Blogging Canadians / cheapchristian / Saved News

Akaash Maharaj: The New McCarthyism

Akaash — Wed, 27 Jun 2012 16:07:14 -0700

McCarthy was a greater traitor to his country than any imagined Communist, and Canadian politicians who ape his methods are just as surely betraying ours. Their behaviour is a public obscenity and a disgrace to the democracy we elected them to serve. Americans eventually roused themselves from the nightmare of their McCarthyists and cast them aside. The time is long overdue for Canadians to do the same.

"Governments and Corporations"

thepubliceye — Wed, 13 Jun 2012 09:03:49 -0700

The less things are in the hands of governments and corporations the less things that can be fucked up

by Philip Brennan

As originally posted on: Revolt & Resist !!! (der_bluthund) on Twitter
June 9, 2012

Francois Hollande Wins French Presidential election

LeDaro — Fri, 18 May 2012 19:09:47 -0700

Bye-bye Sarkozy. Good for France. Another of Bush's poodles is gone. Now it is Harper's turn to take a hike.

Meet the new President of France - Francois Hollande.
He campaigned on a motorcycle. He is on the back
of the seat.

CBC news.

In Defense of the Dismal Science

gpetersen — Tue, 05 Jun 2012 19:10:42 -0700

Economists don't know anything! Their predictions are always wrong!

...is what I would say if I didn't know very much about economics. I've heard a lot of variations of this trope (mainstream economists failed to predict the 2008 crash, etc.), sometimes from well-educated people.

The problem with this indictment is that economists do much more than just forecasting the macroeconomy, just as meteorologists do much more than making five-day weather forecasts. You wouldn't tell a meteorologist that he didn't know anything about cloud formation because a different meteorologist failed to predict a rainstorm four days in advance.

The problem meteorologists face is that weather is a chaotic system. You could have a very complex and detailed weather model, and then the proverbial butterfly flaps its proverbial wings, and your model is all wrong. The macroeconomy, too, is a chaotic system. If you believe that one person can make a difference in the world, then to predict the macroeconomy is to predict the actions of every single person.

The worst variant of this trope is when people say that economics isn't a science because it doesn't have predictive power. Economic models do give us the power to predict many things. Many of these predictions come in the form of if-then statements, eg. if the minimum wage is increased to $20 and the equilibrium wage for low-skilled labour is $7, then there will be a labour shortage and black markets will spring up. If a single firm controls the production of a certain product with no close substitute, it will lower the output and raise the price (over the competitive equilibrium price) to maximize profit. These are well-established, falsifiable conclusions that have nothing to do with forecasting the business cycle.

"The Hate Machine, the Love Machine, the Machine Powered by Many Machines"

thepubliceye — Fri, 11 May 2012 07:08:27 -0700

The hate machine, the love machine, the machine powered by many machines. We are all part of it, helping it grow, and helping it grow on us.

by "Anonymous"

As originally posted on: Anonymous (YourAnonNews) on Twitter
May 4, 2012

Video: Ta’Kaiya Blaney and her anthem for those who love the Earth

pgraham — Sun, 06 May 2012 01:03:26 -0700

One of the youngest passengers on the Yinka Dene Alliance Freedom Train is Ta’Kaiya Blaney, 11, of Sliammon First Nation in British Columbia. I don’t believe I have seen a more articulate, self-possessed, and inspiring child in my life. She spoke in Winnipeg last night, at the Circle of Life Thunderbird House, about the struggle … Continue reading »

The Return of the Very Cruel Economic System

Fast — Wed, 09 May 2012 01:09:56 -0700

This chapter is divided into three sections. The first section examines the origins of the neoliberal policy consensus at the OECD. The fist major rupture in the hegemony of the Keynesianism (neoclassical synthesis MKI) at the OECD came with the … Continue reading →

Trying to get burned at the stake: heretical Easter edition

Fast — Sun, 08 Apr 2012 03:06:09 -0700

Me, I like heretics. Sure hanging out with heretics and being a heretic is fraught with danger: a certain tendency towards a merely reactionary or contrarian stance, a pension for wasting time by reinventing the wheel and merely convincing yourself … Continue reading →

PC Party Eating from Our Cookie Jar

roblaw — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 19:02:32 -0700

Who Took the Cookies from the Cookie Jar?
Question:

Is it just possible that the PC Government has been in power so long that they've began to believe that the Province belongs to them and not the citizens of Alberta?

It appears that way.

Witness the amazing example of the PC Government taking a relatively minor argument between a Sheriff and Rob Anderson and releasing it to the media like it was an event of some import. (For an excellent discussion of just how offensive this is, see the Alberta Ardvark post today.)

Apparently Rob Anderson was arriving at the Legislature for a meeting, and parked in an unmarked parking spot reserved for the Premier - and then had words with a Sheriff.

No tickets, no one towed, no big whoop.

But, suddenly, the Sheriff's boss - the Solicitor General of Alberta - Jonathan Denis - decided to take that information and give it to the media. Apparently, there is nothing else much for Jonathan Dennis to do, other than use his position and his employees for blatantly political reasons to try and create some issue with an opposition MLA.

Think about this just for a moment.

Alison Redford uses $107 million in tax payer dollars to buy the leadership election by giving it to the very well-paid teachers, on the backs of home-owners all over Alberta.

Alison Redford and her Finance Minister then lie to Albertans and say, "We have no new taxes - while, coincidentally, passing on a $107 million bump in the amount to be collected from municipal property taxes.

Alison Redford, apparently, is caught completely unaware that the a government committee is collecting significant tax-payer dollars while doing absolutely nothing for years, and even after getting caught, figuratively, with their hands in the cookie jar, goes, "no big deal".. until the citizens start getting concerned, at which time, she says, "Oh, well, we'll pay back what wasn't earned while I've been in the Premier's seat - but not before."

Oh.

By the way.

The committee that got paid to do nothing, apparently, ignored the reality that the government is using tax-payer dollars to create propaganda supporting a PROPOSED budget which wasn't yet passed - which, technically, is in contempt of the legislature.

Enough?

Nope.

While all of these egregious abuses of tax-payer dollars are being dismissed by the PC Party as "trivial" a truly trivial event suddenly finds it's way into the media when Rob Anderson has an argument of sorts with a parking lot attendant.

Apparently, the Solicitor General's office is now a de facto campaign worker for the PC party - a significant no-no in politics.

You cannot use your office, you cannot use government funds, you cannot use government employees to promote a partisan agenda and to assist you in being elected. Oh sure - the do it all the time, and be sure, you will see all sorts of dispositions of Alberta tax-payer dollars during the election run-up, implicitly being used to buy votes - but the point is, you have to be at least subtle about using your office to help you get elected.

If there is ANY purpose other than a partisan election goal in Jonathan Denis gathering up the details on this little dust-up, I would be fascinated to hear it - especially considering that there was no ticket, no offence of any kind.

But, I guess after you've been in power, more or less uncontested for over 41 years, when you've had cheque signing authority to the Alberta Treasury for that period of time, the line becomes somewhat blurry over what belongs to the PC Party and what belongs to Alberta Tax Payers.

Perhaps they need a not-so-subtle refresher that "Alberta Government" does not equate with "PC Party of Alberta".

Perhaps Albertans are starting to get the idea -

Alberta PC Party Losing Lead Over Wild Rose:
Polls show dramatic narrowing of PC lead - 34% Conservative as compared to 29% Wild Rose.
The margin of error is 3.2 percentage points - very close to a dead heat, potentially.

You can do it, Alberta.

Send a message.

The "cookie jar" is not open for abuse by a tired and arrogant PC party.

What the federal budget will say, and what it really means...cue Carlin

gordiecanuk — Sun, 25 Mar 2012 23:01:53 -0700

When Thursday rolls around Canadians will be finding out exactly what kind of government a minority of some 40% of us chose. In point of fact it might be well under 40%, depending on how many Canadians were sent to non-existant polling stations which might just have boosted Conservative numbers a tad.

Isn't Floridahhhhh...errr I mean Canada great?

We're being told that the budget will focus on certain areas or themes. Of course they'll positioned with nice flowery language, employing plenty of double speak, something politicians do very well.

In the interest of clarity here's my take on what we'll be hearing and what the actual impact will be.

Support for innovation and research.

Sounds nice, but let's call it what it really is okay? Corporate welfare. Tax credits designed to ensure this nations wealthiest business pay even less in taxes than they already are. Adam Smith preached the profit motive, companies competing against each other, researching and innovating to better their chances of survival. Now we've got the corporate nanny state looking to hold big business' hand.

Overhauling of regulations for resource development.

Again this sounds positive. An overhaul is a good thing right? Every machine needs an overhaul for it to keep running. But what it really means in this case is allowing resource companies to avoid annoying things like environmental impact studies. We'll find out how the environment was impacted by pipelines, mines and oil sands projects after the money has been made.

Investing in training and opportunity.

Now who could argue with that? Well folks, sorry to say it just sounds like more corporate welfare to me. "Ya know those people you were going to hire? We'll letcha stick taxpayers with their training costs. Your business gets skilled workers to help you make even more $$$$, and you don't have to invest a dime. Why invest your own capital when the government can stick it to Joe and Jane Sixpack"?

And finally the biggest bone job of them all:

Insuring the long-term sustainability of major social programs like Old Age Security

Oh boy. To sustain social programs we're gonna have to cut benefits and/or raise the eligibility criteria. But you boomers nearing retirement don't have to worry, you guys vote and there are a s*** ton of you, so we're gonna stick your kids and grand kids with the bill.

For a primer on political double speak I give you the late great George Carlin:

The Day of Frivolous Law Suits

BlogBot — Mon, 12 Mar 2012 15:03:16 -0700

As local ambulance chaser Clayton Ruby tries to have Mayor Rob Ford fired and barred from politics in Toronto for the next seven years, Quebeckers have their own frivolous law suits. Last week a man who claimed ownership of much of the solar system was censored from ever launching any more crazy legal claims. Now a case just as nuts: People are taking on Tobacco. This is nothing new-it's just the scale of it. The biggest class action suit in Canadian history, 90,000 smokers are taking on 4 tobacco companies saying that they were duped into smoking. Each is seeking over $100,000.

But what if you didn't smoke? What do you get then? Shouldn't non-smokers sue the smokers to recoup their losses because of health concerns over second-hand smoke and the general irritation of people lighting up around them all the time?

President Obama smokes. Sue him.

Sleeping on the Job – Conservative MP Rob Anders

pj613burns — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 20:01:39 -0800

The Conservative party claims to be the party looking out for Canadian Military Personnel and veterans but unfortunately the guy they appointed to the Veterans Affairs Committee has his eyes closed - literally. MP for Calgary West Rob Anders was caught sleeping during a presentation on...

..

Three things I wish heterodox economists would quit talking about

Fast — Mon, 12 Mar 2012 23:00:58 -0700

Number 1. Mainstream economics and heterodox economics To be consistent it should be homodox economics and heterodox economics. Those with routine knowledge of Latin would find nothing nefarious in such a distinction. Although we do have other names. Why not … Continue reading →

Brad Trost says Harper is not Pro-Life and chastises the PMO

gordiecanuk — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 15:02:09 -0800

I just finished reading a Macleans interview with Conservative backbench MP Brad Trost.

For those, like me, who've seen his name in the press about the issue of abortion, and formed the opinion that he is a one string banjo plucking the Pro-Life chord over and over...I strongly suggest giving it a read. I think you'll find the interview engaging and perhaps find at least a modicum of respect for the Saskatchewan MP. I did, and more than a modicum.

On the issue of abortion he laments the fact that Canada is the only industrialized nation in the world with no laws whatsover relating to the termination of pregnancy. He points to Sweeden and France as two examples, countries probably more liberal minded than Canada, yet they have legislation and we don't.

Now, for those who like the status quo, and who have been fearful that the so called 'secret agenda' might include re-introduction of abortion to the criminal code, take a big relaxing sigh. According to Mr. Trost, and I'll quote directly from the interview here, he says of the PM:

In all of his runs for leadership, or I even believe going back as a Reform MP, he's never been pro-life.

He's not critical of the PM's opinion, in fact he speaks very respectfully of Mr. Harper, saying the Prime Minsiter is basically 'sticking with what he says'.

Mr. Trost does however have some not so kind words for the Prime Minister's Office, again quoting from the interview:

It's very hard to communicate with them. And they may not like it if you print that in there, but frankly, they need to have someone who can actually communicate with Members of Parliament and they don't.

I think Brad should read the text of a 1997 speech Harper gave to the Council for National Policy, a Washington based neo-con think tank. In that speech our current PM compared our house of commons to the U.S. electoral college, except that ours continues sitting whereas in the U.S. the college disappears after the election.

You can read the full article at Macleans site HERE.

Think Ron Paul is nuts? Good, the MSM is doing its job...check out John Stewart

gordiecanuk — Sat, 10 Mar 2012 13:15:06 -0800

Ron Paul could easily drop out of the GOP race and coporate media would be very happy. They've built up candidates like Rick Santorum, while working very hard at avoiding the Texas doctor and service vertran.

Don't believe me? Check out John Stewart. Pretty telling when Comedy Central provides more insight than major news outlets:

"Most Reavers"

thepubliceye — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 03:12:38 -0800

Blocked paths and robbery

by Kent McManigal

As originally posted on: Kent's "Hooligan Libertarian" Blog
February 15, 2012

In the old days reavers known as "highwaymen" would block roads with downed trees so they could rob travelers.

Some of the intended victims didn't submit so easily, and some thieves died. Some of the surviving reavers got wise and realized it would be helpful if they could find a way to get their victims to stop fighting back.

So, now most reavers use speed limits instead of logs.

.

"Any Governing"

thepubliceye — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 19:11:04 -0800

A modest proposal to prevent "bad government"

by Kent McManigal

As originally posted on: Kent's "Hooligan Libertarian" Blog
February 20, 2012

I think that if there is to be any "governing" allowed to take place, it should take place only under the watchful eyes of angry armed observers standing not more than 6 feet away. No governing should ever be permitted to take place behind metal detectors, or with armed security for the puppeticians being in the same building. The odds need to be leveled, and if one side has the power to destroy the lives of the other side, then the other side must have the same immediate power.

I think that would avoid a lot of the problems that seem to go along with puppeticians and bureaucrats. How many "laws" would end up being passed under those conditions? How many rights would be violated by government actions if that was a prerequisite for any government actions being engaged in? How often would "taxes" be increased?

Eventually it might even reduce the attraction that the sociopaths feel toward being elected to a government job.

Of course, the obvious conclusion is that there should never, ever, be any governing allowed. It isn't healthy or nice.

.

"Your Country" and "the IMF and the Bankers"

thepubliceye — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 09:03:33 -0800

The following press release has been edited in terms of its formatting.

#OpGreece

===========================================

Citizens of Greece

We are Anonymous. We watch every day your government abolish the constitution and institutions of your country. We see them leading you closer and closer to poverty. We see them pass laws that deprive you of any right to dignity. We see them delivering your country to the IMF and the bankers. We know about the rations in schools, for the armies of the homeless, for people looking in the garbage for food, for people who are left jobless and now wait in lines for a plate of food. We know that your country voted ACTA in your effort to silence Greeks. We know everything ...

The Democracy in Greece has died.It died whith a government that has not been elected by the people. And for this reason the time for discussion has come and gone. We are not negotiating anything with any of those who murdered it. You can hunt us as you like, you can even capture some of us in our attempt to muzzle you, but for every one that will be captured 3 others will spring up. We We are not 5 or 10 or 100. Now the Greeks are all Anonymous. We are millions against you and the 300 in this war, tear gas will not help you.

Occupying Government of Greece

These days you are going to vote for a bill that will be the last nail in the coffin of the Greeks. A bill to return the country to a totalitarian rule. To bring the country and its people in absolute poverty. We will not allow another misery to the Greek people. We demand the immediate resignation of you, and elections. We demand not a cent paid to moneylenders 'friends' of you. We demand the immediate withdrawal of the IMF from Greece. The Justice Department was only a small sample of what we are able to do and still have not seen the full wrath of Anonymous. For each article of a bill that would shame the vote, we will shut the system and keep deleting Inland Revenue debts of Greek citizens. Debts which requires them in a fascist way to pay. You might be able in the demonstrations of the Greeks to make them face incredible violence continuously hitting them, but the internet is our field. And we love this war. We are many and we will be brief.

Citizens of Greece, Anonymous is now fighting on your side .....

Government of Greece, expect us ...

# In the name of # Op Greece

We are Anonymous

We are Legion

We do not forget

We do not forgive

United as one with Greek People

Expect us!

FLASHBACK One Year Ago - Four Senior Conservatives Charged Wtih Election Fraud - Feb, 2011

leftdog — Tue, 28 Feb 2012 18:11:25 -0800

Guess what we were talking about exactly one year ago .....

The Globe & Mail - Feb 25, 2011

"Both Russian and Syrian Repressing Regimes"

thepubliceye — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 09:10:26 -0800

A Joint Message from Russian and Syrian Anarchists

by "Autonomous Action" et al

As originally posted on: Linchpin
February 7, 2012

To the masses, oppressed and revolutionaries of Russian Federation and Syria,

We, Russian and Syrian anarchists, as we see the infamous collaboration of both Russian and Syrian repressing regimes, and the support of the Russian ruling regime to the bloody crackdown of Assad regime against the Syrian revolting masses; either in supplying arms and ammunition to Assad's forces or providing diplomatic protection to Assad's massacres against the revolting Syrians, we see this as a logical result of the similarity of the repressive and exploitative nature and structure of both regimes; and as a part of their war against the oppressed of their own people. We, as anarchists and anti-authoritarians, condemn this infamous collaboration and the repressive practices of both regimes, and we call for a strong and brotherly solidarity between

the repressed masses, revolutionaries and anarchist of both countries, in their struggle against the repressing elites in both countries.

Autonomous Action - Russia
Syrian Anarchist feminist movement
Syrian Anarchists

"Pleasure Haters" and "the Illegitimate Institution of the State"

thepubliceye — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 18:01:10 -0800

Pleasure haters

by Kent McManigal

As originally posted on: Kent's "Hooligan Libertarian" Blog
January 24, 2012

I saw a quote in an issue of Reason Magazine that just kept coming back to my mind. It was in reference to Prohibition (both the old one and the current one):

"The eternal temptation to ban things that give people pleasure"

I think it could also be expressed as "The eternal temptation to get pleasure from preventing the pleasure of others".

Either way, there are an awful lot of awful people who seem determined to try to make sure no one is having any fun. That's fine if they stick to being annoying pains in the rear. Unfortunately, the illegitimate institution of The State gives these perverts a way to exert power over others. What a messed up shame.

.

"Any Agency, Political Subdivision, Employee, or Member of the Military of Virginia" and the United States of America (USA)

thepubliceye — Sun, 29 Jan 2012 05:12:46 -0800

The following legislation has been edited in terms of its formatting.

2012 SESSION

INTRODUCED

12103119D

HOUSE BILL NO. 1160
Offered January 16, 2012
A BILL to prevent any agency, political subdivision, employee, or member of the military of Virginia from assisting an agency or the armed forces of the United States in the investigation, prosecution, or detainment of a United States citizen in violation of the Constitution of Virginia.
________
Patron - Marshall, R.G.
________
Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice
________
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:
1. § 1. Notwithstanding any contrary provision of law, no agency of the Commonwealth as defined in § 8.01-385 of the Code of Virginia, political subdivision of the Commonwealth as defined in § 8.01-385 of the Code of Virginia, employee of either acting in his official capacity, or any member of the Virginia National Guard or Virginia Defense Force, when such a member is serving in the Virginia National Guard or the Virginia Defense Force on official state duty, may engage in any activity that aids an agency of or the armed forces of the United States in the execution of 50 U.S.C. 1541 as provided by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (P.L. 112-18, § 1021) in the investigation, prosecution, or detainment of any citizen of the United States in violation of Article I, Section 8 or 11 of the Constitution of Virginia.

Halifax NDP Federal Leader Debate January 29th Analysis

DaveShuttleworth — Sun, 29 Jan 2012 22:09:08 -0800

The following is various reactions and analysis of the Halifax NDP Federal Leader debate on January 27th. Previous NDP debate commentary: Dec 4th Ottawa Debate | January 18th Toronto Debate part 1 | January 18th Toronto Debate part 2 (Issues and Themes).

The third English language debate largely followed the themes and style of the first two debates.The inclusion of a Question & Answer period, analogous to the one done in Parliament, provided some of the most interesting back and forths yet seen the debates which have typically been pretty full of agreement with an agreeable tone. The moderator, Dan Leger, was excellent in providing some comic relief as well as (appropriately) following up on questions and poking the candidates to speak more in terms of specific details.

Winners and Losers:

When it comes to endorsements and polls, the frontrunners in the debate are known to be Mulcair, Nash, Topp, Dewar probably in more or less that order (Topp has more endorsements but worse polls so it is debatable). Ashton, Saganash, Singh are decidedly bottom tier candidates and Cullen is the joint nomination referendum enigma. If we were to just look at debate performance, however, I think the top tier would be something like Cullen, Nash, Dewar, Mulcair in that order.

In the last two debates I have tended to lean towards Nash as the winner. She was good today, among the best, but not quite as good as in previous debates. The crowd was very quiet in the debate, and Nash's skill of being very good at working with a crowd (especially her home crowd in Toronto) didn't come out. Some of her answers were flat and not the typical rousing and passionate populism that we have seen before. Cullen was humorous, well spoken and had a lot of interesting things to say that he was able to effectively convey and somehow managed to be the center of many of the different exchanges. If this was just a personality contest, he might win. Mulcair was more assertive and engaged this debate.

Topp still struggles and while I think he is actually getting better at debate performance he has a significant problem with conveying enthusiasm, authenticity, and likeability. His history as a behind the scenes organizer and not a front line politician certainly shows. Dewar is also very good and I think has risen into the top tier (previously just of Mulcair, Nash, and Topp) based on his consistently solid debate performances. He peppers us (sometimes too much) with anecdotes, policy details, name dropping of other politicians and the like - a stark contrast to Nash who emphasizes far more on emphasizing core NDP values. But Dewar passes the 'electability' test and is as good if not a better speaker than someone like Mulcair and certainly better than Topp. So he is in this race.

Weak opening statements:

I was surprised by how weak the opening statements were from a few of the candidates. There is nothing unexpected that excuses someone from being anything less than perfectly prepared for this. Mulcair was excessively reading off of hits notes; why did he not more or less memorize his one minute intro? Topp did the classic high school debate or valedictorian speech of starting the entire debate by quoting the Webster's dictionary definition of hypocrite (in reference to Harper). Come on, just say Harper is a hypocrite don't dance around it with an feckless dictionary definition allusion. Nash chose to open her debate with a pop culture reference contrasting the Leave it to Beaver sitcom and Modern Family. Her point about viewing families as all kinds of different people is good, but I hardly see how beginning a debate to be the next Prime Minister by giving a mid century US pop culture reference is helping her. Cullen, Dewar, Singh and Ashton had good intros.

Mulcair gets angry:

The most contentious moment in the debate occurred when Dewar challenged Mulcair on his history regarding bulk water exports. Mulcair seemingly took quite a bit of exception to this charge and aggressively defended himself (for the record, he agreed with Dewar that he was against this) saying the attack had failed under the Liberals because it was simply not true. I have often heard it said that Mulcair has this side of him that he does get inflamed and angry, but this was the first sign of it yet in an English debate. It is somewhat interesting that he would let this get to him this way because most people in the audience probably do not know of the history of this particular disagreement and so it seems out of place. That said, I don't possibly see how it helps Dewar to ask this question - given the viscous response that makes it seem like Dewar was being unfair. Mulcair also struck out when Cullen painted Mulcair as a Liberal passionately noting that the Liberals were the only federalist party at the time and that he was a dedicated NDP supporter who ran for NDP when it seemed there was no chance he could win. I am not sure whether it helps or hurts Mulcair to respond in this fashion; it is a liability, but sometimes the display of anger can come off almost statesman like and having an ability to get dirty in debates with Harper could be an advantage.

Joint Nominations:

The issue of allowing Joint Nominations with the Liberals, proposed by Nathan Cullen, has sequentially gotten more and more attention as the various debates have progressed. In the first debate it was barely mentioned. In the second there was a couple minute back and forth focused on it. In this debate, Cullen actually made a (veiled) reference to it in his opening remarks which he had restrained from doing before and then got repeated questions on the topic that he responded to at some length. I was amused that Singh, who had chastised Cullen in the last debate for talking about this issue and ignoring the moderator's question, chose to ignore the moderator's question at the first group discussion opportunity and attack Cullen on this issue. Cullen really ought to spend 20 or 30 seconds at some point early in the debate and explain precisely what the plan is. It doesn't come out clearly and when he won't even say "joint nomination" when he alludes to it in his opening remarks he is not helping his case. It is like he is almost hiding from the issue while he spends the rest of his time as if he is campaigning to be the candidate regardless of it. That said, his defense of it in terms of the need to beat Harper, and the ability of people to work together and come together across party lines, and letting local ridings be the ones that determine whether to do the joint nomination or not was articulate and I can see how it would be persuasive. Mulcair's response of "why shoot for bronze" may also hit a chord.

Jurisdiction:

The core division between the candidates is almost certainly on this issue of jurisdiction, and how much the candidates do or do not support the federal government extending to the provinces. This is probably one of the issues that people should vote one way or the other based on how they see this issue. Topp framed it as the Liberals thinking the provinces didn't exist and the Conservatives thinking the federal government doesn't exist, but the NDP could do something in the middle. Mulcair is the firmest in the anti-federalist leaning where power should be from the provinces and gives the example of the CPP/QPP model whereby the government can propose something and the provinces can, if they wish, do something else. He talks about things like Quebec's strong childcare policies moving across the country from province to province but not "from the top down". Cullen, in the federalist camp, mentions the need to pass Legislative acts like the Canada Health Act to give a necessary legislative impetus. By and large, however, how exactly to achieve the middle ground between federalism and provincialism was not exactly articulated. It is also not clear just how much options they even have to change the federal/provincial relationships; the Supreme Court, for instance, has not restrained from vetoing Harper's attempts to create a federal securities regulator.

Name Dropping:

Last debate it was almost a right of passage to make frequent mentions to Jack Layton as a sort of demigod vs the evils of Harper who also gets extensively mentioned. This debate, however, Layton was barely mentioned but past leaders like Alexa McDonough and Tommy Douglas were extensively mentioned. It is also worth noting that the Liberals are barely mentioned (except when talking about the joint nomination business). To hear the debate we might think this was a two party system; this is not a horrible tactic.

Framing the debate vs the Conservatives:

Almost all of the NDP members use the same basic framing when comparing the NDP to the Conservatives. Namely, it is about a difference of priorities and not a question of the role of government. Everything is cast as a quid pro quo. Instead of prioritizing fighter jets, prisons, corporate tax breaks, and oil subsidies, they are prioritizing seniors, youth, health care, etc. They argue that they have the better, more appealing set of fundamental values and priorities. I think this is a good framing with which to win and one they are much more capable of winning than if the framing falls more along the lines of Harper's framing of a roll of government that prioritizes economic freedom than social values.

Often, they don't address the costing and expenses of this program (as Singh charged Dewar), but this debate there was some attempt to do so. Nash noted how a dollar invested in housing in Quebec results in a growth of $1.44, so these things are real investments. Mulcair expanded the typical source of funds (raising corporate taxes) to include talking about getting money from Cap and Trade in a program he notes was endorsed by Nobel laureate Andrew Weaver. Topp defends the need to raise personal income taxes for the rich. But they will still face significantly challenges on this front from the Conservatives.

Niki Ashton:

It is nice to have Ashton in race because she does bring up important positions and groups that sometimes can be forgotten. For instance, she is probably the most vocal in terms of fighting for youth (with things like tuition cuts) and for women, passionately arguing how about things like a National Child Care program actually increases our economic potential as well as being equitable. She also made the only foreign policy comment of anyone on the stage in the last two debates, calling out Canada's contribution to a "foreign war machine". I think having her voice on the stage to energize the next generation is really good and I expect big things for her as time goes on and this candidacy is an excellent way to gain attention and move into cabinet positions somewhere down the line.

Martin Singh:

Last debate I commented that Martin Singh myopically turned every single question into an answer about focusing on small businessmen and his small businessman experience and how that was needed, to the exclusion of making any other meaningful point in the debate. In this debate he continued the trend, but added his specific call for a National Pharmacare program and experience as a Pharmacist with all comments being addressed in terms of either the business or Pharmacare framing, often both. I am reminded of Herman Cain's inability to respond to any question in the GOP debates with anything other than his 9-9-9 tax plan. I believe that Martin Singh is really looking to increase his prominence within the party more than necessarily winning the leadership and identifying that he has these couple issues that he is really strong with and thus could take shadow or real cabinet positions because of them.

Don't forget to vote!

All in all, it was a worthwhile debate and I would recommend people get involved and watch the next one (not to dissuade you from just reading my blog after the fact). I recently got my first NDP membership (it is only $5 dollars for students, underemployed or <26yr people) to allow me to vote in the election and I would strongly encourage everyone to do this as well. Remember it has to be done before Feb 18th to be able to vote which can be done online.

LGBT clubs in Ontario Catholic schools get neutered

DaveShuttleworth — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 12:05:20 -0800

After a protracted battle over the issue of whether so called 'gay-straight clubs' must be allowed in Catholic schools, many LGBT allies thought a legitimate victory had been attained when Queen's Park ruled that such groups must be tolerated. Delaying far past the required deadline, an associated Catholic think-tank has sent in its recommendations on how these clubs should be allowed to run.

The suggested name? 'Respecting Difference' clubs. Groan. Further, the clubs get saddled with various restrictions that "they are not to provide personal counseling in a group setting" nor could they present "activism, protest or advocacy of anything that is not in accord with the Catholic faith foundation of the school".

What, exactly, are these groups actually allowed to do in this case if they can't actually discuss in a group anything that might be considered counseling such as "it is okay to be gay" nor could they advocate something like "it is okay to be gay". In my view this is absolutely the core message that needs to be propagated to prevent bullying, to build self esteem, to lower suicide rates, and the like, yet these clubs are being restricted from optimally transmitting this message on two fronts.

Remember, the Assembly of Catholic Bishops of Ontario and the Ontario Catholic School Trustees' Association said back in April that the whole point of this was to prevent "bullying related to sexual orientation." Yet optimal ways to both prevent bullying (advocating to other peers about the need for acceptance) and to deal with the effects of bullying (counselling with like minded people) are not being allowed. Or take the following view that is often expressed:

Natalie Rizzo, a student trustee for the Toronto Catholic District School Board, said there is an "overwhelming response from students . . . who would really like there to be an emphasis on anti-homophobia and learning about anti-homophobia (measures) . . . not learning about that lifestyle, but they would really like there to be more systems in place to combat homophobia."
The problem is that learning about the lifestyle exactly does help to combat homophobia among the population. It is through learning about new lifestyles of all varieties that we can realize our prejudices are false, and grow towards acceptance.

Even the name 'Respecting Difference' clubs is sending the wrong message. It isn't just that students are being restricted in their free expression of what they would like to call their club, including the very common name of 'Gay-Straight Alliance', it is that the name chosen for them is bad. Combating homophobia is about growing an acceptance that LGBT people actually are not different than the rest of us and instead are entirely normal people. We ought to identify the similarities, not differences.

However, the view of the Church is clear as expressed by the Nancy Kirby, the president of OCSTA:

"We have nothing against homosexuals, but it's the (homosexual) act that is in contradiction of the teachings of the church."
Ah yes. Because they really don't care in the slightest about being gay of course not, it is just the act that they object to. Expect for all those hormone charged LGBT teenagers either want to or already have done that evil act just as the straight kids do. Say what one will about promoting abstinence in high schools, but for adults the idea of being gay (or straight for that matter) being okay, but having sex in accordance to ones desires is not, is equivalent - in fact it truly is the same - as being against being gay . It is a false dichotomy.

The reality is that LGBT youth suffer from startling levels of consequences due to discrimination. 25-40% of homeless youth are LGBT. The attempted suicide rate is 5 times higher than for straight youth. There is very real and very legitimate suffering that goes on. I get it, the Catholic Church just fundamentally doesn't believe in homosexuality and yes, of course, they have freedom of expression. But this is a human rights issue with very real consequences on the lives of LGBT youth. To have leaders of schools still saying these kinds of things, and remaining obstructionists to the free expression in clubs that have real potential to create support and ameliorate bullying, cannot and should not be accepted.

Sun’s Goldstein tells CBC Kady to “grow a spine” over NCC Bob Rae ad

BC Blue — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 02:05:24 -0800

The Sun’s Lorrie Goldstein does a nice slap-down of the pearl-clutching conspiracy theorists in the Ottawa Press Gallery who got their panties in a bunch (see here) over Stephen Taylor and the National Citizens Coalition running an attack ad against Bob Rae: “Of all the manufactured outrage in Ottawa these days among Liberals, NDPers and media, [...]

The Liberal Party Of Canada WAS - IS - AND CONTINUES TO BE Hypocritical On Marijuana Reform

leftdog — Sun, 15 Jan 2012 19:03:15 -0800

Why should anyone take the Liberals seriously on marijuana reform in Canada?

"While they were in power, Canada's former Liberal government introduced marijuana reform legislation a number of times ... and then let the Bills die on the order paper session after session, year after year.

Why?

Well because they were playing both sides of the political fence at the same time. Let me explain.

If you were absolutely in favour of marijuana law reform, the Liberals pointed to their proposed legislation that would lessen sentences for simple possession. They sounded progressive and sincere. However, if you were not in favour of marijuana law reform, the Liberals pandered to you by NEVER actually passing the many bills that they introduced.

For years, pot reform advocates let the Liberals off the hook, because, 'reform was on the horizon'! The Libs were going to show progressive action on the issue. Hmmm ... not so much.

Because they did nothing, Liberals have some explaining to do!"
Liberal Party Hypocritical on Marijuana reform

Canadian universities vs diversity of beliefs: No free-speech for pro-life groups at Carleton

Natasha — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 13:01:12 -0800

Good little commies restricting differing views from being heard: As Brian Lilley says this policy of preventing “different” views is common throughout Canada’s higher education institutions.

Cargo Cult Science Triumphs

travelhobbit — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 22:00:09 -0800

Here's the difference between a real science and a cargo cult science, as described by the physicist Richard Feynman during his commencement address at the California Institute of Technology in 1974: ...But there is one feature I notice that is generally missing in Cargo Cult Science... It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty - a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid - not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked - to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.

Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can - if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong - to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.

In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgement in one particular direction or another. More >>> So, it's not like we haven't been warned. Well, it's been 40 years since and, looking at our universities, which resemble totalitarian states, witnessing climate "scientists" twisting data that doesn't fit their alarmist theories, looking at what has been done to the education system, at poor kids being used as guinea pigs in social experiments, looking at diversity and multiculturalism, political correctness and "positive" discrimination - the obvious question is - which "progressive" theory is not in fact a cargo cult science?

Selena Gomez Shares Name of Unborn Sister

SaintNobody — Tue, 27 Dec 2011 20:10:16 -0800

Get Ready For Harper's Massive Infusion Of 'War Of 1812' Theme Into Next Canada Day

leftdog — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 17:11:28 -0800

OTTAWA - The Harper government has hired a consultant to inject a little war into this year's Canada Day bash on Parliament Hill. A Toronto theatre expert has been asked to find ways to insert a War of 1812 commemoration into the July 1st festivities that typically include pop music, dance and pyrotechnics.

"I do big-ass special events all the time, so they asked me to do that," artistic producer Paul Shaw said in an interview. "It's sort of tricky to do a War of 1812 theme when you've got so many modern things in and around it."

The Conservative government, which has been promoting Canada's military culture and heritage, has earmarked money and resources throughout the year to commemorate the bicentennial of the outbreak of War of 1812 in North America.
Yahoo News

Investing in Children is Good for the Economy

pj613burns — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 16:15:01 -0800

A new study came out today saying that investing in our nations children is good for the economy. Sadly the current Federal Government does not believe in investing in Canada's children. Dating back to one of their first official acts - dismantling a national child care program...

[More...]

Gingrich's Last Stand?

BlogBot — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 20:09:00 -0800

Newt Gingrich has been saying some peculiar things of late, that is if you're a Republican. This ad, produced by a political action committee supporting him, could be re-purposed by the Democrats without changing one word: Update: For those interested,...

Brave New Sex World

pacheco — Mon, 26 Dec 2011 23:06:24 -0800

Development & Peace: Fundamentally UnCatholic (Final Post at Socon or Bust)

pacheco — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 12:11:51 -0800

"The Keene Bureaucrats"

thepubliceye — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 16:08:47 -0800

Happy Holidays, Keene Bureaucrats!

by Derrick J. Horton [a/k/a "Derrick J. Freeman"]

As originally posted on: Free Keene
December 23, 2011

The Freeman Family sends its warmest wishes to the Keene Bureaucrats this year. Maybe they will grant my Christmas wish and stop arresting peaceful people. Until then, I will record!

Development & Peace: Fundamentally UnCatholic

pacheco — Tue, 27 Dec 2011 20:10:43 -0800

Unthinkable revelation about contraception and abortion

pacheco — Tue, 27 Dec 2011 04:11:47 -0800

Free the Children, the OCSB and contraception

pacheco — Sun, 25 Dec 2011 10:10:56 -0800

Homeopathy a scam of the devil

pacheco — Sun, 25 Dec 2011 00:07:44 -0800

Skank Culture Has Forsaken Women’s Dignity

pacheco — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 10:05:24 -0800