollar. But Iran's proposal to trade oil in a basket of currencies is not supported by enough OPEC members, which include staunch U.S. allies such as leading producer Saudi Arabia.

http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/693/52/

rights shmights

The thing that bothers me most, is that the public doesn't seem to care, that they almost seem relieved of being able to delegate their fundamental democratic authority to people working in some neogothic tower with secret passageways and exits. Meanwhile, people are busying themselves with meaningless stuff like redecorating, installing big screen HDTVs, bigger fancier cars, and Hollywood starlets leading the craze of self-destruction.

The Toronto Star, 2008.04.07, page A13
COPYRIGHT: 2008 Torstar Corporation
Government keeps public in the dark, critics warn; Canadians denied information to which they are entitled
Canadians are increasingly being kept in the dark by the federal government and its agencies on matters ranging from the war in Afghanistan to the most routine information, experts say.
Critics are alarmed at the growing trend to deny basic information that Canadians are entitled to, especially in the two years since the Conservative government came to power with a promise to be open and accountable.
Suzanne Legault, assistant federal information commissioner, says that government and its institutions have to “move from disclosing information on a need-to-know basis to disclosing information on the right-to-know basis.”
Legault said the John Manley-led panel report into the Afghanistan mission “hit the nail on the head when it said the government has to understand that Canadians have an interest in what is going on in Afghanistan and various issues that the government is tackling.”
“The government has to do a better job at disclosing information” she told the Star last week.
Former Ontario Liberal MPP Sean Conway, who spent 28 years in politics before leaving in 2003, said the simple truth is that Canadians have a right to know.
“It is one of the assumptions of a democratic society that its citizens are going to be provided with timely, relevant and understandable information” said Conway, a former cabinet minister and now special adviser at Queen’s University.
Conway said when governments frustrate that flow of information “they are doing something quite destructive to one of the key pillars of democratic society.”
During its more than two years in power, Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservative government has often been criticized for being unnecessarily secretive.
Just recently, Harper’s aides refused to confirm whether the Prime Minister talked with Mexican President Felipe Calderon. But Mexican officials released a page-long news release not only confirming the two leaders spoke but providing highlights of the topics they discussed.
Meanwhile, Legault said Canadian should not have to resort to using the Access to Information Act to get information that should be readily available.
“The Access to Information Act should only kick in as an exception. It should not be the norm” Legault said.
“The norm should be that we proactively disclose information.”
Legault noted that complaints filed under the Access to Information Act have doubled in the past year, to 2,164 from 1,050. But she is quick to point out that 70 institutions, including the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, are now subject to the act, as a result of changes included in the Conservative’s Accountability Act.
Legault said the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada is investigating additional layers of approval needed before information is released that are creeping into the process, as well as the routine applications for extensions.
Critics say the access to information act is also proving to be less and less useful.
National security and other exemptions are cited to deny the release of information. And even when Canadians are lucky enough to pierce the wall of secrecy, the information is either so heavily edited that it is virtually useless, or is so dated because of delays that it’s no longer timely.
The Conservative government promised during the last election campaign that it would be more accountable and transparent in the wake of the Liberal sponsorship scandal.
Recent stories by The Canadian Press show the lengths the government or its agencies will go to restrict information.
The national wire service found that government refused to release information on compensation paid to Afghan civilians or their families for accidental deaths or injuries.
The Canadian Press’ access to information request was returned almost entirely censored.
The agency also discovered through another access to information request that the RCMP is now refusing to release information on the use of Tasers that must be recorded each time an officer draws the electronic weapon.
The information - such as whether the person on whom the Taser was used was armed or injured - used to be released, but the national police force unilaterally decided to stop.
Taser report forms obtained under the Access to Information Act show the Mounties have used the weapons more than 4,000 times since introducing them seven years ago.
“In the last 15 years, as governments advertise great openness often through legislated mandate like freedom of information and other such policies, ... citizens get less information” Conway said.
On Parliament Hill, access to Harper and his cabinet has been so restricted that it’s a standing joke among reporters. The Hill Times recently carried a story on how Harper goes to great lengths to avoid reporters by taking the freight elevator and slipping out the back door.
Harper runs a very tightly controlled government where MPs are expected to toe the line and where permission must be granted in many cases before they are allowed to talk to reporters.
Conway said he has been struck by Harper’s reluctance to make himself available.
“Mr. Harper, now Prime Minister for over two years, has certainly made no bones of his desire to run a highly centralized government and ... intends to give the Canadian public such information as he thinks they should have at that particular time.”
With files from Bruce Campion-Smith and Tonda MacCharles

Why should Canadians allow HIM (or anyone, for that matter) to decide when we're ready for the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

getting to know him

link http://today.reuters.com/News/ArticleBlog.aspx?type=technologyNews&w1=B7ovpm21IaDoL40ZFnNfGe&w2=B82x9Ksc5UNVzDjpITcIrRbi&src=blogBurst_technologyNews&bbPostId=BziAjE8MY3PgCz2P2YKp38ce1B8Tb2JsJxBsYCz4lhZZqYUFsv&bbParentWidgetId=B9TtxIkobbLVBgDsLF1sak8
Could be an icebreaker, or simply a game of peekaboo with the USA prez.

bubbles speak

How to stir things up a bit - reclaim the corporate advertising space for our own collective benefit!
(disclaimer: i do not endorse vandalism, so don't do it. but if you already see an ad desecrated with a blank bubble, the ice has obviously been broken already so no foul if you add to it!)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
There was a Canadian documentary about this on TV a long time ago, but recently I read that a guy in NYC is also doing it. He just puts blank stickers on advertisements and lets people write in their own comments. I like the "street bubbles" ones in the politics & social commentary.
http://www.thebubbleproject.com/01.Bubbles/BubblesFrameset.htm

morning poetry

was talking about raelians with a colleague this morning. he asked if they were the ones that committed mass suicide a few years ago - i said, no those were the sun cultists (temple of the sun?), or some other group of lemmings blindly following a self-ordained leader into annihilation.
i don't know what inspired that particular bit of prose... maybe the lecture about creationist "science" and biblical "facts" in my carpool this morning? Universe only knows.