A Day Of Rest

Once again in my neck of the woods, we are experiencing punishing cold, cold that is predicted to remain throughout the week, so it seems like a propitious time to take a day off, get caught up on my newspaper reading, and complete a really interesting book by Oliver Sacks called Hallucinations.

In the absence of a real post, I thought you might find interesting the fact that Kellogg's is not restricting its contempt for its workers to Canada. Apparently, things are not going too well for its workers in the U.S., something detailed in this Truthout article.

To contradict Tony the Tiger, things are not Grrrrrreat!

I somehow doubt that this commercial from the 80s would be embraced by Kellogg's today:

A Guest Post From John B.

Click here to read an unflattering magazine profile of this 'titan'.

Yesterday afternoon, I wrote a brief post on Kevin O'Leary, the fatuous, obnoxious self-promoter the CBC, likely in its futile efforts to appease the Harper government, keeps in its stable of right-wing cranks.

In response to the post, I received a thoughtful commentary on O'Leary from John B, which I am featuring here to ensure a larger readership than the comments' section normally affords:

Is it part of Mr. O’Leary’s deal with the CBC that his daily commentary as chief business analyst be introduced with a mention that he is also the “Chair of O’Leary Funds”? I’ve wondered about that for some time.

I think that the important story here is that "the Chair of O'Leary Funds" is getting media exposure that may help him market his shtick internationally. Look at the sly little grins and the glint in the eye obvious in the video as he spews his nonsense. I think he knows that it's nonsense. It’s been designed to beg for attention.

This guy doesn't believe in anything besides running his business. And for several years one of his main businesses seems to have been marketing himself as a caricature of the iconic greedy capitalist. Now they're writing about him in the Independent. That's the scoring play - his money shot. That's why he likes to mention his U.S. show when being interviewed - international exposure. In the U.S. ‘they call him Mr. Wonderful’. Yes - that's probably because someone told them he was known by that handle in other circles without mentioning that it’s likely he made it up. It's how you create and sell a product. And the product is the act.

The act may have taken over the person and the act may have started long before the advent of O'Leary TV; but it's still just about making the sale, whether it's dog food, a worthless corporate asset or a cartoon character.

The Lang & O'Leary Exchange isn't a business news programme; it’s third-rate entertainment with a little synergistic libertarian propaganda along for the ride. And the worst part of it is that you can’t escape exposure to its juvenile propaganda efforts by not tuning in. At every station break the network is sure to broadcast one of their promotional spots for the show featuring inserts of still close-ups of Mr. Wonderful’s wonderfully-manicured digits posed in that silly configuration that he seems to have come to prefer. In each of these spots his sidekick, Amanda, stumbles into a staged ambush that Mr. O’Leary can accomplish by rhyming off some line that could have come from the Market Libertarian’s Handbook for Disturbed Teenagers: “If you want a share, become a shareholder” or “The market will decide.” God has spoken.

O'Leary is serious about what he's doing - getting a paycheque and getting exposure for his fund and his comedy act. But his sparring partner provides the best comedy on the show. She presents herself in a manner that suggests she considers herself to be a journalist, while she actually just plays one on a boring TV show. Maybe it’s just part of her “straight-man” act. Whatever the case, she does it very well.

I’m still puzzled about one thing: did he come up with the thing with the hands or did he have to pay a personal stylist to do it?

UPDATED:The Most Obnoxious Blowhard?

Many of you have probably already heard of this, but I can't help but wonder if Kevin O'Leary is in some kind of competition with Donald Trump for the title of world's most obnoxious blowhard.



UPDATE: Thanks to ThinkingManNeil, who offers this comment and the video that follows:

Mr. O'Leary needs to learn how to work a real job earning and honest living like 3.5 billion others try to. May I suggest he go try mining sulfur by hand in the crater of Kawah-Ijen? Maybe then he'll get some perspective...

Self-Interest Versus The Public Good

We Canadians talk a good game. We want our unemployed to be able to find jobs, we want those with the need to be able to readily access the social safety net, and we think the plight of the working poor is pitiable. But a question that we must confront is this: Are we willing to put our money where our mouth is?

My question is prompted by two topics: the decline of the Canadian dollar and the push to increase the minimum wage to $14 (in Ontario).

First, the decline of the loonie. Even though its decreasing value is likely being encouraged by the Harper government to boost employment numbers going into the 2015 election, the fact is that a lower dollar is good for job creation, increasing as it does exports of our products and tourism from abroad.

Yet what seems uppermost on the minds of many? - the fact that imported goods will cost more, trips to sun destinations so popular with chilled Canadians are getting more expensive, and cross-border shopping trips will no longer be such a source of delight for so many.

This is just a thought experiment, but I can't help but wonder what choice people would make if they had the power to affect the trajectory of the Canadian dollar. Would they see the larger good that will be served by its current decline, or would they say that's none of their concern, and that their priority is to get the most value for their hard-earned dollars?

On a similar note, we profess our enthusiasm for a significant increase in the minimum wage, a subject upon which I have written many times. Indeed, there is some good news on that front from the United States, where, for example, Seattle's new mayor, Ed Murray, has boosted the wages of municipal workers to $15 per hour, and Seattle's suburb of Sea Tac has done the same for the 1,500 hotel and rental car agency workers.

Putting aside the usual objections raised by the usual suspects that wage increases are job-killers, there are compelling reasons for increasing the minimum wage, not the least of which is the boost to the economy that ensues when more money is put in the hands of more people. As an entrepreneur in the documentary Inequality for All says, "Just because I make $10 million a year doesn't mean I spend $10 million a year on goods and services. It's better that money should be put in the hands of many people so they spend." He went on to explain that his money is invested to earn more money, not necessarily to create jobs.

Add to that the fact that, for example, raising the minimum wage in Ontario to $14 per hour would put raise the working poor 10% above the poverty line, assuming, of course, that they are working 35-40 hours per week. Economic stimulus effects aside, that is a pretty compelling reason to support an increase.

But returning to our thought experiment, what choice would people make if they knew that any such increase means we would all pay a little more for our groceries, our fast foods, our services, etc.? Would we turn our collective backs on the greater good, or would we embrace the fact that everyone has to make some sacrifices, both business in the form of slightly lower profits and consumers in the form of slightly reduced purchasing power, if we want a more equitable society and a slightly lower disparity in incomes?

We all like to get the best value possible for our money, and I am no exception. Yet, even though I am hardly a paragon of virtue, the logic of increasing the minimum wage is compelling, one to which I readily accede.

The Measure Of The Man

Sounds like Rick Mercer has the Harper cabal's number:

Want To Experience Faux Poverty On Your Next Holiday?

This seems so wrong on so many levels.

Engaging Community: Some Thoughts From The Salamander

The other day I wrote a post about the Harper cabal's systematic efforts to re-engineer Canadians' critical thinking capacity through the gutting of science libraries and their resources. No books=no concern over climate change=cheerleading for tarsands development. It is up to each of us to combat this drift into darkness.

I received a number of comments on the post, including those of The Salamander, a passionate and articulate Canadian who shares the grave concern many of us have over Canada's direction under a regime that has consistently shown little but contempt for the nation's traditional values. I am reproducing below the exchange that he and I had in the hope that people will read his ideas and suggestions and offer additional commentary and ideas:

The Salamander:

.. the question of our times, in Canada today.. is certainly one of our national identity.. and a related question must be.. do 'we' care.. PM Harper is trying to permanently embed the bizarre notion that he reflects (or is) our national identity and we should ensure our values, emulate his.. or lack of..

Here's a short list for the pollsters .. and ideally the questions to the Canadian public * of all ages * would be framed in positive ways, accommodating blunt intuitive responses..

Here's a sample or two..

- Q - Do you care if Canada lets other countries control the development, mining/harvest & sale and delivery of our natural resources, energy, fish, lumber, grain etc .. or if the cost for that decision is the extinction of species like salmon, polar bears, caribou, eagles or killer whales because we eliminated the habitat, waters, forest etc they lived in.. or if certain regions have no safe drinkable water or useful soil, breathable air as a result?

- Q - Do you see any value in letting partisan political parties gain further control or direct how Canada moves into the future.. in particular by their secretive use of databanks, election funds, robo & live calls, or questionable election campaigns or electoral fraud to manipulate, gain on maintain power?

- Q - Do you care if to a great extent, Parliament and our political process is simply posturing and its the religious beliefs, greed or immorality of the Prime Minister or his complicit MP's, corporate sponsors & controllers that define policy, legislation and secret economic agreements?

- Q - Do you care if Members of Parliament, unelected anonymous public servants ie in the PMO or many or any of the consultants hired or contracted by the Federal Government end up in jail for fraud, illegal lobbying, graft, lawsuits or have relationships with their babysitters or nannies or parliamentary pages and secretaries?

- Q - Do you know what 'The Rapture' is? Do you know what religions believe the ultimate fall of Israel is the biblical key for good christians to rise triumphantly by the hand of god up into the rosy clouds

- Q - Do you have better questions for your fellow Canadians, that might help improve the situation? Or do you trust folks like Tony Clement, Dean Del Mastro, Senator Gerstein, Ray Novak, Ezra Levant, or Arthur Hamilton or Julian Fantino to look after the important stuff for you ?



Me: These are very provocative questions, Salamander, that, if ever asked, would likely provoke some serious thought and discussion among Canadians. While it is safe to assume such a poll would never be commissioned by any of our 'leaders,' it could prove a potent weapon in the hands of a group dedicated to improving public policy, if it had sufficiently deep pockets to underwrite it.

The Salamandar: .. I'm not certain there is much hard cost to such a poll, Lorne

To a certain extent, such a poll. with exceptionally well developed questions & criteria would generate its own inertia.. driving on as a Q & A reflection of true concerned Canadian spirit, identity and response..

In their own way, the indy blog items from yourself, Mound, Beav, Lautens, Whirlpool, Owen at N Reflections, Kinsella, Simon etc.. all have driven thought, process, review and spread knowledge.. and in fairness so have some mainstream media.. as well as the unique ones like Kady and Rick Mercer etc.. or a truly heavy battlewagon like Neil Young

In a unique progressive and unique way.. you.. and me.. are a poll.. a reflection of ideas and thoughts of real people

I guess what I am driving at is to identify or refine what really matters to Canadians, First Nations, immigrants, the aged, the young, the workers, teachers, artists, mothers, grandparents, miners, farmers, fishermen, clerics, students & newborns..

I truly don't give a f off to what greasy spokes-dwarts like Joe Oliver or Jenni Byrne 'think' or are told to say.. or what a fatuous self absorbed dick like Harper trots out to dweeb political weasels in Israel.. I care what the pulse and reality of this gigantic country called Canada is..

A 'running poll' .. non partisan .. tabulating, reflecting .. observant, reactionary, abrasive, honest, simple, blunt & clear, Canadian .. could be just the nurse or doctor that Canada needs.. taking our temperature, listening to our concerns or fears, investigating & identifying pathogens and infections, treating us for.. or suggesting simple remedy for the ills of a modern society, threatened by toxic, rabid, dishonest political animals

So there you have it. I hope this exchange provokes some further discussion as we continue to direct our efforts and our passions toward a better Canada for everyone.