The Truth?

Government and truth, dubious at best. Harper and the truth?, you decide. This I guess is what is really causing voter apathy and Harper seems to enjoy it very much or so it seems. The fewer people that do get out and vote and wham, come election day guess who is back in government?, Harper of course, Or so he hopes I think. One way to change the direction of the so called "truth" is to get out and vote on election day. We have to this time around it's important and it's our right to vote. This campaign has been an eye opener for a lot of voters regarding the truth and I for one won't be voting for the Cons. Hope that come May 2/11 you get out and cast your ballot. Great poll numbers from Quebec, NDP is in 1st place, way to go Jack!.

Tsunami carrying more Cons to power, not NDP

Frank, sadly popular support doesn't count in the end, only how many seats it will win you. And in this case, analysis says the NDP surge in Quebec is vote splitting with the BQ and would allow more Conservative candidates to win (and more Liberals.) Only in two ridings in Quebec can the surge translate into a seat: Gatineau and Abitibi-Baie James. http://www.ledevoir.com/politique/elections-2011/321629/a-qui-layton-fera-t-il-mal-au-quebec

Thanks Tyee

I wish more media fact-checked Harper's many bold-faced lies.

As for the question of cuts to immigration settlement funding, one can assume he cut it in non-election years, and then increased it again in election years to court what the Conservatives call "the ethnic vote." It's the fiscal equivalent of having your picture taken with people in their "ethnic costumes."

Katiki

I think you're talking about what some analysts were saying when the NDP moved into 2nd place in Quebec. (Which I didn't agree with then either)

Now that they're ahead of the Bloc there is no way the Conservatives, with only 17% of the vote are going to pick up seats while the NDP with 36% aren't.

How would that even be possible mathematically? It would be like the NDP in BC winning an election with 17% of the vote. The Cons are probably going to lose seats in Quebec now. Maybe even all of them.

For what its worth, if you watch last night's The National, Chantel Hebert was saying she thinks it'll be more like an NDP wave sweeping up a lot of seats in the province and that it would have repercussions across the country.

For one thing it will kill Stephen Harper's line about a "coalition with separatists" as the Bloc will be reduced to a handful of seats.

Harper is a flat-out liar and a very dangerous man

He and John Baird deserve to have their arses handed to them on a platter:

- Suspending parliament twice; that is dictatorship. Harper s ruling by fiat.

- refusing to declare the costs of the F35 fighter jet is contempt of Parliament.

- having two senators on criminal charges for breaking the election law makes Harper an accessory to a crime before and after the fact.

- we don't need billions of doallars worth of jails, we just need one cell for Harper and Baird to share sine die.

These are serious breaches of parliamentary procedure and deserve to be punished under the law. I just hope the people of Canada are not so dumb as to give Harper et al even a minority government. A short rope would be more fitting.

I don't like any of the five options we have, but I am voting Green just because the four grey-haired white guys were mean to Elizabeth May in the sandbox. The Hell with the same-old same-old.

Thanks for the Sketch

of Harper rather than a photograph.
Reading the article while Big Brother stares at you is creepy.
Lets vote:
You only have two choices for P.M.:
1) the sketch above
2) a photograph of Harper

First Case - Wrong Assumption

The Conservatives did not shut down or muzzle the Christian aid group Kairos. They decided to not disperse funding for advocacy in a recent request. So Harper is not wrong, he is CORRECT.

"While KAIROS has had to drastically reduce its funding to its global partners, and faces further structural shifts, it has received overwhelming response and support, and it continues to thrive."

Nothing Stephen Harper said regarding the funding was untrue. You are wrong.

Ekos poll via iPolitics

Ekos : Nationally

Cons 34.5
Libs 25.8
NDP 24.9

Ekos on Quebec :
"The poll, conducted earlier this week, found the New Democrats have jumped 10 percentage points since the eve of the leaders debate to 31.1 per cent while the Bloc has dropped like a rock by 7.4 percentage points to 23.7 per cent."

All politians and wannabe

All politians and wannabe politians have to be asked a basic, and simple question; Why do politians lie?

Mandatory voting

There was a neutral group that examined all candidate statements in the US election for the % of truth.

Unfortunately, it's not as valuable a tool to the voter as it should be as the fascist MSM doesn't like the truth. The uninformed "they are all a buncha crooks" drooling voter is just another soldier for fascism. The MSM is the recruitment arm.

With a bunch of of traitorous halfwits for Canadian voters, results so far show that the only successful political technique is a 20 second attack ad on America's Greatest Weight Loss Contest in the fascist media that controls the half-wits big screen teevee. All those who died in the World War's so fascism would stay over there, are crying so much in despair that their tears are extending La Nina.

Perhaps the Aussie's policy of forcing people to vote, extended with a 10 minute voters test with a massive fine as a penalty for failure, and mandatory 1 hour a day in the middle of prime time TV all channels all politics would be the approach needed.

Forum Research poll today puts NDP in 2nd

Cons 36
NDP 25
Libs 23
Grn 6
Bloc 6

"A separate Forum Research analysis, based partly on ridings won and lost in the 2008 election, suggest the survey results would give the Conservatives 149 of the 308 Commons seats if an election were held today, with 71 seats for the NDP, 64 for the Liberals and the Bloc Québécois would have 24 seats."

forgot to post Forum's Quebec numbers

NDP 34
Bloc 25
Libs 18
Cons 16
Grn 4

Is Iggy Toast?

"Joël-Denis Bellavance
La Presse

(Ottawa) Une révolution orange point à l'horizon au Québec le 2 mai. Contre toute attente, le NPD est passé en tête dans les intentions dans la province pour la première fois de son histoire, supplantant ainsi le Bloc québécois à environ 10 jours du scrutin.

Les troupes néo-démocrates de Jack Layton récoltent en effet 36% des intentions de vote contre 31% au Bloc québécois et 17% au Parti conservateur, selon un sondage CROP réalisé pour le compte de La Presse auprès de 1000 personnes du 13 au 20 avril.

Autrefois la formation politique fédéraliste dominante au Québec, le Parti libéral n'est plus que l'ombre de lui-même, récoltant un maigre résultat de 13% des appuis."

First we take Manhattan...

What's up with Ontario Frank? I'm seeing less than 13% for Jack.

Frank - thanks

Thanks for the poll results, Frank.
I'm glad you are here to help us stay abreast of the numbers when C.H. is avoiding current stats. But I have faith, I'm sure he can dig up some poll put together by a corporate-friendly pollster to show the results he wants to see. Failing that, he may go back to old polls like he has done in the past. Certainly, if he checks in, he will most likely downplay the NDP surge as a blip. ...and then there is always the scare tactic of saying that the NDP is syphoning off soft center votes, a guarantee for a bad outcome, Blah Blah Blah... We've heard it all before, many times. We don't need him around anymore, we can just recycle the old stuff.

r'man

"What's up with Ontario Frank? I'm seeing less than 13% for Jack."

In regards to Ontario and new polls,
Ekos has the NDP at 19.5%.
Forum Research has the NDP at 20%.
Angus-Reid has the NDP at 24%.
Environics has the NDP at 21%
Leger has them at 18%.
Only Harris-Decima and Nanos have the NDP under 15% in Ontario.

The NDP is in first or second in every region except Ontario where the Liberals are stronger.

The only important poll, and

The only important poll, and task, right now is to prevent a Harper majority.

Nothing else matters for now. After that, the rest of the problems can be sorted out in a civilized way.

Ed Deak.

Note to the editor: The

Note to the editor:

The next time please ask somebody who can draw portraits.

The eyes, the most important part, are totally wrong.

Ed Deak.

SharingIsGood

Thanks, that's why I do it. The thing is I've been arguing since the beginning of this campaign that its not just going to be a repeat of the previous election. That those who said there was no reason to have one because the polls hadn't changed in 3 years (like the Tyee's own Bill T) were missing the point.

Those of us who are following politics 24/7 tend to forget most people don't. It is only during an election campaign that many people tune in. Its only now that many people are hearing about the stuff that's gone on and what the issues are.

I thought it was great that over 10 million Canadians watched at least part of the debates for themselves. I think its great that young people are becoming engaged with websites like shitharperdid.com and well done videos and vote mobs.

People are showing they do care, at least at election time and that is why the polls are becoming increasingly volatile and why we're seeing so much variation from one poll to the next. There's still 10+ days to go and anything can happen.

realistic man

The question is not whether what Harper states might be correct. The question we pursued is whether he is right when he responds to a debate opponent's assertion by saying 'that's simply not true.' In the case you cite, the opponent accused the Harper govt of defunding foreign aid groups if they disagree with the Conservative ideology. In the case of Kairos, they clearly did.

David

Ignatieff said that the Conservatives were shutting down some Canadian foreign aid programs over ideological reasons. (CBC.ca). Shutting down, is certainly not true. The reference by Ignatieff was obviously an attempt to raise the Kairos example. As I've noted above Kairos is certainly nowhere near being shut down.

With any government programme there have to be conforming criteria considerations and decisions are obviously made based on a whole range of reasons. Even The Tyee Fellowship Funds have to conform to federal criteria to be eligible to offer tax-deduction receipts to contributors. If ideology were driving all expenditures then just how many Ottawa bureaucrats are there to examine the thousands of applications? And what is the remote possibility that Stephen Harper is directing the bureaucracy to filter all the thousands of applicants through Conservative staff before approval? Impossible. The fact is clear that under the Conservatives foreign aid has increased.

"Official development assistance accounts for roughly $4.5 billion in taxpayer money. Yet at a time when all parties claim to be focused on responsible spending, Canadians have yet to see any concrete, specific plans to ensure their aid dollars are being spent in the most effective, efficient way possible. "

http://www.ewb.ca/en/whatsnew/story/90/foreign-assistance-reform-network-urges-practical-steps-to-modernize-canada-s-role-in-the-world.html

"(Bev) Oda and Cannon pointed out that Canada has doubled its foreign aid. This may seem surprising given the Conservative government's image of being suspicious of government assistance.

The doubling claim is, in fact, true, although it also needs to be put into context.

Jean Chretien's Liberal government drastically cut back Canada's foreign aid ("development assistance" is the official term) in the 1990s. This was one of many budget cuts that enabled the government to move from years of massive budget deficits to years of considerable surpluses.

Canadian aid increased from 0.27 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2004 to a projected 0.33 percent of GDP in 2010."

http://www.canadianchristianity.com/nationalupdates/100708aid.html

Black is White, White is Black

Time for all of us to reread the basics: George Orwell. Animal Farm. 1984.

Orwell brilliantly grasped the essence of authoritarian rule and its techniques to stifle democratic participation. First and foremost is the misuse of language and logic. Lying is a favorite. Misstating the truth another. Stretching the facts another.

But the ultimate method to mind-bend a listener is doublespeak, a Harper favorite. Also found in Animal Farm and 1984. Where Black is White. White is Black. War is Peace. Peace is War,

Soon, the listener is immersed in the Harper world of absolute relativity. The only constant is the Harper. Big Brother. Dad. The authority figure. It tells all. Knows all.

Our fears and concerns and desires will all be solved within the big, oily, steel arms of the Father Monster.

But it can't happen here...

Right.

Excellent coverage!

realisticman, you're right

We went back and looked at the transcript and our reporter misread it the first time. In fact Ignatieff had accused the government of "shutting down" groups like Kairos. So while the government pulled funding for ideological reasons, and pulling funding for some groups could have the effect of causing them to go out of business, in this case Harper was technically correct and we will change the story to reflect that. Thanks for your engagement.

This could get interesting... mildly. :-)

It's beginning to look like Canadians, starting not oddly at all in Quebec, are about to begin casting about for serious "change", and that Harper MAY have seriously miscalculated here... to the benefit of the NDP.

Now, you all know that I have my own view of the NDP and what it really represents in Canadian politics, BUT, while I still think I am correct, it is what the mass of the Canadian people MAY be thinking and about to do here, that right now is more important. I don't need the experience of the NDP (again)to know what they are really about, but I suspect, especially Federally, the Canadian people do. To them, the NDP is the sending of a signal that they have had enough of the "free marketeers" of Casino Capitalism and all their "deregulation" bullshit, especially as represented by what they see as the two "main" old line parties.

Which MAY be about to make this election some more interesting... as an indicator that Canadians are about to begin casting about for a way out of this ruling class created dilemma... which they don't at this point see the NDP being part of. How e'er inaccurately. :-) Which is still a good thing, as far as it goes. I've always said, while I won't waste my time voting NDP myself, I expect that the country has to go through this experience of the NDP in power first, before they are ready to evolve beyond the status quo entirely.

So, assuming this isn't all just a temporary passing fancy in the process, bring it on says I... and really test and demonstrate to one and all, what the NDP is and is not. It took Tony Blair, for example, to reveal the real ruling class serving beating heart of the Labour Party in England, their party of ideological social democracy. Real life always tells it best. :-)

The New Coke NDP...

"This is bigger than New Coke." Frank.

Which about says it all about the NDP, for sure. :-)

I'm the Prime Minister - You Can Trust Me (not)

Harper remained in denial and focused on his lines, which never changed in the debate despite the nature of the questions.
"That is simply not true," Harper so eloquently puts it to the Opposition and media laps it up. Harper is cool and collective when under the gun, remaining true to his nature,con artist and ruler of the house of games.

I'm the Prime Minister - Trust Me(if you can)

This is without a doubt the most successful technique of all for doing a first hand con. If you act like you know what you are doing and you act with authority and confidence, people will not question you even when they should.

coyote

You know I was trying to make a funny. Self-deprecating humour and all that.

You know you could always jump aboard and vote for the NDP. After all, even you say the Canadian public needs to test them out before moving on. Only one way to spur that process on.

Interesting to see the

Interesting to see the ongoing hysterical propaganda against a possible coalition government, which in many ways would be preferable to the usual, dictatorial powers of majority governments and individuals.

Many successful, developed countries around the world, like Germany, have long histories of coalition governments. Britain has one right now. The US, with the free vote system in both Houses, is a virtual, ever changing coalition, outside of presidential, or government control.

Not to mention the wonderful coalition between Western capitalists and their Chinese communists brethren, cooperating to ruin the economies of their home countries, by stripping them of industries with the excuse of “globalization”..

Winston Churchill voluntarily formed a coalition government in 1940, with the Labour Party's Clement Attlee as his deputy and other Labour politicians, like Ernest Bevin and Arthur Greenwood, occupying important positions.

I seem to remember that they were a very successful.. Unlike their dictatorial contemporaries, Hitler, who ended up with a self inflicted bullet in his head and later Stalin, who rolled around in agony, while his henchmen were playing cards in the next room, waiting for him to die.

Coalitions can be the most efficient leaderships, as they demand the cooperation, and input, of the various talents of individuals who, otherwise, would be tied down by the ridiculous demands of the theories of long dead economic prophets, and other faith based nonsense, destroying the ecology and humanity.

Let us hope for Mr.Harper's early promotion into a long string of multimillion dollar directorships, heaped on him by the grateful multinationals for his efforts, like tax cuttings, on their behalf.

Ed Deak,

if only the MSM had the

if only the MSM had the brains and balls to do the right thing. As written on my facebook post linking to the CBC, G&M and Nat'l Piss err Post:
"Fact-checking Harper's statements, The Tyee does it, but why can't the reporters following the campaign? WTF?

Why are Canadians being spoon-fed bullshit by the The Globe and Mail CBC National Post et al?"

QUEBEC-NDP On another topic! Woo!

Are you kidding me? THis is the best news ever. I can remember being insanely disillusioned living in Montreal in the 80's and 90's with the "fact" that the province would never ever vote for the NDP in numbers that mattered and now this.

Please Canada, we won the medals last year, let's win the real prize this year.

The key here

Is simply that the Harper government acts for ideological reasons in ways that Harper's critics have always pointed out were a reflection of the man's narrow minded fundamentalism.

That's the problem, it has always been the problem and that's why, at the end of the day, any vote for Pee Wee is a mistake.

Furthermore, the apparent unwillingness of the 'center' to permit its candidates from attending and participating in local debates with candidates of other parties is troubling and, in my opinion, coercive and undemocratic.

What, exactly are you afraid of Stephen?

Judging by Harper's record-while in power-on keeping promises...

...I would tend to think that it was HE who wasn't being truthful. Please vote!--@Rolf_Auer

Jerry, "I expect that the

Jerry, "I expect that the country has to go through this experience of the NDP in power first, before they are ready to evolve beyond the status quo entirely."

Would be nice if it worked that way. Just look how Ontario and B.C. voters responded after provincial NDP governments. "Evolving beyond the status quo" could hardly be considered their response. Rather they went with Gordo & Mikey's "Common Sense Revolution", one remnant of which is our current federal Conservative finance minister.

No more polls. they provide contradictory half truths almost as egregious as the attack ads.

Went to an all-candidates meeting recently. Haven't seen so much ignorant Tea Party style heckling in a very long time. They didn't want to hear any truths or even half truths. I wonder if any had actually spent a little time examining any of the 4 party platforms.

Examine the difference between the prairie MP who would cut all funding for Family Planning International and Mr. Harper saying that he wouldn't reopen the abortion issue.

I'm not a Lib supporter, but Harpo swore that he would destroy the Liberal party, but if he does, he's likely to make minced meet of the rest, dividing the country into 2 wings with no one in the middle, and ultimately his absolute power to all our detriment.

If only Iggy and Jack could get together the way Peter and Stevie did. So what's the difference between a coalition and an alliance?

Ed's Right.... Errr Correct.

"Interesting to see the ongoing hysterical propaganda against a possible coalition government, which in many ways would be preferable to the usual, dictatorial powers of majority governments and individuals." Fait Lux

What I find even more odd Ed, is the timidity of all the other parties, Bloc, Liberals and NDP in turning back this attack on the entirely legitimate idea of coalition government. (And by the by, an excellent defence of the coalition concept yourself. I hope they are reading it.)

Harper does seem to have them all, especially the Liberals, intimidated from seriously even broaching the subject. (And the Liberals can't see beyond the end of their collective nose, because they are afraid of losing their "liberal" position here, to the NDP, such as they well might. Everywhere, there are camouflaged pits with pointed stakes driven into them.:-)

While there is a "possibility", certainly of the NDP at least increasing its percentage of the vote significantly in this election, especially in Quebec, which is pivotal in itself, the greater likelihood still is "coalition" governance... excluding the Conservatives... of bloody course! It is even more likely the next phase in the turning back of this right wing dominant period than outright election of the NDP. (Who are really just Liberals in Left Drag anyway.) And Harper knows it... which is why he is attempting to make it "taboo" territory... even for consideration. It is "the" four letter word in polite society.

Ultimately, in my view, the struggle is going to be to turn away from capitalism entirely, but this is unlikely to occur in one bold stroke. It is more likely to evolve by degrees... if it is to be an entirely democratic process with a preferable democratic outcome. And the concept of "coalitions" is the next minimal degree move in this direction... in my view.

The other parties to capitalism, which they all still are, pending the development of a more serious and radical left, prepared to take, push and compel everything to the next, entirely new level, meanwhile, would be more "useful" to the process, :-) if they would display more courage in defeating Harper's attempt to make the very thought of "coalition" outside the pale.

But then :-), that is, in effect, asking them all to serve my ends, the "serious Left" end. So hopefully, they will all merely stumble-fuck in that direction, out of their own opportunist, partisan end interests. :-) which is still, what is really driving them all.

Love, Peace and Revolution
Coyote

Cuts to Karios have dramatic impact

The proposal’s rejection resulted in funding cuts to 21 ecumenical and citizen’s organizations working in Latin America, Africa, Asia-Pacific and the Middle East.

“It’s had a dramatic impact,” and “We’re faced with situations where former staff members are now volunteers, where organizations now can’t pay their rent, nor do the work they need to do.”

During the recent South Sudan referendum, KAIROS organizations monitoring voting stations and working to ensure people were aware of their democratic rights was unable to become as involved as planned and are shut down from doing their work.

"So what's the difference

"So what's the difference between a coalition and an alliance?"

Minutia. A coalition is a "looser" phenomena. An "alliance" a "tighter one. :-) (keep it clean.)

That said brother (I assume), politics is seldom simple, and almost always complex, few things what they appear to be, and fewer even yet straight line developments. It does not proceed automatically that a political development provincially, at least in the even recent past, translates exactly federally. (The friggin' country is itself complex. Even neurotic. :-) Right now, we are talking "federally". :-)

And it is my sense of things, and how they are "likely", not "certainly" to evolve, that "federally" we are going to pass through a number of stages of development to finally break free of Casino Capitalism. Of which, moving away from the Tweedle-dee and Tweedle-dum parties that have dominated "bourgeois democracy" to here, in this country, we are most likely to pass through "coalitions" of the capitalist parties themselves or..., to perhaps even "Tweedle-dip", the NDP... "capitalism light" party.

BUT, and it is a very big "but", somewhere here, between now and eternity, IF I am right/correct, there is going to have to be a quite different "movement" development, as yet undefinable, PERHAPS a "party", I hope something more "the people organized" themselves, that is going to "change", even "radicalize" politics in the country.

But I am in danger of "over-reaching" myself. To "tighten" my analysis... between here and the end of capitalism and the evolution of an entirely "new model" economic and political democracy, it is more likely that we are going to have to "somewhere" at "some point" pass through a series of "coalitions", maybe even fascism (I hope not.), and/or "trying out" the NDP.

It is a "blurred" photograph brother/sister, with almost nothing clear and crisp... more "hypothetical". Nicht wahr? 8-D lol

I grew up in the Great

I grew up in the Great Depression in an already impoverished country that lost 2/3 of its land area in the Treaty of Versailles, so I know what a depression is like and never want to see another one, anywhere on Earth.

But that depression was caused by capitalist monetary games, when money still meant something, but now money is a totally imaginary concept that exists only as computer figures.

Which means that another depression is inevitable, with the exception that we don't know when.

The luxury idiocy sweeping the world today is sure to go, but there's absolutely no need for people to go hungry and cold, anywhere.

What bugs me is that no party has any plans to solve the problems of real economics, the supplying of people with the necessities and they all talk about the nonsense of "coming out of the recession".

There's no way, because there's nowhere to go under the present criminal system with everybody up to their ears in debt, the industries shut down etc.

I've been working on this for many years and have some idea of the solutions, but where are the politicians with some brains and experience to solve the coming problems ?

All Harper has in his chicken sized brains kis to sell the country and call it GDP, while people go hungry and helpless.

Ed Deak.

R'man

claims that Jean Chretien drastically cut foreign aid in order to reduce the deficit which he had inherited. And, he says, Harper, through Oda and Cannon, doubly increased foreign aid after becoming PM.

But how does he propose that Flaherty deal with the deficit he and Harper created? Promises, promises, I suppose. And promises don't have to be true, do they? Simple enough. Didn't Herr Goebbels say that when you tell a lie often enough, it becomes as believable as if it was the truth?

power to control the agenda

Good recognition of the results, David!
Eliminate or drastically reduce funding to an NGO and you end up "shutting them down" on behalf of the canadian public who of course pays the bills.

Polls=self-fulfilling prophecy

Who creates these polls? These numbers should not be available at all during election. This is influencing those who dumb enough to think for themselves so they vote for the guy leading the poll. Thus Canada gets what Canada doesn't want! See?! Self-fulfilling prophecy.

People smarten up and vote with your head on. Want Harper out? Vote STRATEGICALLY! Please!

http://www.projectdemocracy.ca/

Funding political parties

Harper tells us that he will eliminate the process of using tax payer dollars to fund political parties. His rationale is that taxpayer money should got go the fund political agendas. This sounds great on the surface, lets save taxpayer dollars. But who does that leave doing most of the funding, corporations perhaps?

How about this for a simple rule for funding political parties: 1) we continue with the formula based on the amount of popular support you received in the previous election and 2) You can only donate to a political party if you are registered on a voters' list in Canada.

I know of no corporations or unions who vote, only live people. And live people are the only ones who ought to be impacting the outcome of elections. What do you think, is this an idea with merit?

Live people can be paid by

Live people can be paid by corporations and special interests to donate in their own name, but in effect act as reps for businesses.

In the 08 elections here in the Pr.George-Cariboo riding the Reform/Con Dick Harris spent $73,476. the NDP $14,990, the Liberals $5,010, the Greens $10.

Where did the $73,000 come from for Harris and over the whole country? From ordinary people ?

Ed Deak.

OhCanada

How would people vote strategically without knowing what the polls say? It would be impossible, they wouldn't know who to vote for.

The polls have been great for the NDP. Plus, if there hadn't been polls showing Conservative strength falling a bit a lot of people would probably stay home thinking the Cons were going to romp to victory.

Its good to know that the Bloc and the Greens and the Liberals outside of Quebec are collapsing. Because of the polls people can vote strategically for the NDP.

None of the Above

It's been a long time since I've seen you so engaged in a piece, Mr Beers. It's nice to see you here.

You have a very good Point of View in this piece, the technicalities of the fine print. Very detail oriented, and so, very informative for people to see exactly how these people are actually doing their thinking while spreading their slurs and inuendo about each other.

But I think now it might be useful to step back just far enough to let our human talent for pattern recognition to come into play.

These people are colleagues. They have whole teams of staffers keeping track of each other. All lobbied by the same lobbiests, all funded by the same funds and then called to repay in the same ways. they work together and they play together and they feed together.

They know each other better than any of us, however well informed ever will be allowed to.

In the debates, as well as in all the nasty attack ads, they are continually and quite specifically accusing one another of lying ways and untrustworthy dealings. They know the laws and they speak as carefully as lawyers, knowing that a misspoken word will be pounced on by opponents with glee.

So, maybe we should just believe them all. If each of these leaders is telling us that all the others are dishonest, who would know better?

They're our leaders, after all. We should believe them when they tell us that they are dishonest, incompetent weasels. Partisan despots without the grace to allow the people who they swear to serve to even know the truth, let alone disagree with their petty opinions.

We should listen to our betters when they tell us these things.

Vote None of the Above.

The POLLS..............

I've been called 4 times in the pass 2 weeks.
From a polling company, phone number 877-736-6899.
Each time I answered on the 2nd ring, and they hung-up on me.
MY GUESS IS THEY ARE CALLING THEN FILLING THE SURVEY/POLL IN THE WAY THEY WANT IT TO READ.
YOU KNOW.....CHEATING.
SOUNDS LIKE A CONSERVATIVE PLOT.
Anyone else experiencing these type of calls?????

Weasels...

"But I think now it might be useful to step back just far enough to let our human talent for pattern recognition to come into play.

These people are colleagues. They have whole teams of staffers keeping track of each other. All lobbied by the same lobbiests, all funded by the same funds and then called to repay in the same ways. they work together and they play together and they feed together." Bailey.

Ahhh, Bailey, you are a diamond in the rough, brother. 8-D lol. And I agree entirely with you... VOTE NONE OF THE ABOVE.

That will be my vote. I pledge you.

We need a quite entirely new development to occur here... something that will drive this entire bullshit process in a completely new, more challenging to "the system" direction.

Always a pleasure to read you. For a gang of weasels they all indeed are... brothers under the skin. :-)

Human Rights at home... and abroad

Really Harper? REALLY?

Let us take a gander at the united nations universal periodic review results for Canada in 2009.

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/UPR%5CPAGES%5CCASession4.aspx

"Summary of Stakeholder's information" 'E' (for english)

and the "Report of the Working group" are especially damming - surreal to have 3 world countries calling Canada to account for our internal practices.

The world is watching Canada, and they see very clearly just how poor our reputation for Human Rights at home is.

Please Martin

Read the introduction to your reference:

"The present report is a summary of 50 stakeholders’ submissions1 to the universal periodic review. It follows the structure of the general guidelines adopted by the Human Rights Council. It does not contain any opinions, views or suggestions on the part of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), nor any judgement or determination in relation to specific claims."

Claims! Exactly. This is just a compilation of reports received from a bunch of the usual militant groups.

Truth in Advertising, mate!

It will be worth pure gold...

..to see Stephen Harper handed his own arrogant butt on a platter. He is acting as if he is the only rightful prime minister for Canada and that the other three party leaders are just white trash pretenders. In fact it is the other way round.

Harper's policies on almost everything have put Canada in the International Dumpster, the Hall of Shame. On the environment, he has struck the George W. Bush pose as the New Great Pretender to the hydrocarbon throne. His slogan for this election should be "Develop or Die!" As with George W. Bush, it will take a decade for his successor to dig the country out of the morass he has created. He is more a Rider on a Palin Horse with his "Drill, baby drill" routine than a serious politican.

Thank God (and I am an atheist) that the people of Quebec have finally decided to reverse out of that narrow cul-de-sac created by the Bloc. They can no longer see a future in Blocking the rest of Canada from political evolution and they have decided to move forward.

I see Harper with a drastically reduced minority, and Jack Layton as Kingmaker. If the NDP can work with the Liberals, they will be able to put Harper and Baird et al out of business. Exeunt stage right, Sir Stephen and King John, enter stage left, Mad Jack and Professor Michael possibly with a penitent Gilles in tow, actually wortking together to lead an intact Canada into the light.

At this point, anything, and I mean anything, would be better than the Harpo and Groucho comedy team.

The message from the electorate in a minority government is that we do not want radical left-or-right wing agendas, or budgets. We do not want a jails-and-jets budget, we want an economic plan that puts Canadians to work on common-sense projects. The F35 jet is not a product, but a set of specifications on a piece of paper with a trillion-dollar price tag.

Harper in his set piece script is too stubborn and too stupid to see that. Belligerence is no substitute for negotiation and appeasing Harper is no more likely to produce profit than appeasing Hitler did.

Suggestion to Jerry and Ed about options:

We need "electoral offices" that are permanent in each community and neighbourhood, instead of the present fly-by-night voting stations. For economic, not just electoral reform, communities could issue local currency to build them, based on each community's resources and the mutual trust of the residents ...an exercise in collaborative self-determination, as well as creating the infrastructure for the political changes we need to make, without waiting for a never-gonna-happen top-down initiative.

2) At these offices, citizens could share and discuss information, ideas, aspirations, and proposed solutions. All registered voters could place or change, whenever they chose, their votes for all levels of government ~ municipal, provincial, federal ~ kept track of as a bank account would be, right at the local office. All offices would be determined (size, hours, design, etc.) and operated by its residents, but interconnected with the others so that everyone can share and benefit from each other's work and ideas. Citizens' Initiatives and Referenda could be conveniently, effectively,and inexpensively conducted through these offices.

3) This system would provide motivation and the ability to interact with other voters and with potential candidates whenever needed and would make all elected representatives directly accountable to their constituents at all times. This is essential, and totally lacking in the present system of periodic elections and terms of office. "Campaign periods" would replace elections, and would only occur when the VOTERS created a situation such that a candidate gained more votes than the elected representative. The newly supported candidate would have to retain the lead continuously for a set period, say three months, before there would be a change of representation, giving the voters plenty of time to discuss the matter and decide if they want a change or not. They could all adjust their votes according, during this period, as often as they wished, just as they are free to change any of their votes at any other time.

4) No political parties; MPs and other reps would represent their constituents, period. The House as a whole, for example, would choose the "Prime Minister." All MPs remain equal. Communities would become cohesive instead of divided by party labels, as would the House.

I call this an ongoing, interactive electoral system. It would facilitate changes, both in the behaviour of representatives and of voters, that would improve our society and make possible the other social and economic changes we need to make, like putting public land and resources into the control of the local communities themselves, both to use and develop and also to protect. I wonder what anyone thinks about such...errr...revolutionary suggestions?

P.S. as to voting None of the Above...

I put the above suggestions forward first because we need to organise ourselves and establish cohesion amongst ourselves before we can take the next step.

As I see it, there needs to be a "coalition" of the voters to decide that we will no longer vote for any candidate running with ANY of the major political parties. Sadly, this includes the Greens, because you'll notice they also publicly endorsed the nightmare legislation called Bill C-36, an act respecting the safety of consumer products, which cleverly destroys both personal and national sovereignty in one fell swoop. (It nullifies judicial due process and protection from trespass, while making Canadians subject to unspecified "regulations" determined by foreign governments and their institutions, such as the United Nations and the World Health Organisation. Bye-bye Canada, hello CODEX, etc.)

If the vast majority of Canadians decided, say in the election after this one, to find at least one reliable Independent Candidate for each Electoral District, who supported the above suggested reforms and was willing to actually listen to and work with his/her constituents, we could pull the proverbial plug on these puffed-up power-brokers who think they have us by the short hairs. Simply don't vote for any of them, but DO vote for a good Independent Candidate. Wouldn't the old boys be shocked!

Political parties, by their nature, "must" put getting power for themselves as their top priority, to the complete betrayal, not empowerment, of the citizens. They don't facilitate democracy (self-governance); they make it impossible. It's as impossible for a political party to really serve our needs as for the CEO of a huge global corporation to really "pay for" all of the personal, social, and environmental damage their operations and catastrophes cause. The "real" costs of their operations fall mostly to us. The stuff corporations do mostly wouldn't make a profit otherwise, and in my opinion, most of it is not what really needs doing anyway. We should issue our own currency and develop the production of our own basic needs. There is plenty of work to be done...who needs jobs?! If we produce what we need, no one will need to go without either creative, healthy work to do or without the necessities of a decent life.

Ditto for political parties! The huge cost of operating political parties comes out of our pockets, as does the cost of elections, which serve their purposes, not ours. We need to take the responsibility for organising ourselves and living together productively. We could hardly do worse than the way things are now, and at least we'd be able to learn from our mistakes and correct them a lot more quickly and effectively than in the present system.

True Colours

With homage to Cyndi Laiper ! I must heart fully thank the M.P. Whom bragged about the cancellation of federal funds to the Planned Parenthood because of their abortion policy. Mr. Harper was not disingenuous with us when he stated words to the effect that. There would be no change to the abortion policies here in Canada. After the M.P. let slip the reality that there already was such a change. " I see your true colours And that's why I love you ! " Behind the back of Canadians the Religious Fundamentalism is creeping through. With his George Bush unfaltering like support for Israel. Mr. Harper is a scary man but please! " Don't be afraid to show your true colours " " And the darkness inside will not make you feel so small " Can the world afford another fundamentalist leader? Give Mr. Harper a majority, Canada and the world will be seeing the true colours ! I'm not saying that the pious religious of all faiths cannot run. Just be true full when you bring your brand of morality !

It happens or it doesn't...

"They don't facilitate democracy (self-governance); they make it impossible. It's as impossible for a political party to really serve our needs as for the CEO of a huge global corporation to really "pay for" all of the personal, social, and environmental damage their operations and catastrophes cause. The "real" costs of their operations fall mostly to us. " Shedding Light.

First, many excellent points, and a largely accurate analysis, I think. But that said, I don't think it is quite as clear the process by which this will all evolve... even opting out of the current "what passes for" democratic/ electoral system. I think "an alternative movement" of some degree of organization needs to and will evolve... is already ... but it is more likely, as it is, just to begin to happen, with greater numbers showing up in the "non-voting/non-participation" stats. And MAYBE the beginning of a "None of The Above" trend. (We shall see. It is perhaps premature.)

A more positive, next stage development, such as "none of the above" is likely to evolve similarly, and hopefully, as growing numbers simply get on board... signalling that indeed, a new time, for new movements and forms of organization has/is arriving.

Though here again, I think this is already being signalled, minorly granted, with this growth of intent to vote NDP being exhibited in the polls. Here, the NDP represents the last wan hope for the status quo system, and is the arrival of the time for folks to BEGIN casting about for alternatives and new ideas.

What one does have to be careful of, however, in my view, is overly and prematurely seeking to "formalize" it. It begins by arriving on its own, as it is, followed by a maturing process. Though I do think, folks who can see/sense what is happening here, what is coming on, and what is emerging as a new political phenomena... a search for alternatives and a new political/economic paradigm... need themselves to begin to "cast about" for solidarity, friendships, elementary organization and movement building amongst themselves. While I do not believe in "vanguard" movements per se, in the sense of the Old Left, leadership is an essential ingredient for "facilitating" movement building.

But this has a life of its own, to a large degree, or it does not have a life, and is not real. It happens or it doesn't. That blending of spontaneity and organization... and movement creation.

Though I really am convinced, at the still rudimentary and early stages level, it is already begun, in the growing signs of a change of "mass attitude". It says, more or less, "This reactionary and corrupt Casino Capitalism period has gone on long enough, it is fucking up my life, and that of my family. How do we stop this? Vote NDP? What? I'm going to do something different."

Are we sure?? really sure???

"realisticman, you're right.."

Maybe Dave is buckling too easily here. If we do hair-splitting, we have to do it down the middle, not out to one side...

Maybe there is a need for someone to point out here that 'shut down' has two meanings, a literal understanding of 'banning' or 'abolishing', so that 'it is no more', and another meaning, more in the vein of 'stopping cold in mid-movement' so that it is usually highly detrimental and means that resources already invested will be lost. Equally, Mr. Ignatieff said that Harper 'basically destroyed the organization', which of course also cannot be taken literally, but rather means that it has been dealt a severe blow to its operational basis and to its reputation. Technically, the organization has not been destroyed as long as it is on the books, even was it only a feeble shadow of its former glory. ERGO we should know that we are in the land of rhetorical excess and abstain from cheap facetiousness.

It is a bit of an artificial controversy at any rate. We all listened to the debate, and we can likewise all find out what really happened to KAIROS, as this information is publicly accessible. I think that Harper's knee-jerk reaction needs to be called out, not because of the technical truth or untruth of what flew across the room, but because he obviously believes that denial, which may or may not be credible in the narrowest sense, is all the debate he needs to deliver. He did not really undertake any defense or explanation of the particular action, and that is where I see a deficit in what he returned.

These debates are always frustrating in that given the enormity of the issues debated, they are really way too short. It is in the nature of pathetic cramming in the eleventh hour. If we don't know the issues and the blokes well enough to make a sound decision before such a debate, sorry, it's too little too late. Voting responsibly takes real work and diligence over the length of people's time in office or in opposition. IMHO.

Dorothy

After recent increases CIDA is now an almost $5 billion operation with a mandate to primarily lead Canada's international effort to help people living in poverty.

KAIROS is an organisation with a (2009) budget of around $4.2 million. Program Expenditures are:
Energy Justice: $603,152
Human Rights: $362.006
Public Engagement & Movement Building: $599,395
Poverty Reduction: $200,191
Grants to Southern Partners: $1,565,066
(Canadian Anti-Poverty Grants were discontinued at the end of 2008.)

KAIROS is clearly primarily an advocacy organisation, whereas CIDA is primarily occupied with directing tax dollars towards attempts to relieve poverty.

With CIDA dispersing almost $5 billion dollars per year it's obvious that there are hundreds knocking on their door for cash. With their primary mandate being poverty reduction almost exclusively on the international scene, it's certainly not a 'knee-jerk' reaction to withdraw funding to a single-theologically based domestic advocacy group. And, denying that group of $1.7 million of their $4.2 million dollar budget should certainly not 'shut them down'.

Ok, once more around the mulberry bush, or some such thing...

The knee-jerk reaction I was referring to was not the withdrawal of funds, but the immediate denial, as in 'that's simply not true'. Believe me, I have worked with people, who, on having pointed out to them that a step in the procedure they were doing was being done incorrectly, and faced with a characterization of what they had done, but shouldn't have, would deny this had taken place, even if both our pairs of eyes had been on their hands doing it, and so, this vehement denial is usually accompanied by a 'powerful' look, as if the person is trying to compel you to accept their version of the occurrence. Some people can actually be bullied this way, but yours truly is not among them. I put Harper's flat denials in that same category as a display of underdog culture, rather than upright, honorable demeanor.

As for the 'shutting down', I pointed out the added colloquial use of this word, and you are 'debating' this by simply repeating your dogma in a similar manner to some purveyors of religion one may find on one's doorstep. I was not arguing on the basis of the organization having been 'shut down', but on having some of their enterprises 'shut down', and rather than making this fine distinction between the organization and some of its endeavors, current language use will similarly accuse some people of 'shutting someone down' when in fact what has happened is that they may have been banned from, say, the Tyee for a shorter or longer period. That this is not synonymous with 'shutting down' in your narrower use of the word is obvious from the examples of people like coyote, who may sometimes have been 'shut down' on the Tyee, but certainly far from 'shut down' in the grander scheme of things.

I apologize to others, who have had their head dragged through this wringer-washer, but it seems less would not do in achieving clarity. I fervently hope we have it now. I can abide any debate based on people simply disagreeing with me and telling me why, but I have a hard time with willful (or not?) misunderstanding, and changing of the subject, which was about truth in debating, not about the rightness or wrongness of de-funding KAIROS.

They lied to cover up their mistake.

What led to the denial of funds to KAIROS was contained in a speech Minister Jason Kenney made at a conference in Jerusalem. Later he denied accusing KAIROS of being anti-Semitic but the speech is clear and in the record. Kenny claimed "the suspension of funding was a decision that reflected the funding priorities of his Cabinet Colleague, Bev Oda, the minister for international development.” Kenny's speech and the relevant paragraphs make it clear that "anti-semitism".

In the three short paragraphs of his speech before he mentions KAIROS he mentions the words “anti-Semitism" seven times. He then follows with a question “So how have we addressed these growing acts of anti-Semitism?” and follows that with four paragraphs with details on how “we have worked with” and “we have launched” and goes on to say:“We have articulated and implemented a zero tolerance approach to anti-Semitism. What does this mean? It means that we eliminated the government funding relationship with organizations like for example, the Canadian Arab Federation, whose leadership apologized for terrorism or extremism, or who promote hatred, in particular anti-Semitism.

We have ended government contact with like-minded organizations like the Canadian Islamic Congress, whose President notoriously said that all Israelis over the age of 18 are legitimate targets for assassination. We have defunded organizations, most recently like KAIROS, who are taking a leadership role in the boycott. And we’re receiving a lot of criticism for these decisions.”

KAIROS is included with groups claimed to advocate terrorism.

After being corrected on their errors of fact they still refused to take the next step and restore funding. I don't mind them admitting the openly pro Israel and anti Palestine. but have the decency to tell the truth and admit when you based a decision on false information.

Harper is a liar plain and simple.