Herr Harper, His Propaganda Machine, Your Tax Dollars

Hmmm.... it seems that the CBC has not yet quite capitulated to the Harper regime, at least when chief appeaser Peter Mansbridge isn't hosting The National:

Have Your Say

I see that the Globe and Mail is conducting an online poll, the full results of which will be published February 7, as we approach the ninth anniversary of Harperland. While it asks several questions, its theme is this: How do you feel about the Canada Stephen Harper has shaped?

Those wishing to express their views can do so by clicking here.

And On A Personal Note...

I thought long and hard before making the decision to post the following, for two reasons: one, in the broader scheme of things it is a quite negligible plaint, and two, it perhaps exposes me as the petty and vindictive person that I on occasion can be. On the other hand, since it deals with what I consider to be exploitative and disdainful corporate practices, it may be of interest to some readers.

I will let this letter that I sent off to Air Transat speak for itself:

To Whom it May Concern:

Recently, my wife and I flew Air Transat to Cuba, departing from Toronto early morning January 23 and arriving back in Toronto January 30 at about 5:00 pm. While our one-week sojourn on the Caribbean island was a delight, our experiences with your airline were not. As a consequence, we will no longer be patronizing Air Transat unless there is absolutely no alternative.

On our previous trip to Cuba, we had a good experience with Sunwing, where a 'snack' is the choice of a substantial sandwich or pizza. A large cookie constituted dessert. Additionally, a glass of champagne and wine with the snack were provided at no charge, as were the headphones. Ensuring that the passengers feel respected appears to be part of Sunwing's business philosophy.

Clearly, Air Transat embraces an entirely different view of the customer, first evidenced by the fact that your airline's 'snack' consisted of a Krispy Kernnels 14 gram (.50 oz.) bag of bbq toasted corn, the quantity about the size of the ones found in bulk Halloween bags. Any sustenance that might have been considered appropriate for a journey of three and one-half hours cost at least $7. To compound the insult, headphones were offered at $8 each.

It is clear from the above that you view your passengers, not as paying guests but rather as cash cows. Since I am not given to the kind of bovine passivity that afflicts so many others, I find such a corporate attitude quite objectionable and unacceptable.

The return trip had even more unpleasantness in store. My sister-in-law, who accompanied us on our trip, paid for preferred seating because she is tall. She was supposed to have been guaranteed the same aisle seat both going and returning. However, she was assigned a different seat on our return, and when she pointed out to the head attendant she needed an aisle seat, she was rather imperiously told, 'That's not going to happen.' When I pointed out to the attendant that she had paid for her seat choice, she said, “Everyone just calm down.” Frankly, I have not been spoken to in such a condescending manner since childhood. I then pointed out to her that it was disgraceful that she didn't get the seat she paid for.

My sister-in-law, when we deplaned, told me that the offending attendant was later conciliatory and told her she would be able to get her seating surcharge reimbursed, so I speak only for myself and my wife here when I say that the attendant's initial disdainful response was disrespectful but hardly surprising, given the attitude your company seems to have toward its customers.

In a few days I shall be posting my comments on some travel forums. I strongly suggest that you rethink your arrogant and exploitative attitudes before you find more and more travellers choosing alternative carriers.

Remembering The Harper Record

If the progressive community is to have any hope of ridding the country of the Harper scourge next election, it must be relentless in reminding as many people as possible of his sorry record.

While Harper is now desperately rebranding himself from the now-failed Oil Czar to Strong Leader Standing Against ISIS (even if he has to command from the closet) remembrances of things past are crucial, as in the following Rick Mercer rant on the master economist's ineptitude:

Herr Harper Is At It Again, But The Media Revolt

H/t Kat McNamara

The Harper-led assault on our rights as Canadians continues, this time under the guise of Bill C-51, the new Anti-Terrorism Act. And finally, the media showed some resistance.

Reporters in Ottawa became surly quickly Friday when it was discovered the government lock-up they attended for a briefing on proposed anti-terror legislation was light on information and heavy on restrictions.

The federal government was tabling Bill C-51, Canada's new ''Anti-Terrorism Act'' meant to bolster authorities' powers to prevent and dismantle terrorist activity.

Forced to agree to an embargo on information until a set time, the reporters were dismayed to find that they were not given the actual bill to peruse.

President of the Parliamentary Press Gallery Laura Payton took up the cause and at the back of the room argued with government staffers, questioning the point of having reporters sign an undertaking when they weren't even being given sensitive information, just backgrounders. The backgrounders detailed little information the reporters didn't already suspect would be in the new legislation.

As discontent grew, an Orwellian intimidation tactic was launched:

Public Safety Canada and Department of Justice employees around the room began nervous attempts to calm reporters.

''Are you filming us?'' a CBC reporter asked in disbelief to a staffer who appeared to be using a phone to record the discontent. The undertaking signed by media specifically said there was to be no filming in the room.

When things calmed down, questions were asked based on information given on background:

The bulk of reporters' questions were on how the bill makes it an indictable offense to knowingly advocate or promote terrorism offences ''in general,'' which could mean people who post propaganda on social media are subject to arrest.

During the question-and-answer period, reporters asked how the government would decide who is supporting terrorism. Stephen Maher from Postmedia asked if someone would be breaking the law if they posted material encouraging attacks by Ukrainian militants on Russian targets in Crimea.

The row of bureaucrats at the front of the room said they wouldn't speculate on hypothetical situations. Many answers seemed scripted to the point where one reporter asked if they were just reading parts of the backgrounder as their answers. The staffer replied that they weren't.

And so the charade continued.

And will continue, of course, until the Canadian electorate grows a backbone and gets rid of the dictator and his entire apparatus.

Herr Harper, Who Is Your Goebbels?

Having returned from our Cuban sojourn last evening, I have not yet had time to get caught up on the Canadian political scene, but this item by Heather Mallick deconstructing one of Herr Harper's recent 24/Seven productions caught my eye.

Its martial music, military imagery and depiction of Dear leader's steady hand on the tiller of state, standing strong against those who "hate our freedoms," left me with only one question: Are Herr Goebbels' descendants now gainfully employed by Prop Can?



P.S. I noticed that the closed captions were turned on when playing the video. I guess that is so the true believers don't miss even one word. If you are not thus enamored of the prime minister, you might want to turn them off.

On Hiatus

Time to head back to our favourite island before it is infiltrated by the Americans.

See you in about a week.