Hee Hee Hee

Despite the misspelling in the caption, I rather like this cartoon, probably for obvious reasons.



As well, you may enjoy these letters from Star readers who have an even less flattering view of Mr. Harper as it pertains to his northern junket, escaping the heat via prorogation, and his ongoing senate 'problems.'

My Second Surprise Today

Earlier today., I posted a brief piece on how, despite my reservations about Justin Trudeau's leadership capacity, I found his openness and honesty refreshing when it came to pot.

The second surprise I got today was the fact that he spoke quite candidly about his opposition to Quebec's proposed ban on religious symbols and clothing in public buildings.

As you will see see if you read the readers' comments following the first link, people are beginning to discern a difference amongst the three major party leaders, with Trudeau's assertiveness offering a sharp contrast to Thomas Mulcair's refusal to 'comment on something that has not yet been tabled' to the Harper regime's gutless 'it's a provincial matter' evasion of anything remotely representing a real stand.

A Friday Evening Thought

I came upon this excerpt of a much longer poem by Elizabeth Barrett Browning on Owen's blog this morning in his Daily Literary Quote section.

... Earth’s crammed with heaven,
And every common bush afire with God;
But only he who sees, takes off his shoes,
...

Imagine the world if we treated it with the reverence it deserves.

UPDATED: Let The Hysteria Begin

While I have real doubts about Justin Trudeau's leadership qualities, I have to give him credit for a degree of openness almost non-existent in politicians. While surely well-aware of the political consequences, he has admitted to smoking pot since he became an M.P. He said that he made this admission for the purposes of full transparency.

The response from the Harperites has been both swift and predictable, at a time when even the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police (see video below) are advocating handing out tickets for pot possession:

Justice Minister Peter MacKay said that smoking pot as an MP demonstrated "a profound lack of judgment" on Trudeau's part.

"By flouting the laws of Canada while holding elected office, he shows he is a poor example for all Canadians, particularly young ones. Justin Trudeau is simply not the kind of leader our country needs," MacKay said in a statement.

Meanwhile, you might like to read this AlterNet article that gives 10 frightening examples of why the 'war on drugs' is far too costly.

UPDATE: Many thanks to LeDaro for alerting me to this video, a discussion on Power and Politics about Trudeau's revelation. I couldn't help but note the short leash the party put Conservative M.P. Blake Richards on as he evades questions and only repeats points.

Constable Stefanie Trudeau

Given Sammy Yatim's tragic execution by police for swearing at them and holding a penknife, and the shooting in the back of the unarmed Steve Mesic in Hamilton, I suppose the 'mouthy' young man depicted in the following video was 'lucky' to be merely pepper-sprayed for his 'impertinence.' Nonetheless, the justice sytem in Quebec, after an internal police investigation, has ruled that there was insufficient context in the video evidence to charge the officer, Constable Stephanie Trudeau:

Quebec’s directorate of public prosecutions said in a statement Wednesday afternoon that 27 witnesses had been interviewed in the course of the probe into Trudeau’s actions that evening and they had concluded, given the “aggressive and violent nature of the protests,” that the officer had not used unnecessary force as defined in the Criminal Code.

“As a result, no criminal offence has been committed by the officer who was the subject of this investigation,” the agency said.

From my perspective, the video seems to offer a pretty full context, but hey, I'm a mere civilian with a bias in favour of free speech:



If you would like to see another video featuring Constable Trudeau's aggressive proclivities, click here.

Canada, Doesn't This Sound Familiar?

On Bad Days And Defiance

Yesterday was not a good day for me. First, I awoke to read about the government raid on the Guardian office resulting in the destruction of computers containing some of the material leaked by Edward Snowden on illegal state surveillance. Eerily reminiscent of the U.S. Department of Justice raid on the Associated Press back in May, there is little doubt in my mind that these are actions designed to cast a deep chill, not only on journalists themselves, but also on their sources, many of whom demand an anonymity that can no longer be guaranteed.

The second blow to my day was learning that Elmore Leonard, a peerless master of crime fiction, a writer of prodigious output, had died at the age of 87. If you have never read one of his post-western novels, give one a try. If, like me, you have an affinity for things slightly off-kilter, you will appreciate Leonards's slightly bent characters and impeccable ear for language and dialogue. Even though he enjoyed a long life, I am saddened that I will never again read a new work by him.

While nothing can stop the tide of time and mortality, much can be done to stand together against the tyranny of the state. The basis of that stand has to be access to information that allows us to decide for ourselves where truth lies, not where the state and the corporate-driven media wants us to believe it lies. And the basis for that information must be unfettered journalism, not journalism cowed and confined by intimidation tactics. In today's Star, Heather Mallick writes passionately about the issue.

Entitled Like food, we need good reporting to survive, Mallick, reflecting on the outrage at the Guardian, observes that there is a

... common attitude floating in the ether: that secret information must not be reported. Citizens — including in Canada, a most secretive country — must not know about who governs us, how they behave and how they keep us under surveillance so that we may be quickly pulled in on a hook.

She goes on to make two assertions that seem irrefutable to me:

Opposing reporting is like opposing food. We need food the same way we need information about where and how we live, globally, nationally and locally. Those intolerant of lactose and gluten may not like traditional milk or bread. But we still need and like food.

And:

Without reporting, we fail as a democracy.

Creeping state interference with our ability to know, understand and assess information and activities does not bode well for our way of life. People who think otherwise, embracing and/or promoting willful ignorance instead of enlightenment, are doing great harm to each of us.

They are the real enemy we should all be on guard against.

A Tuesday Night Thought

From one of my favourite writers, speakers, thinkers and bloggers, Alex Himelfarb.

Harper's Tricks Are Getting A Tad Tiresome

Sure, I could write reams on what the old trickster is up to in proroguing Parliament yet again. I think the following, though, brought to you by our friends at Citizens Rallying To Unseat Stephen Harper, sums everything up nicely:

Chalk Up Another One For Orwell

Or, to update the metaphor, computers being destroyed by the govenment:

The message is clear: citizens do not have the right to material that would allow them to decide for themselves whether the overarching and illegal domestic spying being carried out by western 'democracies' is justified.

Following revelations of the baseless detainment of Glenn Greenwald's partner at Heathrow Airport on Sunday for nine hours, along with the confiscation of his computer equipment, we are now learning that Britains's GCHQ raided the offices of The Guardian to destroy computers containing data leaked by US whistleblower Edward Snowden.

Alan Rusbridger, the editor of the Guardian, said “shadowy Whitehall figures” had ordered the destruction after his paper refused to hand over files on American mass surveillance programmes sent to it by Mr Snowden.

Mr Rusbridger said the computers were turned into “mangled bits of metal” after the incident and warned that the “pointless” vandalism represented part of an increasingly “formidable” effort to curb freedom of the press.

Both the detention of Miranda and the destruction of the computers are clearly intimidation tactics, the message of which is clear: You are nothing, you are powerless before the state, you continue to exist only at our sufferance.

Hyperbole? An overreaction on my part? Would it were so.

Click here to read the reaction of Guardian Editor Alan Rusbridger to this bald flexing of state power.

As well, Glenn Greenwald's reaction to the state's mistreatment of his partner is one of defiance and contempt:

Even the Mafia had ethical rules against targeting the family members of people they felt threatened by. But the UK puppets and their owners in the US national security state obviously are unconstrained by even those minimal scruples.

If the UK and US governments believe that tactics like this are going to deter or intimidate us in any way from continuing to report aggressively on what these documents reveal, they are beyond deluded. If anything, it will have only the opposite effect: to embolden us even further. Beyond that, every time the US and UK governments show their true character to the world - when they prevent the Bolivian President's plane from flying safely home, when they threaten journalists with prosecution, when they engage in behavior like what they did today - all they do is helpfully underscore why it's so dangerous to allow them to exercise vast, unchecked spying power in the dark.

You can read Greenwald's entire piece here.

Not Again!

I just got back into town and heard the news. I have a simple message for our gutless 'Prime Minister':

We Now Pause For This Announcement

I'm out of town today, so let me offer you this inspirational graphic that I 'borrowed' from Richard at Cowichan Conversations.

Freedoms? What Freedoms?

For anyone still under the illusion that our rights and freedoms are sacred trusts protected by our democracies, you might want to read this little item, the beginning of what I suspect will be a very long period of payback for Glenn Greenwald's act of bringing Edward Snowden's inconvenient truths to the world's attention.

H/t Min Reyes

UPDATED: Some Sunday Recreation

Think I'll go out on my bicycle this morning. In the meantime, enjoy these letters on the Senate imbroglio found in yesterday's Star:

Machiavelli wrote: “Those who governed the state of Florence . . . used to say it was necessary to reconstitute the government every five years . . . otherwise it was difficult to maintain it.”

What brings down all holders of significant public office in the end is hubris. There is no escape, no way out, whether in an oligarchy or a democracy. Once they are sucked into the maelstrom embrace of the “government machine,” they are inevitably cut off from the real world with the result being hubris ending in a wretched fall from grace.

Monte McMurchy, Toronto

If I were to rob a bank and then get caught, I would be charged and sent to jail, even if I said I would give back the money. So why are politicians not treated the same way when they steal money from the taxpayers? Anyone caught using public funds for their own benefit should receive an automatic jail sentence and forfeit their pension. Implement this rule and anyone in public office would think twice before sliding their hand into our pocket.

Dave Watson, Pickering

Two things consistently strike me about this Senate scandal:
1. Is it not very telling that it is so difficult to specifically define “Senate business” for the purpose of making expense claims?
2. Is it also not very telling that the principal reason for retaining the Senate repeatedly given by many observers is the fact that it would be so difficult constitutionally to abolish it?

Hmmm. We can’t really say what we do, but it might be a pain to get rid of us, so we better keep going. Hardly a ringing endorsement.

Michael Farrell, Oakville

Senator Wallin seems to have the same syndrome as Conrad Black, Bill Clinton, Sheila Copps, Mike Duffy, Patrick Brazeau, Mac Harb and Martha Stewart, etc. She simply will not admit that she ever did anything wrong. Strength and self confidence based on noble principles is one thing, but stubborness. arrogance, and frothing and grunting at the public trough is something else.

Douglas Cornish. Ottawa

And the best for last:

Every time a peace tower bell rings Pamela Wallin gets her wings to fly anywhere at the public’s expense. Oh it’s a wonderful life!

Terry Toll, Campbell’s Bay, Que.

UPDATE: For those who can't get enough of the shenanigans transpiring in our chamber of sober second thought, Bruce Anderson offers an interesting perspective in The Globe.

A Saturday Night Special: On Friday Night News Dumps, Lamar Alexander's Shirts, And Other Weighty Matters

I love Rachel Maddow. Some of the reasons for my ardour are on display in the following video from her show. Enjoy.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

UPDATED: The Dishonourable Minister of Duplicity

Yesterday I write a brief post expressing my disdain for the fact that Peter MacKay and his family are on the cover of the 'celebrity' magazine Hello! Canada. That disdain springs not only from his incompetent and dishonest performance on more than one occasion as a long-standing cabinet minister in the Harper government, but also from the fact that were it not for MacKays patent lack of integrity, the Conservative Party of Canada would not exist today.

Serendipitously, I came upon a podcast hosted by Global Research marking the ten years that have elapsed since Peter MacKay's betrayal led to end of the Progressive Conservative Party and the birth of the Harper mutation known as the Conservative Party of Canada. The rest, as they say, is history, albeit a sad one for many of us who care about this country.

An introduction to the podcast, written by Marjaleena Repo and Michael Welch, reminds us of some of the sordid history behind the incarnation of today's party:

David Orchard contested the leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party back in 2003. Orchard relied on the support of grass-roots people, myself among them, who were opposed to government policies on free trade, environmental neglect, and Canadian support for imperial wars abroad. [7]

It was through Orchard’s support that Peter Mackay became leader of the party. Mackay then betrayed the condition of Orchard’s support by orchestrating a merger with the right-wing US-Republican style Canadian Alliance Party, which was then led by Stephen Harper. [8]

This betrayal, in addition to some of the other shenanigans which played out in the months during the leadership campaign and leading up to the vote to merge the parties in December provides a critical context for assessing this party’s commitment to ethics, responsible conduct and fair play.

An example of the shenanigans?

“They would do all kinds of things…Organizing meetings that didn’t happen or people would go to a delegate selection meeting and the address was a pawn shop in Regina so people stood at the street corner waiting for something and nobody came…There was a kind of planned confusion…by people who really wanted us to stay out, and I think these people were people who wanted the party to be taken over.” Orchard campaign manager and political advisor Marjaleena Repo

While dirty politics is hardly something MacKay invented, I feel a special animus toward him due to the long-term effects of his dishonourable behaviour.

You can listen to or download the podcast here.

UPDATE: I see that MacKay, the new Minister of Justice, is continuing his duplicity. In reference to American justice trends during an interview, he insists that Canada is moving in a very progressive way, despite the evidence that proves otherwise, evidence that MacKay dismisses as “partisan rhetoric”:

“They’re [the U.S.]talking about moving away from very harsh sentences that were handed down for, in some cases, simple possession. That we’ve already done, [This bold lie ignores the fact that growing six pot plants now requires a minimum six month sentence under Harper reforms] but there will remain very severe penalties in the U.S., in fact more severe than in Canada, for trafficking in narcotics and that is an area in which our government feels very strongly.”

Despite cuts to prisoner work programs and new rules that make it harder for ex-convicts to obtain pardons, MacKay maintains Canada’s approach is “balanced” and “doesn’t lose sight of the need to rehabilitate.”

To read the full extent of Peter's prevarications, click here.

A Friday Evening Thought

Words to live by from our friends at Occupy Canada:

More On The Struggle Of Minimum Wage Workers

We hear it all the time from those who slavishly and unconscionably parrot the corporate line: raising the minimum wage is a job-killer. While that rhetoric may serve the insatiable business appetite for greater and greater profits at the expense of vulnerable workers, it simply isn't true. While I have written several posts recently on American fast-food workers' attempts to double their wages, we would be indeed foolish and willfully ignorant to believe that the American struggle is not also the struggle of their Canadian counterparts.

Even if you only have a few minutes to spare, I would urge you to watch at least part of the following video, and read the accompanying story on Alternet.

My, My, My

The web blurb for Hello Canada! magazine states the following: HELLO! Canada brings you the latest celebrity & royal news from around the world.

This is what graces its current cover:

Impoverished indeed are we as a nation* if a minister as consistently and profoundly incompetent as Peter MacKay and his family are deemed worthy of celebrity status.

* Special thanks to Yoda for permission to use his always arresting syntax.

A Reading Recommendation

For those appalled by Russia's rampant homophobia (and I hope that's everyone, Real Women notwithstanding), The Star's Judith Timson has a column in today's paper well-worth reading.

By the way, speaking of Real Women, The Star's David Macfarlane has two choice words for them.

On Tim Hudak's Evangelical Political Fervour

Crazed clerics are not the only ones possessed of an evangelical fervour. Young Tim Hudak, leader (at least for now) of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party, is well-known for wanting to bring back some of that old-time religion in the form of union-bashing and dismantlement, something he likes to describe eupehmistically as workplace democracy.

Happily, the agenda clumsily yet avidly embraced by Mr. Hudak and his federal brethren is transparent to many, as the following Star letter makes clear:

Re: A Conservative banner you won’t see, Aug. 10

Susan Delacourt misses the point. While home ownership is the dream of all middle-class and would-be middle-class Canadians, the changes to tougher mortgage restrictions by the Conservative government is not the problem. The problem is that fiscal Conservatives like Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mayor Rob Ford, not to mention the wanabee premier Tim Hudak, bash unions and are thereby responsible for the loss of middle class and fair wage jobs.

In the name of fiscal responsibility we have seen in the last decade the radical decline of good paying employment. Unions protect not only their members but, by raising the bar on wages and benefits, also protect non-members. But, these fiscal elites bash unions and give jobs to the minimum-wage-paying private for profit sector.

The real culprit in the decline of the middle class and the smashing of their dreams is not changes to mortgage lending, but rather the overall decline of wages and salaries. The growth in wealth of the 1 per cent does not make for a sound economy. Unions are the major defence against the one-sided economy we now have.

If the middle class hopes to regain some of its vitality (and surely the entire country depends on this) then it’s time for union bashing to end. Conservatives like the prime minister and the mayor and Mr. Hudak believe that divide and conquer, by creating jealousy on the part of non-union workers of those lucky enough to be protected by group action, is the way to keep wealth in the hands of the few. That’s the secret agenda.

It’s really time the electorate woke up to this Machiavellian plan and took back their power.

Stephen L. Bloom, Toronto

The Dark Side Of Evangelicalism

While I periodically enjoy making sport of what I sometimes refer to as crazy old evangelicals (a distinction I make out of respect to the sincere and well-intentioned ones) and fundamentalists who espouse views that are an egregious insult to people's intelligence, I am by and large a person who is of the opinion that everyone has a right to their own beliefs, as long as they don't try to inflict them on others. I have my own spiritual convictions, but I don't see it as my role to proselytize.

But people cross the line when they insist that their views should form the blueprint for the way people conduct themselves. Evangelical pastor Scott Lively of Massachusetts is one such person who has crossed that line.

As reported in The Raw Story, Lively is facing charges of crimes against humanity, accused of violating international law by inciting the persecution of LGBT individuals in Uganda.

Lively attended an anti-gay conference entitled “Seminar on Exposing the Homosexual Agenda” in 2009 in which he accused gays and lesbians of having genocidal tendencies. His lecture lead [sic] to the introduction of the bill, the lawsuit claimed.

Lively denies having any role in the hateful legislation, and says the lawsuit “boils down to nothing more than an attempt to define my Biblical views against homosexuality as a crime.”

If you have the stomach for it, you can read more about Lively's self-pitying justifications for his religious ardour on his blog.

Unless you are of unusually robust constitution, I suggest you read it sparingly.

Here There Be Dragons

I take it that metaphors are too subtle a concept for the fundamentalist mind:

I Guess This Explains Everything

Like many others, I have been deeply troubled by the Edward Snowden's revelations about domestic spying conducted by the NSA. Watch the following video if you would like to know the true source of the problem.



By the way, Gordon Klingenschmitt, as you will see if you click on the link, has had an interesting career.

Pondering Pam Et Al.

It was a comment yesterday that The Mound of Sound (a.k.a. The Disaffected Lib) made in response to a cartoon I posted depicting the much beleaguered Senator Wallin that made me think. He reminded me of an earlier time when there was honour associated with public service, and expressed the hope that Harper's poisonous partisanship is something that we will eventually recover from.

I have been following politics for a very long time, something that no doubt partially accounts for my deep cynicism. I am well-aware that the current scandals engulfing the notorious quartet of senators under investigation cannot be seen as an indictment of the entire institution; in fact, in many ways it is a mere diversion, or at best a sensational tip of the iceberg, of much deeper problems plaguing our democracy, problems that have only worsened under the dark reign of the Harper cabal, problems that may seem irrelevant to the majority but are in fact threatening the kind of life and values that we enjoy as Canadians.

Yet my gratification at the public squirming of people like Wallin and Duffy is deep and abiding. Mound's comments set me to thinking about why. In my daily life, I like to think that I have a reasonable amount of empathy for others. Why is it totally absent when it comes to public figures who hold authority? Why does the betrayal of public trust, the abuse of power, inflame me so much? I think there are likely three reasons:

Having been 'taught' in the Catholic school systems many years ago, I and many of my fellow students were regularly subjected to both physical and verbal abuse by our teachers, abuse that began in elementary school, only to be intensified at the secondary level. It took me many many years to overcome my anger and bitterness over that mistreatment.

As a teacher, I was keenly aware of the responsibility and trust the position entailed. Almost all of the people I worked with over the years respected that trust. All of us knew that the rare instances in which it was violated reflected badly on all of us. it was a trust we did not take lightly.

Also during my teaching career, I was witness to administrative abuse of authority, decisions made that favoured students and their parents in the effort to stave off parental complaints that could impede their upward career trajectory. Once, I was myself the victim of a vindictive principal who disciplined me with an insubordination charge for the campaign I mounted to get a candy vending machine removed from beside my classroom due to the noise and distraction it caused, as well as what I considered to be the inappropriate commercialization of an academic area. It was a charge I later successfully fought and had removed from my record.

So I guess my point is a public justification for the animus I hold against people in high places who treat others, mainly the electorate, with contempt. Stephen Harper does it, his acolytes do it, as do his Senate appointees. I ardently look forward to their fall, but hope the damage they have done to people's faith is not irreparable.

For those interested, Rosie DiManno has Ms Wallin in her sights today, as does Tim Harper. As well, the Star editorializes on how all of this reflects very very badly on our Prime Minister and his abysmal judgement in appointing three of the four senators now at the receiving end of profound public odium.

Our Porcine Friends Deserve Better

I have been assured that no animals were hurt during the production of this cartoon:

A Timely Message Important To Everyone

The video that follows was made by Canadian Doctors For Medicare, who are advocating for a national pharmacare program, something that a country as rich as ours could well-afford. It is a logical and necessary extension of our national healthcare. In fact, according to an article in The National Post,

Canada is one of the few developed countries in the world without a universal pharmacare program, and we are the only country in the world with a universal medicare system that excludes prescription drugs (as if pharmaceuticals are not an essential element of medical treatment). Each year, a staggering 10% of Canadians cannot fill a prescription due to financial reasons.

Instead of a consistent and uniform standard throughout the country, Canada has a patchwork of provincial programmes that may or may not meet people's needs. During the 12 years I lived in Manitoba in the 70's and 80's, for example, I enjoyed its pharmacare coverage which, at the time, as I recall, had a standard deductible of only $80. While things have changed somewhat in the interim, with the deductible now a percentage of family income, it is far superior to what other Canadian jurisdictions offer.

A sharp contrast is found in Ontario, where I now live; only people over 65 qualify for general coverage. Other groups, depending upon their level of poverty or their special needs, can access some coverage through other programmes.

For a breakdown of what is available in the other provinces and the Territories, click here.



That we do not have a national program offering universal access should be a source of shame. Perhaps if we are ever fortunate enough to elect a government that cares more about the well-being of its citizens than it does about bloated corporate profits, things will change.

UPDATED: Puncturing The Myth That Raising Minimum Wages Will Kill Jobs

The question of minimum wage has been very much a topic of discussion in alternative media of late, and I have written a few posts about the struggle. I am leading off today's consideration of the issue with a well-considered letter from a Star reader, followed by a Real News video that explores the Australian experience with a much higher minimum wage which, despite the right-wing hysteria equating anything that raises the costs of doing business with the killing of jobs, is doing quite nicely, thank you.

Re: Hiking the minimum wage, Letter, Aug. 9

In his letter, Doug Stewart seems to be forgetting one very important thing. The economy depends on people spending money. If someone is paid so little they can’t afford the basics, they not only will not have much to contribute to the economy and taxes, they will also become a burden on the taxpayer. Do those in the Timmy’s drive-through, sitting in their big SUVs, really need the few pennies they save by being served by those earning poverty wages? Why is that person behind the counter also not entitled to be able to buy things? You might also take a look at Walmart. It’s a very large and successful company. Its owners are among the richest people in the U.S. Yet, their employees often have to rely on the state for things like adequate food and health care. In Wisconsin, a Walmart employee is estimated to cost the taxpayer some $5,000 per year in state benefits. California is working on a law to fine Walmart every time an employee has to rely on medicaid. This is that you get when you don’t pay people enough to support themselves. The taxpayer winds up subsidizing the employer. Is that really what you want?

James Knott, Mississauga

By examining the experience of Australia and some European countries, this video offers a useful counterbalance to the propaganda that permeates the mainstream media about minimum wages:



UPDATE: Thom Hartman adds additional facts that show how wrong companies like Walmart are in bleeding their workers while at the same time being subsidized by the taxpayer.

Guest Commentary: Why Tim Hudak Has Failed To Catch Fire

Yesterday I wrote an entry offering my opinion on why Ontarians are not embracing Progressive Conservative Leader Tim Hudak as the economic messiah he purports to be. Fellow blogger ThinkingManNeil offered a concise and insightful comment on Hudak's problem, which I am posting as a separate entry here:

I think that another reason that Ontarians are reluctant to give Hudak the reins of power is that most most people who remember the Harris regime really remember seeing no tangible benefits from it. Hospitals were closed, teachers and nurses were fired by the truckload, the deregulation free for all (free fall?) gave us Walkerton, the riots at Queen's Park and the execution of Dudley George, workfare that promised job training but was more like punitive community service (aka forced labour litter collection), and seeing valuable provincial assets sold off such as the cash cow 407 highway. And all the while the only beneficiaries of these changes seem to have been the Bay Street set. Now in Sparky McAusterity we see someone even more doctrinaire than Harris, and short of Ford Nation or the Harper Reich I think most folks a pretty leery of seeing a "Common Sense Revolution" on steroids...

Why Tim Hudak Is Such A Failure As A Political Leader

I realize that the subject of Ontario politics is likely of little interest to those residing outside of the province. Yet I can't help but think that the dynamics at work here are not much different than anywhere else in the country, especially when one is talking about the qualities that make for an effective political leader.

In today's edition of The Star, Michael Taube, a political analyst and former speechwriter for Stephen Harper, offers his opinion as to why it is imperative that Tim Hudak, the leader of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party, should step down as soon as possible. The reasons he adduces for this position, in my view, miss the larger problem epitomized by people like Hudak.

Essentially, his indictment of the hapless Hudak revolves around the contention that he doesn’t have the personality, strategic skills or the common touch that [Mike] Harris cobbled together in two successive majority governments.:

Hudak flip-flopped on seemingly solid policy positions, including opposing the HST, eliminating human rights commissions and removing the health tax. His proposal for a public sex-offender registry should have been a no-brainer, but was sold poorly and turned out to be a negative factor. Opposition rivals claimed Hudak has similar policies to the U.S. Tea Party movement, and he just couldn’t escape the comparison. He even caused a communications nightmare for his party by using a loaded term “foreign workers” when opposing a Liberal plan for a $10,000 tax credit for first-time hires of immigrants.

Such an analysis strikes me as shallow and incomplete at best. While it is true that young Tim has failed to inspire confidence in the electorate, Taube's narrow ideological lens suggests that a good portion of Ontario is awaiting a leader who steadfastly projects the kind of right-wing values epitomized by Mike Harris, unquestionably the most divisive and, in my view, detested premier Ontario has ever seen. I give the electorate here a little more credit than that.

Judging by the fact that the NDP under Andrea Horwath has made some impressive gains in the province, and current Liberal Premier Kathleen Wynne has inspired some respect for her willingness to raise difficult questions about transportation funding, my thought is that the voters of this province are more progressive and savvy than Taube gives them credit for. They are not looking for a return to the mean-spirited and ideologically-driven agenda so lustily embraced by Mike Harris; they are tired of the right-wing bromides that promise everything and deliver little more than misery for the masses and profligate perks for the privileged. They are hungry for policies that will be of use and relevance to themselves and their fellow citizens.

The fact that the Liberals were not trounced in all five recent by elections suggests that despite the many scandals they have been involved in, the electorate still regards them and the NDP as far preferable to the kind of anti-union, pro-corporate policies propagated by the province's right wing.

May I suggest that the time for reactionary political parties as represented by the likes of Tim Hudak is passing quickly?

A Saturday Evening Thought

An Elegant Solution

Earlier this month I posted an interview with Neil Turok, head of The Perimeter Institute and the deliverer of this year's Massey Lectures. As I indicated in my original post, I was struck both by Turok's humanity and his optimism, perhaps best exemplified when he said that almost all the problems we face are caused by human beings and are capable of being solved by human beings.

I was reminded of that sentiment today as I was editing a loan description for Kiva, a microfinance organization with which I volunteer. The woman requesting the loan lives in a slum in Nairobi, Kenya, where she wants to buy something called a Fresh Life Toilet, which provides a rather simple yet elegant solution to the problem of waste disposal, a problem of especially pressing concern in many developing countries, especially in their slums, where access to sanitation facilities can be quite limited, leading to soil and river pollution.

After editing the loan, I did some research on the device, which is mentioned in the following very informative video:

Additional information can be found here and here.

While I have written about the good that Kiva does in a few past posts, I once again invite readers to check it out for themselves. A loan of as little as $25 is a tangible way to do a lot of good in a world that sorely needs it.

The Marijuana Debate Continues

The other day I wrote a post suggesting the need for a vigorous debate on the question of the legalization of marijuana, a drug against which countless billions have been spent as part of what many feel is a failed 'war on drugs.'

In today's Star, there is a spirited discussion in a lengthy series of letters that explore this topic, two of which I will reproduce below. As well, CNN's Sanjay Gupta, in a column on the CNN website, explains what led him to apologize for his earlier condemnation of pot for medicinal purposes. A brief video of his explanation follows.


Re: Legalizing pot, endorsing stupidity, Aug. 7

Is this column about the inappropriateness of legalizing pot or the shortcomings of Justin Trudeau as the Liberal leader? Trudeau is “the political embodiment of stupid?” Because Trudeau has an alternative to the time-consuming expense of policing the use and possession of pot, Rosie DiManno has chosen to ridicule JustinTrudeau by suggesting that “maybe he should fire up a reefer and ponder it some more,” in reference the fact that his thinking about dope has “evolved.”
I have never tried pot and never had the inclination to do so. Quitting “regular”cigarettes was, for me, difficult enough. The smell of this substance is nauseating to me when I have had the misfortune to be near someone who was smoking it.

But I think that Mr. Trudeau has an idea worth considering. By not having pot legalized, we are ensuring that some young people, who may be in possession of this drug when stopped by police, could be be saddled with a criminal record that will affect their future employment.

The financial savings alone would merit the legalization of pot. The police would be free to pursue more important criminal matters. The load on the court system would be lightened. There would be more room in our jails for “real” criminals.

Finally, if legalized, the tax revenues could be comparable to those collected by the LCBO. Could we actually see a PCBO, or an MCBO?
“What about driving whilst high?” Ms DiManno asks. I believe that some police forces are now in possession of a “marijuana version of the breathalyzer” that was developed in Sweden. It can detect 12 different controlled substances including methamphetamine, cocaine, heroin, morphine and of course, marijuana. Apparently, this test is equally as accurate as blood and urine tests. Therefore motorists using legalized marijuana would be subject to the same restrictions as motorists using legal alcohol.

Unauthorized growing of marijuana would remain a criminal offense, the same as bootlegging and cigarette smuggling.

I agree with Ms DiManno’s final statement that “Canada already has way too much stupidity,” but I don’t agree that Justin Trudeau’s idea of marijuana decriminalization is a part of that stupidity.

Warren Dalton, Scarborough

I agree with you that Justin Trudeau owes it to Canadians to explain how his legalizing marijuana would actually work. I have problems following his rationale for legalization. It seems to be his belief that by legalizing and regulating pot that will keep it out of the hands of our youth. We all know how successful that has been keeping tobacco and alcohol out of the hands of young people.

Not only that, in both cases legalization has resulted in a black market for both substances, with the entrance of organized criminal elements. I can see the same thing happening if we follow the same path with marihuana.

The other aspect Mr. Trudeau seems to ignore is that today’s hydroponically produced marijuana is many times more potent than that produced in the past. This makes it more likely to lead to addiction, adding even more problems to our struggling healthcare system.

I think Mr. Trudeau should rethink this subject before pushing ahead.

Larry Comeau, Ottawa

Police Power - UPATED

While the title of this post may seem a bit of a tautology, since the power of police on the streets is obvious, there are other arenas where they wield their influence in ways that may not be consistent with an open and democratic society.

For example, police are known to arrive at courtrooms en masse when one of their own is under judicial scrutiny. An egregious example occurred earlier this year when both a criminal lawyer and her client allege intimidation occurred during the trial of Raymond Costain on charges of impaired driving and assault to resist arrest; these charges followed Costain's severe beating by police in an episode captured on video:



Leora Shemesh, defence lawyer for Raymond Costain, tells a tale of what can only be described as collective police intimidation:

Shemesh said officers showed up en masse at court, surrounded her and Costain in an elevator, followed her to her car after a hearing and even took cellphone pictures of her in the courthouse.

The judge, Ford Clements, eventually tossed out the charges against Costain, but also experienced some truculence at the hands of the police"

When the camera incident was raised in court, it caused such an uproar it almost brought the case to a halt, she said.

The officer who took the picture was put on the witness stand and refused to show the judge his cellphone to prove he had not taken the picture. Shemesh said it so enraged the judge that he raised his voice with the officer before ordering him out of the courtroom, raising questions about whether the judge should recuse himself.

Yet police muscle extends far beyond the street and the courtroom. In response to Durham Police Detective Dennis Scott's attempt yesterday to intimidate Ontario Ombudsman Andre Marin via Twitter, The Star's Rosie Dimanno has a column today that reveals something truly chilling about the 'long arm of the law." It is an arm that reaches into the very heart of our democracy, our government, revealed in the latter's reaction to Marin's proposal, in 2011, that the SIU (Special Investigations Unit) be taken out of the Police Services Act so it can operate as an entirely independent body:

“Take the SIU out of the PSA, with consequences for failure to co-operate. If you don’t co-operate with the SIU, you face prosecution — that simple.” This, of course, would not apply to subject officers, who would retain the right to silence shared by civilians.

In Marin's view, that would end the frequent roadblocks to investigations of the police, who frequently simply refuse to co-operate with any probes conducted by the SIU under its current legislative configuration.

The reaction of the Ontario government to this proposal? An internal Ministry of the Attorney General briefing note is telling:

“As you know, the decision was made at the time of the Report’s release that — largely due to vehement police opposition — we will not be considering the recommended legislative changes in the near term.

The note goes on:

“At some point, we may have to communicate that we will not be legislating, however that time is not now. Marin typically does not conduct any public communications regarding ‘report-backs’ — he usually gets his media hit off report releases and then moves on. We need not be overly concerned that he will criticize us on the basis of this letter.”

The motto of the Toronto Police Force, and many others, is To Serve and Protect. Perhaps it is time for civilians to ask to whom this motto is really meant to apply.

UPDATE: Many thanks to ThinkingManNeil for pointing out the following video entitled Cherry Beach, the reference, as explained here, being as follows:

The song is about local lore of how the Toronto police used Cherry Beach as a location to beat suspects. The police tried to have the song banned.[5] Hardcore punk band Career Suicide also references the slang phrase "Cherry Beach express" (referring to the supposed police practice) in their song "Cherry Beach".

And Speaking Of The Police

“Whenever allegations such as these are brought to our attention by way of a complaint, an internal investigation is launched. Community trust is important to us and we will continue to work towards maintaining the trust that the community has in Peel Regional Police.

- Staff Sergeant Dan Richardson, Peel Regional Police

While I am well-aware that there are two sides to every story, I can't help but think that the experience of this Hamilton family is consistent with a dismayingly familiar pattern: police abuse of authority, arrogance, and a measure of contempt for the public they 'serve'.

The Police Are Such Sensitive Souls

Andre Marin, Ontario's Ombudsman, found this out after announcing he was planning to investigate the province’s direction to police on de-escalating conflict situations in light of the police killing of Sammy Yatim.

According to a report in The National Post, a Durham police detective, Dennis Scott, opened a Twitter account under a pseudonym so that he could call Marin a carded member of Al Qaida. With what I guess passes for original thought amongst the constabulary, Scott went on to call the ombudsman “a complete douche bag!” and had this suggestion: “Why don’t you stick your big French nose up your ass instead of business where it doesn’t belong.”

Toronto city councillor, who was critical of the police killing, was also the recipient of advice from Scott:

“You are a real expert, huh? Douchebag city councillor? Were you there? You need to keep your idiotic thoughts to yourself.”


Durham Police Deputy Chief Paul Martin tweeted that he is investigating these disturbing allegations.

I'm sure that will set everything to rights.



H/t trapdinawrpool

If Your Name Is Tim Hudak, This Can't Be Good

When you are leading a major provincial political party, it is never a good sign when the country's largest-circulating newpaper makes editorial sport of you:

Memo to Tim Hudak: Please stay as Ontario PC leader: Editorial

You lost an Ontario election in 2011 that you were to supposed to win; failed in two byelections last year; and dropped four out of five this month against a tired and scandal-prone government. But so what? You’re Tim Hudak, head of the Ontario Progressive Conservatives, and winning isn’t everything.

Ignore the growing number of Tories worried they’ll never achieve power as long as you’re at the helm. Naysayers. They’re troubled by your persistent and well-documented failure to connect with Ontario voters. The electorate doesn’t seem to trust you.

Never mind. People of good judgment realize Ontario is best served by having a leader with your special touch continue to steer the PC party. Yes, Tory petitions are circulating calling for a leadership review, with the aim of dumping you. But cheer up. The good news is they are likely to fail. With any luck, Ontarians will have the option of not giving Tim Hudak their vote for a long time to come.

From The Land Of The Free And The Home Of The Brave

Somehow I don't think our 'friends' to the south have anything to teach us about civil society and democratic rights, although I can't help but think that much of this footage would gladden the dark chambers of the Harperite heart:

The Commercial NBC Refused To Air

According to Salon.com, this anti-Keystone pipeline ad was pulled at the last minute by NBC. I guess the CBC isn't the only network that has grown sheepish of late.

Legalization Of Marijuana - The Need For A Vigorous Debate -UPDATED

I believe the sterotype is that as we get older, our views become more entrenched and conservative. In my own life, I have found the opposite to be true.

When I was young, I was certainly to the right of centre in my social views. I was a supporter of capital punishment, and felt severe sentencing acted as a deterrent to crime. As I got older and more educated, I learned to think more critically, and thereby progresssed in my views. While I am still opposed to the gutting of sentences through easy parole and the fact that most incarceration means only serving one-third of the sentence, an affront to the notion that justice must be seen to be done, I also feel that prison terms should be served by far fewer than currently occupy our detention facilities. I guess, to use the demonizing categorization of the Haper regime, I have become soft on some 'crime'.

One of those crimes is incarceration for drug possession. Thanks to Bill C-10, the Harper omnibus crime bill, there is a six-month mandatory minimum sentence for growing as few as six marijuana plants, something that strikes many as overkill. At a time when many jurisdictions, including the United States, are pursuing legal reforms as they realize the growing costs of the increasingly futile 'war on drugs,' Canada's postion seems both regressive and anachronistic.

In any event, a vigorous and informed debate is clearly needed on the issue of drug legalization. In pursuit of that goal, I offer the following:

Retired police captain Peter Christ makes some compelling arguments for the legalization of drugs. While I don't agree with the legalization of all drugs, the perspective of a former law enforcement offical is surely useful:



In light of Justin Trudeau's recent announcement that he favours legalization of majijuana, the following are additional resources that add meaningfully to the discussion:

The Star had an interesting piece on what legalization of marijuana likely means in states like Colorado and Washington, which recently held referenda on the issue.

They also ran an editorial evaluating Justin Trudeau's proposal, suggesting he needs to more clearly define how it would be implemented.

You can check out the Globe's take here and here. You may be surprised at what 'the newspaper of record' has to say.

As well, The National Post looks at both sides of the pot debate here.

Finally, in this morning's Star, Rosie DiManno offers her withering assessment both of Trudeau and his advocacy.

May there be much constructive debate on this controversial issue.

UPDATE: Here is an interesting video in which Doctor Sanjay Gupta apologizes for his past opposition to medical marijuana use:

Lessons Learned From Totalitarianism

Reflecting upon a recent visit to Berlin, Toronto Star columnist Edward Greenspon had this to say:

I was particularly struck by the lessons to be drawn from 1933 and 1934, when the Nazis were not yet at full swagger. Arguably, as the depths of their hatreds quickly surfaced, they could have been tripped up by foreign pressures and a modicum of domestic spine. But elite opinion and statecraft took the passive course of hoping the accidental chancellor would fall to his own excesses. When he didn’t, foreign powers sought to mollify rather than confront him.

He goes on to write:

Berlin reminds us that democracy is a precious and a complex garden that requires constant care. It consists of much, much more than free and fair elections. It is everything that happens afterward: constitutional solidity, rule of law, an independent judiciary, checks and balances, a free press, protection of human rights, particularly for minorities.

In writing the following, Greenspon was thinking of Russia:

Societies that chip away at human rights and democratic principles, as with Russia today, must be confronted and challenged. Opposition and dissent must be respected. We owe it to history to call out concentrations of power — political and economic — and even minor incursions on the normal course checks and balances.

Ever astute, some Star readers feel he should be looking closer to home:


Re: Berlin’s Nazi ghosts, Opinion Aug. 4

Edward Greenspon’s column, reflecting on a visit to Berlin after a 20-year gap, finds “The Berlin of the present is an effervescent city. But the Berlin of the past, particularly the Nazi past, has bubbled back to the surface.”

Later, he cautions, “Societies that chip away at human rights and democratic principles, as with Russia today, must be confronted and challenged. Opposition and dissent must be respected. We owe it to history to call out concentrations of power — political and economic — and even minor incursions on the normal course of checks and balances.”

I agree entirely. But I can’t help thinking that had Greenspon substituted Canada for Russia in that sentence, he’d have presented a much more relevant warning as we endure, under Stephen Harper, arguably the most aggressively and enthusiastically anti-democratic government in our history: corporatist, militaristic, secretive, mendacious, evangelical, oppressive and repressive (just ask the peaceful demonstrators at the Toronto G20 gathering), anti-science, anti-environment, punitive of dissent and even debate, defunding any group that dares question its agenda, and dismissing all checks and balances on its authority — including our elected Parliament.

If Greenspon is concerned about creeping fascism, he needn’t look abroad.

Terry O’Connor, Toronto

I would like to draw attention to the following paragraph: “Berlin reminds us that democracy is a precious and a complex garden that requires constant care. It consists of much, much more than free and fair elections. It is everything that happens afterward: constitutional solidity, rule of law, an independent judiciary, checks and balances, a free press, protection of human rights, particularly for minorities.”

We have only to pay close attention to the state of our own “garden of democracy” to observe the creeping weeds already afoot growing from the policies of the Harper Conservatives. So many of the jewels in Canada’s crown have turned to thorns under their watch, we must find the means to protect our nation’s standing in the world community as a fair and compassionate land or we too will slide into the same moral and economic chaos our neighbours to the south now find themselves.

Michael Sherman, Toronto

The message, as always, is the same. If we truly want a healthy and dynamic democracy, we have to be willing to fight for it. Disengagement, complacence or passivity, just like the appeasement advocated so many years ago by Neville chamberlin, are not options.

Some Very Good News About Linda McQuaig

Opening my Toronto Star this morning, I was delighted to learn that journalist and author Linda McQuaig, who has figured fairly prominently in many of my blog posts, will be seeking the NDP nomination in Toronto Centre, Bob Rae's former riding. A perpetual thorn in the side of unfettered capitalism, McQuaig has a fierce intelligence and the kind of critical-thinking skills an informed society needs.

An author of countless books and columns, the fact that her words matter is perhaps most acutely attested to by the fact that Lord Black of Crossharbour (aka Con(rad) Black), a man given to great bouts of verbosity generating much sound and fury that often signify little or nothing, once declaimed that she should be horsewhipped after she took on some of his more nefarious practices.

In today's debased public arena, where opinions that challenge the status quo are frequently ridiculed, shouted down or demonized by the hard right, Linda McQuaig is just the person to stand her ground and prevail against the assault on reason. Should she receive the nomination and win the byelection (for which Harper must set the date by January of 2014), I have every confidence that she will prove a worthy and articulate adversary of the Harper cabal in the House of Commons.

Rachel Parent Takes on Kevin O'Leary Over GMO Foods - UPDATED

While I often lament people's lack of engagement on matters of crucial importance, this very well-informed and articulate 14-year-old, about whom I wrote an earlier brief post, gives me some hope for the future.

It is especially rich to hear a corporate shill like O'Leary talk about the importance of examining both sides of an issue as the interview winds down. And note how Parent corrects Lang when she seems to conflate genetically-modified foods with hybrization.




UPDATE: In case you are wondering what Monsanto, the leader in GMO products, has been up to lately, check this out.