Stephen Who? at the UN

Last year, Stephen Harper snubbed the UN and went to Tim Horton's instead.

This year, the UN snubbed Stephen Harper and went to Tim Horton's instead.

h/t impolitical
 

Cons Steal a Page From Nixon's Playbook

When Daniel Ellsberg leaked the now infamous "Pentagon Papers" in the 1970s, the Nixon gang decided to go after him with a vengeance.

Via Wiki:

As a response to the leaks, the Nixon administration began a campaign against further leaks and against Ellsberg personally.[17] Aides Egil Krogh and David Young under John Ehrlichman's supervision created the "White House Plumbers", which would later lead to the Watergate burglaries.

In August 1971, Krogh and Young met with G. Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt in a basement office in the Old Executive Office Building. Hunt and Liddy recommended a "covert operation" to get a "mother lode" of information about Ellsberg's mental state to discredit him. Krogh and Young sent a memo to Ehrlichman seeking his approval for a "covert operation [to] be undertaken to examine all of the medical files still held by Ellsberg’s psychiatrist." Ehrlichman approved under the condition that it be "done under your assurance that it is not traceable."[18]

On September 3, 1971, the burglary of Lewis Fielding's office, titled "Hunt/Liddy Special Project No.1" in Ehrlichman's notes, was carried out by Hunt, Liddy and CIA agents Eugenio Martinez, Felipe de Diego and Bernard Barker. The "Plumbers" failed to find Ellsberg's file. Hunt and Liddy subsequently planned to break into Fielding's home, but Ehrlichman did not approve the second burglary.

The break-in was not known to Ellsberg or to the public until it came to light during Ellsberg and Russo's trial in April 1973.

Fast forward to this century and have a look at the case of Sean Bruyea:

OTTAWA – Confidential medical and financial information belonging to an outspoken critic of Veterans Affairs, including part of a psychiatrist’s report, found its way into the briefing notes of a cabinet minister.

Highly personal information about Sean Bruyea was contained in a 13-page briefing note prepared by bureaucrats in 2006 for then minister Greg Thompson, a copy of which was obtained by The Canadian Press.

The note, with two annexes of detailed information, laid out in detail Bruyea’s medical and psychological condition.

It's no secret that the Stephen Harper cabal will go to almost any lengths to stifle dissent - from muzzling Conservative MPs and ministers to firing scientists and calling opposition members traitors and terrorist sympathizers - but this has to be a new low.

So, how did Harper react to this situation? By doing what he always does: blaming the previous Liberal government. But there's a very obvious problem with that little tactic:

The New Veterans Charter was an initiative that straddled the transition between Paul Martin's Liberal government in 2005-2006 and Mr. Harper's Conservatives, who assumed power in late January, 2006.

A briefing note prepared for former veterans affairs minister Greg Thompson in March, 2006, was laced with private medical and financial information about Mr. Bruyea, including a quote from a psychiatrist's letter.

Experts called it a flagrant breach of the country's privacy laws and an attempt to destroy the former military intelligence officer's credibility.

The note was prepared for Mr. Thompson in advance of a meeting he had with Mr. Bruyea on March 28, 2006.

From Bruyea's site:

The document path even went as high as the Prime Minister’s Office when on March 21, 2006, a mid-level staffer called Bruyea and urged to him call off a news conference slated for that day where he publicly urged the Conservatives to hold off enacting the charter.

Harper now claims his government will cooperate fully with an investigation. When have we heard that before?
 

Suck it up, long-gun owners...

The people have spoken. The Cons lost.

Motion: Not to proceed further with C-391 (repeal of the long-gun registry)

Yeas - 153

Nays - 151
 

House-a-palooza

I did my impression of an "average" Canadian this summer i.e. I paid very little attention to the boring shenanigans of the federal pols - and it's obvious I didn't miss much.

I heard about a poll not long ago - see how much I wasn't paying attention? - that said only 9% of canucks follow the daily goings-on in Ottawa. No need to wonder why and I'll get back to joining my fellow 9 percenters now that the house in back in session, but...

First of all, I'm absolutely sick and fucking tired of hearing about the long gun registry. Sick.and.fucking.tired of it. And even with the vote on the Lib's amendment to save it coming up this week, which apparently now has enough NDP support to pass, Harper has vowed that they'll have to take that issue away from his cold, dead hands in the drama-queen, authoritarian way only a petulant, sweater-vest wearing, dictator-wannabe, black and white thinker can.

Memo to long gun owners: Get over it. If you can register your damn cars, you can register your damn guns. End of story.

Next?

Michael Ignatieff's summer road trip? zzzzzzzzzz...

Next?

The manufactured crisis over the mandatory long-form census? Jack tried to get an emergency debate about that on Monday. The Speaker refused. Statisticians and Bank of Canada Governor Mark Carney be damned. Tories don't need no stinkin' accurate numbers for anything! They're psychic, apparently.

Spending billions on fighter jets in a contract the air force thought would be competitive during a time when we're aiming to wind down our participation in Afghanistan? Just plain stupid. And the Cons are acting as if our nation's very security depends on this sole-sourced defence industry welfare. Pants-wetters. The lot of them. They'd do better to invest in bulk sales of Depends for their caucus. (But not with taxpayers' money).

Other bits of tid:

I was looking for info on Canada's medical marijuana program the other day (no, not for me) and found this story: Accused has expired medical marijuana card.

When he learned police had raided his room, seized his pot and charged him with producing and possessing marijuana, Les Petherick said he was stunned.

"I didn't actually believe it. I thought I was safe as I could be," he said.

The 46-year-old has been a licensed medical marijuana user since May 2009. He's allowed to grow up to 15 marijuana plants, store 1,500 grams and possess 120 grams.

He consumes it as medication for a serious back injury that causes him constant pain.

But since his card expired in May, with each licence being good for one year, Petherick says he has been waiting nearly four months to receive a renewed card.

This isn't one of my pet issues but as someone who lives with chronic pain daily (and who can't smoke pot for it because a) I'm a recovering addict - 23 years clean and b) the smell now nauseates me - even though I did smoke it daily for years), I support its' use for anyone it might help. Dog knows that relying on pharmaceuticals is risky and not at all helpful for the most part anyway.

So...I thought the fact that Health Canada is dragging its' heels on these renewals ought to be getting more eyeballs. The Cons SAY they're opposed to jailing innocent people (20 times a day when they yap about the gun registry) but I haven't heard any of them comment on this situation. Of course, the fact that this is about Reefer Madness probably has a lot to do with that.

And one last thing since I've jumped back into the blogging fray now: I don't live within Calgary's city limits so I can't vote for the new mayor/council. They're going to elect yet another center-right, business-friendly administration that continues to minimize the needs of the poor anyway, so...
 

Disgust

Well, I suppose I've put this off long enough.

There's one word that sums up why I haven't been blogging lately: disgust.

It crept up slowly and finally and reached a crescendo with an exclamation point at the beginning of the farce of a Gitmo "military tribunal" for former child soldier Omar Khadr - an expression of the moral bankruptcy of the American Empire™ and our own minority Conservative government which, despite a Canadian Supreme Court ruling stating that his charter rights were violated, has refused to lift a finger to help Khadr.

His "trial" has now been postponed for one month while his military lawyer recovers from an apparent gallbladder surgery-related illness.

Let me share an interview transcript with you that exemplifies why I've reached the point of disgust.

On July 26, 2010, CNN's Larry King interviewed Wikileaks founder Julian Assange and Daniel Ellsberg, leaker of the infamous Pentagon Papers.

ELLSBERG: You know, the people who put U.S. forces in harm's way, 100,000 men and women are -- in Afghanistan, are the last two administrations, but particularly this one -- the last administration, particularly this one, with a decision to escalate the war. It's -- I think it takes a lot of -- I don't know what to say, chutzpah (INAUDIBLE) for people who made the reckless, foolish, and I would say, irresponsible decisions to escalate a war that I'm sure they know internally is as hopeless as these new revelations reveal it to be.

And yet, they're preferring to send men and women into harm's way to die and to kill civilians and others -- in a war that I think they perceive is endless and hopeless, rather than to face the accusations of generals that they have, these politicians have lost a war that the generals claimed is winnable, they claimed that very foolishly.

I'd say that was exactly the same as the boss I served in 1965, Lyndon Johnson. He didn't want the General Johnson, the chief of staff of the Army, and others to resign if he didn't give them enough of what they were asking for. I think President Obama has made the same terrible error.


***

KING: Daniel, do you understand why Mr. Gibbs, representing the president, is so upset?

ELLSBERG: Well, he's very upset in part because he's working for a president who has indicted more people now for leaks than all previous presidents put together. And two of those people -- Thomas Drake and Shamai Leibowitz -- have been indicted for acts that were undertaken under Bush, which George W. Bush administration chose not to indict.

Powerful, indisputable facts.

But then came this:

ELLSBERG: So this is an administration that's more concerned about preventing transparency, I would say, than its predecessor which I'm very sorry to hear. As somebody who voted for Obama and expect to vote for him again, despite all this.

So, why should I care how Ellsberg votes?

The point is that this isn't about him.

It's about citizens who, in the face of horrendous human and civil rights violations, continue to support the perpetrators as if they have no other choice.

It's about citizens who surrender their power to an oligarchy whose only function is to sustain itself - rights be damned.

It's about citizens who think that believing in The Goodness of a leader trumps the very real and destructive actions of that leader.

It's about people who put the survival of political parties before the principles those parties are supposed to stand for.

It's about people who would rather "move forward" and not do what the law and international treaties demand: prosecuting government war criminals - a festering wound that has now been re-opened with this little parade of the so-called "last combat brigade" leaving Iraq this week - book-ended by the spokesman for US forces in Iraq, Maj Gen Stephen Lanza, (in an interview with Rachel Maddow) declaring that it's not a "war" anymore. The only thing missing was a "Mission Accomplished" banner for Obama to stand in front of.

It's about a dangerous subservience to governmental and corporate authority.

It's about an addiction to money and the supposed promise it's believed to fulfill.

It's about media more interested in maintaining access and survival than credibility.

It's about focusing on contrived political issues when the fundamentals of our very lives are at stake.

It's about disgust.

And it's about damn time more people woke up. Or maybe living in a suspended state of ignorant apathy is the best most people can do. Is that it? If it is, count me out. I refuse to live my life cowering in fear of my supposed "betters" when they have done nothing to earn my trust, respect, support or vote. You don't get to trample on peoples' rights and expect anything but disgust in return.
 

Olbermann: "Let Obama be Obama"

Olbermann: The witch-hunt vs. Sherrod, and those who made it possible

To paraphrase President Reagan's Secretary of the Interior, James Watt — Mr. Messina, and Mr. Emanuel, and everybody else in this White House who is gradually remodeling this President into something generic and safe and electable in 2012 by the slimmest of margins on the strength of being as media-circus-free and better suited to "this atmosphere" as possible.

Let Obama be Obama! And that advice must be heeded by one man above all others.

Let Obama be Obama?

Breaking news for you, Olbermann. This is Obama being Obama. Mr "No Drama" Obama who avoids confrontations at all costs until his back is against the wall and he has no choice but to respond.

What I find interesting here is that Olbermann is saying that Obama is simply a political puppet of stronger forces like Jim Messina and Rahm Emmanuel. So, I guess when he said, "The buck stops with me", he really meant that it stops with him after he's been directed by his advisors about what to do with it.

I suppose Olbermann had to include some excuse to cover for Obama in this shameful incident that saw a useless WH political machine throw yet another African-American under that now infamous bus to keep his Obama-loving fans happy. I doubt they even realize that Olbermann said Obama's presidency is being managed behind the scenes just as Dubya's was.

To top it off, Olbermann apparently believes that "Fired up?" was more than just some catchy campaign slogan.

The question used to be "fired up?" - and the answer: "Ready to go!" The question now is "fired up?" - the answer now is: "Not ready, because we cannot afford the impression of not looking sufficiently presidential and neutral and inviting a media circus in this atmosphere."

And he doesn't seem to realize yet that "hope" and "change" meant that starstruck fans like him would be hoping Obama would change all through his presidency to become this flaming liberal he never was during his campaign. That was blatantly obvious to anyone who was paying attention without fanboy blinders on.

There has been no gradual remodeling of Barack Obama during his presidency.

Obama is being Obama.

By stating, "Let Obama be Obama", what Olbermann is asking is that he be anyone but who he really is. And that is obviously not going to happen.

As for what happened to Shirley Sherrod, the Leave Obama Alone! crowd which has insisted he had no part to play in this travesty and who didn't think he owed Mrs Sherrod a damn thing because of that will now have to live with the fact that he has finally personally apologized to her - because he was ultimately responsible for the actions of his government.

Too little, too late considering just how quickly his administration jumped to get rid of her in the first place after (yet again) foolishly believing that right-wing nuts actually tell the truth. Some of his defenders even tried to claim that Vilsack wasn't a part of the administration. Apparently, they don't either don't know how government is structured or they were just grasping at any excuse to place distance between Obama and Vilsack. Either way, it's been quite the pathetic display of refusing to hold those responsible accountable.

Those defenders - comparable to Bush's 20 percenters - truly believe he is not responsible for anything that goes wrong in his administration while heaping praise on him for absolutely everything that goes right. They gaze at pictures like him as if he's some sort of teen idol - a phenomenon I never saw any Bush supporters engage in. Can you imagine the ridicule from the left if some right-wing blog had posted that kind of propaganda week in and week out during Bush's presidency while adding only Good News™ about what their dear leader was up to because they couldn't deal with reality?

That's why they cannot fathom any criticism being lobbed Obama's way. "Brand Obama", as described by Naomi Klein,  is too big too fail and must be bailed out continually at all costs:

Klein: One of the things in this-you know, a large part what I write about in No Logo is the absorption of these political movements into the world of marketing. And, you know, the first time I saw the "Yes, We Can" video that was produced by Will.i.am, my first thought was, you know, "Wow. A politician has finally produced an ad as good as Nike that plays on our, sort of, faded memories of a more idealistic era, but, yet, doesn't quite say anything." We think we hear the message we want to hear, but if you really parse it, the promises aren't there, it's really the emotions.

And, you know, I think that that explains in some sense the paralysis in progressive movements in the United States where we think, Obama stands for something because we-our emotions were activated on these issues, but we don't really have much to hold him to because, in fact, if you look at what he said during the campaign, like any good super brand, like any good marketer, he made sure not to promise too much, so that he couldn't be held to it.

Political consumers.

That does not bode well for a democracy that is supposed to be based on reason. And we're watching as the results of that marketing are being played out while dignified people like Shirley Sherrod become victims of that emotional consumption engaged in by the right, the left and all of those in between. It has produced the same outcome as unchecked capitalism: moral bankruptcy.
 

C'est dommage...

So, I had promised myself that I would finally get around to writing a new blog post today since I've been on a bit of a hiatus lately working on my little vegetable garden and then taking painkillers, naps and physio treatments to deal with the pain. Gardening with lupus, fibromyalgia, scoliosis, degenerative discs, bad feet and burning hips makes this effort a definite labour of love.

Just as I feared, however, after years of not having space to plant a garden and now actually having achieved that feat it was devastated by hail this afternoon. Not sure what there is to salvage yet besides some potatoes that look like they'll survive and perhaps a few garlic plants. I also managed to move some flower pots in time to save them from the storm but certainly not all of them, as you can see in the photos. All of this after having to wait through a very wet spring until the first week of June to actually plant anything. Murphy's Law as far as my life goes.

On top of that, I'm off to see my doctor on Wednesday after getting new x-rays of my hips and back last week which he would now like to discuss with me (code for: he saw something that concerns him.) Because I need yet one more thing to go wrong with my body. If he actually has a clue how to fix my back though, I will be grateful.

This week sucks so far... c'est dommage (literally).

Yes, it could be worse and, yes, others are suffering much more than I ever will. But - every now and then - it's okay to wallow just for a little while.
 

G...

Questions for the Cons:

Do you understand now why holding the G20 summit in downtown Toronto was a huge fucking mistake?

Did you really think these summits would boost Ontario tourism? Really?

Care to comment on how at least 3 cop cars were torched after apparently being left unattended?

How about the report about a journalist who was punched in the face? Got anything to say about that?

And this one? Emomotimi Azorbo charged with assaulting a police officer, resisting arrest, but friends say he couldn’t hear and follow police instructions. He is deaf.

Can you tell us why the TO police chief says he's "shocked" by the violence? "Shocked"?

Seriously, if you Cons thought Canadians were outraged at the $1 billion security tab you racked up for this farce, just wait until the fallout from this really hits the fan.

And Saturday nite has only just begun...

And while you try to blame what's going on on a bunch of anarchists, more than a bit of self-reflection about this absolutely bone-headed, politically-motivated decision you made about the location of this clusterfuck will definitely be in order.

I'll tell you what: next time you guys want to get together, do the rest of us a favour and try Cuba. I hear Gitmo has damn good and cheap security. And that pesky "free speech" thing won't even be an issue.
 

Generally Speaking - About Afghanistan

There's obviously no need to rehash what was written about General Stanley McChrystal and his aids in the now infamous Rolling Stone article that shook DC more than the very real earthquake that rattled Ontario and Quebec today.

McChrystal is out. A political no-brainer for Obama.

The other shoe that dropped, however, is that Petraeus is in.

And what did candidate Obama have to say about the man he just nominated to head the ISAF surge?

Obama Gives Petraeus Remarks Low Marks

By ELI LAKE, Staff Reporter of the Sun | September 11, 2007

WASHINGTON — Senator Obama, the Democrat from Illinois seeking his party’s nomination for the presidency, is giving the Iraq progress report of General David Petraeus low marks, going so far as to claim the one clear success in Iraq in recent months — the rout of Al Qaeda in Anbar — has nothing to do with the military surge the general in Washington is defending.

“I’m not sure that the success in Anbar has anything to do with the surge,” Mr. Obama said today at the first of two hearings featuring General Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker. “You yourself said it was political.”

And yet president Obama bowed to McChrystal when he publicly shamed him to send tens of thousands more troops to Afghanistan for yet another military surge that's bound to end in failure - something even McChrystal now acknowledges.

Obama today:

He urged the Senate to confirm Petraeus swiftly and emphasized the Afghanistan strategy he announced in December was not shifting with McChrystal's departure.

"This is a change in personnel, but it is not a change in policy," Obama said.

That policy is killing record numbers of soldiers.

That policy may well slow down the withdrawal of US troops while painting a rosy picture that counts on collective amnesia about just how "successful" Petraeus' surge strategy was in Iraq.

Same war. Different commander. Same policy. Different outcome?

Not likely.

It wasn't McChrystal's policy implementation that Obama had a problem with. It was his insubordination.

Candidate Obama would have told president Obama not to have nominated McChrystal in the first place considering his track record. But candidate Obama and president Obama are two very different people - as we all know by now.
 

Control Freak Steve

It's no surprise that Father Knows Best Harper has been using a tightly controlled message strategery to muzzle his ministers and anyone who represents his government or that they've tried for years to cloak the Canadian involvement in the Afghanistan war as some sort of peacekeeping mission. (See also: 2007: Canadians Will Not be Fooled by War Propaganda).

What is surprising is that they actually allowed this access to information request that uncovered the MEPs to go through considering their blatant contempt for free-flowing information. ("Attack dog" Marleau retired not long after that. We'll see how the new czar does under this repressive regime.)

Anyone who watched question period the past couple of weeks saw the MEP talking points about the Cons' G8/G20 billion dollar security cost boondoggle following Steve's Bouncing Ball of Bullshit as the excuses rolled out day after day:

"We don't want to spend this money. We have to."

"9/11."

And today's rendition after being confronted with the "fake lake" controversy:

"We're proud of Canada."

"Tourism."

The message has been clear: if you oppose spending a billion bucks on security for a 72 hour gabfest, you:

1. Hate Canada.

2. Hate security and the security forces.

Just more of the typical fear-mongering that Conservatives are infamous for.

Poor Steve.

And he wonders why his party can't muster enough support to actually form a majority?

Look in the mirror, honey.

Transparency: a word in Steve's dictionary that comes between tragedy and treason.