UPDATED: Never Bait A Veteran

For those of us sickened over the years by the Harper cabal's hypocrisy of wrapping itself in the flag of patriotic support for 'our troops' while essentially abandoning them when they return home either physically or psychically maimed, it was a sweet moment, to be savored and shared widely.

Yesterday, veterans who travelled to Ottawa to lobby against the planned closing of eight more of the regional centres serving their needs were most unhappy with the meeting they had with Veteran Affairs Minister Julian Fantino; Ron Clarke, a 36-year veteran of the Forces, said the meeting was "unbelievable, unacceptable and shameful.

Fantino, a man who bears the look of one on a perpetual visit to his proctologist, was not only very late for the encounter, but also, in his usual arrogance, was unwise enough to start lecturing the vets about their deportment. As you will see in the accompanying video, the former soldiers would have none of that, putting Julian in his place and later, in a news conference, describing the encounter as 'bullshit.'

In their fury, they are calling not only for the termination of Fantino, but also the defeat of the Harper government in the next election should it carry out the planned closure.

All in all, the entire episode was reminiscent of Brian Mulroney's "Goodbye Charlie Brown" encounter in 1986 with Solange Denis.

UPDATE: If the video fails to load, here is the URL for it: http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/Politics/Power%20&%20Politics/ID/2433417987/ UPDATE #2: NDP leader Thomas Mulcair has weighed in, calling for Harper both to apologize to veterans and to fire Fantino.

Raising The Minimum Wage: Countering The Right-Wing Propagandists

Given the disappointing news about the minimum wage coming out of Ontario, and the relentless propaganda from the right about wage increases being job killers while conveniently ignoring the experience of other jurisdictions, perhaps the following video can provide some balance:

Crumbs From The Table

Poverty in perpetuity. That is what Ontario's 'socially-progressive' Premier, Kathleen Wynne, has condemned the working poor to.

After waiting more than six months for what turned out to be a very timid report from a provincial minimum wage advisory panel that ended up recommending increases tied to inflation, the premier has announced the new wage will be $11 per hour, with future increases tied to the inflation rate.

With one out of nine currently earning the minimum, this is hardly cause for celebration. Yielding, as usual, to the 'concerns' of business, Wynne had this to say:

“I know that there’s a call for $14 (but) we have to move very carefully, because this is about making sure that we retain and create jobs.”

“At the same time, we need to have a system in place that has a fairness to it, that I think has not been the case for many years.”

While few would argue that an immediate jump to the much-requested figure of $14 per hour would be too much for many small businesses to bear, the truly discouraging fact is that the premier makes no mention of further increases other than those tied to inflation. If $14 per hour would have put those working 35-40 hours per week just 10% above the poverty rate, one needn't use a calculator to know that the working poor will continue to be mired in poverty.

Today's Star editorial makes the following observation and suggestion:

Premier Kathleen Wynne’s government can do better. It should, at the very least, follow the Ontario Liberals’ earlier trend of raising the minimum wage 2.5 times faster than the rate of inflation. As part of its “war on poverty” the previous Liberal government of Dalton McGuinty raised the provincial minimum wage by 50 per cent between 2004 when it was $6.85 an hour and 2010 when it topped out at $10.25 – a period when prices rose just 17.5 per cent.

If the same formula was followed now, it would mean an immediate jump in the minimum wage to about $11.65 an hour.

Hardly the stuff of revolutionary thinking, perhaps, but at the very least, a start on the road to economic justice.

I Shop, Therefore I Am

First and foremost, how do you see yourself? Are you a citizen more than a consumer, or vice-versa? Are high-minded principles and vision your defining characteristic, or is how to get the best value for your money what drives you?

The questions that I just posed are, of course, on one level ludicrous, inasmuch as they suggest an either/or answer. Realistically, or at least ideally, we can be both. Yet to examine the rhetoric of our political 'leaders', our lives are defined by angst over cable selection, gasoline prices, and cellphone bills, and little else.

One of the books I am currently reading is Susan Delacourt's Shopping For Votes: How Politicians Choose Us And We Choose Them, which examines the kind of 'retail politics' that has been shaping the political landscape for decades. Beginning in the 1950s with early polling and focus groups, the process has become so refined that groups are now targeted in political campaigns with their 'issues' at the forefront.

Here is an excerpt from the inside cover of Delacourt's book:

Inside the political backrooms of Ottawa, the Mad Men of Canadian politics are planning their next consumer-friendly pitch. Where once politics was seen as a public service, increasingly it is seen a a business, with citizens as the customers. But its unadvertised products are voter apathy and gutless public policy.

One needn't look far to see egregious evidence of political debasement. As recently noted by The Mound of Sound, neither Justin Trudeau nor Thomas Mulcair offer any distinct difference to Harper, other than perhaps in style. Neither has the political integrity to question the tarsands, nor, to my knowledge, are they heard to ever offer an opinion on or strategy for dealing with climate change. In answer to Mound's question of why either of them wants to be Prime Minister, I opined that they perhaps just think they should be. No passion, no vision, just the politics of expedience seems to be their political raison d'être.

In his piece today in The Toronto Star about the upcoming federal budget, Les Whittington says it will be consumer-oriented:

The government says it wants to take aim at cable-TV packages that don’t allow consumers to pick and choose, payday loan companies, lack of competition among wireless providers and price differentials on the same goods between this country and the U.S.

And while Justin Trudeau sings an amorphous tune about the middle class struggling, Thomas Mulcair has this to offer:

He says the Harper government raises consumer issues but hasn’t followed through with action.

“So we’re going to talk to Canadians about how we can end the rip-offs at ATM machines, at the gas pump, and how we can ensure more Canadians have access to a low-interest credit card”.

Not a word about climate change. Not a word about carbon. Not a word about poverty. Not a word that reflects the semblance of a vision.

I'll close on a note that I hope demonstrates I am not some sort of ethereal idealogue. Yes, I think we get ripped off on cable, and I don't like it. Yes, more should be done to ensure fair business practices. But those concerns do not exclude larger ones, like growing inequality, the plight of the working poor, and a world in real climatic peril. No amount of political legerdemain can alter some larger, very inconvenient truths.

Sunday Afternoon Tea With Bertolt Brecht

A little something to share with those nearest and dearest who are disengaged, so to speak:

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?