Man, oh man, John Edwards admits he did have an affair ... but denies the baby is his since he broke off the affair before it must have been conceived. Guess he can kiss a convention slot, and a cabinet post under Obama, good bye.
Why is that the guys who have the best platforms, end up being the same ones who stab their wives in the back? Sheez.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Friday, August 8, 2008
Arnold Murray: Wolf in disguise?
While at the Southern Poverty Law Centre's website last night, I noticed a new article about Pastor Arnold Murray of the Shepherd's Chapel in Gravette, Arkansas.
You may know this guy for his "chapter by chapter, verse by verse" approach to studying the Bible; and the fact he is a "newspaper" evangelist, tying nearly every major news event to Scripture. Or maybe you may know him for an incident in 1998 when during a live taping of the "wild feed" to stations for syndication a critic in his audience called him a "blasphemer." Murray pulled out his briefcase, and the shot of his desk cut to the logo of his church, but the audio showed him saying, "Here, take this 9 mm to that boy!" When it was later shown on John Stewart's The Daily Show, it became a sensation. Or the "angel footprint" fossil. Or the time he predicted that the 1980 explosion of Mount St. Helens presaged the coming of the anti-Christ the following year (which, of course, didn't happen).
What you may not know about Murray, what the Exempt Media has ignored or chosen to ignore but what has been well known in more informed circles, is that Murray is considered a hero by many in the White Identity movement; the concept that God made whites superior to all the other races on the planet. While Murray himself specifically denounces racism, it is a fact that he was ordained fifty years ago by members of what can be politely called the "White Identity" movement. He also is very critical of a group called the "Kenites."
For most Christians, the Kenites are analagous to the Midianites, the tribe into which Moses married. Murray's followers, however, believe that the Kenites are a demon tribe created when Eve had sex with Satan and it was this marriage that produced Cain. I think you know where this is going by now.
From this, Murray implies it was the Kenites that were responsible for the death of Christ, that the Kenites won the 6-Day War in 1967, and so forth. He states point of fact that the Kenites infiltrated the Jewish community and then claimed themselves to be Jewish. He also calls the Talmud "the filthiest piece of literature ever wriiten."
The "Serpent Seed" heresy has been an unfortunate part of Christianity for centuries; indeed it was acceptable (in the eyes of Christians) until the Holocaust to use the Bible as justification to persecute the Jews. And, as the SPLC points out -- as have others for years -- websites are dedicated to the identity of who the Kenites are. In the minds of the vast majority of Murray's followers, there is no question: It is Judaism. The whole of Judaism.
It's hard to believe that there is an audience for this, but Murray's program is shown on Sundays in 225 cities in the United States, basically every media market except New York City; and in one to four hour blocks. He's one of the few televagelists who doesn't ask for money, but his followers make sure his message stays on the air and that he's well cared for.
Several of his former students have been disillusioned enough to call him out, saying he's just playing a game of semanitcs; that Murray really is preaching anti-Semitism in disguise.
What to make of this guy? Well, someone who would pull a 9mm on a critic of his, on live television; someone who calls his legitimate critics "numbskulls, Bible-thumpers and yo-yos" and refuses to give interviews -- including to the SPLC -- should be approached with extreme caution. Not to mention he uses his own calendar -- not the Jewish one -- to set his own dates for religious holidays, such as this year when he celebrated Passover on April 5 when it actually began on April 19.
Jesus said that we as Christians should preach to and baptize all nations. He didn't say only the Jewish people, or to ignore the Jewish people all together. Murray's followers may indeed include people from multiple races and ethnicities but amongst the flock are those who believe their enemies should be excluded from the promise of salvation.
The scary thing is people actually believe the stuff Murray preaches. I guess as long as he pays his television bills he'll manage stay on the air. But station managers ought to take a very close look at this man. In the age of the Internet, it is possible to reach out to people circumventing traditional media. But the "medium is the message" as Marshall McLuhan said, and if you pull the plug the Exempt Media will send the message that it will not be a tool to any kind of racism -- actual or implied. If I was running a station, I would politely tell Pastor Murray, not on my station.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
You may know this guy for his "chapter by chapter, verse by verse" approach to studying the Bible; and the fact he is a "newspaper" evangelist, tying nearly every major news event to Scripture. Or maybe you may know him for an incident in 1998 when during a live taping of the "wild feed" to stations for syndication a critic in his audience called him a "blasphemer." Murray pulled out his briefcase, and the shot of his desk cut to the logo of his church, but the audio showed him saying, "Here, take this 9 mm to that boy!" When it was later shown on John Stewart's The Daily Show, it became a sensation. Or the "angel footprint" fossil. Or the time he predicted that the 1980 explosion of Mount St. Helens presaged the coming of the anti-Christ the following year (which, of course, didn't happen).
What you may not know about Murray, what the Exempt Media has ignored or chosen to ignore but what has been well known in more informed circles, is that Murray is considered a hero by many in the White Identity movement; the concept that God made whites superior to all the other races on the planet. While Murray himself specifically denounces racism, it is a fact that he was ordained fifty years ago by members of what can be politely called the "White Identity" movement. He also is very critical of a group called the "Kenites."
For most Christians, the Kenites are analagous to the Midianites, the tribe into which Moses married. Murray's followers, however, believe that the Kenites are a demon tribe created when Eve had sex with Satan and it was this marriage that produced Cain. I think you know where this is going by now.
From this, Murray implies it was the Kenites that were responsible for the death of Christ, that the Kenites won the 6-Day War in 1967, and so forth. He states point of fact that the Kenites infiltrated the Jewish community and then claimed themselves to be Jewish. He also calls the Talmud "the filthiest piece of literature ever wriiten."
The "Serpent Seed" heresy has been an unfortunate part of Christianity for centuries; indeed it was acceptable (in the eyes of Christians) until the Holocaust to use the Bible as justification to persecute the Jews. And, as the SPLC points out -- as have others for years -- websites are dedicated to the identity of who the Kenites are. In the minds of the vast majority of Murray's followers, there is no question: It is Judaism. The whole of Judaism.
It's hard to believe that there is an audience for this, but Murray's program is shown on Sundays in 225 cities in the United States, basically every media market except New York City; and in one to four hour blocks. He's one of the few televagelists who doesn't ask for money, but his followers make sure his message stays on the air and that he's well cared for.
Several of his former students have been disillusioned enough to call him out, saying he's just playing a game of semanitcs; that Murray really is preaching anti-Semitism in disguise.
What to make of this guy? Well, someone who would pull a 9mm on a critic of his, on live television; someone who calls his legitimate critics "numbskulls, Bible-thumpers and yo-yos" and refuses to give interviews -- including to the SPLC -- should be approached with extreme caution. Not to mention he uses his own calendar -- not the Jewish one -- to set his own dates for religious holidays, such as this year when he celebrated Passover on April 5 when it actually began on April 19.
Jesus said that we as Christians should preach to and baptize all nations. He didn't say only the Jewish people, or to ignore the Jewish people all together. Murray's followers may indeed include people from multiple races and ethnicities but amongst the flock are those who believe their enemies should be excluded from the promise of salvation.
The scary thing is people actually believe the stuff Murray preaches. I guess as long as he pays his television bills he'll manage stay on the air. But station managers ought to take a very close look at this man. In the age of the Internet, it is possible to reach out to people circumventing traditional media. But the "medium is the message" as Marshall McLuhan said, and if you pull the plug the Exempt Media will send the message that it will not be a tool to any kind of racism -- actual or implied. If I was running a station, I would politely tell Pastor Murray, not on my station.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Phelps to protest McLean's funeral
Just when you thought Fred Phelps couldn't sink any lower. And the state of Kansas still gives this guy a minister's license so he can marry people? (Even if it is only straight, gay-hating opposite sex couples, mostly his own family members marrying other gay-haters).
What does the murder of an ordinary passenger on a bus travelling the milk run from Edmonton to Winnipeg possibly have to do with the issue of gay rights? Do we even know if Tim McLean was gay? And if he was, so what? No one deserves to be hacked to death like that. The notion he would have been "protected by God" if he was straight is just ... well, it's not even worth dignifying.
If anyone has any doubts about what the Westboro "Baptist" Church stands for and their precept of "Christian love," the Southern Poverty Law Centre -- a small but very influential anti-hate think tank -- has no fewer than 22 articles on their website about them. I guess this will make it number 23.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
What does the murder of an ordinary passenger on a bus travelling the milk run from Edmonton to Winnipeg possibly have to do with the issue of gay rights? Do we even know if Tim McLean was gay? And if he was, so what? No one deserves to be hacked to death like that. The notion he would have been "protected by God" if he was straight is just ... well, it's not even worth dignifying.
If anyone has any doubts about what the Westboro "Baptist" Church stands for and their precept of "Christian love," the Southern Poverty Law Centre -- a small but very influential anti-hate think tank -- has no fewer than 22 articles on their website about them. I guess this will make it number 23.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Mounties spied on -- Rita MacNeil
The story is a couple of days old, but it still shocks me as a man that people had this kind of mindset in 1972 ... that feminist groups were considered anarchists and subversives by the Mounties in the 1970s and were illegally spied on endlessly. Or, to be more accurate, that women leading the groups were trying to affect positive change, but that they might have been infiltrated by undesirable elements trying to take them over.
One of the targets of suspicion was no less than the singer and songwriter Rita MacNeil (best known for such songs as "Flying On Your Own" and "Working Man"), going back to 1972. Fortunately, the former Security Service which performed such insipid investigations was eventually disbanded and its work transferred to CSIS. (Or perhaps not fortunately, given the reputation CSIS has made for itself the last twenty-four years.)
When she was finally contacted about it the other day, MacNeil said if she had known the RCMP had named her as a person of interest, she would have invited them over to her tea house in Big Pond, Nova Scotia to talk things over -- over a cup of tea, of course.
Now, that's the kind of woman I'd like to meet and marry. A feminist with a positive attitude and a fighting spirit. Just, um, about thirty years younger or so. Somewhere close to my age.
One other note: The Mounties didn't hire its first female Member until 1974, two years after they spied on MacNeil. Anyone wonder what would have happened if women had been part of the Force much earlier? I doubt they would have been so stupid as to spy on women who wanted nothing more than peace, equal pay for equal value work, and respect.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
One of the targets of suspicion was no less than the singer and songwriter Rita MacNeil (best known for such songs as "Flying On Your Own" and "Working Man"), going back to 1972. Fortunately, the former Security Service which performed such insipid investigations was eventually disbanded and its work transferred to CSIS. (Or perhaps not fortunately, given the reputation CSIS has made for itself the last twenty-four years.)
When she was finally contacted about it the other day, MacNeil said if she had known the RCMP had named her as a person of interest, she would have invited them over to her tea house in Big Pond, Nova Scotia to talk things over -- over a cup of tea, of course.
Now, that's the kind of woman I'd like to meet and marry. A feminist with a positive attitude and a fighting spirit. Just, um, about thirty years younger or so. Somewhere close to my age.
One other note: The Mounties didn't hire its first female Member until 1974, two years after they spied on MacNeil. Anyone wonder what would have happened if women had been part of the Force much earlier? I doubt they would have been so stupid as to spy on women who wanted nothing more than peace, equal pay for equal value work, and respect.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Help Attawapiskat
HT to Cameron Holmstrom: Add my name to those bloggers who insist that the Cree children of Attawapiskat need a new and proper school, now. To support the campaign, follow this link:
What? Let the babies go hungry?
Imagine the shock of a woman in Vancouver the other day when her husband was trying on clothes at an H&M ™ (Hennes & Mauritz AB) store and their baby needed to be fed. The mother did what comes naturally. She breast-fed the two month old daughter. The next thing, the employees' walkie-talkies were whipped out like she was some kind of common criminal about to shoplift. She was whisked into a diaper change stand and told "store policy" dictated she had to feed her child there and nowhere else in the store.
Two problems. One, it's the law in British Columbia: Women have the right to breast feed their children, anytime, anywhere -- no exceptions. It's not at all obscene, and for what it's worth Health Canada recommends exclusively breastfeeding children for the first six months of their lives even though most mothers stop sooner than that.
Two, turns out it's not store policy after all. A spokesperson at the Canadian headquarters of H&M -- a Swedish based chain -- said nursing mothers are welcome into the stores anytime they want.
That hasn't stopped some protesters from saying they'll have a nurse-in on Thursday at the disputed location. Or the parents from filing an official protest with the BC Human Rights Tribunal. The woman's offence appears to be solely she did what was right. What was in fact right.
Look, guys and ladies -- and I do direct this to both groups as a still very single guy with no kids: I accept there is some merit that there are some men out there who go around malls for the sole purpose of gawking at breastfeeding mothers hoping to catch the sight of some nipple. I think the term some use is "free-showing," like a peep show without having to pay. But there are only some men who do that and they are a very small minority. Most of us guys have lightened up on this and understand breastfeeding is a normal biological function; and I hope would readily stand up to such perverts.
Isn't it just so ridiculous, though, that because there are such stalkers still out there all women have to be punished or treated like criminals? If men fed their babies on the bottle, they wouldn't be called out on it. So what gives? Men's breasts and women's breasts are biologically identical. It's the fact that a quirk of nature makes women's breasts able to produce milk, that has somehow made society (or the Victorian prudes within them) treat them like sexual objects and that's just plain nutty.
As for the argument the woman should have asked if the store had a breast feeding or diaper change stand -- sorry, babies don't work on that kind of schedule. When they need to be fed, they need to be fed. It's kind of like Polly wants a cracker, NOW!
Americans have the right to bear arms. Canadians have the right to bear breasts. So ladies, if you have children you have to nurse, whip them out wherever and whenever your baby needs to be fed no matter what the prudes think. Don't worry, I'm not going to gawk; but rather quietly celebrate what comes naturally and what every woman should be able to do without fear of harrassment.
With regard to the employees who mistreated this woman in violation of the law, the law should throw the book at them. A stern lecture is not enough, nor is ignorance of the law an excuse.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Two problems. One, it's the law in British Columbia: Women have the right to breast feed their children, anytime, anywhere -- no exceptions. It's not at all obscene, and for what it's worth Health Canada recommends exclusively breastfeeding children for the first six months of their lives even though most mothers stop sooner than that.
Two, turns out it's not store policy after all. A spokesperson at the Canadian headquarters of H&M -- a Swedish based chain -- said nursing mothers are welcome into the stores anytime they want.
That hasn't stopped some protesters from saying they'll have a nurse-in on Thursday at the disputed location. Or the parents from filing an official protest with the BC Human Rights Tribunal. The woman's offence appears to be solely she did what was right. What was in fact right.
Look, guys and ladies -- and I do direct this to both groups as a still very single guy with no kids: I accept there is some merit that there are some men out there who go around malls for the sole purpose of gawking at breastfeeding mothers hoping to catch the sight of some nipple. I think the term some use is "free-showing," like a peep show without having to pay. But there are only some men who do that and they are a very small minority. Most of us guys have lightened up on this and understand breastfeeding is a normal biological function; and I hope would readily stand up to such perverts.
Isn't it just so ridiculous, though, that because there are such stalkers still out there all women have to be punished or treated like criminals? If men fed their babies on the bottle, they wouldn't be called out on it. So what gives? Men's breasts and women's breasts are biologically identical. It's the fact that a quirk of nature makes women's breasts able to produce milk, that has somehow made society (or the Victorian prudes within them) treat them like sexual objects and that's just plain nutty.
As for the argument the woman should have asked if the store had a breast feeding or diaper change stand -- sorry, babies don't work on that kind of schedule. When they need to be fed, they need to be fed. It's kind of like Polly wants a cracker, NOW!
Americans have the right to bear arms. Canadians have the right to bear breasts. So ladies, if you have children you have to nurse, whip them out wherever and whenever your baby needs to be fed no matter what the prudes think. Don't worry, I'm not going to gawk; but rather quietly celebrate what comes naturally and what every woman should be able to do without fear of harrassment.
With regard to the employees who mistreated this woman in violation of the law, the law should throw the book at them. A stern lecture is not enough, nor is ignorance of the law an excuse.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
$79 billion surplus ...
... in Iraq. That's the windfall the puppet regime in Baghdad can expect this year thanks to very high oil prices. But where is the money going? Not to rebuild the country's tattered infrastructure including roads, sewers and schools. These costs are being borne by the United States and crooked contractors who are raking it in while the people of Iraq continue to suffer. Not to mention that the Iraqi armed forces continues to be a total joke, proving completely disbanding Saddam Hussein's machine rather than trying to rebuild it was a big mistake.
How much has the US spend on critical improvements in Iraq over the last year? About $22 billion. How much have the Iraqis spent from their own money? About $3 billion. According to a declassified Senate report, about $10 billion of the windfall is at a bank in Manhattan rather than being spent to benefit the Iraqi people. Does anyone see the disconnect here?
It's important to have some cash reserves to prepare for the inevitable rainy day. But not at the expense of people continuing to suffer, allowing the anger against both the Americans and the current government in Iraq to continue to over boil -- and in consequence, giving terrorists a chance to gain new recruits. It may be true casualties for American troops are way down; but I doubt it's because of the so-called "surge." Extremist groups are just taking a breather waiting for the next round of insurgency; and news like this will only give them new fuel.
The Iraqi government complains that about $22 billion is tied up due to a dispute with the provinces about how to distribute the money. Here's a suggestion from your typical cynical Canadian: Equalization. (Just kidding.)
Is that what American service personnel are fighting for? Fighting as the third branch of a civil war where the US outspends Iraq 8:1 on rebuilding the country and an even higher ratio on military spending? Or is it to continue to perpetuate the myth that "we must fight them over there, so we don't have to fight them here?"
Needless I have to say this, but it's worth remembering that anyone can still go to a Home Depot, Lowe's, True Value or TSC and purchase a tonne or more of fertilizer with few or no questions asked and along with it some blasting caps; and have the materials delivered to any legal fixed address in North America where someone is there to sign the paperwork. Then just rent out a cube van, load in the crap and the caps, drive it to the location of your choice -- and light the fuse.
Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols were Caucasians, not Arabs; Christians, not Muslims. And terrorist cells, created by and for Americans, exist in the United States. I don't see a concerted effort to find and shut them down before they next explode. Nor do I see any vision to demand the Iraqis stand on their feet, now, and stop relying on the US for handouts while American infrastructure is crumbling due to neglect. The current situation is untenable; and it's worth noting that were it not for the war America's deficit would only be a quarter of what it is right now and the accumulated debt closer to $5.5 billion instead of the $9.5 billion and rising it is now.
Can you imagine the scowls that would come on the faces of people in Washington if America ran a surplus? Not that they could touch it. They'd frown and moan because they'd have to use it to pay back some of the money they owed. Well, actually, that's the idea. If Iraq can run a huge surplus by slacking, why can't America?
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
How much has the US spend on critical improvements in Iraq over the last year? About $22 billion. How much have the Iraqis spent from their own money? About $3 billion. According to a declassified Senate report, about $10 billion of the windfall is at a bank in Manhattan rather than being spent to benefit the Iraqi people. Does anyone see the disconnect here?
It's important to have some cash reserves to prepare for the inevitable rainy day. But not at the expense of people continuing to suffer, allowing the anger against both the Americans and the current government in Iraq to continue to over boil -- and in consequence, giving terrorists a chance to gain new recruits. It may be true casualties for American troops are way down; but I doubt it's because of the so-called "surge." Extremist groups are just taking a breather waiting for the next round of insurgency; and news like this will only give them new fuel.
The Iraqi government complains that about $22 billion is tied up due to a dispute with the provinces about how to distribute the money. Here's a suggestion from your typical cynical Canadian: Equalization. (Just kidding.)
Is that what American service personnel are fighting for? Fighting as the third branch of a civil war where the US outspends Iraq 8:1 on rebuilding the country and an even higher ratio on military spending? Or is it to continue to perpetuate the myth that "we must fight them over there, so we don't have to fight them here?"
Needless I have to say this, but it's worth remembering that anyone can still go to a Home Depot, Lowe's, True Value or TSC and purchase a tonne or more of fertilizer with few or no questions asked and along with it some blasting caps; and have the materials delivered to any legal fixed address in North America where someone is there to sign the paperwork. Then just rent out a cube van, load in the crap and the caps, drive it to the location of your choice -- and light the fuse.
Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols were Caucasians, not Arabs; Christians, not Muslims. And terrorist cells, created by and for Americans, exist in the United States. I don't see a concerted effort to find and shut them down before they next explode. Nor do I see any vision to demand the Iraqis stand on their feet, now, and stop relying on the US for handouts while American infrastructure is crumbling due to neglect. The current situation is untenable; and it's worth noting that were it not for the war America's deficit would only be a quarter of what it is right now and the accumulated debt closer to $5.5 billion instead of the $9.5 billion and rising it is now.
Can you imagine the scowls that would come on the faces of people in Washington if America ran a surplus? Not that they could touch it. They'd frown and moan because they'd have to use it to pay back some of the money they owed. Well, actually, that's the idea. If Iraq can run a huge surplus by slacking, why can't America?
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Another double whammy?
A couple of possible trouble signs for PMS and Slim Jim ™ Flaherty in their hopes to have a balanced budget this year. It was relying entirely on one thing -- oil staying above $130 for the duration. This morning, on the news that Hurricand Edouard just skirted by the oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico with little to no damage at all, the price of oil dropped below $118 for the first time in three months and a similar drop in natural gas prices. With decreased driving patterns for the foreseeable future, which is at least until oil drops back below $100, the revenue grab may not be as much as planned.
Since both oil refined products and natural gas are charged the GST in Canada, and both are set up so as the tax is charged ad valorem, this means less revenue for the government which is already pinched -- has in fact backed itself into a corner because of not one but two GST cuts. This may have been popular with a large number of people but it is not the way to govern a country. One doesn't govern by polls, one governs by what's right for the people. Clearly, keeping the tax at 7% instead of dropping it to 5% means less policy options. Screwing future governments may also be popular but it's just not smart and it will mean more divisive politicking in Parliament rather than the consensus kind of governing that existed until the Reform Party started winning more than one seat.
The other note is that in the last hour as I write these words, the US Federal Reserve Board has decided to hold the line on interest rates. The rate banks charge each other in the States will stay at 2%. With the drop in energy prices, about 20% in the last couple of weeks, that has resulted in our stock markets getting hammered and the Canadian dollar dropping to about 96 cents.
If people have the feeling things are going to get worse, they are less likely to spend money; and that'll mean even less GST revenue -- the exact opposite of what the Terrible Two believe should happen with a sales tax cut. The lack of spending is what's driving the US into recession and threatening state budgets. Just the other day, Ahnold had to lay off 22,000 state employees in California because revenues from the sales tax and the land transfer tax have tanked with collapsing housing prices.
We are still doing relatively well in Canada, for now, but we are still overreliant on natural resources and their first generation products for the bulk of the economy. High tech may be keeping us from falling over all together, but we can't have Silicon Tundra without the industries that use computers and computer components for at least part of the business: Forestry, steel, auto manufacturing, fishing, agriculture. On none of these have we seen a real strategy for success from the Harperites. It's just let the free market decide, dismantle any remaining co-ops, pump the odd billion or two there into roads, etc. We do need better road infrastructure, particularly in Northern Ontario where most major roads north of 45 are still two lanes -- not expressways. But if there are no jobs at the end of the road to carry goods back, then what's the point?
The odd thing is, there is a point where taxes can be too low and spending then becomes unsustainable. We may have reached that point and may end our eleven year streak of surpluses. What will happen to our dollar then? The Eurozone may be reaching critical mass, too (since a very few countries in Europe run surpluses on a regular basis) but the only reason why they haven't fallen over yet is they're more responsible in their spending than the Americans are, while still maintaining social programs; resulting in a huge appreciation of their common currency against the greenback.
Hmm ... wonder if there's a lesson to be had there.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: It would have been better to give income tax relief to the lower and middle brackets who could use it -- not a huge GST cut to everyone including those who didn't need it.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Since both oil refined products and natural gas are charged the GST in Canada, and both are set up so as the tax is charged ad valorem, this means less revenue for the government which is already pinched -- has in fact backed itself into a corner because of not one but two GST cuts. This may have been popular with a large number of people but it is not the way to govern a country. One doesn't govern by polls, one governs by what's right for the people. Clearly, keeping the tax at 7% instead of dropping it to 5% means less policy options. Screwing future governments may also be popular but it's just not smart and it will mean more divisive politicking in Parliament rather than the consensus kind of governing that existed until the Reform Party started winning more than one seat.
The other note is that in the last hour as I write these words, the US Federal Reserve Board has decided to hold the line on interest rates. The rate banks charge each other in the States will stay at 2%. With the drop in energy prices, about 20% in the last couple of weeks, that has resulted in our stock markets getting hammered and the Canadian dollar dropping to about 96 cents.
If people have the feeling things are going to get worse, they are less likely to spend money; and that'll mean even less GST revenue -- the exact opposite of what the Terrible Two believe should happen with a sales tax cut. The lack of spending is what's driving the US into recession and threatening state budgets. Just the other day, Ahnold had to lay off 22,000 state employees in California because revenues from the sales tax and the land transfer tax have tanked with collapsing housing prices.
We are still doing relatively well in Canada, for now, but we are still overreliant on natural resources and their first generation products for the bulk of the economy. High tech may be keeping us from falling over all together, but we can't have Silicon Tundra without the industries that use computers and computer components for at least part of the business: Forestry, steel, auto manufacturing, fishing, agriculture. On none of these have we seen a real strategy for success from the Harperites. It's just let the free market decide, dismantle any remaining co-ops, pump the odd billion or two there into roads, etc. We do need better road infrastructure, particularly in Northern Ontario where most major roads north of 45 are still two lanes -- not expressways. But if there are no jobs at the end of the road to carry goods back, then what's the point?
The odd thing is, there is a point where taxes can be too low and spending then becomes unsustainable. We may have reached that point and may end our eleven year streak of surpluses. What will happen to our dollar then? The Eurozone may be reaching critical mass, too (since a very few countries in Europe run surpluses on a regular basis) but the only reason why they haven't fallen over yet is they're more responsible in their spending than the Americans are, while still maintaining social programs; resulting in a huge appreciation of their common currency against the greenback.
Hmm ... wonder if there's a lesson to be had there.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: It would have been better to give income tax relief to the lower and middle brackets who could use it -- not a huge GST cut to everyone including those who didn't need it.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Monday, August 4, 2008
Not when sorry is enough but where
Stephen Harper attempted yesterday to make up for one of the most most infamous incidents in Canada's history -- when in 1914 the passengers aboard the Komagata Maru were turned away because they were East Indian or Sikh. However, in offering an apology, an he made one crucial error: He did not do so in Parliament, but in front of a crowd of 8000 in the Vancouver suburb of Surrey which has a large Sikh community. No sooner than he left the stage that he was jeered -- and the crowd voted by a show of hands to unaccept the apology. Nor was there any indication that there would be compensation for the descendants of this injustice.
This was totally opposite to when Harper offered an official Parliamentary apology for the Chinese head tax in 2006 or in June of this year to Canada's Aboriginals for the abuse they suffered in the residential school system.
This was not like what the BC Liberals (read small-c conservatives) did in regards to the Komagata Maru incident. They offered an apology on behalf of the people of British Columbia in the place where the apology belonged: In the BC legislature, which was done in May of this year.
Jason Kenney, the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and Canadian Identity (gotta love the double speak in that one) says the matter is closed. But the Sikh community is a major voting bloc in the Lower Mainland, indeed across Canada, and I believe they will see this for what it is -- an insult. The matter is not closed, not by any means. It will not be in my mind until Harper repeats the apology on the floor of the House of Commons.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
This was totally opposite to when Harper offered an official Parliamentary apology for the Chinese head tax in 2006 or in June of this year to Canada's Aboriginals for the abuse they suffered in the residential school system.
This was not like what the BC Liberals (read small-c conservatives) did in regards to the Komagata Maru incident. They offered an apology on behalf of the people of British Columbia in the place where the apology belonged: In the BC legislature, which was done in May of this year.
Jason Kenney, the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and Canadian Identity (gotta love the double speak in that one) says the matter is closed. But the Sikh community is a major voting bloc in the Lower Mainland, indeed across Canada, and I believe they will see this for what it is -- an insult. The matter is not closed, not by any means. It will not be in my mind until Harper repeats the apology on the floor of the House of Commons.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Sunday, August 3, 2008
In memoriam: Aleksandr Solzhenistyn
If you've read One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich or The Gulag Archipelago, then you know who Aleksandr Solzhenistyn was. Along with the late Andrei Sakharov, he spoke out defiantly about the Soviet Union's system of dealing with dissidents. For a time, Solzhenistyn was stripped of his Soviet citizenship for his beliefs and he lived in exile in the States; it was only in 1990 that he was "rehabilitated" under Gorbachev's glasnost policies and permitted to return to his homeland, which he did in 1994. At home, he was one of the few allowed to open criticize what Russian "democracy" had evolved into, which is really the rule of the oligarchs.
To be fair, he was also rather a superpatriot, defending the Russian Orthodox Church's ability to stop evangelicals from entering the country and could also be accused of a certain amount of anti-Semitism. However, he was also absolutely right to condemn the West for its complacency in a changing world; that its demise could very well come through its arrogance and not because of a rise in Communism or terrorism.
Mr. Solzhenistyn died today outside of Moscow at the age of 89. He was the oldest Nobel laureate in the Literature category. The world of the printed word is quite empty without him.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
To be fair, he was also rather a superpatriot, defending the Russian Orthodox Church's ability to stop evangelicals from entering the country and could also be accused of a certain amount of anti-Semitism. However, he was also absolutely right to condemn the West for its complacency in a changing world; that its demise could very well come through its arrogance and not because of a rise in Communism or terrorism.
Mr. Solzhenistyn died today outside of Moscow at the age of 89. He was the oldest Nobel laureate in the Literature category. The world of the printed word is quite empty without him.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Most ridiculous item of the week (2008-08-03)
Over the last twenty years, most of Europe has gone back to the future with open borders; with most of the former Eastern Bloc joining up last year. I think that's a good thing and could eventually -- with some adjustments -- serve as a model for Canada and the United States.
But open borders can also have unintended consequences. For example, if the sales and excise taxes are not more or less even across the trade zone, people will run for the border, buy hard and soft goods and go back home without tax consequences. (For example, cigarettes and alcohol have long been less expensive in Eastern Europe than in the West. Guess where people along the border get their stuff? Exactly.)
And then there's the inevitable cultural clashes that occur with open borders.
Last week, Germany and Poland got into a bit of a row over a beach on the Baltic Sea. Yes, a beach. Here's the story: On Usedom Island, the border that cuts through it and on the sea side there is a beach. The German side is clothing optional. The Polish side is not.
Until last December, a fence separated the German and Polish sides; but with the implementation of Schengen in Eastern Europe the fence went away with only the odd coloured post indicating which side is which and a no man's land of about a metre between them. Some Poles are complaining about the "sinful" Germans frolicking on the beach where the border is not defined anymore, not even with a sign saying which side is clothing optional and which isn't. The Germans, however, are complaining some Poles are going to the beach simply to "gawk" at the Germans.
Oh please. Poland has clothing optional beaches too. So do the vast majority of European states. How come no one complained until now?
Authorities think a sign will solve the issue. Maybe. But these people have got to lighten up ... or down, depending on how you view it. We've heard of soccer wars. Do we really need a beach war?
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
But open borders can also have unintended consequences. For example, if the sales and excise taxes are not more or less even across the trade zone, people will run for the border, buy hard and soft goods and go back home without tax consequences. (For example, cigarettes and alcohol have long been less expensive in Eastern Europe than in the West. Guess where people along the border get their stuff? Exactly.)
And then there's the inevitable cultural clashes that occur with open borders.
Last week, Germany and Poland got into a bit of a row over a beach on the Baltic Sea. Yes, a beach. Here's the story: On Usedom Island, the border that cuts through it and on the sea side there is a beach. The German side is clothing optional. The Polish side is not.
Until last December, a fence separated the German and Polish sides; but with the implementation of Schengen in Eastern Europe the fence went away with only the odd coloured post indicating which side is which and a no man's land of about a metre between them. Some Poles are complaining about the "sinful" Germans frolicking on the beach where the border is not defined anymore, not even with a sign saying which side is clothing optional and which isn't. The Germans, however, are complaining some Poles are going to the beach simply to "gawk" at the Germans.
Oh please. Poland has clothing optional beaches too. So do the vast majority of European states. How come no one complained until now?
Authorities think a sign will solve the issue. Maybe. But these people have got to lighten up ... or down, depending on how you view it. We've heard of soccer wars. Do we really need a beach war?
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Saturday, August 2, 2008
"Attention Wal-Mart employees: Don't vote Obama or else!"
Wal-Mart has never been a union friendly company. Whenever a union has been successful in organizing a local at a store or group of stores the inevitable result is that the store is closed. There is a reason for this: Its 2.1 million employees are a powerful potential voting bloc, so it is most appropriate for the management in Bentonville, Arkansas to keep its army in line.
It's also no surprise that the vast majority of its corporate contributions go to the GOP, as well as to Democrats who support so called "right to work" laws that allow employees not to pay union dues in case a union is certified. (This is the exact opposite of the "Rand Formula" in Canada, where employees are required by law to pay the dues to ensure equal treatment by employers, although dissenters have the right to direct their dues to a charity. The term "agency shop" would describe a similar setup in the States.)
According to the Wall Street Journal (surprise!), top management at the company is telling its store managers and department supervisors that if the Democrats win in November there will be a big push to reform labour laws to make it easier for unions to sign up new members. At mandatory meetings, the WSJ states, those managers have been told that employees risk not getting paid at all during a strike (a lie, strike funds and unemployment insurance covers much of the gap); or that fewer jobs will be created as labour costs rise (also a lie, unions create employment); or that employees will be forced to pay huge dues for nothing in return (false again, unions always mean better benefits which on a cost basis are worth far more than the dues since those benefits are bought in group plans rather than individual ones).
The Associated Press later reported that Wal-Mart said it never told its managers how to vote, but that the legislation in question -- the Employee Free Choice Act -- is bad law because it would allow certification without a secret ballot vote. The legislation is co-sponsored by Barack Obama and opposed by John McCain. The company also insists that it donates to PACs that endorse candidates from both parties. Again, the question is to which kind of Republican, which kind of Democrat?
Now, personally, I do support the principle of a secret ballot for certification as well as for contract ratification and this is something that ought to be addressed. However, the current situation is even more untenable because it creates a climate of fear, fear of speaking out, fear of not wanting to seek something better. It's almost impossible right now to begin the process of certifying a union in many states, let alone get to the point where a certification vote can be held. And that is wrong. By fighting against a bill that would support union certification, no matter how it's constituted, the company makes the very point in favour of the law that it opposes.
Any way one cuts it, this is a public relations disaster for a company that has only recently tried to spruce up its public image on TV and radio (starting with those insidious "you won't have a better friend" ads on Paul Harvey News), including a new logo (uh, yeah) and improving working conditions such as with medical benefits (that are, to be fair, still rather sparse compared with what can be expected at a company with full benefits.) It's one thing to provide employees with information about how the status quo affects business, or how potential legislation could affect the same business. It's quite another to say how things will be if a party antithetical to a company's interests comes into power -- you may as well be campaigning for them and if that's the case, then the costs of suck picketing should count as a campaign expense against the party they actually do support.
If the company was hoping that its army would support McCain en masse, the opposite may very well happen. They may have ticked off enough employees to vote for Obama; especially in the South which has been a firewall for the Democrats since 1968.
(Walmart Watch continues to monitor this and other quirks about the world's biggest retailer and it is a site I highly recommend. They have a sample of what other bloggers are saying about this attempted vote suppression or rigging, depending on how you want to look at it.)
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
It's also no surprise that the vast majority of its corporate contributions go to the GOP, as well as to Democrats who support so called "right to work" laws that allow employees not to pay union dues in case a union is certified. (This is the exact opposite of the "Rand Formula" in Canada, where employees are required by law to pay the dues to ensure equal treatment by employers, although dissenters have the right to direct their dues to a charity. The term "agency shop" would describe a similar setup in the States.)
According to the Wall Street Journal (surprise!), top management at the company is telling its store managers and department supervisors that if the Democrats win in November there will be a big push to reform labour laws to make it easier for unions to sign up new members. At mandatory meetings, the WSJ states, those managers have been told that employees risk not getting paid at all during a strike (a lie, strike funds and unemployment insurance covers much of the gap); or that fewer jobs will be created as labour costs rise (also a lie, unions create employment); or that employees will be forced to pay huge dues for nothing in return (false again, unions always mean better benefits which on a cost basis are worth far more than the dues since those benefits are bought in group plans rather than individual ones).
The Associated Press later reported that Wal-Mart said it never told its managers how to vote, but that the legislation in question -- the Employee Free Choice Act -- is bad law because it would allow certification without a secret ballot vote. The legislation is co-sponsored by Barack Obama and opposed by John McCain. The company also insists that it donates to PACs that endorse candidates from both parties. Again, the question is to which kind of Republican, which kind of Democrat?
Now, personally, I do support the principle of a secret ballot for certification as well as for contract ratification and this is something that ought to be addressed. However, the current situation is even more untenable because it creates a climate of fear, fear of speaking out, fear of not wanting to seek something better. It's almost impossible right now to begin the process of certifying a union in many states, let alone get to the point where a certification vote can be held. And that is wrong. By fighting against a bill that would support union certification, no matter how it's constituted, the company makes the very point in favour of the law that it opposes.
Any way one cuts it, this is a public relations disaster for a company that has only recently tried to spruce up its public image on TV and radio (starting with those insidious "you won't have a better friend" ads on Paul Harvey News), including a new logo (uh, yeah) and improving working conditions such as with medical benefits (that are, to be fair, still rather sparse compared with what can be expected at a company with full benefits.) It's one thing to provide employees with information about how the status quo affects business, or how potential legislation could affect the same business. It's quite another to say how things will be if a party antithetical to a company's interests comes into power -- you may as well be campaigning for them and if that's the case, then the costs of suck picketing should count as a campaign expense against the party they actually do support.
If the company was hoping that its army would support McCain en masse, the opposite may very well happen. They may have ticked off enough employees to vote for Obama; especially in the South which has been a firewall for the Democrats since 1968.
(Walmart Watch continues to monitor this and other quirks about the world's biggest retailer and it is a site I highly recommend. They have a sample of what other bloggers are saying about this attempted vote suppression or rigging, depending on how you want to look at it.)
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Friday, August 1, 2008
Tobacco bailout insufficient
This is not the news that tobacco farmers had been hoping for. Today, Diane Finley, the Immigration minister who also represents the district where the vast majority of Canada's tobacco is grown, as well as federal Agriculture minister Gerry Ritz, offered a buyout package of $300 million to the remaining farmers left in the business, about 1500 or so. The farmers were asking for $1 billion.
While I despise tobacco, I think the farmers had a case and the bailout should have been much closer to their demands. Here's why.
A few years back, in an attempt to cut down on house fires caused by smoking in bed (hard to believe that some are still stupid enough to do that), the farmers were forced to update their flues to cure their product in a way that reduced the risk. It had the desired effect but it happened at a time when demand for Canadian product was going down anyway and being supplanted by imported products, much of it smuggled illegally. In effect, the farmers were forced to assume all the risk with nothing to show for it.
Further, one notes that as tobacco taxes have gone back up to pre-1990s levels, smuggling has exploded. The smugglers are not in my opinion of the type of people who belong to the traditional societies that preached about sharing and sharing alike. They are, point in fact, people who have sought to create a multi-tiered society where none like it exist before. If reservations are prospering from the trade of contraband tobacco, I'd like to see the results.
Just drive down to Six Nations, a short spin from where I live. There are a few fair sized manors around the reserve. But most residents still live in depressed housing, some even in trailers. This disparity cannot be disputed. When some people are clearing as much as $100k a month or more and others barely live on the entitlements they receive from the feds there is something wrong with a situation that allows this to happen even with tax-exempt status.
There are some licensed facilities on reserves that pay the proper duties and taxes for cigarettes shipped and sold off-reserve. These taxes are supposed to fund our social programs, including the programs natives themselves use, as well as agricultural stabilization measures to help farmers during the lean times. But there are also unlicensed facilities too -- there and across the country. And guess what? We're not allowed to know facilities which are legal and which are not. IT'S A STATE SECRET, under the Excise Act!!! How are we supposed to crack down on the problem if even the police aren't allowed to know what's what?
So how does this issue affect the farmers? This: They weren't allowed to sell tobacco to their own neighbours, the people at Six Nations. Instead, via a complicated network the stuff was processed here, shipped duty free to the states and smuggled back into Canada. Imagine all the greenhouse gases wasted in that as opposed to growing and processing locally (supposedly in the name of native sovereignty)! Would it have solved all the farmers' problems? Not necessarily, but the reservation would have had a reliable purchaser of their product and the crisis would not have been nearly as huge as it has become.
And who's to blame for this SNAFU? Both the federal and provincial governments who share jurisdiction on agriculture: The feds for not acting to ensure what was legal remained legal and the province for not granting Six Nations the license they wanted to purchase the local tobacco.
In point of fact, it is a fair estimate that had all the smuggling been stopped and farmers gotten the subsidies they were entitled to, it would add up to about a billion bucks. So to be offered only $300 million is really a slap in the face, just a day after two of the largest tobacco companies in Canada paid about a billion and a half in fines for their role in the smuggling during the early 1990s and one presumes the companies' immunity from future prosecution.
Norfolk, Haldimand Counties and Oxford Counties possess immense potential for diversification both in terms of different kinds of crops as well as attracting new kinds of businesses. For the Conservatives to turn their back on the very kind of voters they claim is their base is an insult, plain and simple. It insults both non-natives and natives. The farmers have every right to demand more for the negligence caused to them in times past, no matter what they grew.
Finley may have well signed her warrant for defeat in the next election.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
While I despise tobacco, I think the farmers had a case and the bailout should have been much closer to their demands. Here's why.
A few years back, in an attempt to cut down on house fires caused by smoking in bed (hard to believe that some are still stupid enough to do that), the farmers were forced to update their flues to cure their product in a way that reduced the risk. It had the desired effect but it happened at a time when demand for Canadian product was going down anyway and being supplanted by imported products, much of it smuggled illegally. In effect, the farmers were forced to assume all the risk with nothing to show for it.
Further, one notes that as tobacco taxes have gone back up to pre-1990s levels, smuggling has exploded. The smugglers are not in my opinion of the type of people who belong to the traditional societies that preached about sharing and sharing alike. They are, point in fact, people who have sought to create a multi-tiered society where none like it exist before. If reservations are prospering from the trade of contraband tobacco, I'd like to see the results.
Just drive down to Six Nations, a short spin from where I live. There are a few fair sized manors around the reserve. But most residents still live in depressed housing, some even in trailers. This disparity cannot be disputed. When some people are clearing as much as $100k a month or more and others barely live on the entitlements they receive from the feds there is something wrong with a situation that allows this to happen even with tax-exempt status.
There are some licensed facilities on reserves that pay the proper duties and taxes for cigarettes shipped and sold off-reserve. These taxes are supposed to fund our social programs, including the programs natives themselves use, as well as agricultural stabilization measures to help farmers during the lean times. But there are also unlicensed facilities too -- there and across the country. And guess what? We're not allowed to know facilities which are legal and which are not. IT'S A STATE SECRET, under the Excise Act!!! How are we supposed to crack down on the problem if even the police aren't allowed to know what's what?
So how does this issue affect the farmers? This: They weren't allowed to sell tobacco to their own neighbours, the people at Six Nations. Instead, via a complicated network the stuff was processed here, shipped duty free to the states and smuggled back into Canada. Imagine all the greenhouse gases wasted in that as opposed to growing and processing locally (supposedly in the name of native sovereignty)! Would it have solved all the farmers' problems? Not necessarily, but the reservation would have had a reliable purchaser of their product and the crisis would not have been nearly as huge as it has become.
And who's to blame for this SNAFU? Both the federal and provincial governments who share jurisdiction on agriculture: The feds for not acting to ensure what was legal remained legal and the province for not granting Six Nations the license they wanted to purchase the local tobacco.
In point of fact, it is a fair estimate that had all the smuggling been stopped and farmers gotten the subsidies they were entitled to, it would add up to about a billion bucks. So to be offered only $300 million is really a slap in the face, just a day after two of the largest tobacco companies in Canada paid about a billion and a half in fines for their role in the smuggling during the early 1990s and one presumes the companies' immunity from future prosecution.
Norfolk, Haldimand Counties and Oxford Counties possess immense potential for diversification both in terms of different kinds of crops as well as attracting new kinds of businesses. For the Conservatives to turn their back on the very kind of voters they claim is their base is an insult, plain and simple. It insults both non-natives and natives. The farmers have every right to demand more for the negligence caused to them in times past, no matter what they grew.
Finley may have well signed her warrant for defeat in the next election.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Is this what we've come to?
All day today, I've been thinking about that bizarre story out of Western Canada about the bus from Edmonton to Winnipeg and how near Portage la Prairie, Manitoba one passenger suddenly and without warning started stabbing another passenger and then decapitated him.
It is not the gruesome nature of the crime that is shocking, although there is certainly an element of that. I don't think the "banality of evil," a term coined by Hannah Arendt, even begins to cover the concept. It is not just the nature of the crime which was committed without motive and with no reason, but also the fact the other passengers heard and saw the commotion and did not do a single thing to help the victim or to restrain the attacker.
I just don't buy the argument that the other riders were scared to do anything. There were more of them than this one guy with a knife. Of course he could have been stopped.
The "fear" expressed by the passengers on that bus was the same as the "fear" of the male students at L'École Polytechnique à l'Université de Montréal in 1989, at the time of the Montréal Massacre. 15, 20 male students or so could have stopped Marc Lépine? Maybe just one? The maniac orders them out of the room, and all of them obeyed -- every single one. Not one stood up to say no. Not one.
In the United States, in most states, the failure to act to save someone's life might -- in the appropriate circumstances -- be prosecuted as homicide by depraved indifference. Not murder one or even murder two, but a more serious charge than manslaughter. In Canada? The burden of proof is so high that it would be pleaded down to criminal negligence, if the prosecutor was lucky.
We tend to view these crimes as isolated incidents. I respectfully disagree. It's indicative of a much bigger issue ... the increasing lack of respect we have not so much for authority, but for each other. Whether we like it or not, we're becoming more and more like Americans in Canada and in ways I and many others do not like.
As I have from the age of fourteen, I continue to oppose the death penalty. But crimes like this, especially crimes of passion (or lack thereof) need special consideration by the courts. I would have no qualms about designating said suspect a dangerous offender if the evidence as we've heard so far is proven true in court.
One last thing: The bus company, Greyhound, notes that it would be almost impossible to implement airport style security along its bus network, especially when many of its stops are in isolated areas and are little more than shelters with automated ticket kiosks. That may be true, but it wouldn't hurt to have the occasional random spot check both at pickup points but also along the way. It would offer some assurance to paying passengers. Not complete assurance but enough to put confidence back in the system.
I agree with journalist Alexandra Kitty on this one -- we should be "Let's Roll" people, not "Duck and Cover" people.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
It is not the gruesome nature of the crime that is shocking, although there is certainly an element of that. I don't think the "banality of evil," a term coined by Hannah Arendt, even begins to cover the concept. It is not just the nature of the crime which was committed without motive and with no reason, but also the fact the other passengers heard and saw the commotion and did not do a single thing to help the victim or to restrain the attacker.
I just don't buy the argument that the other riders were scared to do anything. There were more of them than this one guy with a knife. Of course he could have been stopped.
The "fear" expressed by the passengers on that bus was the same as the "fear" of the male students at L'École Polytechnique à l'Université de Montréal in 1989, at the time of the Montréal Massacre. 15, 20 male students or so could have stopped Marc Lépine? Maybe just one? The maniac orders them out of the room, and all of them obeyed -- every single one. Not one stood up to say no. Not one.
In the United States, in most states, the failure to act to save someone's life might -- in the appropriate circumstances -- be prosecuted as homicide by depraved indifference. Not murder one or even murder two, but a more serious charge than manslaughter. In Canada? The burden of proof is so high that it would be pleaded down to criminal negligence, if the prosecutor was lucky.
We tend to view these crimes as isolated incidents. I respectfully disagree. It's indicative of a much bigger issue ... the increasing lack of respect we have not so much for authority, but for each other. Whether we like it or not, we're becoming more and more like Americans in Canada and in ways I and many others do not like.
As I have from the age of fourteen, I continue to oppose the death penalty. But crimes like this, especially crimes of passion (or lack thereof) need special consideration by the courts. I would have no qualms about designating said suspect a dangerous offender if the evidence as we've heard so far is proven true in court.
One last thing: The bus company, Greyhound, notes that it would be almost impossible to implement airport style security along its bus network, especially when many of its stops are in isolated areas and are little more than shelters with automated ticket kiosks. That may be true, but it wouldn't hurt to have the occasional random spot check both at pickup points but also along the way. It would offer some assurance to paying passengers. Not complete assurance but enough to put confidence back in the system.
I agree with journalist Alexandra Kitty on this one -- we should be "Let's Roll" people, not "Duck and Cover" people.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Another 10 percent solution
I didn't much like MacGyver, but there was one episode that really stood out for me -- the "10% Solution." Seems MacGyver stumbled upon a plot to take over the five western-most states in the Lower 48 and to have them secede and reform as a neo-Nazist entity. When MacGyver said why not all 50, his nemesis said that Hitler's "Final Solution" went way too far in its attempts at world domination. Hence, they'd settle for five out of fifty states, or 10%.
I do not say this to impugne the motivations of the Conservatives here in Canada, in any way. I do this to make an argument about bending the rules to get one's way.
I note, as have others (including my colleague Scott Tribe, here) that the House of Commons has long had a rule that allows MPs to use their franking privileges to send flyers to 10% of any district -- even one not their own -- in addition to the two or three householders we get every year. All parties, and the independent MPs too, have long used this quirk in the law. Without prejudice, I too would call it a ten percent solution -- of sorts.
The only stipulation is that the flyers can only provide information about an issue or a party's perspective; it cannot actually attempt to campaign outside of official campaign periods.
Recently, however, the Conservatives seem to have found a way around this. They get ten of their MPs to send flyers to 10% of a targeted riding so as to get 100% coverage. All fine and good ... except they've chosen to pick ridings that just happen to be having by-elections right now to fill vacancies. Today, the Liberals filed a complaint about this practice. They demanded the Speaker of the House rule this too clever by half and to reimburse the house the cost for mailing those flyers out.
I'm beyond annoyed by the letters I get from my and other MPs which seem to be on an almost weekly basis. Most of you probably are too. But this one takes it to another level. By flooding propaganda into a district while a by-election is going on it appears to be an attempt to circumvent official spending rules.
It's up to the Speaker as well as the Chief Electoral Officer to determine whether the rules are being broken. But during a time when the ruling party is already under investigation for alleged spending irregularities (possibly putting its public financing at risk as well as the MPs that were elected under suspect circumstances), not to mention the government managing to run a deficit despite record high fuel prices ... one would expect a bit more caution from the Cons.
The Speaker can't wait until the House resumes sitting. We need a ruling ASAP. If the Conservatives are allowed to make ten plus ten equal one hundred then the other parties get to do the same. It is as simple as that.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
I do not say this to impugne the motivations of the Conservatives here in Canada, in any way. I do this to make an argument about bending the rules to get one's way.
I note, as have others (including my colleague Scott Tribe, here) that the House of Commons has long had a rule that allows MPs to use their franking privileges to send flyers to 10% of any district -- even one not their own -- in addition to the two or three householders we get every year. All parties, and the independent MPs too, have long used this quirk in the law. Without prejudice, I too would call it a ten percent solution -- of sorts.
The only stipulation is that the flyers can only provide information about an issue or a party's perspective; it cannot actually attempt to campaign outside of official campaign periods.
Recently, however, the Conservatives seem to have found a way around this. They get ten of their MPs to send flyers to 10% of a targeted riding so as to get 100% coverage. All fine and good ... except they've chosen to pick ridings that just happen to be having by-elections right now to fill vacancies. Today, the Liberals filed a complaint about this practice. They demanded the Speaker of the House rule this too clever by half and to reimburse the house the cost for mailing those flyers out.
I'm beyond annoyed by the letters I get from my and other MPs which seem to be on an almost weekly basis. Most of you probably are too. But this one takes it to another level. By flooding propaganda into a district while a by-election is going on it appears to be an attempt to circumvent official spending rules.
It's up to the Speaker as well as the Chief Electoral Officer to determine whether the rules are being broken. But during a time when the ruling party is already under investigation for alleged spending irregularities (possibly putting its public financing at risk as well as the MPs that were elected under suspect circumstances), not to mention the government managing to run a deficit despite record high fuel prices ... one would expect a bit more caution from the Cons.
The Speaker can't wait until the House resumes sitting. We need a ruling ASAP. If the Conservatives are allowed to make ten plus ten equal one hundred then the other parties get to do the same. It is as simple as that.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)