letter to GG

Excellency,
I have been shocked again and again at the belligerence, divisiveness, and contempt for Canadians that Mr. Harper has shown, all the while marketing himself as an "ordinary" Canadian and "protector" of democracy. I hoped the recent election would bring about a more humble, cooperative nature, and initially that is what he portrayed. Unfortunately, that was probably only a ploy to buy time and public opinion while preparing a budget update that clearly goes against core values of this country: respect, fairness, equal opportunity for personal growth, and entraide. His party's actions time and again indicate to me that they wish to diminish all Canadians to "ordinary" status, such that they can be easily manipulated (need to look no further than the conflicting attacks in English and French) and poorly paid, with limited ability to defend let alone promote themselves (example: the contempt for galas). I do not believe that the Conservative Party of Canada is taking this country down a good path.

Given the Parliament we have elected, I believe the Liberal-NDP Coalition is the most effective means of achieving a government that is fair and representative of the values Canada enjoys at home and has promoted abroad. I cannot say whether proroguing the current session will be beneficial or not (likely best merely to cool tempers and let coole heads prevail), but I do humbly request that you grant the Liberal-NDP Coalition the opportunity to form a government, with all the authority of your position and a reassuring speech that we must remember what we stand for together, not only with our traditions, but with our vision.

Sincerely,

sigh

after writing and erasing three rambling rants on the proposed coalition, how harper's reacting to it, and how disappointed I am that so many Canadians seem to be lapping up the obviously manipulative lies without questioning harper's raw contempt for quebec, i've decided i have too many thoughts to write interesting words.
i'm going to bed.

who's being undemocratic?

Nelson Wiseman, political science professor at the University of Toronto, […] dismissed Harper's attacks on the coalition, who reportedly called it an "undemocratic seizure of power."

"The Conservatives are arguing it's undemocratic, but actually elections don't elect governments," said Wiseman. "They elect Parliaments. Parliaments make a government. Parliaments can break a government."

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/12/02/gg-return.html

deconstructing Conservative party lies

Broadbent (past leader of NDP) speaks out:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/12/03/coalition-broadbent.html

And former GG speaks up:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2008/12/03/parl-schreyer.html

This type of scenario (arguing over who/what we vote for/give a mandate to (i.e., party or MP)) will never be put to rest until we elect a President (or GG), independently of parliamentarians we send to the Commons. This is the real democratic reform this country needs (Senate reform is purely a red herring that simultaneously provides a convenient excuse to abolish it in the quest for absolute rule).

this is NOT a "coup d'état"

from Google:

(Fr. "strike at the state") the sudden overthrow of a government by a small group.
www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/tignorterms.php

A sudden, decisive exercise of power whereby the existing government is subverted without the consent of the people, in a more or less violent fashion.
arabbox.free.fr/islamaphonia1/Muziq.htm
"without the consent of the people" - that must be why Conservatives are desperately trying to rally Canadians...

a sudden and decisive change of government illegally or by force
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
nothing illegal or forceful about this

A coup d’état (also coup) is the sudden, illegal overthrowing of a government by a part of the state establishment — usually the military — to replace the branch of the stricken government, either with another civil government or with a military government.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup d'état
nothing illegal about this

The sudden overthrow of a government, differing from a revolution by being carried out by a small group of people who replace only the leading figures
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/coup d'état
for the record, wiktionary's big sister wikipedia defines it a lot better:
A coup d’état, often simply called a coup, is the sudden unconstitutional overthrow of a government by a part — usually small — of the state establishment — usually the military — to replace the branch of the stricken government, either with another civil government or with a military government.
there is nothing unconstitutional about this proposal, unless they go so far as to disregard an unfavorable decision by the Governor General...

So please, if you're ignorant, please feel free to continue calling this a coup d'etat.

Information - bad for public opinion!

...You'd think that's the marketing mantra for the conservatives these days.

They've created a website, rally 4 canada (i'm not going to honour them with a link or even correct spelling), with a lot of misinformation. allow me to deconstruct some of their lies:

Layton negotiating with Duceppe "for quite some time to form a plan to seize power" - that's what opposition parties do during a minority government. In fact, I'm pretty sure the Conservatives were doing the same when Martin was PM...

"and to overthrow the government" - that's part of how the first past the post system is supposed to work.

"overturn the results of the last election" - overturn the results, you mean introduce non-elected members to parliament? clearly Harper is trying to implant the (FALSE) notion that Canada elected Him personally. (that's NOT how our system works, folks!)

"without seeking consent from we the Canadian voters" - the electorate does NOT choose who the government will be - they, we merely choose who we send from our riding to REPRESENT us. Forming the government is the responsibility of the party representing the most ridings, and consent is only required from the Governor General (symbolic, I know).

"from we the Canadian voters" - WE ??? disappointingly reminiscent of the divisive neo-conservative (somebody will surely correct me) friend or foe strategy.

"the Bloc Quebecois is dictating the terms of the next government" - meanwhile, in French, they mock the Bloc for "selling out to a federalist party."

"this unelected government" - again, their members were elected exactly the same way the cons. were; besides, in a minority government, MORE people voted AGAINST the party in power than in favor...

"the government of Canada would be at the mercy of the people committed to destroying our confederation." - how is that different from before? The Bloc has (when convenient to Quebec) supported the previous cons. minority government on surely several occasions. Doesn't that also put Harper's government at the mercy of the same good people?

"people committed to destroying our confederation" - there's an interesting hint of Trudeau in that! fact of the matter is, separatists just don't believe that the current direction Canada is heading in corresponds to the promises made during Confederation; they are bitter over the ol' "bait and switch" that was pulled on them time and again, and they are simply there to ensure an eventual transition is orderly and respectful when (if) ever they choose to go their own way. That's a little different from say, Iran committed to destroying Israel, for example, wouldn't you agree? Additionally, they have a better chance of creating a ideologically compatible federal atmosphere with Dion and Layton than under Harper.

"democracy-loving Canadians... gather to support democracy" - uhm, didn't we do that at the polls six weeks ago? what's undemocratic about parties coming together to represent a majority of ridings trying to form a government? didn't the old PC and Reform parties do exactly that a few years ago?

"support democracy, not political games" - ha, that's funny coming from them.

"in this time of crisis" - what crisis? I thought our "fundamentals were strong," this was only a "technical recession," and "a good time to invest" ?

Funny too, how I can't find the rally 4 canada website in French... might actually allow people to compare their claims! No wonder they are against "expensive" bilingualism - it just makes it harder for them to divide and conquer.

the senate

"By virtue of our appointment, we are able to focus on long-range issues that may not receive the same attention by politicians running for re-election. In this way, we provide a balance to Parliament that ensures that legislation and important concerns facing Canadians get the attention they deserve."
http://www.liberalsenateforum.ca/In-The-Senate/Our-Role

cattle as recyclers

Printed on a trading card from The Ontario Cattlemen's Association:

Cattle are recyclers. As plants grow, they take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. When cattle eat the grass, they burn the gasses back into the air. Some of this gas is carbon dioxide that is then recycled by the plants.

Uhm, wtf?
Mr. OED, please invent something that allows us to distinction between recycling that is good for the planet, from that which is bad for the planet. Because clearly, this company is greenwashing on semantics.

Throne Speech: Environment Critique

The following excerpt from the Speech from the Throne, 19 November 2008 sounds really good; it is uplifting and, I am surprised to say, almost inspirational. Here it is, with my observations:

Our Government understands that Canada’s economic prosperity cannot be sustained without a healthy environment, just as environmental progress cannot be achieved without a healthy economy. Our Government will continue its realistic, responsible approach to addressing the challenge of climate change.

responsible and realistic? the alliteration makes it sound nice, and it is surely meant to be reassuring, but it's also a cheap partisan shot.

Our Government has committed to reducing Canada’s total greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent by 2020.

I'm glad to see he's using all GHGs, not just carbon, but what year is he using as a baseline?

We will meet this goal while also ensuring that Canada’s actions going forward remain comparable to what our partners in the United States, Europe and other industrialized countries undertake.

While this may be good for the (currently deeply flawed) economy, it is not good enough to protect unique Canadian environmental needs.

We will work with the provincial governments and our partners to develop and implement a North America-wide cap and trade system for greenhouse gases and an effective international protocol for the post-2012 period.

Another partisan shot (implying other approaches would be ineffective), and buys him lots of time - a clear warning too that any delays will be the fault of the partners' and/or provinces. Does that qualify as bullying?

To meet the challenge posed by climate change, we will also need to make greater use of technologies that do not emit greenhouse gases.

No shit, sherlock, but what about the continued rape of the tarsands?

Our Government will set an objective that 90 percent of Canada’s electricity needs be provided by non-emitting sources such as hydro, nuclear, clean coal or wind power by 2020. In support of this ambitious national goal, our Government will continue to provide support for biofuels, wind and other energy alternatives.

"continue?" how about increasing them?

To ensure protection of our vital resources, our Government will bring in legislation to ban all bulk water transfers or exports from Canadian freshwater basins.

Outstanding! But what is "bulk water" - does bottling count? And for the Great Lakes, on which our southern neighbors have a legitimate 50% claim, what action will he take to prevent them from piping that water down to Arizona?

Our Government will work with all parties in Parliament to introduce sensible policies that can help consumers and improve our environmental well-being, such as increasing incentives for energy-saving home retrofits.

Glad to see he's reaffirmed the stupidity of scrapping the previous gov'ts program.

Bottom line: are these words meant merely to impress?

fast food - tasty, but...

some things you`d rather not know, but you're glad you do.

Another illustration of science (chemistry and research) raising
concerns of the 'fast food' industry i.e. tracing the source of this
industry's food supply and what is really in your combo/trio selections
from McDonald's, Wendy's and Burger King ...

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20081114/forbes_fast
_food_081115/20081115/

one, for the money; two, for the show

From http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/story.html?id=dcdefae2-c7aa-4655-abbf-61446f34c608:

Jim Flaherty, as expected, keeps the key portfolio of finance. Senior government officials say it is vital to show some stability in that role during the current economic crisis.

Silly me, I would have thought competence would have been the first consideration.

Pollster Frank Luntz, a regular guest on the Fox News, joked that MSNBC is "the only network with more letters in its name than viewers."

On a more serious note, Luntz said it's a problem that the electorate chooses to watch news programs not for information but to confirm already-held beliefs, and that applies to viewers of CNN and Fox News as well.

Note that this isn't meant to discourage anybody who reads this...

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE49R0GK20081028

power

an effective illusion - if somebody seems to have power, we naturally tend to respect (not necessarily honour) it.
is it our survival instinct, out of greed (share of likely spoils), or just mental laziness (accepting what others seem to have already decided)? something else? likely a combination of several.


background: knighthood (the facebook game) made me reflect on this. since i no longer play, i thought i'd offer the stores of various weapons and gold my minions have produced on autopilot to the player that i thought was the most worthy. he came back with appreciation and a promise to distribute them to lower-ranked players to help them along.

i recognized his power by (a) his power score but mostly (b) the number of people actively playing with him (he is the founder of a successful league or alliance or something). he was acting as an escrow or something in a trade i was conducting, and that's when he earned my trust (what little was needed for me to want to offer him my redundant riches).

this isn't democracy - this is benevolent monarchy, but in a fantasy world that you can take your chances in and not lose anything if things go wrong. yet the social interaction, honour and recognition between players is something that the current political "democratic" system fails to offer - or at least seems to fail to offer and by extension isn't in a position to offer it. and so our governments are relegated to the back burner of social conscience, to a role of dealing with the things that have to be done but without significant meaning to the average person, and subject to control by parties that seek opportunities for financial gain (if not for them, then for the people that supported them). a competition of kingdoms, so to speak, where the winner is decided not on the battlefield but in elections. the fact that elections are now scheduled regularly just makes them more mechanistic and dull. one ray of hope survives, that the canadian people have insisted once more to maintain their involvement and hold on to the strings of power by denying yet again a majority government.

poisoning principles

how can you have a proper democracy (with informed, caring and idealistic voters) when one party campaigns (regardless of whether an election has been called, I might add) with an obvious bloodthirst for power?
http://communities.canada.com/vancouversun/blogs/thesearch/archive/2008/10/23/pollsters-conservatives-attack-ads-hurt-voter-turnout-and-democracy.aspx

x or... ?

Had a very interesting discussion today with a new colleague.
Range of topic was very broad, but definitely political-philosophical in nature.

For example, binary "Friend or foe" is an ancient school of thought obviously still used in modern politics. As to whether W used it intentionally (ie what he truly believed) or manipulatively (purely to mobilize the masses for political support) is questionable, also leading to the other age-old debate over whether the ends justifies the means. We also briefly discussed the variants of that philosophy (a german (Kant?) once believing that it is more accurately an incantation of "I or not-I") or something like that, which led me to ask "what about friend or "not-friend"? He recognized the importance of that distinction, and stroked my ego by taking the time to think about it, then surmised that is an interesting shade of gray that is too complicated for most people to ponder and therefore usually ignored.

Another discussion about what makes a good leader - his intrinsic values and actions (righteousness), or his effectiveness (heavily dependent on external factors)? That question arose when we disagreed over who would be a "better" leader for this country (at this time).

I learned a few other things, and was rightfully corrected on one in particular:
I offhandedly remarked that PM Harper was a brilliant but Machiavellian strategist; when in actuality he's (and his group) are more students of the "Straussian" political school, and that it is very elitist. one message for the elite, a different message for the masses (sidenote: i wonder if that ever influenced Depeche Mode's choice of album title?) Anyway, it would seem once you've proved yourself worthy and smart enough to read between the lines you get the secret decoder ring - meanwhile, all sorts of things happen with contempt for the ignorant supporting public).

I just now looked up Straussianism on Wikipedia - all about "deadly lies" and "noble truths" (myths used by political leaders seeking to maintain a cohesive society). Takes us right back to the question of ends justifying means.
Interesting. Very interesting...

uh-oh, time for more tax cuts

cuz obviously the "trickle-down effect" isn't going far enough yet...
http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5hpTxH6LhUx_paxYTA1q9R7ipHcrQ

well said

A female CNN journalist heard about a very old Jewish man who had been going to the Western Wall to pray, twice a day, every day, for a long, long time.

So she went to check it out. She went to the Western Wall and there he was, walking slowly up to the holy site.

She watched him pray and after about 45 minutes, when he turned to leave, using a cane and moving very slowly, she approached him for an interview.

'Pardon me, sir, I'm Rebecca Smith from CNN. What's your name?

'Morris Fishbien,' he replied.

'Sir, how long have you been coming to the Western Wall and praying?'

'For about 60 years.'

'60 years! That's amazing! What do you pray for?'

'I pray for peace between the Christians, Jews and the Muslims.'

'I pray for all the wars and all the hatred to stop.'

'I pray for all our children to grow up safely as responsible adults, and to love their fellow man.'

'How do you feel after doing this for 60 years?'


'Like I'm talking to a fuckin' wall.'

there's a sucker born every minute...

no this is not about the recent Canadian election (though it might as well be).

http://www.ewg.org/reports/bottledwater

time for debate, not more bait

Open Letter to leaders of Canada’s federal political parties

The signatories agree on these 10 principles:
1. Canada needs to act on climate change now.
2. Any substantive action will involve economic costs.
3. These economic impacts cannot be an excuse for inaction.
4. Pricing carbon is the best approach from an economic perspective.
1. Pricing allows each business and family to choose the response that is best and most efficient for them.
2. Pricing induces innovation.
3. Carbon is almost certainly under-priced right now.
5. Regulation is the most expensive way to meet a given climate change goal.
6. A carbon tax has the advantage of providing certainty in the price of carbon.
7. A cap and trade system provides certainty on the quantity of carbon emitted, but not on the price of carbon and can be a highly complex policy to implement.
8. Although carbon taxes have the most obvious effects on consumers, all carbon reduction policies increase the prices individuals face.
9. Price mechanisms can be regressive and our policy should address this.
10. A pricing mechanism can allow other taxes to be reduced and provide an opportunity to improve the tax system.

contempt of democracy

old file, still highly pertinent.