Gomery Throttles PM's "Record of Accountability"

John Gomery says "Stephen Harper seems to have abandoned any commitment to transparent government" according to TorStar. Gomery indicates that most of his recommendations were rejected outright by the PM and the Conservatives. He claimed most of his recommendations fell into a "black hole".

Gomery's report on some improprieties by a handful of Quebecers who happened to be members of the Liberal Party (although some were also involved with the federal Conservatives), was what caused the downfall of the Liberal gov't - and it was all the Conservatives had in the way of a policy platform ("blah, blah, blah, Gomery, blah, blah, blah, accountability" was all they had to say - meaning it, or NOT). Now it seems the Conservatives are doing the very same things (see election funding investigations), and beyond (see PMO knowledge of Schreiber-Mulroney affair, Gurmant Grewal resignation, interference in the bureaucracy, Prisoner Transfer-gate, nuclear safety, etc.).

According to Gomery: "The government was saying at the time that transparency was very important and that they wanted to improve the transparency. In practice it's been an exact reverse". Coming from a man who the Conservatives held to be a "mini-god" when they were in Opposition, this means a lot. Especially since they can't criticize him for being biased.

In the past few days Sheila Fraser has also come out with very serious concerns about the secrecy and lack of transparency of the Harper Conservatives. In a recent television interview she talked about her views on the two-faced nature of the Conservative gov't on matters of accountability and transparency.

Time for Opposition MPs to start hammering the Conservatives on their lack of accountability, and their fear of adopting Gomery measures. What are the Conservatives afraid of?

Greater Vancouver Blizzard - "Global Warming Doesn't Exist" (Random Reform-Conservative MP)

Woke up this morning thinking I was back in Saskatchewan again. Well... err... okay... maybe not in Saskatchewan, but the Lower Mainland and Greater Vancouver were starting to look a lot more like home this morning. The pics above include a shot out my front door, my drive past Tynehead Regional Park (near home) on a snow-covered road, and a shot of the traffic jam on the Trans-Canada Highway - just East of the Port Mann Bridge (where it crosses the Fraser from Surrey to Port Coquitlam).

So... I just slapped my Tacoma into 4x4 and had some fun - being very careful of Vancouver drivers in their Priuses and Hybrid Civics on summer tires. What's interesting out here is that you get some "not so bright people" driving around in SUVs with 20" wheels with basically racing slicks. These geniuses think just because they have a 4x4 they can drive their "gansta-mobile" (usually an Escalade, Hummer, or Lincoln) like it's on skates. Funny to see so many of them in ditches.

Folks around here can't remember the last time there was snow like this, or like what we've seen the past couple of years. Sure it will melt in a day or two... but it's just not "normal". Go figure. Climate change is real. There is an expectation of more frequent and more powerful storm systems. While last night's storm in Vancouver was nothing for a flatlander like myself, it certainly caused some angst for 'Couverites.

Harper's Anti-City, Rural-Based Party Is Still Anti-City

Stephen Harper came to town (wearing his stetson backwards, with an "under-sized" vest), and launched "Canada's New Government". Two years later he is still sticking it to the city dwellers. Harper's and the Conservatives' disdain for cities is pretty obvious in his party's stance on urban issues. His dumping of Liberal urban initiatives is a symptom of the Conservative Party's disease: They are mainly a rural-based, Prairie-powered party. Even their "urban" ridings are centered in Prairie cities OR lie on the fringe of cities in the rest of Canada.

PM Harper is a perfect example of one of those concerned conservatives who despises city life so much he chooses to live on the very outskirts of suburbia... call it "sub-suburban". The PM chooses not to live in Calgary - in the riding he represents (my old riding of Calgary SW), but in a small town outside of Calgary - about 35km from his riding - in the town of Cochrane. Like conservative opinions I've heard in the past (Conservative MLA/Minister Grant "X" in Sask), there is a need - no- a desire, to live as far away from "those people" as possible. The former Sask. Minister made a comment about foreigners in his neighborhood, and commented about "the smell of their cooking". Typically conservative.

Ultra-cons tend to distance themselves from the city with purported fear of crime (on the decline, in reality - while small towns are hotbeds for drug activity, and drug crime), their disdain for things different from them (immigrants and minorities), their need to live the "no trespassing, private property, two Pit-bull, gun-toting, lifestyle". How can these narrow-minded people represent anyone from a truly urban riding?

The rural-urban split is fairly typical of the differentiation between conservative and liberal. Anywhere you go liberals tend to hail from urban, or more progressive and changing areas, while conservatives tend to be more rural - and more aptly, isolationist in thought (still, there are many liberals living in rural areas, just as there are conservative supporters living in urban centers). The ideologies tend to have their "heartlands". For the Cons, in Canada, it is the rural prairie. For Canadian Liberals, it is pretty much urban centers coast to coast - Calgary being the one conservative nut the libs haven't cracked (yet), and Eastern rural areas. The Liberals do have a significant rural backing, but it is in the less populated Northern ridings (which have traditionally benefited from Liberal gov'ts more than any other).

With the voting pattern of the urban and rural areas, it is fairly clear that the Conservatives will continue to kowtow to rural issues and demands - gun "freedom"; perceived crime; "corporatization" of farms; traditional family appeals (since rural families tend to be more traditional than urban ones); etc., while continuing to ignore urban demands. Being of a more closed-minded, conservative (ie: resistant to change) ideology, Conservatives will never be very likely to adopt policies which broadly appeal to urban Canada. Unlike Liberals - who will try (at least) to reach out to the other's bases (on left and right - hence our power/political center growing or shrinking), conservatives typically don't like to reach out to, or appeal to people unlike them, or to anyone who would require them to change their own ideology.

Harper Got What He Needed From Manley; Notes On The Afghan Mission

(Thanks to the Globe&Mail - Canada's National Newspaper [note gratuitous plug] - for this image).

While Stephen Harper didn't exactly get what he wants from John Manley, he got what he needs. Harper would have liked a rubber stamp on the Afghan mission. Instead Manley gave him some choices.

What it amounts to, however, is exactly what Harper needs to continue the mission. Now he steps onto the public stage - pre-election - and praises the report, indicating he will accept the recommendations.

What Harper got, was this: Indefinite extension of the mission - with the one "parachute" any "war-time" leader needs - an "opt-out clause". That's right. Harper got what LBJ didn't have in Vietnam - the ability to luck across conditions which would let him pull the plug without losing face. In Harper's case he can call his American Overlords to drop in some Marines, pretend that the helicopters that come with them are for our use, and stay as long as he looks good. Harper the "war-time PM". We know he just loves that image. If Harp sees things start to go badly, he'll just "cut and run" - of course, then he'll call it a "calculated withdrawal".

The one thing the Manley Report seems to miss the plate on, is this: NOTHING replaces troops on the ground. That is classic military doctrine. The public - and especially our non-informed media - seem to think the troops will just magically fly over those nasty insurgents and road-side ambushes. Yup - that's just great. Especially when we are looking to actually WORK ON THE GROUND and win the hearts and minds of the locals. Helicopters are great when coordinating an invasion to take out a fixed enemy and points of control that are clearly defined. The typical modern blitzkreig of jets, gunships, artillery, and overwhelming land force works well in these traditional scenarios. Afghanistan (or Afghanisnam, as some bloggers have called it) is not such a textbook campaign. We are fighting insurgents who are intimately familiar with the terrain, and have fought numerous campaigns there - against even better armed enemies (the old Soviets came with a huge force - bigger than anything NATO has brought). I hope that the Manley group made this recommendation on their own accord - and not at the advice of our generals, as this would show some deficiencies.

Our job in Afghanistan is to ensure we "secure the ground", and flying over potential trouble spots won't do it. Sure the choppers will help move troops around quickly, but don't let the media - or Harper's gang - tell us that the added helicopters will miraculously stop casualties from ambushes and roadside IEDs. We need to engage those threats DIRECTLY and ensure the security of both our troops and innocent local civilians. That will require continued ground action, and continued jaunts across the deserts, through mountain passes, and treacherous city streets.

One more thing: I support a UN-sanctioned action in Afghanistan. I'm not happy that NATO is carrying the load, as it causes a perception of "the WEST" against the locals. A real UN rapid reaction force (of the kind that is needed in a lot of world hot spots) would include forces FROM that part of the world - maybe even Iranian, Pakistani, and Uzbek forces. People who hail from the region are useful in two ways: 1) they understand the conflict and the locals better, and 2) they help keep the mission from looking like a "Western invasion". We need to help the Afghani people find peace, but we need to do it the proper way, rather than a random NATO mop-up force riding in on the coattails of an unsuccessful US man-hunt.

A Little About Canada's Reform-A-Tories

So let's review what these wolves-in-sheep's clothing, neo-Con, Reform-a-Tories are all about...

We all know about the Cons' climate change denial - it's been a political reality for them for years. They constantly talked about not believing in the "science of climate change", and the "science of Kyoto". Later - once needing a majority became important - their position became one of bashing a former government for not doing enough (while continuing to do nothing - nay, even fighting solutions - themselves). They also started to vocalize for a "solution" which put any efforts into the distant future - much more distant than anything Kyoto offered - and also a much lesser effort (practically going backwards from gains already made).

War-mongering... What can we say about that? Well, in typical Conservative fashion, the Reformers/Alliance MPs supported the US's illegal (war crimes anyone?) invasion of Iraq. Instead of the right solution: taking the Saudis to task on 9/11, and taking out Afghan's Taliban Regime (well that partly succeeded) and their Pakistani supporters, they supported the trillion dollar (FROM the gov'ts TO the defense industry) light show known as Iraq II. Now, almost 500,000 civilian casualties later (all Iraqi), the neo-Con chicken-hawks are admitting it was an abject failure. Sorry - let me correct that last line: the chicken-hawks NOT earning anything from sitting on defense contractor boards, or future/past lobbyist roles are admitting failure.

Sexist bent has always existed in conservative movements. It is part and parcel of the definition of "conservative". One who believes strongly in the male-dominated "old ways", and wishes for a return to the "good old days". Current federal Conservative policy is geared to keeping women at home. In a very real effort to get all "old school biblical" on Canadian Society, Harper's thugs have unleashed legislation to support stay-at-home moms (nothing wrong with that), at the expense of programs that helped poor mothers and single moms (something really wrong with that).

In the past day or two we've learned that the federal Conservatives support torture (seemingly so, based on their tossing aside of internal documents indicating the certain allies' use of torture). The Foreign Affairs Dept. had a pretty detailed document expressing concern of the use of torture in allied countries (including our Southern neighbor). On Saturday Maxime Bernier decided to ignore this report to prevent any "bad pub" for these allies. The statement has angered Amnesty International's Canadian Secretary General. It has also infuriated Maher Arar's lawyer - Lorne Waldman, as well as human rights advocates everywhere.

What scares me... and I've started to accept the potential inevitable conclusion, is that these right wing ideologues may successfully hide their true feelings from the Canadian public until they are successfully ensconced in a majority. As a party WE need to get our act together. We need to go on the attack. We need to express our thoughts on the issues CLEARLY. We need to voice the liberal opinion - which is the MODERATE, center-of-the-road Canadian way. We need to speak to voters on the benefits of liberal ideology. We can't let platform politics stunt voter education. When voters have nothing to look at but a platform, a "current" election promise-list, and the latest 7 second news clip of our leader trying to get an idea out, we miss our mark.

I believe - as Liberals - we need to clearly post our ideals on the FIRST page of our website. A clear statement of worldwide liberal ideology - which won't change, no matter whom we chose to lead us, or what the current "issues" are during an election. This manifesto of ideas should become public knowledge so voters know exactly WHO WE ARE, and what our GUIDING PRINCIPLES are. When Canadians see clearly who we are, they will, once again, begin to see us as the only truly moderate choice in Canadian politics.

BC's Homeless - Canada's "Problem"

Walking down East Hastings in Vancouver, or through one of the many other main drags in cities in the Lower Mainland, something curious strikes you (besides the colorful scenery and sometimes foul odors)... These people aren't "from" here... Sure a lot of the Lower Mainland and Vancouver Island homeless are from parts of BC. The thing is, walking around and asking where they're from, you'll get a lot of interesting stories... "I'm from Calgary", "I'm from Edmonton", "I'm from Fort MacMurray", "I'm from Winnipeg"...

I was not that shocked to find that so many of the homeless were from "somewhere else". After all, the warm climate, accessibility to (cheaper/abundant) drugs, and excellent social services (did I say warm climate?) makes a huge difference. It really helps if you don't freeze to death outside. Add to this certain Prairie Premiers from oil-rich provinces providing free bus fare to Vancouver...

Citizens of the Lower Mainland and the Island end up paying huge sums to house, cloth, and feed a lot of these homeless inter-provincial immigrants. The typical Vancouverite pays a huge sum annually in property, local, income, and sales taxes. Guess where a lot of this money goes? Yes, that's right - trying to stick a finger into the dyke of homelessness.

What's wrong with this picture? How do we justify BCers - mainly in the Lower Mainland, and on the Island - being yolked with the burden of caring for Canada's homeless?

Now before I go much further, I assure you my heart bleeds for my homeless countrymen/women... I just feel that: 1) enough is not being done about the causes; 2) enough is not being done by other provinces (in comparison to BC, and maybe Ontario and Sask); 3) BC should not be taking on this challenge alone.

What exactly am I saying? The cities in the Lower Mainland, & on the Island, need higher levels of gov't assisting in resolving this problem. Victoria alone cannot solve and/or fund this issue. Mr. Campbell needs to start asking Mr. Harper that, now that they've killed all the federal Liberals' "City Initiatives", what does he intend to do (in way of funding) to help BC's homeless? This issue HAS to be brought to the national forefront. Harper is doing nothing for homeless people or the poor in Canada (including the working poor).

If Harper and the Conservatives refuse to help Canada's poor and homeless, then Mr. Campbell needs to approach Mr. Dion and the Federal Liberals - as well as the Federal NDP - to ensure that the homeless problem becomes a part of the national debate.

BC, being Canada's only "fair weather" province, needs to have additional support from the Federal Government in dealing with the homeless situation. Mr. Martin's "City Initiatives" would have been a welcome help, but we know the results of the last election. Too bad.

I can probably write an epic about what to do to combat homelessness, but suffice it to say, throwing money at the problem won't fix it. A concerted effort has to made at federal, provincial, and municipal levels to curb the social, mental (yes mental), and urban challenges which cause homelessness. We know that lack of beds in hospitals, drug treatment facilities, and mental institutions are a key part of the problem. We suffer at the hands of a gov't. which would much rather jail drug abusers, than try to wean them off the substances. Conservative types would rather spend billions on extra policing, than investment in the critical urban infrastructure (like treatment centers and hospitals) required to get people off the streets. While everyone out there doesn't suffer from a substance abuse issue, most do. Bringing back the urban support infrastructure would help.

The next step would be addressing the lack of opportunities in rural areas. Too often the homeless start out in small towns, either being abusers, or involved in situations of abuse - or bordering on abuse. Rural joblessness needs to be addressed.

Finally (well, maybe not "finally"), more needs to be done to ensure youth have "something to do". This also has to be a priority, and a national effort. Too many problems in today's society have to do with youth, and today's culture of "gansta hero". Federal Liberal university assistance programs (promised in the last election) - including paid tuition for 1st and final years - would have been a huge help. None of us like the conservative "fear mongers" talking about "increasing crime", when rates are down to record lows when compared to rates over the past 30 to 40 years, BUT, the fact is crime rates ARE all DOWN. Only youth crime seems to be on the rise. There are solutions - but they need to be national.

Time to get some national focus on local urban matters. Upcoming federal election(s) may just be the right venue for airing these concerns at a national level. Trying to get them airtime along with the "cool" issues like the environment, and Afghanistan may not be that easy...

Harpo and Mularkey: Just A Reminder...

We always want to remind ourselves that these two clowns are possibly involved in the biggest scandal in Canadian political history - the pay-off of a PM and/or sitting MP (one getting the payoff, and the other one trying to cover up the scandal, and the inevitable link to his party and perhaps Foreign Affairs Min.).

Now we are seeing the ruling Conservatives gleefully clapping their hands as the Opposition parties push the inquiry through a hurried-up process. Canadians demand to know the truth, and want to know what Harper/Harper's office knew, and when they knew it.

Let's get back with the program. Polls show there WON'T be an election. We need to call all the witnesses and evidence forward and have a fair inquiry. Rushing to get through it is not the way...

Edwards To "Pull A Dion"

Rumor has it John Edwards will mimic Canadian liberal politics in the next few months... It may seem early, but old Johnny is going to go from 3rd/4th to 1st. He may even get a hand from a Kennedy along the way...

As the US electoral process trudges along for the next several eons, voters will continue to jettison thoughts of a Hillary White House... Obama will surge, but like bright, savvy, upstarts before him (even in Canada), he will invariably attract the "Anything but Obama" vote (remind you of something?). Bright young Barack - he of the "fresh face" - will go down to defeat... Who's left? Why, the "safe" choice - John Edwards - of course!

This blogger has written good things about John Edwards previously, and I do continue with my support. His quest for an end to corporate greed has piqued my interest.

; )

John Edwards: Promising To Be Tough On Corporate Greed

A great excerpt from John Edward's blog tonight: "You have the power to decide whether we will continue to let corporate greed run our country, or whether we take a stand on behalf of working people and the voiceless. Whether we take a stand for our Constitution."

Democratic Primaries - Thoughts

So tonight our friends and neighbors to the South will embark on the process to clean out the White House. I'm not going to touch on the Republican side, as I don't think any of us really care what the American Religious Right will pass along as a "passable" conservative representative. Our passion is liberal democratic politics, and that is what I've looked at on this blog today.

There are three fairly solid candidates seeking the Presidency: Hillary Clinton; Barack Obama; and John Edwards. All three have been darlings of the Democratic Party faithful at one time or another. That's basically where the similarities end. Here is WesternGrit's take on the candidates, and what they may represent...

Hillary Clinton: Hillary was an "uber-feminist", and rights advocate for many years. Even while in the White House with Bill, she was the mind behind many good ideas - including the push for better health care (although a Republican-dominated House, and strong Medico lobby killed it). Sounds like she is a great choice, right? Sure, if she didn't sell out all her principles. The only way she has stood up for women recently, is by BEING one. Sorry Hillary, that's not enough. Then, there's the invasion of Iraq. Hillary stood up and endorsed this illegal war, not once, not twice, but multiple times. She supported the Bushies, even though the World, and any logical, moderate person could see the war was misdirected. Hillary also caved in to the Big Drug Cos. and softened her stance on universal healthcare. Sorry Hillary, you're a sell-out.

Barack Obama: I like Barack. He's young, he's extremely intelligent, he's articulate - beyond any of the others, and best of all: he's African American, and it's about bloody time. Barack seems (on first look), however, to be a little too cozy with the big corporations, and is the benefactor of almost as many corporate dollars as Hillary. We have some questions about his "working with the insurance companies" on healthcare approach. Yeah, the American people need to be robbed by insurance companies and drug companies any more than they already have...  We hope this is simply a way for him to deflect any right wing criticism until he is in the White House.

John Edwards: Yeah, the middle aged "mainstream" male. How cliche'. Yet, John is the most progressive of any of the candidates (in the big three). He is charismatic (perhaps not quite as charismatic as Obama), and he is intelligent too. He is the only candidate who closely resembles true liberal democrats around the world (ie, Canada and Europe). He has not been heavily bought out by corporate donors. He has, in fact, spoken out against the big corps. Now these are refreshing words coming from a politician in the US - heck, even in Canada: "I absolutely believe to my soul that this corporate greed and corporate power has an ironclad hold on our democracy." Never even heard one of our Liberal leaders utter these very true - and frightening - words.

John Edwards seems to clearly be the consummate liberal. He is outspoken - and not afraid to speak. It's about time we saw more politicians who weren't afraid of big corporations. Edwards has actually said he will go after the big oil and drug companies. Bravo. In Canada it seems our politicos are busy currying favor with private interests - especially on the conservative side of the spectrum. P3s are all the vogue. Nice to see some of our neighbors to the South claiming a new political reality.

Government "for the people" - what a concept. We need more politicians like John Edwards, and Barack Obama.  If not Edwards, then Obama for sure (as long as he rethinks his healthcare plan - which I'm sure he will).

Peace: Here's To The Future (Let's Have One)

Well, another year has passed. We Liberals do have a lot to look forward to this next year. The Mulroney-Schreiber-Harper-MacKay Scandal should get some more play. We'll need to hear from Harp, his Justice Minister, and MacKay as well (both of them). There are a lot of reasons for Opposition Parties to want to defeat this gov't., and we'll just need to be patient and play our cards when the time is right.

What does the world look like right now? Hundreds of small wars, populations starving or lacking clean water, ideological warfare abounds, an increasingly toxic environment. We really need to wake up as a species. We need to appreciate that this is not OUR planet any more than it was the dinosaurs' planet. A burgeoning population and limited resources mean we have to make some REAL efforts to clean up our little corner of the Universe. Humankind has to rethink our basic most fundamental ways of life, to ensure future humans will have lives at all. Science fiction movies often have hordes of aggressive aliens who pillage planets for their resources, then move on. We need to realize WE are those aggressive aliens laying waste to any newly exploitable resources we find.

As a party that strikes a balance between fiscal responsibility and caring for our world, neighbors, and surroundings, we need to be leaders in the fight for our planet. We need to be leaders in peace, responsibility, and humanity. We need to stand out as liberal democrats. Our political principles are a perfect fit for this needy world right now.

The best of the Season to everyone, and a very happy and prosperous 2008.

When You Send A Bonehead To Do A Statesman's Job

So Peter MacKay gets shipped off to Afghanistan to lay on some classic conservative military patronizing - and keep him from commenting on Schreiber-Mulroney-Harper-MacKay-gate. So what does "el-dorko" (he of the inappropriate comments about a certain lady from down South) do? He decides he should spout off about Iran backing the Taliban with supplies.

There are a few serious problems with this: You don't come out to give a message of peace and support to the troops, and use the time as a platform for your own political gain (the cons LOVE to pretend the military is their baby - even though we know Pierre Trudeau spent more on defense than they do); You don't use such an occasion to take random potshots at another sovereign state - without the appropriate diplomacy and evidence; Looking like some imbeciles simply carting in the standard US messaging has never been Canada's place - we've always been more objective, and it allowed us (even being a NATO and Commonwealth member) to be respected for our opinions. Joining in blindly with the "you're with us, or you're 'agin' us" mentality is a sure-fire way to get hated really fast.

There are ways to approach a nation which could explode at any time - and being the schoolyard bully is not it. Someone will step up and be the peace-broker in this region. Unfortunately, a nation that is shamelessly aligning itself with one of the aggressor sides is not going to be that broker. A nation like Sweden is more likely.

I hope fellow Canadians are starting to realize what a shameful mockery these Conservatives are making of Canada's proud international reputation.

Partisan Witch Hunt, My @$$

Canada's Conservatives.  How can these guys pretend they're different from the federal PCs of old - when they always WERE federal PCs?

So the Cons want to try to tell the world that the Mulroney-Schreiber-Harper Inquiry is a "partisan witch hunt". Hmmm... I thought (according to Harpies everywhere) Mr. Mulroney was part of a party which ceased to exist a few years ago when they united with the Reform-Alliance? I mean the "new" conservatives keep stating how they are not the same as the "old" conservatives - even though they spent much of the last couple of years trying to convince voters they were just that... a "united right". So now, when the obvious relationship between the two (actually one and the same) is hurtful to the government, they want to distance themselves.

Thing is... they keep saying the Opposition trying to find the truth is a "partisan witch hunt". Which means, as is obvious to all Canadians, they are admitting Mulroney is one of theirs'(as is obvious to all Canadians). Mulroney is a conservative, and so are they. A "united right".

"Conservative MP Russ Hiebert (South Surrey-White Rock-Cloverdale, B.C.) last week emerged from the committee meeting with Mr. Mulroney and read from a prepared statement, which said further committee hearings into the affair were not necessary because they amounted to a "partisan witch hunt." Mr. Hiebert said the views were his own, not scripted by the PMO, and were written during the committee meeting. But CP reporter Jennifer Ditchburn aptly pointed out that Mr. Hiebert read from computer-printed notes with bullets. (thanks Yappa Ding Ding).

If this is a "partisan witch hunt" as the Conservatives say it is, then it is truly a Conservative scandal - linked to their party and their name.

Is This... What They Call Poetic Justice???

Stevie Harper and the Reform-a-tories fought long to convince moderate Canada that they were really, truly, a united right, and the rebirth of the old Mulroney 'populist rush'. They ceaselessly argued with anyone who tried to say that the right wing Reformers had taken over the old PC/Conservative Party. They even paraded the great Brian Mulroney around during the last election, to help with federalist votes in Quebec. The tireless efforts and millions of dollars spent by the Conservative campaign machine did help them convince enough voters to win a small minority.

Recent revelations in the Mulroney-Schrieber-Harper affair are causing some serious problems with Harper's remade 'Mulroney Coalition'. Mr. Harper would like to extricate himself from the PC/old conservative ties. Unfortunately (for him) his team did too good a job convincing Canadians that Harper's "new" team and the Mulroney team were one and the same. The Conservatives now expect Canadians to separate the two conservative parties in their minds. C'mon. These two are "kissing cousins". They all came from the same conservative beast. If one looks at who works in the backrooms of Ottawa, you'll find a lot of old Mulroney era Tories working under Harper and his MPs.

This scandal didn't require Opposition MPs pointing out links to the Harper PMO - Stephen Harper basically created those links himself. A fate well deserved. Let's hope the mud continues to stick to this idea-less, regressive group of neo-cons.

Turkish Bombs Good For Kurds? Saddam's Bombs Bad?

Yes... a preposterous headline. Yet, it seems this is what the American-block would like the world to think about the plight of Kurdistan. If it's an American enemy bombing the Kurds, then it's "deplorable" and a "crime against humanity", BUT if it's an American ally...

Let's see:

Saddam I (Pre-Kuwait): "Good Saddam" (hugs for Rumsfeld, etc.). Go ahead and bomb the Kurds Saddam - we'll even provide the bombs and helicopters.
Saddam II (Post Kuwait): "Bad Saddam". Saddam is the anti-Christ. He is an evil dictator, and he'll pay for these crimes.
Iran (under the Shaw): Kurds? What Kurds?
Iran (under the mullahs): The plight of the Kurdish people is of the utmost importance to the American people.
Turkey (NATO member state): Bombs away! We don't see you. The Kurds being bombed are "terrorists" conspiring to destabilize Iraq and the whole region.

Sometimes the overt geo-political hypocrisy is so obvious it's a wonder "Joe Public" doesn't just see right through it. It seems the days of competent, concerned leaders - who actually cared about the plight of the weak and suffering - are gone. No more great statesmen in the world anymore. You can't speak out on an issue without being colored a color (left, right, capitalist, socialist, terrorist fighter, terrorist supporter, God-fearing, atheist, etc.).

The world needs more true statesmen... not empty-headed ideologues who only care for themselves, their corporate/industrial backers, or their marriage to some oblique philosophy which doesn't work in today's world. We need brave leaders not afraid to speak out against the status quo.

Harpo-Mularkey Image of the Day...

Harpo: "Not now, Brian. Get your hand out of my hip pocket."
Mularkey: "Remember our meeting with Boeing grasshopper? Gordie O worked hard to arrange that. Aren't those transports just what we needed?".
Both Laugh Vigorously...
Harpo: "How could I forget? George whispered it in my ear when we got up this morning".
Mularkey: "Does George do that funny thing with his hip like my Cowboy Ronnie used to do?"
Harpo: "Ever wonder why Georgie's bow-legged?"
Both: "Snicker, snicker..."
Mularkey: "I had to sleep with Maggie to try to score those Harriers... Never did materialize"
Harpo: "Ain't workin' Maggie's farm no more... (snicker, snicker)? I guess that beats being a target for the Godfather (Cheney) when I went to ask for them to recognize us as friends last year..."
Mularkey: "Yeah, I had to pull buckshot outta my backside for a year after I met him in the 80s. Why are you Reformer-types so high on guns again? We almost banned them in the 80s"
Harpo: "Brian! Gun's are our God-given right. You can't take away our guns. Outta our cold dead hands Brian!"
Mularkey: "Temper, temper. What did I tell you about hiding that temper in public? Every time you throw a tanturn you lose poll points".
Harpo: "Those polls are great, aren't they? We're trying to hide the cost, but that stupid report came out..."
Mularkey: "Don't worry. You'll be at least 2 yrs out of gov't before the media decides to tackle you over that one. Ask me... or better yet, lil' Kimmy."
Harpo: "She really took the fall for you guys, didn't she? I still laugh when I think of that... 2 seats... LOL".
Mularkey: "Hey! Show some respect Shrub. Without my 'populist rush' plan, you guys wouldn't have a sniff in Quebec. We know how your Reform buddies sponsored all those anti-Quebec bumper stickers in the 80s and 90s"
Harpo: "Yeah... I had one. 'No to C68, No to Wheat Board, No to Quebec' Looked good on my Suburban..."

Steve & Brian - Best Friends... A Photo Album

We weren't surprised when Mr Harper made public in the last election campaign that one Brian Mulroney was his mentor and key Quebec advisor. Harper served in the Mulroney/Campbell gov't - as an MP's assistant. We're sure the youngster left a mark on big Brian. We know the relationship goes back further than either will admit publicly. Then there is the MacKay link. We wonder why Peter MacKay went back on his written agreement NOT to break up the old PROGRESSIVE Conservative Party. What did Harper have on MacKay that made him turn back on his written agreement? Did the Harper crew threaten to destroy MacKay's political career if he didn't help destroy the PCs? After all, under a young, non-lying Peter MacKay (the old PC's "golden boy"), or Bernard Lord, the PCs' collective hopes were on the upswing. The Reformers had been around along enough, and unsuccessfully, that they were really ready to bust after another election loss - or continue to be relegated to a "regional rump".

Is there a deeper relationship than what appears on the surface? Isn't there always?

Canada's Role In Global Warming - Next Steps...

We've had some challenges (to say the least) in beginning our battle on global warming and greenhouse gases. The Conservative gov't is creating even more roadblocks on the way to undermining the whole Kyoto process - simply to appease their American "overlords".

What comes next for Canada? The obvious choice is a liberal-democratic gov't., versus a neo-conservative one with clear designs on stopping any real movement on climate change. The best bet for the world would be this: All nations who want to sign, sign on. The ones who don't sign would be such a small number (US, China, India, maybe Canada), that practically the whole world would be united in the plan. One further step would assure us that the US, China, and India would sign on. It's really simple if the world really wanted to see real action: Trade measures or levies on goods produced in "non-green" countries. Even the US would come onside with this last measure, with the amount of production they're losing to China. The "new Kyoto" agreement would supercede the WTO, so China would have no recourse but to move quickly to becoming green. Just don't buy their stuff. I'm sure American and Canadian manufacturing sector workers would love this plan. The speed-bump will be the large, US-owned multi-nationals - like Walmart. They are hooked on cheap Chinese stuff. It's time our MNCs' "needs" come after our citizens'. After all, the MNCs are the ones who pushed all the production to China in the first place - leaving millions of North American workers out of work.

I do have further details on how such a plan would work - and work "extra-WTO", and will post more on future "New Kyoto" blog posts...

Dinosaurs: Big Oil Stooges, Or Do They Really Believe This Stuff?

For years the Canadian Conservative Movement (backed by Big Oil) has shouted down Kyoto. With help from their big media supporters the Cons were able to make substantial noise about "the science" they didn't agree with, to create some public doubt - especially in Alberta. After creating enough noise and blockages in Parliament (while in opposition), they proceeded to turn around (once elected as "Canada's New Gov't.) and blame the Liberals - who ratified Kyoto (signing on to an international agreement) for "inaction". That's like the bully who kept the school kid from coming in from recess, then pointing out to the teacher that "he was late".

Luckily most Canadians support Kyoto, and feel strongly about our environment.

Now, in a new - most likely American-inspired - effort to appease Big Oil, the "Reform-a-Tory" bullies are trying to "disrupt class" by being the most vocal opponent of reasonable attempts to stop climate change. Once again being shills for Big Oil, the "Reform-a-Tory" bullies are loudly screaming out their opposition to Kyoto, or anything Kyoto-like, instead pushing for the useless shell-game efforts the US and Australia also support. Do nothing, rather than anything that might hurt the deep pockets of Big Oil.

Looking at the "Reform-a-Tory's" "evolution" (devolution?) from Federal PCs, to Reformers, to Reformers who destroyed and took over the last vestiges of "progressive" on the right, one wonders if they are just happy to be on the corporate payroll (via political support and future jobs), or are they really dull enough to believe what 2.13% of oil-company sponsored scientists say?

We always knew Conservatives were heavy on the corporate cheer-leading, but could it be that they really believe this stuff? Being a former resident of Alberta, and knowing a lot of conservatives personally (yeah, I'll admit it - they were nice when we were talking sports - except for their unnatural hatred for Toronto-based sports teams), I'll have to say "yeah" a lot of these guys actually do believe it. Cerebral, intellectual Liberals scratch our collective noggins when we attempt to fathom the victory of "pop culture/pop science" over real science. Being someone who has a science background - right up to grad school - I find it easy to read and understand "the science" (I hate when they call it that) of Kyoto. Perhaps a lot of the loudest, angriest (don't know why they're still angry - they've been in power for 2yrs now) conservatives just don't have the aptitude to understand Kyoto, or climate change and global warming. Like the slowest dinosaurs they didn't realize the world was changing around them until it was too late... And, isn't that what we call conservatives that are non-progressive and stuck in their early 20th century ways? Dinosaurs.

NDP - The "No Damn-use Party": Masters of The Witch Hunt? I Guess Not...

So now NDP MPs are falling over each other to get some of the spotlight that fellow brethren, Pat Martin is getting... Hmmm... Where do they start? How about accuse a Con MP of looking at pictures of his girlfriend. Now, being someone who's worked in the corporate/business world for quite a few years, I would say it is entirely inappropriate to be looking at anything like that in a workplace - no matter whom it comes from - let alone in our nation's Parliament. So, while their heart's were in the right place, their tactics were all wrong. I do stand behind the member's offense taken at having to see the images while at work. Pictures of scantily clad women - or men - are unacceptable in the workplace. I'm thinking that the MP was trying to openly display his lack of interest in the debate that was going on. He chose the wrong way of displaying it. The NDP MP should have made a better case about inappropriate images in the workplace... She failed to do so, and ended up apologizing to Parliament.

Next case: NDP candidate in Abbottsford, BC accuses Liberal candidate of trying to buy him out of running. Allegations turn out to be false, but the Liberal candidate's reputation is tarnished, and so are his chances of being elected. Just goes to show, you need to get your facts straight before randomly accusing people of things. In this case there should be more than just an apology from the NDP to the former Liberal candidate... They should be apologizing to the people of the riding. We also should be looking into what role the former NDP candidate is playing in the party. Is he still in the position to influence voters? To campaign and disseminate campaign information?

NDP marching orders must be something like: "Let's pretend we're the non-corrupt ones, while we accuse the other guys of being dishonest and sleazy... Use any means at your disposal... All we need to do is sling a lot of mud and maybe we can finish 3rd in the next election."

Men of substance - like Tommy Douglas - must be rolling over in their graves. Where is the NDP of the 60s and 70s - the party that used to focus on issues that mattered to average, working class Canadians?