Ode to a friend...

Election - Post-Game Thoughts

So, there we have it: the Cons have a majority government. The NDP is the official opposition. Iggy led the Liberal party to a historic low in the house. The BQ is all but decimated and, at this point, Elizabeth May of the Greens might have won a seat for her party - finally. (Update - she won.)

Polls showed last week that the Big Orange Surge towards the NDP was a force but no one predicted this tsunami.

Ignatieff, who may have lost his seat at the time of this writing, (update: he lost it) was never an inspiring figure and I've wasted several pixels on my opinion of him on this blog through the years since he was anointed by the Libs. I never saw him as a potential prime minister and now, most of the country has told him that at the voting booth. As for the Liberal party, when you stand for mushy-middle centrism, you get what you deserve: a yawn and a wave goodbye.

Layton? Not my favourite person either - especially when he propped up the Cons in the past - but he deserves congratulations for leading his party to this monumental win. The NDP has more seats in parliament than they probably imagined they could have pulled off and the stark contrast between real left and right parties will make for very interesting times.

The BQ loss in Quebec shows a sea change in public opinion. I'm not surprised that so many Quebecois chose the NDP - not after watching the constant opposition to Canada's participation in the Afghanistan war. That province has often leaned more left than most others. I have to say that I admired Gilles' Duceppe's political skills. He's been quite adept. But - he lost his seat and now his party doesn't have enough seats for minority party status. That era is over. (Update: he resigned.)

As for Steve? Haven't we had ENOUGH of him? Now that he has majority power, we may be in for some seriously authoritarian moves (okay, even more of them than he's pulled so far). He doesn't have a hidden agenda. He's just never had enough power to ram it through. Layton and his new, large band of MPs are going to have their work cut out for them. I cringe at some of the right-wing crap this government will now feel very free to foist upon Canada. But - let them do it. Perhaps they'll push it just a little too far - as some of the wingnuts have recently done in the states. They may just end up hoisting themselves on their own petard. Cons always seem to manage that when they have absolute power. (Mulroney, anyone?)
 

Election Nite!

Will Jack Layton be our new overlord?

Will Michael Ignatieff's ego finally implode?

Will Stephen Harper cry like a baby?

Is this Gilles' last stand?

Will Elizabeth May finally get a seat in the house?

Stay tuned!

Live online coverage:

CPAC

CBC

Canuck newspapers listed on the left <<<<<<<

Popcorn!

Reboot

I've taken a long hiatus from blogging because I'd reached a point where my head was sure to explode last fall if I'd kept on chronicling the massive corruption, hypocrisy, and general insanity that was continually emanating from TPTB (The Powers That Be). Not that this was a new phenomenon - obviously - but I just couldn't justify expending one more ounce of my limited energy at that time to rail in any kind of meaningful way beyond just shouting, ARGH!.

I didn't disappear completely. I've commented on others' blogs and I've still maintained my News Junkie status. But my passion for attempting to write any sort of lengthy, convincing arguments about what I was witnessing diminished to the point where I probably should have just taken up Tweeting. To what end?

Anyway, I think I'm back now - sufficiently energized about the upcoming federal election, the implementation of the no-fly zone in Libya (which I'm against), the expansion of Western imperialism, the surrender to the moneyed interests and the resulting "austerity" (code for: screw the poor people) measures along with my continued voyeurism of the saga of the evaporation of Candidate Obama (as if he ever was a liberal) while President Obama moves further rightward with his every breath - among other things.

SO...

That's it. I'm also planning a blog redesign as soon as I can find something that I like and that I can actually make work.

Stay tuned.

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.