I find it hard to believe that according to the latest polls 46% intend to vote Liberal. What is the matter with you folks out there? We have the same gang of lying, cheating, worker-bashing scoundrels in power here in Quebec, but they are toas. Come on BCers! Kick neoconazi butt!

I didn't hear it myself, but the wife tells me that a new BC poll out, of some 1200 odd samples, indicates a "gender reversal" of party support may be occurring. A majority of males is now thought to be supporting the NDP, and a majority of femailes is reputed to have gone over to the Neocon Fibs.

Now, be this true or not, and I have my doubts about how much real depth to this "snapshot in time" there really is, if true, it indicates to me, more than anything, that there is some vacillation and confusion, more than anything else, going on out there amongst the electorate. Which could be like the needle of a barometer fluctuating back and forth in the "variable or change" area. It could go either way.

What is clear though I think, even here, is that there is no sense of a clear choice amongst especially working class voters out there; which to my mind, is the expected product of a moderateman world, or set of choices out there, when what people may be really feeling the need for, is a more distinct, even "polarized" set of options, that more accurately reflects their real circumstances.

Certainly, for just about the first time in my electoral participation life, I do not feel that there are a clear set of choices out there. Which is what happens in a social period of flux, when folks are feeling the need for change, but all the potential choices are bleating what essentially sounds like, at least, similar messages and strategies -, in the din of what does feel like, as Mary says, a class war.

Now, in the confusion, as the "Carole Jame's NDP" clearly is hoping, the state may just fall to them by accident, and they sneak into the government seats with a minimum set of commitments, but again, in the middleman world they have chosen to join, they may just as like NOT. It depends on the "snapshot in time" that just happens to occur on election day; as part of an outcome that nobody has really very much conviction about.

In a poloarized social environment, and a class war at that, the choices are going to have to be more stark, as in clearly defined, for anything approaching a satisfactory outcome. It is a time of partisanship frankly... Which side are you on? ... and we are beset by a leadership that wants to fight the last war, rather than this one.

And in a wishy-washy, moderateman set of what are really all socially and economically "inappropriate" choices, the party with the biggest bag of cash to spread around is never out of the running.

I don't feel good myself, about whomever might get in. Not a great motivator to get out to the polls at all.

The best electoral outcome for working class people at this time, I think, would be a minority government, frankly. And that has to occur quite naturally, out of the kind of middleman dominated environment I have attempted to describe above. It is certainly impossible to stage.

And that option has as much opportunity to be the outcome here, certainly as the NDP sneaking into power, with as few commitments as they feel they absolutely have to make.

When everybody is huddled around with their butts over the middle seat of the outhouse, one should not be surprised that there is a "mixed" result.

I'm a big fan of minority governments, myself.

There are insane fundamentalists on both sides who mostly want to punish the other side. If political power is held to the right, it's a disaster. If it's held too far left, an identical disaster. Not opposites, identical.

I find it hard to distinguish between Stalin and Hitler, based on their actions or the results of their uses of power.

The only safe place for regular folks to live, business folks or working folks or any folks, is in between. In a place of balance where nobody can act unilaterally, without the consent of most everybody. Where all kinds of people can have scope to live their fates, express their talents, build whatever they wish without fear.

We agree in some regards, Bailey, but much not in others. :-) I certainly support a truly "democratic" result, but not the comfy cosy, "Let's all just get along." at all costs agenda. In the environment neocon capitalism has created, there is increasingly created a no compromise reality that the working class and its friends would be/ are foolish to ignore.

Sometimes, my friend, fights, especially class fights within society are unavoidable, even necessary. Hopefully indeed, however, there will be found a resolution within peaceful and democratic means. To wish for otherwise is a either a fools fantasy or ones has quite another agenda objective in mind, than most of us would wish. Nonetheless, much in that regards depends upon the actions of, at least, two parties.

Life can turn out to be more complicated than our wishes of it might be.

That said, you know that I hold you in the highest regard, brother.

Hey, I like the "Let's all get along" scenario :) And I'm actually pretty far to the left in my politics.

I admit I can't stomach the neo-con agenda but I see them as being a small minority among the right-wingers who seem to just go along because they're anti-NDP. I can get along with those right-wingers who support capitalism but not trickle down economics and removal of the social safety net.

I cannot stress enough that I have hopes that a new electoral system for this province will produce an end to two-party polarization, more parties as the two dominant ones splinter, endless minority governments and a greater willingness to get along.

Which, at the provincial level, would be as good as it gets.

"Those who just go along" have always been part of the problem in my humble opinion. The middle ground is always moving and swing voters two-step a couple steps to the right , then a couple of steps to the left, "going along" largely because it's a safe tune to dance to. Requires the least effort on their part. And that is not saying one cannot be friends with those with differing viewpoints. But throughout history, there have always been times, when the foundation begins to quake and those sharp fault lines develop where one must ultimately make a choice. Choose or be prepared to lose it all.

The fascists were also a small group like the inner circle of the neo-con power base but look what over-riding power ended up at their disposal. How close the world came to the brink of losing our own humanity.

I see where you're coming from Lynn but as you say yourself "And that is not saying one cannot be friends with those with differing viewpoints."

There are too many right-wingers who are just a little to the right of the NDP for us to write them all off as a bunch of Kevin Falcons.

I would also add to your reference to the Nazis that their rise happened in a politically very polarized state suffering from the stress of economic depression and recent military defeat. The Nazi electoral success did not come about due to a rise of the mushy middle, it was due to the rise of an extreme faction to deal with problems that many perceived, wrongly, as requiring an extreme solution. If the mushy middle had had the time necesary to deal with Germany's problems, I don't think the Nazis would have had a prayer.

For what its worth I don't see Hitler gaining over-riding power under STV the way he could if he ran as a BC Lib under the current system, and yes that's a joke :)

I wasn't really talking about mushiness or just getting along. Most of the people who are motivated to politics seem to be fairly intolerant, maybe due to having a strong vision of their own to promote. Plus, of course, you can't change human nature.

No, I was thinking more of a dynamic between strong, but fairly equal power blocks. Something that would allow for moderate swings back and forth, but always produce a strong enough opposition to keep close watch on each other.

In BC we are split just about equally. If the demographics were represented in the Legislature, all this nastiness would have been just so much stalled debate. Just as it should be. Always. Extremism should produce hot air, not action.

Power corrupts in proportion to its level. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

A potentially really useful debate taking shape here that I will come back to-, but right now I have a supper to prepare. Before I dash away however, I must quickly say that I very much identify with what Lynn is saying here.

The point is, as she says, there are those times when "...those sharp fault lines develop where one must ultimately make a choice." And I would suggest, along with her, that it is precisely into one of these fault lines that we are falling in the development of current capitalism.

It is not even enough to proclaim that one is this side of class politics or that, this far left or that far right but... and there is always the "but", which characterizeds the social democratic "electoral success" view of the world,. Frankly, from my view, the bullshit time of moderateman and his baby kissing politics is fast becoming suspect, and its that which the supporters of "nice guy and gal" politics, and social democratic ideology don't get, and are as a result, falling fast out of step with the needs of the times. This Clark Kent has just gotten too soft and rotund to get into his Superman suit anymore.

That "Let's all just get along." line worked fine in the good times of the 60s and 70s. Now it just sounds tired, hackneyed, trite and more than just a little chickenshit.

mary, mary, mary. how can you possibly accuse others of class warfare. the people on this site encouraging that are anarcho, coyote, yourself (oppressors?) and a few others. b.c. can't continue to be about us vs. them, a la glen clark, adrian dix etc. it's necessary that labour, business and gov't start cooperating for the sake of all. this campaign has become polarized due to the support that the public sector unions are throwing at the ndp. in fact i can tell you from personal knowledge that the business council's campaign was a reaction to the announced intentions of the unions after the last election.

For those of you who have been hanging around, and observing this site from the periphery-, one and all should by now be getting really good at spotting the Brownshirts when they show up here. Eh? :-)

"in fact i can tell you from personal knowledge that the business council's campaign was a reaction to the announced intentions of the unions after the last election."

In fact, this guy knows dick-shit. The dish of ice cream he would serve you kiddies here, is made from sour milk, which taste of, by now, one and all here should be entirely familiar. :-)

Both of them, Fiberella and N.D.P. Moderateman are actually secret, lover rivals, acting out their parts to hide their affair from the children. :-)

A very fine piece, Coyote, on your way to make dinner. I'm avoiding it right now, so will layer the lasagne in a moment.

I think we are on the edge of a defining moment in history, Frank. Hitler's fascist agenda may at first seem dissimilar from the neo-cons as it involved the social engineering of a Master Race, the ensurance of prosperity of that Master Race at the expense of all others, and thus the extermination of the Jews, (due to his deranged view of who was standing in the way of its insane fulfillment) but I would still say that the neo-con agenda very much follows suit...

Except the Master Race is now corporate power. Their agenda is the same, the ensurance of prosperity for their chosen at the expense of all else and all others - at all costs.

Who stands in their way? Workers and their demands for rights. Unions because they have power. Teachers, nurses,... well, anybody who is part of a union ( and yes I know unions aren't perfect). All public assets that represent public ownership and thus power. All those who defend our rights and freedoms...ombudsman, auditor-general, human rights commission, civil liberties groups, foi and on and on...

The last four years stand as evidence of how far the rights of those above have deteriorated... that public power through ownership has been greatly diminished through privatization. So just like the German electorate, most people have been too busy, too distracted, to realize the political landscape has shifted and is now quaking beneath their feet, here and all over the world.

For corporate power to become the new Master Race, workers must become slaves. And this is the new battleground, the "fight", that horrible "f" word between two opposing world views. One that demands rigidity, control, stringent beliefs, a materialistic environment. Predictability. A dead world. And one where man and nature still thrive, not always perfectly, not always safely, not always nicely, but alive with a reverence for life in all its ambiguity and haphazardness.

Sorry, for my rambling. Just wanted you to know, Frank that I've always enjoyed reading your interesting comments, always fair and with an excellent sense of history that I've learned much from. I think we just differ on the sense of urgency we feel.

Lynn, oh I'm not disagreeing that neo-con ideology is at least on the same plant as fascism. However, the rise of fascism happened because of polarized politics. Its why I mentioned on another thread that real change will only come from a huge upheaval like being defeated in a war. Whether we're talking Hitler, the Paris Commune, the Bolsheviks or Japan in the 1860's, social upheaval is the time when politics are the most polarized and real change can occur. It was hard to be in the political middle in 1871, 1917 or 1933. However, I believe a strong political middle would have saved a lot of lives in the latter 2 cases.

Being a very strong nationalist I find it difficult to label the entire right-wing as my enemy. Doesn't mean I agree with Presto Manning, I don't. But the lines of communication need to always remain open and we have to work at finding ground that is common to both sides. We'll never agree on everything, and being a socialist myself, there's little I will agree with economically from the likes of the Fraser Institute and people like the premier's brother. But its still better to argue with Michaels Walker and Campbell than to demand they be strung up from a lamp post. Having said that I recognize that if anyone will be hung from a lamp post it'll be us on the left since we're outnumbered and many on the right don't have a problem with hating us on the left who they seem to think are barely human. But we can't counter extreme politics with extreme politics of our own.

Re: New gender split and the women who love Campbell: I wasn't contacted for the survey; neither were any of my female friends, or any women I know. Who were the 1200 people? Do they live in Shaugnessy perhaps? Are they the wives of Campbell's frat buddies? What idiocy.

I was going to add that 1871 _was_ a time for extreme politics. I would have supported the Commune. Thiers was a collaborator in my humble opinion and was rightfully opposed. But today in BC is nothing like 1871, there's still lots of opportunity for reasoned debate once we find reasonable people on the right to talk to.

Thanks Lynn, you know I've said in the past I tend to agree with you most of the time.

sirjohna, that's not true. The Jock Finlayson's of this province were supporting Campbell with millions in donations before the teachers even dreamed up the idea of pooling a big chunk of change to fight Campbell with. I don't believe there has been an election in this province in the past half-century where the NDP outspent the other side.

And no one here Frank, is advocating that Walker or Campbell be strung from a lamp post. That is an extremely charged brush you are attempting to wield there, and more it is an insinuated and direct lie.

What is being advocated, is that they be opposed in no uncertain terms, and exposed as the advocates of a particularly priviledged class view of society, and roundly defeated politically. Nor is anyone here suggesting that they be denied their voice or any rights; again, only that they be unequivocally opposed and rejected, not run away from.

And finally, that political element which would claim to defend the people's interest in government, actually do so-, and commit to undoing what it is these corporatist wing-nuts have done, and more, creating a legal framework challenging corporate property rights and introducing laws that prevent them selling off the people's pubic rights and property ever again.

In short, it is not so much an issue of hanging them from lamp-posts, but evidencing some serious backbone in resisting their machinations that are harmful to workers, women, the poor and the environment. That means a declaration that whatever they do to undermine democratic rights, the environment and the welfare of ordinary citizens, will be undone, followed by action to actually do that. No equivocation.

It is time to go over onto the offensive in the transformation of society, no less than what they have done to return it to the ancient past, only to the ends of further empowering the democratic and economic rights and interests of the people, and undermining and circumscribing the rights of priviledge and corporate property.

We are in a relationship with Capital where, if we are not advancing, then we are retreating. It is a fact of life. It needs to be stopped AND reversed.

The status quo will not and cannot hold forever. Face up to the reality, and stop apologising for the timidity of Moderateman, whom everybody is rapidly losing faith in anyway. Moderateman/woman needs to find his/her cojones/marracas.

It is not enough to proclaim ones "leftness", what one would have done in past history or good intentions in the present, not in the times taking shape, not any longer, but they must actually be demonstrated.

As it is not enough to proclaim one's love-, it must actually be lived and demonstrated in action. (Ehhh! The romantic impulse never dies. :-)

No rights less or more than any other citizens have (for the political right and corporations) that is. And corporations are entities, not citizens. Corporations need have no particular rights, other than to meet and serve the needs of "the people".

"That means a declaration that whatever they do to undermine democratic rights, the environment and the welfare of ordinary citizens, will be undone, followed by action to actually do that. No equivocation."

That is the platform a number of us on the left have been waiting for someone to have the courage to present. Eloquently said Coyote. What a rarity to read, absolutely the best.

frank; interesting about the teacher's play here. it seems one of the more controversial planks of carole jame's platform may be her support of the teacher's right to strike. as a result their strategy may backfire in a big way, and they may be responsible for the loss of many votes. is it true that they are in the midst of contract negotiations? if so that may not help things around the table.
p.s. your remarks re; fascism are fairly extreme to someone new to this site. are you really as far out there as you appear? no disrespect intended, just curious.

McMartin makes the common error of using the term "polarization," which is slightly pejorative, to describe a two party system.

I would argue that the substance of the NDP platform, and Carole James' excellent launch of it last week, suggest that British Columbia politics have become less polarized.

norman; good point, but doesn't that depend on whether or not the ndp redefine their relationship with labour or not? and will carole james continue as leader if they lose big in this election?

Quote- "But its still better to argue with Michaels Walker and Campbell than to demand they be strung up from a lamp post." said Frank.

I referred to Quebec worker and students giving the neocons an ass kicking - that was a metaphorical ass kicking not a real one, and that is the only kind I am advocating. Saying we (the alleged class warriors - just a minute while I don my red and black armour) advocated hanging our political enemies is a rather nasty straw man tactic.

The Liberals have really harmed a lot of people and you think this fact would be enough to create a landslide against them. The fact that this hasn’t happened makes me think a lot of BC voters are ethically challenged. Much of this would, of course have to do with the media which has set up the Liberals victims, the poor, hospital workers, unionized workers etc., as people deserving of punishment. Perhaps they are simply unaware that when you create any large scale unemployment you also have an increase in premature death, substance abuse, family break-up and suicide.

As well, there is the underlying philosophical problem. A great many people simply cannot see the world holistically – everything is seen as scattered, disconnected fragments. They think it doesn’t matter if thousands of hospital staff lose their jobs or take pay-cuts, it’s not effecting them directly. The idea that it might make it easier in the future for the state to attack their job, or the fact they will have to pay for the social costs of unemployment and poor pay out of their taxes escapes them.

You heard it from The Spectre.

And at one level, the official level, he is actually right this time. The NDP is making an attempt in this campaign, to live within the existing framework of the New Neocon Reality and the Campbell Revolution-, allowing for some minor tweaking to make this retrogressive New Order reality more palatable. It's their new version of "pragmatism", to quote Carole, spelled o-p-p-o-r-t-u-n-i-s-m, of which they have always been overly fond, like a kind of fetish.

In short, they are attempting to depolarize the situation for Capital, which Frank especially well demonstrates here, and Bailey. It is the classic role of the social democrats within the NDP and the labour movement. It is the service product they attempt to provide to the capitalist ideas and political party marketplace.

The Spectre knows.

That this "official" reality does not, and will not reflect the street reality going forward seems at least fairly obvious to me. It already does not. The spun versions of "Official Reality" is most often not that experienced by "real people", not working class foks certainly.

Thank you, Lynn. There are more than a few of us political soul mates out there. :-) Though still too few. :-) It's a weitd political creation they are attempting to fly with out there right now, isn't it? They have actually given up the fray, and are attempting to be accepted and live within whatever world the neocon capitalists at back of the Lying Liberals create for us.

Even The Spectre can see that.

Nonetheless my sister, Lynn, history has not entirely played itself out yet, eh? :-) Indeed, this stage of it, I think, is only really just beginning. As the betrayal of the Solidarity Movement in the early 80s marked the beginning of the end of that post war period of capitalism, when social democratic led labour began to consume its own, this "failure" of the NDP to even show up prepared to fight, at this new, further deteriorated stage of the battle, marks another kind of end-, the end of the illusion of social democracy and its NDP.

We shall have to see, in what direction affairs move from here. It will be interesting, no doubt.

Well said, anarcho. As to the the right to defend oneself, that is why I think Coyote's statement is such a powerful one. It is not about vindictiveness or punishment, it is really not even ideological ( the three main criticisms, by the way, that are levelled here by those who think we should not fight for our rights). It is really at its core, an upholding of human rights. A demand that those rights that have been lost, both human and property, be addressed and re-instated. No less.

To defend oneself in this current fight will take much invention, imagination and the true will to do so. Also, courage. Weapons in their own right. But first we must at least stand up and as anarcho says above, wake up enough to realize how interconnected we all are, one to another.

I am likewise always glad your voice is here Anarcho, as well as the others, who know who they are, even if they don't talk as much as some of us do. :-)

I think what exists out here on the street right now, is something akin to a state of shell shock, at all that has gone on in the Campbell Counter-Revolution[I] (Which is closer to the truth of what it really is). Everyone is still kind of hunkered down in their hidey-holes, with their heads covered, hoping the next round salvo misses them, maybe only getting someone in the hole next to them, wanly hoping it will leave them untouched. It characterizes a temporary stage in the development of this thing, I think.

Not only are they being attacked by the capitalist State, but they have also been let down by all their presumed previous support mechanisms/ institutions, the labour movement and the NDP. All of which has created a particularly depressing environment that encourages preoccupation with an instinctive "self-survival", in my read of it around me.

But this too shall pass. Then we shall see what we've really got. Hopefully a fertile climate for movement building, to either breathe new live into those existing institutions above, which is possible and/or to create new ones where necessary and the opportunities exist.

What is important though, is that those of us of like-mind keep in touch here as much as possible, and maybe even eventually move out from here, depending upon the nature of the climate change and what all else evolves.

One always wishes that these matters would evolve faster, of course, but they insist on moving at their own pace. :-) But evolve it will.

How is that Mr. Spector can get things so wrong. McMartin logically defines what he means by "polarization", refers to the two times BC had "polarized" elections, and then hypothesizes what a third event would look like. It doesn't get any more academic and rational than this, guys. And from that, Mr. Spector concludes:

McMartin makes the common error of using the term "polarization," which is slightly pejorative, to describe a two party system.

And you, dare I say, Moderateman Officialdom around labour and the NDP, if you are smart, at least at this stage, you will not interfere with this process or seek to shut it down, at this end of the spectrum. It is to your short term interest set as well, though I would argue, even long term, that "stronger voices", from our perspective, "more strident" perhaps from yours, emerge out of the reality of currecnt economics and politics. It may just help save even your asses, by making your "traditional role" as arbiters (your own self view, I'm sure:-), more relevant again, in the eyes of the ruling class.

For without us, the ruling class will doubtless continue to lose respect for you, and your influence on all fronts will continue to wane, as it already is.

You really only have any relevance to the ruling class, when the threat of us exists.

Think about it very carefully, is my humble suggestion. :-)

Coyote, anarcho etc, my reference to lamp posts was not to be taken literally. It was a reference to historical incidents where politically charged emotions got out of hand. I saw it as the equivalent of using terms like fight and ass-kicking when discussing democratic processes.

"That means a declaration that whatever they do to undermine democratic rights, the environment and the welfare of ordinary citizens, will be undone, followed by action to actually do that"

Either its a meaningless declaration or it isn't. This cannot happen. Its pie in the sky. How do you propise it all be undone? Certainly not by creating a smaller, more radical tent and actually expecting election victories to spew forth. Basic math says if you reduce the percentage of the population your policies appeal to in order to "charge" the more radical elements of it, you will lose, over and over again.

sirjohna, fair questions, but it's also fair to ask whether Campbell can be trusted to live up to his newly-found moderation if he wins the election.

Personally, however, I find it very encouraging that both Campbell and James are hewing to the centre and presenting a moderate message, unlike the situation in 1996, which truly was a "polarized" election. Which is not to say that British Columbians will not have a real choice on May 17 in deciding between the Liberals and the NDP.

sirjohna : Why is it you expect the NDP to divorce themselves from labour and refuse to take them seriously until they do while at the same time you do not even so much as mention the close relationship the Libs have with corporate Canada?

To you it may not sound radical at all, especially if you're a regular reader of Michael Campbell and Fahzil Mihlar. But to me that sounds like a pretty radical statement. In fairness you would call for an end to both union and corporate support of parties as I do.

As for fascism, which remark? The only one I can think of that I said was that neo-con ideology and fascism may be different parts of the same plant or something. Let's not do the classic flushing of 1930's Germany as if it has no relevance to the rest of the world. We're not talking Pol Pot in Cambodia here. Germany was a wstern country with a population not much different than Canada, Britain or France. Economically, fascism did make the trains run on time, the people of Germany were happy about much of what was being done. Too many people would like to dismiss the whole era as being all about the Final Solution and holding no other lessons.

Let's remember that Germany didn't move to a total war economy until later in the war under Albert Speer. In 1941, with German soldiers dying on the shores of the Black Sea, Hitler was still careful to keep things at home as normal as possible in order to keep the population on side. He was well aware of the lesson of World War 1 where the German home front collapsed due to years of privation.

So, his economic policies can be studied in isolation. And when doing so, to me, they are very, what we would now call right-wing. Very corporate dominated. Of course I did not state right-wingers are nazis. Maybe that's what you thought I had inferred. I actually believe there are a lot of shades on the right. Those I consider to be "somewhat" fascist in their ideology are those at the extreme, what I call neo-cons. Where they call for the dismantling of social supports and anything else standing in the way of greater productivity. Where we are told that Canada must compete with the rest of the world and that means removing the social supports and regulatory barriers so "our" corporations can proceed from a position of greater strength. To me that kind of talk, the state is more important than the people and the strength of the state is in our corporations sounds somewhat fascist.

I don't think any of this is radical, its no more radical than you would hear in a 1st or 2nd year lecture.

Coyote, Lynn, Anarcho, don't paint me and Bailey as somehow being 2005 versions of the Norwegian Quisling. We aren't.

However, I do support Carole James completely in her move to the political centre. Both from naked ambition as that's where the votes are. But also because I don't believe over the long haul polarized politics serves us well. It has nothing to do with "cozying" up to the right. it has everything to do with finding those on the right who we can find common ground with and working towards common goals.

Now that doesn't mean I think we can find common ground with everyone on the right. I know we can't. However, those left-of-centre and those right-of-centre well outnumber those on the left or right. What we need is a centrist government that will stop demonizing those on the other side. Its healthy for our democracy that we have a centre party and if Carole james wishes to fill that role, as her platform suggests she does, I support her.

Coyote, "It is not enough to proclaim ones "leftness", what one would have done in past history or good intentions in the present, not in the times taking shape, not any longer, but they must actually be demonstrated."

It is a mistake for people to always view the times in which they live as if they happen in a vaccuum. I believe it is instructive to look at past situations and to rationally look at the issues, processes and outcomes. We in BC are not the first in history to be on the wrong end of the proverbial stick. Our reaction to that should be tempered by a knowledge of what worked and didn't work in the past when people much like ourselves faced the same challenges.

The lesson of the past is you can't motivate one side without motivating the other. Motivation leads to polarization which leads to dehumanizing. Eventually, when unchecked, it leads to civil war.

Dying on a barricade at Madrid or Paris may sound very romantic when the book stops there but it ignores the reality of what happened afterwards. Franco and Thiers won and the brutality didn't end.

So to bring it back to BC. The right is currently "radical". But the majority on the right aren't. Why accelerate a process of polarization when history demonstrates it probably won't lead to anything good?

Canadian history suggests that we find a way to compromise. That means being less radical, less polarized and moving to the centre in the hopes that many currently on the right will join us instead of becoming radicalized themselves.

That is a matter of judgement and stomach. It is your judgement that it is a meaningless declaration, and that to undo the trashing of the postwar social contract carried out by the Campbell Counter-Revolution is pie in the sky. It is not mine, nor that of many of us here.

And whether or not such a declaration would secure the NDP this particular election or not, is also a judgement call and a choice you and the NDP have made. Though I would say whether this particular election is won or not is irrelevant, frankly. The object is to win the war in the end, not any particular tactical battle per se. The really important struggles are generally fought over a longer time frame than the NDP is clearly capable of seeing the distance, with its short sighted, rose coloured electoral glasses on.

But then, like I say, some have the stomach for that, possibly longer "time frame" conflict, and others do not.

This election result and going out will more accurately tell us what kind of tent folks are likely to seek shelter in, going out. Even then, if you actually do accidently win this election, you and the people will still only have won a vacuous tactical conflict, and still lost the war, given your here stated objective to actually lose it.

It is interesting how an extended dialouge reveals all the subtler aspects of one's position, however honey-tongued it can seem in the early going. And that is, Frank and the NDP do actually accept the result of the Campbell Counter-Revolution, for all their slamming it in the legislature, on the hustings and here.

Though it be currently strained, the actual love affair of the Capitalist State and Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition is becoming slowly know to the children, despite all their attempts to hide it.

Point of order, I think I'm the one taking the longer view. It doesn't matter if the NDP wins this election, what matters to me in this election is STV. You want a smaller, more radicalized left-wing party. Under STV that becomes possible, no longer is it necessary to hold your nose and vote for a big-tent party. Hopefully we can agree on STV.

I do accept the result of the Campbell government as far as what I think the word accept means. Democracy, I lost. The people who won wanted to kick the poor, the teachers, the nurses, unions in general etc. I accept that as what happens when my side loses.

Over the long term I would hope that they will see the eror of their ways being as they will be in power 80% of the time without STV. Either I accept that or I don't really believe in democracy.

I'll vote NDP, but I'm disgusted at their "there's nothing we can do" attitude. It's defeatist and it's far too convenient. What other principles are thus expendable?
I'm voting "no" to STV. Real reform is still to come.

Again, the difference in perspective is drawn out here, and made clear from the backdrop of the "reputedly" left wing language. My friend Frank embraces a largely fatalistic and "mechanistic" version of democracy-, in my view.

A result arising out of an even "crippled" democratic process, such as exists within current capitalism, so by the inordinate power of influence and edge given to wealth and class priviledge, is not something that ties one to it for all time. One can even, in a real democracy or even this crippled one, begin to and advocate changing the result, especially procured by lies, chicanery and manipulation.

There again is our difference, which is another manifestation of that Loyal Opposition handicap to which some individuals and class strata tend to be over-awed by.

You accept the edict of a crippled democracy, gimped and skewed by the realities of class priviledge. Not such the "left winger" as you claim, it would seem. I do not accept that edict, except to the degree that I am forced to, and have no other choice.

You and the NDP have chosen, like I say, to accept the result of the Neocon Lib Counter Revolution, as cast in stone and brought down from the ruling class mountain, rather than to commit to changing it. I do not. And I will work against it.

Choices we make, brother.

But then, it will doubtless take some time yet to show the outcome of both our choices.

And STV is not the magic pill that will cure all the ills of this crippled "class" democracy either, in my view. Only folks in motion will. It is merely the currently favoured political spin flavour of the month.

Watch my left hand, whilst my right steals more of the contents of your wallet.

Not true Coyote, you make the same choices as I do. You have not lead a revolution in the streets against the capitalist class. You have not hung from a lamp post any collaborators. You have accepted the results of an admittedly flawed democratic process by carrying out your daily functions in a normal manner. As have I.

I don't mind being labelled as part of her majesty's loyal opposition. I am. Very early on in my visits to the Tyee I railed against those who don't exercise their democratic rights by voting. I think those that whine but refuse to vote are at best misguided. Democracy is a good system, even when you lose.

Since you and relayer are fine with a voting system that has produced only 3 NDP governments, and none to the left of the NDP in 70 years I assume you will both vote no to STV. Okay, I will abide by the result and thank you for at least participating in the process. All I ask is that you don't insult my intelligence by claiming that if we vote no to STV we'll get a better system.

I hear you, relayer. I will likely do the same, though the choice is wearing extremely thin with me.

This is not a democratic choice. It is being caught between the Devil and the deep blue sea.

Campbell is like a rubber band. During election years, he streches to the middle. After the election, BOING! he springs right back to the right.

Don't even know how you can even ask the question of 'Will he stay in the middle this time?', Norman.

He's not seriously asking the question. Its like one of those push polls.

Barbara McLintock has already pointed out that the moderate stance of Campbell is a one-time thing in her latest article. Its just the old Bennett thing of goodies at election time.

The thing you guys seem to be dancing around like a sombrero in a Mexican hat dance seems to me to be a matter of the definition of crime. The government too are supposed to be the 'loyal' government, not just the opposition.

These Campbellites have committed crimes. They legalised them first, of course, because they could. But had they not arbitrarily changed fundamental laws, the would have been eminently prosecutable. This pattern of political behaviour is a betrayal of the basic social contract which is the only thing that stands between us and open conflict.

That they knew what they were doing is shown clearly by the nature of the changes they made in the basic structure. The gutting of all oversight and inspection services shows that they knew they would have to hide what they were doing. These are the things that must be undone, and then taken out of the hands of the government of the day since they clearly can't be trusted.

The clause that prevents actions for damages which they put into so many of their most abusive laws shows clearly that they meant to damage people. Planned it so and carried it out. That clause should be struck down and declared void. No-one should ever be excused from answering for the harm they do. It goes against common law and natural justice. That clause nullifies the very courts from acting as a check to these extreme betrayals.

These systems of oversight and checks and balances absolutely must be rebuilt, or there will be no avoiding eventual direct action by the betrayed. And there's the rub.

As long as there's any other alternative we should avoid direct action. We shouldn't roll those dice while we have so little control over the outcome. We should challenge these things in court, some might be overturned. We should hold the opposition's feet to the fire, now, before the vote, and make them swear to reinstate the Auditors, Ombudsmen and inspectors, as well as the ties between the communities of BC and the resources that once were their own property. Then see to it that they do.

I saw a billboard for Graham Bruce in Duncan recently that said "A COMMUNITY ON THE MOVE". I was really tempted to add "TO CHINA" to it, since so many hundreds of truckloads hauling logs that used to belong to Duncan and Chemainus and Youbou are sliding right past those closed mills and right into the overseas transports.

These systems of checks and balances are the only thing that makes our system democratic, that protect us from the betrayal of lying candidates. They must be reinstated, reinforced, removed from their vulnerabiity to attack,and to the disloyalty of elected officials who do not like democracy, or the people who think it's their birthright.

The best way to ensure the government no longer has dictatorial powers that can legislate obstacles out of their path is to ensure majority governments come to an end.

Of course it would be great if watchdogs could not be legislated out of existence by the party in power at all.

Frank

Dave Barrett has noted, quite correctly I think, that had the NDP not formed a majority government in 1972 with less than a majority of the popular vote, we'd not have ICBC and the ALR today.

bailey; if the liberals were as corrupt as you're saying there's no way they'd be so far ahead in the polls. no one, except the real extremists, would stand for it. sounds to me like you, coyote et al are members of a very small minority in this province. at least i hope that's true, because i've only discovered this site recently and am somewhat shocked at some of the accusations flying around here, i.e. fascists, brownshirts, oppressors etc. also sounds like you should be quite happy about having a site like this where you can vent so freely. who runs and funds the tyee?

I agree with Norman Spector on this one. Majority governments with a mandate for power usually make the best governments. It is even better if there is an effective opposition ready to take power if those in government break the people's trust. That Gordon Campbell and his cronies aren't on the verge of being kicked out says more about the opposition than anything else. Still, I'll be voting for the provincial NDP for the first time in my life.

Well Mr Spector and Chris H, I would happily jettison ICBC and the ALR if it meant there had been no majority governments in BC since 1972.

The most responsible government is one that can be brought down today, not in 4 years.

If there had been no majority governments at the federal level since 1972? Well I'd get all giddy just contemplating it.

sirjohna, you've been drinking again. I'd like to take that first sentence of yours and hand it to judge Gomery. How did Chretien win 3 majority governments when his cronies were breaking the law?

Since Gomery isn't available I'll pass you to Mr Spector assuming he's caught his breath and regained his composure after reading that one.

As for the Tyee, its partially funded by the BC Fed. As for who runs it, just look around. David Beers from the Sun, Barbara from the Province etc.

I will now do my best Bill Good and state categorically that although BC Fed money has found its way to help support this site, the BC Fed have never told me what to say on here.

Stick around, pretty soon you'll get with it. When you're first called a capitalist running dog you'll know its because we care.

sirjohna wrote "bailey; if the liberals were as corrupt as you're saying there's no way they'd be so far ahead in the polls. no one, except the real extremists, would stand for it. sounds to me like you, coyote et al are members of a very small minority in this province. at least i hope that's true, because i've only discovered this site recently and am somewhat shocked at some of the accusations flying around here, i.e. fascists, brownshirts,"

Neocon ideology, while not exactly fascist is highly authoritarian, centralist, corporatist, socially retrogressive, contemptuous of working people, anti-union, anti-environmentalist and pro-war. In practice, neocons both in BC and elsewhere, have harmed a great many people. It stands to reason that such a political force will be hated and called insulting names. As for the people of BC supporting them, I have pointed out previously how this results from thinking in isolated terms, of not understanding that “an injury to one is an injury to all.” A great many people in BC also share the prejudices of the neocons, and are no doubt gloating over the fact that hospital cleaners now have to work for low wages or are unemployed, not realizing that they might be next on the list at some point. There is a great deal of latent hostility to the noeocons I suspect, so I don't think Coyote et al are such a tiny minority. Here in Quebec that latent hostility has been tapped and now the overwhelming majority despise the neocons. Like I've said before BCers, get your act together! (I should point out that I am a BCer in exile, having fled to Quebec during the Zalm years)

What you do in this latest piece of yours Bailey, a very good one actually, is present an excellent argument demonstrating the crimes that the Campbell Counter-Revolution has carried out against the peoples interest, how the have dismantled the "oversight" regime, played loose with the law, and sold off, again, the people's assets. All of which, while good, is the least of it, if one ignores the damage done to working peoples lives while increasing their tax share, slashing services and standards to them, and effectively, passing that increased public tax share into the pockets of the most wealthy.

Then you tell us all to be good little children, certainly don't take any direct action that might piss them off, and leave it all to the law shysters and the politicos who are all a party to the democratic and economic system that brought us down to here in the first place. That's the point Bailey, we have so little control over the outcome as it is.

You are obviously a gentleman, and I even accept your sincerity and good intentions, but you are playing a somewhat disquieting role here, though Frank even more deliberately so I think, of leave it to us who really know better. We cooler and more knowledgable heads. It is the classic role, again I say, of the ideological social democrats, in the labour and the ndp leadership.

I do not share that deep faith you seem to have in "the system" as it is, and reliance on the legal niceties, and the bureaucrats at all levels of it. More positive results are gotten, I suggest, when folks take responsibility for their own lives, into their own hands, instead of farming it out to the likes of these folks.
And, I advocate, that they should do so. The quicker the better.

It was wrong for women to leave control of their "life" interests to men, and it's no less wrong for working people, women, the poor, and folks concerned with the environment, to leave control of their lives and welfare to the ruling class, the legal system and politicans who dance in varying degree, but dance nonetheless, to their tune.

Simply said, there is much I agree with some aspects of yours and Frank's analysis. We differ on the importance of the role of ordinary citizens in acting on behalf of and in defence of their own interests. There is too much faith being asked, for so little result in these neo-conservative times.

It's time for major changes, and no one will do it for them, but folks taking direct action, as you say, themselves.

The natives are restless, and the ruling class sipping their gin and tonic whilst they fan themselves, parading their fancy dressed women and playing croquet are alarmed, or may soon have reason to be, and they have sent out their "troubleshooters", who understand the mindset of the natives, with baubles, trinkets, fancy language and soothing words to quiet them. :-)

It may work for awhile, because people really do not want confrontation, even I know that, but without results, the restlessness WILL eventually turn to anger. You know that-, don't you?

As for the suggestion that mine is a minority voice, I would be surprised if it were otherwise.

Like I say, most folks, even myself, do not really want confrontation. I'd as soon live the remainder of my life playing with my toys, hanging around in the great outdoors and pursuing my hobbies, thank you very much. But eh, I don't know what the experience of others on here is, but mine is, folks who avoid confrontation when there is no other bloody choice, get used as door mats by those who are prepared to push the envelope in hosing you.

If you're not prepared to get in there and mix it up, when it's called for, like now in neocon BC frankly, you might just as well hand over all your worldly possessions and control of your life to them right now. I mean that's why the trade union movement and unorganized folks are in the deep doo doo they are right now-, and they're rip, raping and running the environment and the economy into a major meltdown as it is-, unless minimum wages is just your cuppa tea.

Yeah, I'm probably a minority. But since when did I give a fiddler's fuck about that.

But Carole James is making a good attempt at unhorsing Campbell. Under her the NDP has gained back its old base proving the pundits, who predicted the NDP would be in the wilderness for at least a decade, wrong.

I can't imagine Carole telling a colleague to f*** off or driving drunk in Maui. She's an excellent person and i think just the kind of leader BC needs after Zalm, Clark and Campbell (Harcourt doesn't fit in that list either).

So she's doesn't make speeches like a southern Baptist or parade around stage like Campbell does. Frankly, I'm happy with that.

If she can beat Campbell that's better than 20 years of us railing on the Tyee against Campbell and everyone like him.

Coyote, you've paid me several compliments lately, let me return the favor.

The reason I answer you with such passion is that I fear you might be right. In all your core arguments you are right. In your assessment of historical cusp situations and the role of direct action in promoting social change you're right. I've seen such times, lived through such interesting times and they scare me. People get angry, they take action and that gives them a rush of power. Then it becomes a crapshoot whether they will know when to stop. Such times are an opportunity for the manipulative and sociopathic.

People must act. Nobody should ever trust some "cooler and more knowledgable heads" so much that they fail to act in their own behalf. But they must act with discipline, and the theoretical structures of Democracy are the only source of supply around for that discipline.

The path we're on now, in the western Democracies, is already a revolutionary path. This latest neo-con glitch is simply a bump in the road, albeit a dangerous one. If people act with discipline, the crooked will be exposed, like the Nazis were exposed, like Stalin was, like the Argentinian Generals were. The Generals were exposed and toppled by grandmothers in white kerchiefs walking around in circles. Ordinary people, acting fearlessly, but with discipline. Transforming their society while harming nobody.

Those are the kinds of direct actions I applaud. Corruption and evil need to stay hidden. Expose them. Shine lights, shout truths very loud. Have your confrontations, they're necessary. But have them in the hearts and minds of the people. Show them the truth.

Governments must have the consent of the governed. There are lots of people who like corruption, and will support it because they think there's going to be something in it for them. But even those will withdraw their consent from an exposed nest of vipers.

I'm not impressed with the Carole Jame's doctrine. Sounds too much like every other talking the talk election I've witnessed the NDP run. The walking the walk part already seems to be missing, in an unstated acceptance, as yourself, of the results of the Neocon Counter-Revolution, but I'm prepared to suspend judgement on that until some time passes after the election-, making the great leap of faith that she will actually get elected. Though I do not actually make that assumption. And I still prefer a minority government outcome. (They are generally more amenable to public needs, pressure and desires, than majority one's, of all stripes, who tend to get too cozy with the ruling class and forget about "the wee folk"-, being why [I]the former[/I] overwhelmingly favour Spectresque clear majorities.)

As for Carole beating Campbell being better than 20 years of railing on Tyee, I'll wait to see the evidence of that too. I'm not quite the same True Believer in Her Ladyship, The Party, current Distorted Democracy or capitalism as some.

Bailey, I really did examine this latest of yours closely, but I could not find so much as a single damned word I disagreed with. Seriously. We are different-, but not so.

You are right, entirely.

I'm a work with my hands working person, have been my entire life, I've been very poor, though my life has progressed, I worked with a good woman to raise a relatively large family, and I have many grandchildren. I've never been accused of being a saint :-), but I know all about discipline.

Regards.

I'll be busy until this evening.

If a radical left-wing party ever does anything constructive like actually become the government I'll happily say good for them and support them. But until then tilting at windmills plays into the hands of the right as much as if they were Campbell's ally. Noisy, a bit scary, always on the fringe and completely ignored. The radical left may as well enter into a formal alliance with the neo-cons since they seem more worried about keeping the moderate left out of power due to their not being left-wing enough.

At the end of the day, its what you can do that counts and a centre-left party that gets elected can actually do something constructive. Not as much as we'd all like but as much as we can as a provincial government in Canada. By reaching out to those on the right that may agree with us on some important issues its possible to imagine a coalition that even conservatives like McMartin, Spector and Mair might support now and then. That's not a bad thing because a provincial government should govern on behalf of everyone in the province, not just its supporters, something Campbell, the neo-cons and the radical left often forget.

The alternative to coalition building is increasing polarization, calls for direct action and eventually civil disorder where nothing constructive ever happens. The world is already full of such states.

By the way, remember how wrestling inflation to the ground was supposed to be worth the pain because unlike wrestling unemployment to the ground, the results would be permanent. In other words it wouldn't be a constant battle?

Right-wing dogma back in the 90's. Well, seems like yet another Milton Friedman theory has been exposed as utter crap. Interest rates are beginning to go up in the US to fight inflation again and they aren't anywhere near full employment, in spite of changing the way unemployment is measured.

I expect past governors of the Bank of Canada like Crow and Thiessen to come out any day now and apologize. Oh and let's not forget the department of finance people around Martin circa 1995. Oh and the Globe and Mail, especially Andrew Coyne.

Yep, any day now there'll be a long apology printed up in the Globe or Post from these people who told everyone who disagreed with them that they were idiots that didn't understand economics.

Sorry for the hijacked thread.

Well, this is becoming an interesting discussion. I feel like I'm on another planet than some of you fine friends lately but here goes. Bailey, while I realize the importance of not being impulsive in your actions, I'm afraid I don't agree with your choice of examples of people acting with discipline exposing tyranny. What people were these? What kind of disciplined action exposed Nazism by allowing six million people to die first?

I really cannot accept either that the mothers and the grandmothers of the Plaza De Mayo resistance was just a "hearts and minds" ( a phrase I am sorry that to me has such political overtones to have become meaningless) confrontation. It was so much more than that. This was direct resistance and direct action of the most dangerous kind and at first organized in a very informal way, later more organized, I wouldn't say disciplined. They took chances all the time.

They may have eventually won over the hearts and minds of the international community but there was much direct body resistance before that happened. The winning of hearts and minds was not their objective, it was a by product of their courage, their fight to find their children and grandchildren. Many were too afraid to join the group, their lives at risk. Those who did participate hid in churches, constantly changing their meeting places. They were hit by clubs, shot with water cannons and tear gassed in the Plaza. They were taken away in vans 60-70 at a time. Some were abducted never to be seen again.

The loss of some of their own lives, the danger they were in, almost dismantled their activities. Those that stayed on did so on courage alone... seven years of protest had radicalized the group to the realization that those responsible wouldn't be brought to justice without continued strong pressure through confrontational tactics.

I write this because when you say "have your confrontations, they are necessary. But have them in the hearts and minds of the people", well... if only life were as uncomplicated and tidy as that.

While minority governments have a number of wonderful advantages I find myself agreeing with Norman Spector's assertion as well that majority governments allow you a chance to actualize your policies and beliefs, eg. ICBC, to put them to the test. Isn't that why we vote for certain parties? So Frank's wish for only minority governments, seems to me a tyranny in itself. Let the pendulum swing now and again, it makes us pay attention, and like life itself, sometimes it swings in our favour. I think true proportional representation is a better choice than the institutionalizing of minority governments.

Norman Spector is quite right in stating that you cannot decide that a political arena is polarized simply because there are only two parties. Consider the US case of Republicans and Democrats, for example.

In BC, there has been some philosophical and policy distinctions as between the NDP on the one hand and the Coalition, under its various names, on the other. These have shown up in recent years in the areas of taxation and regulation, as well as privitization.

However, I believe that the term polarization has become a pejorative in the BC context not because of any anxieties over policy differences, but rather because of smaller, more emotional differences.

There are always conflicting ambitions in politics, and there are always bound to be some personal animosities, not only between the politicians and their parties, but with the journalists and lobbyists as well. In BC these personal conflicts have often been peculiarly nasty, often over small, almost imaginary slights, and they have given BC politics its "blood sport" flavour. Ordinary voters cringe at the thought that someone they know might actually be involved in one of the two major parties, since people active in BC politics must surely be a very rough and ruthless bunch.

In this election I think we may see the usual left-right polarization, which is officially about fiscal, economic and social policy, but which is often really just about the occupational backgrounds of the parties and their candidates, breakdown, to be replaced by divisions around ethical distinctions. IOWs, are you pro-Sponsorship or anti-Sponsorship?

If this BC provincial election boils down to a referendum on government corruption, the BC Business Council may wish they had not wasted their money on silly job creation cheerleader commercials. And it could mark a turning point, where BC voters draw a line in the sand saying that from now on ethical issues take precedence over economic ones, thereby reversing the verdict of the 1956 election when the Sommers scandals did no apparent harm to the Coalition, then led by WAC Bennett.

ah, but Lynn, Coyote and I once upon a time agreed that 4 years of the NDP didn't make up for 4 years of the neo-cons. Its even worse when the ratio is more like 12 years versus 38.

Thus, I'm all for an end to the dictatorship that is simple majority government.

Finished my business quicker than expected.

There was nothing in the most recent piece of Bailey that I disagreed with. That said, though I think he is entirely sincere, and I dofundamentally agree with what he said, it was a wee bit like motherhood, as Lynn points out for sure. And it is more complicated than he addressed, or was able to do in his piece.

For life IS more complex than the relatively simple formulae we all more often than not advance, it turns out. Life simply does carry risk, and while one desires and should always attempt to manage it, shit does happen. Especially when in situations where it is the actions of at least two parties that determine appropriate responses, and the strategy and tactics of each and the other. It is NOT always possible to be certain of how a particular struggle will develop, period. And sometimes you must simply do what you must do, unless you really do want to just surrender the outcome to your more ruthless opponent. If you really want to just roll over and play dead, don't get involved in the first place. Content yourself with being a slave. :-)

It is sad, too bad, but unfortunately, also life.

And indeed, in the current social, political and economic situation, I think that a minority government of either party is the most desirable outcome-, but only because I do not fully trust either of the parties to the contest. It is my preferred outcome in the here and now, at this particular time.

On another 'morrow, assuming the existance of "a people's movement" is in an ascendancy situation, and able to enforce its will on even its own representatives, I would prefer a clear mandate situation as an overwhelming majority government would provide, in order to carry out the undoing of the "Neo-conservative Counter Revolution" and secure the new direction of the future. (And to prosecute legally criminal conduct.) And that doesn't mean no voice or vote for even our opponents, or the abandonment of democratic principles-, though they have something to say about the results of their actions as well, especially if illegal and needlessly violent. (And we too should abide by the outcome of truly democratic decisions where they go against us-, but which does not rule out persisting to push for their eventual acceptance by majority society. Castles are seldom brought down with a single assault. :-)

Everything is relative to time, place and situation. What it does mean is, a government and a movement of the people within the economy and on the street ready, able and willing to act in defence of their interests-, and that means the carrying through of change to circumscribe current class power and priviledge, and further seriously democratize the direction of society.

No one in their right mind desires to needlessly deny anyone "normal" rights the same as any other citizen. That is not what this is all about. And that is not a mere play on words, on my part, but a serious expression of a desire to see secured the further democratization of society, at all its economic and political levels, period. And if "liberal" capitalists can see themselves playing a helpful role to kick start that, fine and dandy as far as I am concerned. Include them.

No one should want to hurt anyone. But that means they must not hurt anyone either, if they wish to avoid natural instincts for retribution.

The reality is, anti-democratic acts, state and ruling class violence near always bears down hardest on ordinary working class citizens. And still people find the courage to act, even in these most difficult of circumstances.

I would like to go quietly here, playing all the way like a boy, to my great good-night. But life is turning out again, to be more complicated than that. Damn!

Why can't we all just get along!? :-D

Bailey, I have very strong feelings about the mothers and grandmothers in Argentina and their fight to find their children but I was too heated in my reply to you. My apologies.

Budd

Interesting comments.

The stuff coming out of Ottawa and Montreal these days could easily spill over into the provincial election campaign.

If Carole James peforms throughout the campaign as she did on platform launch day, this could get very interesting.

lynn, not at all. You're quite right about the price they paid. Those generals were dangerous men. My point about the ladies was that their action wasn't any sort of combat.

Their opponents were power hungry murderers, looting the national treasury and conspiring with foreign powers and wiping out all who objected, first calling them 'commies' to justify it.

The ladies in their kerchiefs won because they fought their fight in an arena where they had already won. The arena of right and wrong. Good and Evil.

If they had taken up arms they would have been slaughtered. If they had tried to politicize their message they would have been defeated, then slaughtered. Instead they said only one thing; 'Where are our children?'

And the criminal cabal that constituted the government of Argentina fell, pushed over by the world press. Even the British retaking of the Falklands might never have taken place without the worldwide spotlight shone by those grandmothers on the evil taking place there.

My point was that these Liberals have done so much harm that even Rafe Mair could only list a fraction of it in his article. You want to bring them down? Spend the next 27 days exposing each and every one. Count the new homeless, count the logs going to China, name the dispossessed elders, the terrified disability pensioners, the fired hospital workers, tell their stories. Expose the foreign companies, and count the money they get. Write a history of Accenture and Sodhexo. Find overseas bank accounts of big time Liberals. Draw the family trees of Ministers. Expose the evidence in the Vasi/Birk case.

Act. Be creative. But hold fast to the high ground, and they will have defeated themselves.

anarcho posted:

Keep in mind that the turnout last time around was only 55%. So 46% of that is only 25% of voters. I am sure that the 45% who didn't, had they voted, would NOT have voted liberal.....but Clark, the fifth columnist (and as far as I am concerned a puppet of the people behind the libs) did his job well, and people who would have voted felt they had no good choices to make.

RickW you are so right! And that is why I'm voting N.D.P. this time, instead of doing a protest vote like I did last time. I think the same thing happened in Ontario. The N.D.P. there had sold out to such an extent that people were demoralized and didn't vote--and Harris got a second term!

I want to get back to the content of the article that provoked this discussion. What I got from that article was that polarization is kind of a good thing; that it makes for a strong opposition in parliament. Why, then, are folks on both sides of this argument speaking of polarization as if it were something evil?

Bailey, that was such a good posting about checks and balances needing to be restored. I must, however, take issue with one of your earlier postings where you speak as if "Stalin" is the inevitable result of being too far Left.
There was nothing Left about Stalin. He betrayed the revolution! And right now people who consider themselves moderately left wing, as I do, and as I would have been perceived in previous decades, are seen as "too far left". It seems to me that this danger you and Frank talk about of left wing extremism has already been pretty much neutralized both by the neo-cons AND the N.D.P. (I loved it when someone called them "neo-con light" a few weeks back.)

Frank, when you talked of Paris and Madrid, do you not suppose that the resisters of fascism didn't try "compromise" before they hit the barricades? People only resort to this kind of
resistance when they are pushed to the wall. No one wants to die.

The Liberals have hurt a lot of people in this province, Frank, but the N.D.P. hurt people too when they began to "compromise" with the right. It's not just a matter of "getting along", it's a matter of the least powerful citizens being sold out. Obviously, you were not one of the people hurt by the N.D.P. (people who were may then have been too demoralized to vote in the last election, believing that all parties will throw the poor to the wolves). My suspicion is that you are a yuppie, a small "l" liberal who only sees the N.D.P.'s compromises in a postive light because you have no clue what their real eventual outcome will be.

Anne, Of course Stalin betrayed his revolution, so did Hitler betray Germany.

My point was that the extremes are all very similar. Right, left, Christian, Muslim, any extreme view will lose all contact with the ideals of it's movement and become simply another extreme.

Fundamentalists are identical to each other, not opposites. They simply choose different enemies to justify their extremism.

Bailey, you misunderstand the way in which I mean "left" and why I say Stalin was not left-wing. To me, "left wing" means being for human rights and economic rights for all. Therefore, it is incompatible with any kind of totalitarianism, whether that totalitarianism calls itself "left wing" or not. Those you and Frank have been calling "extremists" aren't advocating totalitarianism, we are advocating the aforementioned human and economic rights. When we do this too strongly we are labeled "left wing extremists" but this does not lead to totalitarianism; it is psyhopathic personalities like Stalin's or Hitler's that do that! Stalin just happened to rise to power in a revolution that was allegedly left wing. He co-opted it and changed it into something the idealists who started it never imagined. To compare people who simply want a decent, uncompromised left-wing party in B.C. to "fundamentalists" who will lead us to a new Stalinism is rather insulting, and I don't understand the reasoning behind it. The Socreds of the 50's would have been labeled "left wing extremists" in this present climate!
What people most need is to question "leaders" of any kind, and if that makes me an anarchist, well, I don't recall anarchism producing any Stalins!