spurs

Heather Mallick ignores Andrea Horwath as the only party leader who rightly champions women's rights, or sorry sister it's hard out here for a Liberal shill like me

2011-08-01T16:13:00.004-04:00

According to Heather Mallick in Today's The Star:

But what he and Hudak and Harper should understand is that abortion is not a “chip” on a woman’s shoulder, it is her body and her life, her internal sanctity and her choice.
I am warning those who want Canadian women to lose their right to abortion that this will not be a skirmish. It lives in the hearts of girls and women. We will fight you on this.

Sweeet! We're going "progressive" with this election. Only two questions Ms Mallick.

1. Why snub a sister like Andrea Horwath? She after all is one of those in whose heart lies the fight to preserve a woman's right to choose. Secondly, she's leader of the only unified, positive, and progressive political party out there.

2. Why would a feminist shill for an avowed Roman Catholic man? There are few symbols that conjure up more starkly the history of exclusion and systemic violence against women than the RC Church and powerful male politicians (i.e the State).

Lastly, a question for "progressives". Is it possible that the latent, less obvious forms of sexism that well up occasionally from Liberals actually represents a more refined, opportunistic, and insidious form of discrimination -even if Liberals are more likely to "apologize" for their cock-ups??? Remember this???

Trivial or insidious sexism???

According to latest poll, ONDP and Liberals in virtual tie and Andrea Horwath way ahead with highest approval rating as well as lowest disapproval rating

2011-07-30T14:48:00.001-04:00

"[Andrea Horwath] is making a great impression on voters.”

Horwath’s approval is up to 63 per cent from 59 per cent and her disapproval down to 37 per cent from 41 per cent.

Dalton McGuinty, by far, remains the leader with a lowest approval rating (39%) and the highest disapproval rating (61%).

Although to hear Liberals tell it, this is great news for them????

Keep sending us your "progressives" dear Liberals. We welcomed them home in May and we'll welcome them home in October.

McGuinty all rhetoric on abortion, or how does an avowed Roman Catholic maintain any credibility on feminist issues?

2011-07-28T09:11:00.001-04:00

The recent turn by Ontario Liberals to dredge up the abortion issue is quite fascinating. Is it out of sheer desperation to change the channel? Is it a suicide pact? A vain attempt to hold on to "progressives" they've manage to fool in the past?

Although McGuinty has done little of the talking, how could one fail to see the glaring contradiction in an avowed Roman Catholic posturing as a feminist? So speaking of "choice", it seems to me a serious feminist Roman Catholic would have only two choices vis a vis this horribly stratified and perverse expression of Christianity, one which has been unfailingly misogynist and conservative.

Choice one: Claim Roman Catholicism but work tirelessly to reform it from within. As a "progressive" Christian, I have often asked some of my female RC friends how they find it possible to remain within such an oppressive, hierarchical structure, particularly an institution from which they are barred "full membership" (not having a right to ordination or to fully preside over the sacraments is not being able to be a full member.) A very compelling response from some of these friends has been 1) I stay because it is part of my story and I want to help change it into the institution is should be. 2) I stay because without me to show love and support, it would be an even worse place for women and the LGBT communities.

Choice two: Walk across the street to any number of truly progressive expressions of Christianity, such as that eminently Canadian institution, the United Church of Canada.

Thus, I'm only being a little facetious when I ask how can McGuinty confidently claim credibility on the "progressive" file, especially the feminist file?

Ontario Liberals in Free Fall: Add Wild Hyperbole to their Campaign to Woo "Progressives"

2011-07-27T11:31:00.000-04:00

As part of the Ontario Liberals' suicide pact, I mean campaign to woo progressive voters we get this nasty example of hyperbole in the hopes of redirecting the coming election away from pocketbook issues towards "progressive" issues. Gritchik opens yesterday's blog posting with this doozie.

"Since Dammit Janet! helped vault Hudak’s position on abortion into the internet stratosphere"

Just a tad overstated, no? I mean, Oslo bombing, US debt ceiling, Amy Winehouse's death, and, of course, Hudak predictable stance on abortion? Or perhaps just desperately wishful thinking. Polling must be showing an even bleaker picture than already portrayed. Liberals now seem in a desperate fight to hold onto second place. Trending and recent history of the May election are certainly not on their side.

I've been canvassing in probably Ontario's most progressive riding and not one person has brought up women's reproductive rights at the door. Nor has one person mentioned Hudak's stance on abortion. But I hope they do, since in the Liberals there is a caucus divided on the issue and in the NDP there is a caucus united around the issue.

What I don't understand is why the Liberals think they are well positioned to capitalize on "progressive" issues. It clearly appears that to The NDP, as we saw in Canada's most progressive province (i.e. Quebec), is overwhelmingly where progressives are turning.

Finally Canadians realize that 1) Liberals are not Progressive and 2) It is possible to get out from under the tweeddle dee/ tweeddle dum, one party faux democracy under which we've been held hostage for so long.

Ontario Liberals in Free Fall: Add Disingenuousness and Hypocrisy to Campaign to Woo "Progressives"--Updated

2011-07-21T19:53:00.007-04:00

In their desperate attempt to halt their slide down the polls, the Ontario Liberals are preparing to spread out across Toronto's subway to distribute flyers charging the NDP with abandoning the environment while crowing about David Suzuki's pat on the back.

Oh the irony.

The OLP is hardly known for its commitment to the environment. I'm still waiting for Nanticoke to be closed down. McGuinty promised to do so by 2007. He has not only not phased out coal energy but has wrongly committed to go into Big Nuclear (something which Suzuki chides McGuinty for, but I'm sure won't appear in their flyer tomorrow). Although Liberals rightly see the NDP as the strongest advocate on the environment, the OLP is hardly in any position to call them out on it.

Second. Killing trees to convey an a green message on glossy full page flyers.

Third, fanning out across public transit lines to convey a green message when you're the party refusing to use electric trains in favor of diesel trains for a rail link to Pearson Airport.

The NDP have yet to roll out their environmental platform, but I know this. The NDP has always been far ahead of the other parties on the environment. And, the NDP has one of the best minds on the environment, former executive director of Greenpeace, Peter Tabuns.

_________
Update:

The following letter by the ONDP was cc'd to the David Suzuki Foundation among many other environmental organizations. Guess David didn't find the time to read it. Either that or Mr. Suzuki is stuck in the same blue door red door paradigm that we saw shattered in the May election. Progressives do have a choice, and it's not the Liberals- never has been. The NDP has been and continues to be the most authentic choice for progressives, students, women, workers, small businesses, and the poor and marginalized.

"We are writing to outline the NDP’s position on renewable energy in order to expand on our commitments in our recently released "Plan for Affordable Change," the first of our policy documents.
The NDP is committed to aggressively expanding renewable energy, conservation and efficiency in Ontario as the path to the development of a vibrant green energy economy in the province.
To this end, we will maintain the feed-in-tariff (FIT) program for smaller projects led by farmers, municipalities, churches, schools, co-operatives, First Nations communities and private producers. We plan to expand the ability of community-based organizations to become significant power producers.
As well, we will mandate Ontario’s publicly-owned power generator (Ontario Power Generation) to engage in an ambitious program of large-scale renewable energy projects in Ontario, creating a sustained demand for products and services from Ontario-based renewable energy companies.
The NDP will honour existing green energy contracts and will ensure fair treatment of large and small renewable energy project proposals in the pipeline. We know Ontario has to maintain and build momentum for green energy investment.
To repeat, the NDP will continue to expand conservation, efficiency and renewable energy use in Ontario in order to protect the environment, stimulate good jobs and keep electricity affordable.
In fact, the NDP’s plan creates a more certain future for renewable energy in Ontario than the Liberal plan, which places a moratorium on all renewable power projects starting in 2018 when expensive new nuclear plants are projected to come on line.
Finally, please note that the NDP has yet to release its full environmental platform and we will announce details on a range of issues such as climate change and the protection of land and water in Ontario in the coming weeks and months."

Ontario Liberals in Free Fall: Predictably Resort to Useless Smearing and a Failed Strategy

2011-07-20T12:14:00.002-04:00

So the Ontario Liberals want the coming provincial election to be about ethical issues such as women's reproductive rights. Now I get the strategy. Distraught with their free falling in the polls, the Liberals are desperate to pander to their supposed base (i.e. progressives, women, progressive women) and thus have taken to publicly demonizing the Tim Hudak and the Conservatives. Now I also get that Hudak is pandering to his base and to women with his whole tough on crime shtick.

So in the past few days, the Ontario Liberals have attempted to undermine Hudak's integrity with charges of waffling on issues, calling him a weasel, circulating pictures of of him next to a weasel, and dredging up his previous statements on abortion in an attempt to move the electorate to a deep foreboding over this horrible monster that is Tim Hudak. Isn't it interesting to have two men, both of whom have questionable records on feminist issues fighting to see who is more feminist? Of course, the obvious feminist choice in the coming election is Andrea Horwath and the NDP. Some thoughts on this whole fiasco.

It's smearing and and has no place in civilized politics. Intelligent voters want democracy based on issues and debate not character assassinations. Just because it's effective, especially when done by an unscrupulous, well oiled and primed machine like the Harper regime, doesn't mean it's right. Btw, the OLP is not the CPC. The OLP's smears will not be as effective and Liberals are underestimating the intelligence of the voter base they're trying to solidify.

While I understand that it would be suicide for the OLP to laud its economic platform and achievements, trying to run a campaign right now on ethics/morality will just as likely lead to the decimation faced by the federal Liberals in May. And that pleases me. Actually secretly I'm quite pleased the OLP is deploying this strategy.

Canadians discovered many things in the May election. Foremost, the electorate discovered it has the freedom and license not to stick with the same old/ same old "two party system" (in truth we've endured a system that masquerades for the one party wantonly pro capitalism and pro big business system that it really is). So change is possible but not with either the Liberals or Conservatives. Related to this was the realization that for women, progressives, youth, the marginalized, workers, and the middle class, the far more authentic voice is the NDP and thus, the Liberals have essentially become redundant and irrelevant in the current political landscape.

This, of course, is why the Liberals are desperate to shore up want they traditionally have considered their base. At this point, I believe, the OLP has given up (and the polls certainly bear this out, indeed I wonder what the Liberals; own polls are showing) forming the next government, but they are desperate to hold on to what they can. But what they fail to see is that running on the moral high ground is disastrous for them right now, just as it was for Ignatieff to run as defender of democracy. Why?

First, the Liberals have squandered any and all moral capital they may ever have had. Liberals just don't have any credibility on that front. McGuinty has been caught repeatedly in public treasury mismanagement from slush funds to ehealth to exorbitant salaries for senior public servants. McGuinty was part of what provinical ombudsman described as among the most flagrant civil rights abuses in Canadian history in the handling of the G20 protests. The use of diesel trains and the party of big Nuclear. McGuinty has continued the assault on organized labour launched by Mike Harris etc etc.

Second, the NDP has surfaced as the legitimate and powerful voice for progressives. While the NDP has always been considered as the party of conscience and defender of human rights and the environment, until recently the NDP was not always considered a credible alternative. May 02 changed that and the tarnished image left by Bob Rae is no longer in play as it once was. I look to the NDP to come up big in the coming election. So OLP keep pushing your base out your right and left door into the waiting arms o the Conserevatives and NDP respectively.

Ontario Liberals in Free Fall: Desperate to make political hay resort to outsourcing derangement syndrome

2011-06-30T14:45:00.002-04:00

In response to the outrage expressed by the handful of Ontario Liberals still hanging on to that sinking ship over the American photo gaffe by the NDP, I redirect you to the biggest such gaffe of them all: The Ontario Liberals outsourcing provincial flags to China. Procurement of the provincial flag, which as McGuinty admitted, "there's nothing nearer and dearer to the soul of our province than the flag" was being outsourced to China, resulting in very little savings, lost Ontario jobs, and lesser quality flags. So Liberals before becoming unhinged by a little gaffe, re-read this piece from a couple of years back:

Outsourcing outrage; Province having its flags made in China only saves a few pennies
Column by Joe Warmington, Sun Media
Posted 2 years ago
For crying out loud, even the Chinese consulate in Toronto doesn't order its flags from China!
Only the Province of Ontario would do such a thing to cannibalize its own workforce.
It is disgraceful -- although perhaps fitting Ontario now has its own provincial flag made in China, where the rest of the province's jobs have been disappearing to for years.
What's next? We start ordering our takeout Chinese food from China!
Don't give them any ideas in a province that has already lost thousands of manufacturing jobs to a country that can find workers at a rate considerably less than what is expected to be paid here.
Meanwhile, as Ontario sells out its own workforce, the great Province of Quebec still gets its fleur-de-lys provincial flag made in Ontario.
How about that! Run that news up a flagpole at Queen's Park!
And, as mentioned above, so does the Toronto Chinese consulate, which has a lot of official dinners here in Toronto and when you see that striking red Chinese flag on your table, you can be proud that it was made at Flying Colours right here in Parkdale.
Actually most of Canada's provinces get their flags made here -- as do other countries and U.S. states.
"We make millions of flags every year," says Edward McLean, of Flying Colours International. "And we make them for everybody."
Except, of course, for the Province of Ontario.
Flying Colours has been making flags in an early 1900s factory on Sterling Rd. since 1926. But in 2007, the Province of Ontario rejected their latest bid of $18 a flag and they lost the $40,000 annual contract to a Chinese manufacturer who can make flags for less.
"But it's not that much less," says McLean.
"And our quality is of a different level."
The colours in the Canadian and Ontario flags made in Toronto are second to none.
"Our colours are richer. And the flags are to exact standard."
At this plant they also "unfortunately" make the Canadian flags for the caskets of the Canadian soldiers who come home from Afghanistan.
So far, no one has made any suggestion about outsourcing those. Again, don't give them any ideas.
"But I do worry that we could have soldiers over in a war zone -- somebody fighting for a flag that was made in China," says McLean. "A flag is not a pen or a book. A flag is a symbol."
Here are more symbols: Carmen, Savi, Edna, Larisa, Savitra, Bosina, Daisy and Ivy. These are just some of the women on sewing machines we met, who could lose their jobs if the trend set by your province continues.
These are Canadian employees -- about 100, some of whom hail originally from China. They all want to keep as much work here as they can. Although companies like Flying Colours are holdouts, many are succumbing to the economic pressure.
"There are no guarantees" that these jobs will stay here forever, McLean says.
They certainly won't if others follow the lead of Ontario and send the work abroad.
"If this keeps up in Canada we won't have manufacturing anymore," adds McLean, who as he shakes his head says, "all to save a couple of pennies on a flag."
Since 1926 Flying Colours has resisted the lure of offshore mega-profits and stayed right at home. "It's a small family-owned company and for us it's about more than just making profit," he says.
"It's about a community. All of our people live in the city and we love them. The average employee has been here 17 years."
Loyalty. On both sides. Companies who outsource have abandoned that principal and traded it for fat coffers while ambitious bean counters cheer them on.
Of course how can you blame them when this very province encourages business arrangements with China.
"This was an exciting trip that showed just how much potential there is for Ontario to develop partnerships in China that will lead to jobs and opportunity for our province," said Premier Dalton McGuinty after a 2005 trip there -- one of many.
He ought to drop by Flying Colours and take a look at a top-flight Ontario manufacturer and its fine workers facing extinction.
And I would love to do a column on how many Ontario jobs have been created from his China trips. Please, point me in that direction.

Warren Kinsella Jumped the Shark Roughly at the Same Time as the Phrase "Jump the Shark" Jumped the Shark.

2011-06-25T17:58:00.002-04:00

As the rhetoric, games, and spin ramp up in the lead up to this fall's provincial election, am I the only one noticing that Kinsella, who's purportedly running the McGuinty war room, carries that same stench of dead man walking that McGuinty has for the past year or so?

His blog has become a desperate, futile, sophomoric and, most of all, an utterly underwhelming attempt to smear his opponents. Indeed, what strikes me most deeply is how unaffected I am by his disingenuousness and puerile attempts to make political hay. In the past such intellectual dishonesty and such stupid attacks would have led me to respond, but now the most I can muster is "meh" and "whatever".

All to say, TiGuy I owe you an apology. You were entirely right. Kinsella has indeed been irrelevant and ineffective within the Liberal party for quite some time and my attacks on him were totally misplaced. I should have targeted someone who continued to be germane and relevant in the Liberal world.

Perhaps he should pass on the torch of cynical, dishonest, and gutter politics to Cherniak and his ilk. Cherniak may not be very intelligent, but he could crawl under people's skin.

Cherniak is like the petulant and overindulged child who kicks and screams when he doesn't get his way, but is so annoying that usually someone panders to him.

Kinsella has become the petulant and overindulged child who's flailing away at his opponents but can't get past their outstretched arms keeping him at bay. Sad! No more posts about Kinsella on here.

A Conservative Shot Across the Bow? Sexual Orientation is a "Choice" and does not Deserve Protection under the Canadian Human Rights Act (Updated)

2011-05-15T09:15:00.003-04:00

I know this story is a few days old but worth revisiting. Check out some of the choice comments.

The BC Conservative’s leader-designate John Cummins has made headlines for suggesting that sexual orientation is a choice that does not require specific protection under the Canadian Human Rights Act.

For CBC coverage, including video, see here.

________________________________
Update:

I don't know who called John Cummins this weekend but the back pedalling was swift and decisive, even if disingenuous. Anyway, his muzzle is back on, and sadly that doesn't bode as well for the BC NDP as it would have had he continued to help split the right of centre vote in BC.

Still, talk about mental gymnastics. First, he uses "choice" as the grounds on which to remove discriminatory protection related to sexual orientation. Now "choice" means one's ability to live one's life in the way they he/she wants. He makes no sense and his apology is completely insincere.

Wow! He must have received some heat over this.

Hard to believe Kinsella once had a high school crush on Ignatieff, or progressives just let the Liberals implode

2011-04-22T14:03:00.003-04:00

Clearly there are still old deep fault lines in the LPC ranks, and the Big Red tent of brokerage ideological politics of "pragmatically" offering to be everything to everyone is being evacuated from both the left and right doors. And not too surprising. The LPC, with Ignatieff at the helm has moved so far to the right as to make itself a redundant choice within the Canadian political landscape. On the other side, small "l" liberals, lefty liberals, progressives are finally waking up to the fact that the LPC only campaigns from the Left (it is not of the Left) and there is a viable alternative: the NDP, a party which is actually progressive.

The LPC is redundant to as it moves to its the right and an impostor as it moves to its Left. To paraphrase Michael Ignatieff: "There is a side Left door and there is a side Right door. Liberals choose your exit, but no one enters."

Warren Kinsella is not too happy but also only too willing to rub it in Ignatieff's face. From his blog today:

"I was tossed on the political barbecue pit by Michael Ignatieff and his Super-Smart Senior Staff (4S, for short) for having the temerity to suggest, out loud, that Messrs. Chretien, Broadbent and Romanow were right.“I have no relationship with Warren Kinsella,” sniffed [Ignatieff] the fellow for whom I’d busted my hump for a couple years, and that was that.

My sin? Agreeing with, you know, the most successful Liberal leader in history: suggesting that those of us who opposed Conservatives clearly needed to get together if we were ever to defeat Conservatives. And, more broadly, that Canada – like other democracies around the world – seemed to be heading towards a binary political universe, whether the political classes approved or not.

What now? Well, that’s a really good question. If the NDP make history, and carry their current popularity past the weekend and into next week, they could very well form the Official Opposition. The instant that happens, as I told this PostMedia reporter yesterday in a long chat, the aforementioned Ignatieff and 4S are gone. They’ll all have to resign on election night if they are to escape the enraged, pitchfork-wielding grassroots Grits. Even in 1984′s rout we held onto Opposition status. With that gone – and the staff, and budget and influence that brings – it will be a long, hard slog back."

Corporate tax cuts not delivering on job creation -neither under Liberals nor under Conservatives

2011-04-12T09:10:00.001-04:00

Great piece by Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA) debunking the neoliberal myth that lowering corporate tax rates leads to greater job creation, during either times of budgetary surplus or budgetary deficit (proving the Liberals wrong as well on their whole when times are good we should lower corporate taxes, but in a recession we need to restore them to previous levels).

What bothers me is that the great research done at the CCPA by bonafide accredited and respected economists seldom enters into mainstream debate. I've been saying it for years, but why can't the Guardian open up a Canadian wing to supply critical, progressively minded, leftish commentary to Canadians.

Anyway below is a summary of the CCPA report:

After a decade of corporate tax cuts, the benefits to Canada’s largest corporations are clear but the job creation payoff for Canadians hasn’t materialized, says a study released today by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA).

The study, by CCPA Research Associate David Macdonald, tracked 198 of the 245 companies on the S&P/TSX composite that had year-end data from 2000 through 2009 and found those 198 companies are making 50% more profit and paying 20% less tax than they did a decade ago.

However, in terms of job creation, they did not keep up with the average growth of employment in the economy as a whole. From 2005 to 2010, the number of employed Canadians rose 6% while the number of jobs created by the companies in the study grew by only 5%.

“Despite their growing profits and massive tax savings, the number of jobs created by Canada’s largest corporations was lower than the average employment growth across all sectors of the economy,” says Macdonald. “In essence, the largest beneficiaries of corporate tax cuts are dragging down Canadian employment growth.”

According to the study, if those 198 companies paid the same tax rate as they had in 2000, federal and provincial governments would have collected an additional $12 billion in revenue in 2009. The loss in revenue from all Canadian corporations would be larger still.

“It’s hard to find so expensive a program with so few tangible benefits as corporate tax cuts,” Macdonald says. “Canadian governments are losing $12 billion a year to 198 of Canada’s biggest companies, who are making 50% more profit and paying 20% less in income tax while creating fewer jobs than the average.”

"wherever I've been I've supported progressive policies."- Ignatieff

2011-04-11T16:48:00.002-04:00

I completely take issue with this self characterization.

When has it ever been "progressive" to?

1. Defend U.S. exceptionalism and the US invasion of Iraq.

2. Defend the use of coercive force and suspension of rights in a liberal democracy.
"To defeat evil, we may have to traffic in evils: indefinite detention of suspects, coercive interrogations, targeted assassinations, even pre-emptive war." (New York Times Magazine, May 2004)

3. Champion the Tar Sands (ethically or economically -the US is even reticent about procuring such dirty oil.

4. Uncritically support Israel's actions vis a vis the Palestinians, at one point (In August 2006) saying he was "not losing any sleep" over dozens of civilian deaths caused by Israel's attack on Qana during its military actions in Lebanon.

5. Fail to support any real electoral or democratic reform such as proportional representation.

6. Support tax breaks for the richest corporation in times of budgetary surplus.

And the list goes on and on. Ignatieff is much more credible as a neoconservative than as a progressive.

________________
Update: Rediscovered one of my favourite John Steinbeck quotes:

"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporality embarrassed millionaires."
— John Steinbeck

Message to Progressives Thinking of Voting "Strategically" and Why the Progressive Vote in Parkdale High Park Should Go To Peggy Nash

2011-04-05T08:23:00.004-04:00

Progressives, by which I mean those concerned with issues of a thriving democracy, the environment, and social and economic justice, are once again not being well served in the coming election. Indeed, the middle of political discourse has shifted so far to the right that Rob Ford appears "reasonable" rather than bat shit crazy.

Owing to an outdated and profoundly flawed electoral system, "strategic voting" has reared its ugly head once more. Considering that one of the few strengths of First Past The Post (FPTP) system (i.e. electing a local candidate) is already continually undermined by voters who scarcely consider the merits of their local candidates in their choices, "strategic voting" only contributes further to the dysfunction in our electoral system. Thus, all progressives should at the very least demand electoral and democratic reform from our political parties.

The NDP is running on electoral and Senate reform. The LPC quite predictably is not. Liberal hack, Jason Cherniak, reminded us in 2008, exactly why the LPC is not in favour of electoral reform . What progressive voters need to understand is that the LPC is not progressive.

Regardless, the idea of "strategic voting" to prevent the "diabolical" Stephen Harper from renewing his grip on power is once again circulating. Some points for progressives to consider:

Stephen Harper will not lead the next government of Canada.

to do so, the CPC would need to win a majority of the seats
as poll numbers are now and will increasingly be showing, a Harper majority is essentially out of reach, and in all likelihood the result will be a Harper minority
the opposition will have no choice (unless they are willing to be stupefyingly hypocritical) but to reject any attempt of Harper's to form a minority government

Michael Ignatieff will most likely lead the next government of Canada

not only is is the LPC not truly concerned with progressives, but also its leader, despite his attempt to craft an image as a progressive intellectual, really seems much more at home in the neoconservative camp led by Wolfwowitz and co. As for Ignatieff's mea culpa regarding his support for the U.S. invsion of Iraq see this.
In an interview with The Tyee, Linda McQuaig says the following:

"That quote [in Holding the Bully's Coat] from Ignatieff, where he talks about torture [being defensible] as long as it's done by a patriotic American, now that's an interesting quote. That one hasn't gotten the play that some of the others [have]. That one was from an interview he did with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. That is an incredible statement of the notion of American exceptionalism, the idea that America should be excepted from being bound by international law. And for Ignatieff to come out and endorse that in the way he did is just phenomenal. I find it striking, because he doesn't talk like that in Canada. You don't hear him talk like that so much in Parliament.... And yet if you actually look at some of the things he's said, he's actually an extraordinary neoconservative. He's up there with guys like Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith and some of those people in terms of the extremism of his position. And yet this guy's a prominent politician in Canada"....

In the coming parliament, the NDP will likely hold the balance of power. Thus, the more NDP candidates that get elected, the greater will be the leverage for the only party that truly represents progressives.

The only thing worse than strategic voting is strategic voting that is highly non strategic. In ridings where the the Conservative candidate has no chance of winning, it is in the interest of progressives to elect NDP candidates.

In my riding of Parkdale High Park, to elect former MP Peggy Nash is a no brainer and a win win. Constituents elect the better of the two candidates and get the representation they deserve. At the same time, progressives get that much more leverage in the House of Commons. It's not only me that thinks so, the Facebook Group Anti-Harper Vote Swap Canada in the 2008 election also thought so.

Isn't that Special? Harper Indoctrinates Young Girl with Socialist Anthem

2011-03-29T23:06:00.002-04:00

I think Harper's gone seriously off message! Can there possibly be any song that is more abhorrent to Stephen Harper than John Lennon's "Imagine"? It is anti-religion, anti-war, anti-nationalist, anti-capitalist, anti-pragmatist, anti-greed.

Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today...

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one

Here's Harper's inner voice as he sang this socialist anthem:

Imagine the Rapture's just around the corner
It's easy if you try
Hell to the socialists and separatists
Above us God beckons us Creationists
Imagine all the people
Clinging nostalgically for an Eden that never was

Imagine only terrorists around us
It isn't hard to do
Everything to kill and die for
And with God's providence too
Imagine all the people
Living in perpetual war

You may say I'm an unrepentant autocrat
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join me
And I can lead the world as One

Imagine neoliberal deregulated paradise
I wonder if you can
Rapacious greed and unimaginable hunger
A self-regulating cesspool of man
Imagine all the people
Ripping the world to shreds

You may say I'm an unrepentant autocrat
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join me
And I can lead the world as One...

I think Warren Kinsella has defriended Michael Ignatieff, or at least updated his relationship status

2011-03-01T12:53:00.002-05:00

Memories...

Remember when Warren Kinsella would fawn over the Liberal leader, whom often he referred to only as "Michael" (mysteriously above photo and other related posts have been purged from Kinsella's blog -incidentally so have the many posts where he gushes over Rocco Rossi) ?

This was then...

So was this...

This is now:

“Why isn’t anyone asking for Michael Ignatieff’s resignation?

I mean, it’s not like they wouldn’t have just cause. In federal Grit land, things continue to go from bad to worse.
The Liberal Party’s fundraising is a shadow of its former self, with the Conservatives routinely raking in $5 for every two received by the Grits. Many rank-and-file Libs despair of their party’s policies –this year, with Ignatieff outflanking the Harper government on the right on Afghanistan, or informing his followers the oilsands are an instrument of national unity.
And there are the polls. The most recent batch reminded despairing federal Libs that their hated adversary, Stephen Harper, is perilously close to a Parliamentary majority. While Liberal support dips below 25% -something even Stephane Dion managed to avoid.”

And today's babble "Unionist" award goes to..... "Stargazer"

2010-03-26T11:41:00.009-04:00

This is the third, and the last, in a series of awards for malicious misreading, willful distortion, wanton decontextualization, utter disingenuousness, contemptuous hypocrisy and basic intellectual dishonesty while purporting to be someone of the Left. Perhaps before we get to today's recipient, I should confess that while much of this is facetious (and perhaps deserving of its own "Unionist' award), there is something much more serious at stake. For me, the Left designates not only a political economy that stands in critical relation to capitalism, not only a socially progressive vision of a more voluntaristic and cooperative world where liberty and justice are enjoyed by all, but, and perhaps, most critically, that this is all grounded in an ethical relation to one another, to knowledge and to truth.

Of course, right wing discussion groups are full of ignorance, hate, and intolerance. Of course liberal discussion groups are disingenuous, dull, and hypocritical (and they certainly don't have anyone as clever and intelligent as Unionist to do their bidding, otherwise we might be in serious trouble- imagine Kinsella with intelligence). But I expect the Left to speak ethically, humbly, openly, competently and self-reflexively. My Left dwells in nuance and distinction and it takes from Nietzsche, in Beyond Good and Evil, that the oath of the philosopher ("all is to be doubted" ) should begin with that most fundamentally unquestioned belief in the antitheses of values. Today we might summon this as a challenge to binarism.

In a rarefied world of pure binary antagonism, of fundamentalism, there is no nuance, there is no reverence, respect for alterity, and there is no forgiveness (a hospitable openness gifted in advance). In fact, in such a pure world, the enemy of one's enemy becomes one's friend, the friend of one's enemy becomes one's enemy, and ends justify means, regardless of how insidious those means. Sadly, the Left sometimes resembles its extreme right wing counterparts exhibits the nuance and emotional maturity of a two year old (I think here of the psychoanalytic term "ambivalence") which often leads to deranged claptrap, personal attacks, abusive insults etc. And this leads to today's Unionist award recipient: Stargazer

Essentially, Stargazer portrays herself as the often deranged embodiment of "ambivalence", oscillating wildly between love and hate- usually the latter as attested to by her perpetual status as babbler which reads "is really pissed." And her part in the feeding frenzy on DiNovo was exemplary. Just as the derangement to the perceived betrayal was about to launch into full force a babbler by the name of Prophit had the gall to post:

The Ontario leg voted on what in my view is a proper expression of the position of most Ontarians. I am pleaseantly surprised that it was unanimous and that it had the backing of my own party, the NDP.

Stargazer quickly interceded with the following display of generosity:

You're an idiot. Sorry, I can't be nicer to you.
Proper expression of most Ontarians? Bull fucking shit. Proper expression of neo religious whackjobs and their lovely neighbours, the Zionists.
It's censorship, freedom of expression and a whole host of issues at stake here and you think this represents what most Ontarians want? I don't think so.
Isn't there a policy you agree to when you sign up here? Like you know, Human rights are not up for debate? Clearly Babble allows for that debate. Frankly I'd rather see all these Israel right or wrong defenders banned. How would that be for censorship.

Then when another babbler Peech bravely shares a personal story, Stargazer simply calls Peech a fine hypocrite:

Peech wrote:
My cousin was a victim of a murder suicide (aka. "Palestinian resistance") while she was having lunch in a restaurant . So I have a problem with anyone proclaiming that they have a right to call for the eradication of another nation state or murder it's members. Especially when it is a double standard which was the whole point of my post which obviously anyone mired in ideology is blind to.
Why do we not see "Victims of Torture from the Fascist Islamic Republic of Iran week"? Why are you singularly obsessed with Israel whilst minimizing or ignoring atrocities of states much much worse? That is the point of the condemnation of IAW.

Stargazer wrote:
Hypocrisy at its finest.

Lastly, when it was reported that DiNovo had received threats of violence. Stargazer responded with this shining example of Leftist solidarity and compassion:

The thing is, we have no evidence she had received death threats. She never did give specifics and instead appeared to blame the death threats on anyone who disagreed with her...She has only herself to blame. Until she takes action on the so-called death threats, then I might believe they actually happened.

For Stargazer one moment you're a brother/sister in arms (she gushes often at Unionist whom she praises for not only anticipating her comments, but saying things so much more wonderfully) the next you're the enemy. Pure reactive, disproportionate, hate filled bile. Pure Ambivalence.

And today's "Unionist" award goes to ...... genstrike @ babble

2010-03-23T10:50:00.012-04:00

Today's Unionist award for malicious misreading, willful distortion, wanton decontextualization, utter disingenuousness, contemptuous hypocrisy and basic intellectual dishonesty while posturing as someone of the Left goes to genstrike over @ babble.

In outrage and contempt for DiNovo, genstrike not only misses the point that the "condemnation"was not of the activists themselves, but a disagreement with their tactics. The condemnation was specifically of their use of the term apartheid. And genstrike's stubborn unwillingness to recognize this is only aggravated in his comparing the "betrayal" to that of Brutus' act of treachery.

But what really secures the award for genstrike was his scathing hypocrisy displayed in the ruthless piling on DiNovo and then having a complete meltdown on the babble forum where genstrike allows his/her rudeness to escalate to the point of telling another babbler to "go f*ck yourself". This was very quickly edited, and I note in a such a way as to attempt still to disparage DiNovo. Where are all the screen captures of genstrike's outrageous and incendiary remarks? Where was the twittering? Where are the negative sanctions for flagrantly violating babble policy?

Genstrike, stepping away from the keyboard after you have egregiously insulted a fellow babbler is no moral high ground. Your retaliation was far more severe and under far less provocation.
Now, mon frère, mon semblance, to celebrate your insult to public decency with Baudelaire's opening to "The Flowers of Evil" [from the evening redness in the west]:

To The Reader

Stupidity, delusion, selfishness and lust
torment our bodies and possess our minds,
and we sustain our affable remorse
the way a beggar nourishes his lice.

Our sins are stubborn, our contrition lame;
we want our scruples to be worth our while—
how cheerfully we crawl back to the mire:
a few cheap tears will wash our stains away!

Satan Trismegistus subtly rocks
our ravished spirits on his wicked bed
until the precious metal of our will
is leached out by this cunning alchemist:

the Devil’s hand directs our every move—
the things we loathed become the things we love;
day by day we drop through stinking shades
quite undeterred on our descent to Hell.

Like a poor profligate who sucks and bites
the withered breast of some well-seasoned trull,
we snatch in passing at clandestine joys
and squeeze the oldest orange harder yet.

Wriggling in our brains like a million worms,
a demon demos holds its revels there,
and when we breathe, the Lethe in our lungs
trickles sighing on its secret course.

If rape and arson, poison and the knife
have not yet stitched their ludicrous designs
onto the banal buckram of our fates,
it is because our souls lack enterprise!

But here among the scorpions and the hounds,
the jackals, apes and vultures, snakes and wolves,
monsters that howl and growl and squeal and crawl,
in all the squalid zoo of vices, one

is even uglier and fouler than the rest,
although the least flamboyant of the lot;
this beast would gladly undermine the earth
and swallow all creation in a yawn;

I speak of Boredom which with ready teats
dreams of hangings as it puffs its pipe.
Reader, you know this squeamish monster well,
—hypocrite reader, —my alias, —my twin!

— Charles Baudelaire, The Flowers of Evil (1857)

__________
Update: Seems that genstrike just doesn't seem to know when to stop. He's pounced on another pile on, I mean, debate topic. Oh the gall... By the way, genstrike continues unabated and without reprimand from any moderators. How charming. babble leaking credibility with each disingenuous breath.

Today's Unionist award goes to......... Unionist

2010-03-18T23:30:00.003-04:00

There is no paucity of malicious misreading, willful distortion, of wanton decontextualization, of utter disingenuousness, and basic intellectual dishonesty. Something I'm sure we're all guilty of from time to time, but occasionally people elevate this to an art form. For years I used to call this "pullin' a Cherniak", but having recently come across Cherniak's doppelgänger in the rabid Left wing of the blogoasylum known as babble, I now use the phrase "pullin' a Unionist" to refer to such practice on the Left.

In my previous post I pointed to a classic instance of "pullin' a Unionist". Today I will demonstrate another, and not only because I'm an a**hole, but because I want to share with you some beautiful words, which I wouldn't have discovered were it not for Unionist "pullin' a Unionist". You see, as Grand Inquisitor and Supreme Authority on babble, Unionist is prone to seeing himself as not having to abide by babble policy (although in fairness, the policy only really exists to allow for the banning of those who disagree with the apparatchik) and as the final authority on any given subject.

Anyway, Unionist was one of the first of the babble feeding frenzy on ONDP & DiNovo to steer the criticism towards vitriol and scorn, and what seemed to really set him off were some comments in Hansard about DiNovo attending a Passover Seder which began by praying for one's enemy. This sent Unionist into a frenzy of namecalling, charges of lying, of ignorance, of questioning her sobriety, and led to his pronouncement the it is Christians who are called to love one's enemy, and that Jews pray on, not for, their Egyptian enemies in a traditional Haggadah. Then earlier yesterday Unionist wrote:

I've mentioned this a few times - but in her speech, DiNovo said that the Passover Seder begins with a prayer for the Egyptians, who were the enslavers of the Israelites. I pointed out that that is not only false, it is a loopy crazy invention - because the Haggadah (the booklet which is read and sang every Seder night) is filled with triumphalist rhetoric about God destroying our enemies, etc.
My point - how can a rational person stand up in public and make up nonsense like this? Did she just badly misinterpret something someone had told her?

So this becomes the foundation of Unionist's public derision. DiNovo lies, she makes things up, badly misinterprets and this justifies his zealous and scornful attack on her character. Incidentally Unionist's comments about her receiving death threats are truly special, but can also be seen as emanating from this foundational premise. In response I posted:

I am no Jew and have never assisted at a Seder supper, but in two seconds I was able to find a Passover Seder Haggadah, that begins essentially not only as DiNovo described in Hansard, but also are simply beautiful words:

So let's now close our eyes. Can you see the universe and your place in it? Affirm now your role as partner with God in the healing and transformation of all that is. The Seder can also be a time to do "tikkun" (to heal and transform parts of ourselves and our society). To read the Seder please continue reading this piece.

"KIDDUSH We are gathered here tonight to affirm our continuity with the generations of Jews who kept alive the vision of freedom in the Passover story. For thousands of years, Jews (and our non-Jewish allies) have affirmed this vision by participating in the Passover Seder. We not only remember the Exodus but actually relive it, bringing its transformative power into our own lives. The Hebrew word for Egypt, mitzrayim, means "narrow straits." Traditionally, mitzrayim has been understood to mean a spiritual state, the "narrow place" of confusion, fragmentation, and spiritual disconnection. Liberation requires us to embrace that which we have been taught to scorn within ourselves and others, including the split-off parts from our own consciousness that we find intolerable and that we project onto some "evil Other." The Seder can also be a time to reflect on those parts of ourselves. Israel, according to the Torah, left Egypt with "a mixed multitude." The Jewish people began as a multicultural mélange of people attracted to a vision of social transformation. What makes us Jews is not some biological fact, but our willingness to proclaim the message of those ancient slaves: (Say Together) The world can be changed, we can be healed."

Unionist, of course, dodged this reply, "pullin' a Unionist", because his foundational premise for defaming a public figure would vanish. In the meantime, we might just revel in the beauty and hope of a prayer which I otherwise would never have stumbled upon. Hate can lead you to beauty, but only love will lead to peace and justice.

In Defence of DiNovo, or why I've been looking for a new Socialist home (Updated)

2010-03-15T13:20:00.031-04:00

Having followed the cannibalistic feeding frenzy by a small segment of fundamentalist Leftists on one of the its strongest advocates in public life has been nothing short of incredulous. On the whole, this could be just another day on the Left and could be dismissed as a rather benign episode of "pajama people"* and /or rabblerousers responding with unhinged disproportion at a perceived betrayal of their pure, fundamentalist politics. Such derangement, however, has been possible only on the back of a totally disingenuous interpretation of DiNovo's actions and words, and has led to an unusual escalation culminating allegedly in threats of violence directed at DiNovo herself.

So what has DiNovo done that is so awful? To begin with, in babblean fundamentalist circles her first mistake was to treat a fellow MPP as a fellow parliamentarian and to show him anything other than contempt and disdain. DiNovo may have even used parliamentary and conciliatory language in dealing with Shurman. Shame indeed! In the rarefied world of pure antagonism of these fundamentalists, there is no nuance, there is no reverence, respect for alterity, and there is no forgiveness (a hospitable openness gifted in advance). In fact, in such a pure world, the enemy of one's enemy becomes one's friend, the friend of one's enemy becomes one's enemy, and ends justify means, regardless of how insidious those means.

Nonetheless, in order to entirely conflate DiNovo's remarks and position on the IAW resolution with that of Peter Shurman's requires nothing less than malicious and wilful misreading (something I used to call "pullin' a Cherniak", but now for nuance sake in Leftists circles I call it "pullin' a Unionist"), as well as a flagrant decontextualization of the two speakers.

To begin, DiNovo clearly speaks from a radically different place than Shurman. She speaks as a woman, a feminist, a theologian, queer rights activist, and social justice activist (her track record of standing up for oppressed groups -Muslims, Tibetans, Ukrainians who suffered Holodomor etc... is unmistakable)** Next, although in her remarks, DiNovo, I believe rightly, agrees with Shurman on the need to call into question the term "apartheid", she does so out of a desire for peace rather than a desire to absolve the State of Israel. And yes, peace means justice, and justice for everyone. Taking her cue from many Muslims themselves she spoke with, many of whom are not vested in the term apartheid, DiNovo pushes the need to talk about ending the occupation, to talk about the wall and for a two state solution. She in essence reiterates NDP federal policy, which even the National Post saw as her digression from Shurman's resolution and the conservative position. And the National Post's ability to deal with nuance is about as impaired as fundamentalist Leftists.

Then, there's the issue of whether speaking in agreement to one part of a motion constitutes agreement with the entire resolution, and whether in fact the ONDP did give its voiced support for the resolution in the legislature.

All to say, Leftist derangement that led to its pillorying of DiNovo hinges on the preposterous establishment of equivalences between Shurman and DiNovo. Since the rabid Left exhibits the nuance of a two year old (I think here of the psychoanalytic term "ambivalence" that characterizes among other things excessive narcissism and I think "fundamentalism") this led to deranged claptrap, assaults on her character, and, in my view, ultimately erodes the legitimacy of IAW.

When DiNovo's egregious actions weren't being met with derangement, they were met with a soft, "kind" patronizing admonishment that was in my view even more insulting. I'm thinking here of a letter circulated, by "academics", I believe, in which they gave DiNovo an out by patting her on the head and saying "dear dear, you just don't know all the facts, and just how bad it is over there. It's not your fault you didn't know how wrong you are."

Give me a f*cking break. Given DiNovo's education, her multi-faith background and her links to the Muslim community, not to mention to the Leftist/activist community, my sense is that she's not in need of any lessons about the suffering and human rights abuses in the occupied Palestinian territory, especially not when those lessons issue from overprivileged, overeducated white boys whose acquaintance with deprivation is running out of Chardonnay at the Conference reception. I only resort here to hyperbole, because predictably also heard around rabble were comments like DiNovo deserves to experience first hand the deprivation in Gaza and so what if she's receiving death threats, her actions in the legislature help perpetuate bloodshed in Gaza.

And then, there were attempts to extract a retraction and an apology from DiNovo and demand that she throw herself at the mercy of good willed progressives. This coming from babble, the epicentre of derangement, and from "Unionist" no less!! Yes, the same "Unionist" who initiates a discussion to extort an apology from DiNovo, and subsequently in that thread writes "And by the way, Sineed, while it's not my place to ask her to apologize (as I mentioned from the outset), I have every right to condemn the shameful words she pronounced in public." Hello! If it's not your place to ask her to apologize, why start of discussion topic on it? This also the same Unionist who in that same topic grudgingly acquiesces that sending DiNovo death threats might be a wee bit over the top, but not nearly as egregious as her not having called the police. I wonder if her being out of the country has something to do with it.

Now onto the other big issue: the assault on free speech. This incidentally was the tac taken by reasonable Leftists with legitimate disagreement, but also by Leftists and NDP'ers who wanted to attack DiNovo (i.e. appease the dozen rabid Leftists and the three intimidating Islamists who complained vociferously), but had the decency not to use "the friend of my enemy must be my enemy" argument outlined above. You see, since DiNovo did not actually deviate from NDP policy on the Middle East, she could not be condemned for that (I've never heard Jack Layton refer to "Israeli apartheid", have you?) Nonetheless, it is claimed that in her denunciation of the term apartheid, she attacked free speech. My short reply is no! She exercised her right to free speech and denounced speech designed to foreclose free speech. She correctly, in my opinion, condemned needlessly inflammatory and incendiary language in order to keep speech open not to close it down.

I suspect critics who see this as an assault on academic freedom and/ or free speech see this as egregious owing to the fact that this was uttered from a place of power and privilege and "suasion". I agree that the position from which discourse issues is highly relevant. I suspect too that these critics would not view a similar condemnation of the term apartheid issued, for instance in an email or on the radio, as other than an expression of disagreement. While I'm sympathetic to the need to be vigilantly protective of our right to speak freely and openly, and I am sympathetic to the slippery slope argument, I don't believe the DiNovo's condemnation was wrong, nor do I fear that it could lead to labelling the term "Israeli apartheid" as hate speech.

While the resolution passed in the Ontario legislature does emanate not from an ordinary place, but a place of power, we do need to be careful. However, the resolution has at best "moral" suasion, and has no legal and authoritative power. These resolutions are brought forward all the time (e.g. I don't recall an outcry when parliament guided public opinion and resolved to commemorate Holodomor), so the issue obviously isn't one of parliamentarians exercising moral suasion. It was a toothless motion and given the current levels of respect for our political leaders and representatives, I'm thinking this resolution has little moral suasion. To call this censorship and McCarthyism is virtually to water down these terms to meaning disagreement. And if you censor disagreement, how will you know when the "real" censorship arrives.

That IAW would proceed as planned was never in doubt. There was never a call to silence or shut down IAW, rather a calling into question the deployment of a term, which even if descriptively accurate, is itself designed to preempt fair and open dialogue, is needlessly incendiary, and ultimately not at all useful if the objective is peace and justice for all. I recall speaking with a woman who is with Students for a Free Tibet who was perplexed at the thought of achieving peace by first slapping your enemy in the face. Tibetans, she argued, wish to speak with the Chinese, not insult them. By the way, here already lies an early warning to Palestinians that IAW is not really about them. IAW is not about peace and justice for Palestinians and Israelis, it is about a larger revolutionary project of resisting American power and dominance.

Nonetheless, I do agree that we must be careful each step of the way. I have no doubt that political groups will attempt to use this resolution to promote their political agendas.

With respect to this particular case, my problem with the deployment of the term "apartheid" in IAW is only as it pertains to the attempt to pass off IAW as an unbiased, free and open dialogue going on across university campuses. For in my view, and I have attended IAW events in the past, it is precisely on university campuses that this kind of monologic debate needs not to be shut down but at least and always challenged and called into question. "Israeli apartheid", assuming apartheid is even an appropriate descriptor, does little other than to circumscribe the discussion within very narrow and highly volatile limits, to preempt disagreement, and to promote hostility, all of which in my view are anathema to university discourse.

As a rallying cry, as propaganda, as rhetoric for a social movement I have no objection to the deployment of the term Israeli apartheid. At least not in terms of its usefulness. It serves for the extreme Left a way to sharply demarcate its enemies and its allies. It serves to cleanly demarcate oppressors from victims. It serves to moralize the troops and fill them with information, as well as, far too often with hatred. While I believe in speaking truth to power, I believe the truth must be spoken out of love and forgiveness, not from a place of hate. And if the goal of this social movement is to broaden its base, I believe it needs to begin from a place of ethics, love, and justice, not antagonism and hatred.

This leads to a real objection I have with the term apartheid. There is a reason why the Left has prioritized the Palestinian struggle against its Israeli oppressors above many other geopolitical conflicts and injustices, and that's because the Left sees this as a crucial battle in the war against neoliberal capitalist expansion and American hegemony. Fair enough, a noble war indeed! However, to the extent that capitalism is reducible to pure desire, as desire always for more, irrespective of gender, ethnicity, religion, sexuality etc., I find it highly ironic then, that the Left would vest so much in a term which is so laden with ethnic/racial identification, when in fact it's not all about the Palestinian people per se, its about the fact that they stand locked and opposed to Israel. I'm not saying that IAW is anti-semitic, I'm saying it is anti-Israel to the extent that Israel is strategically critical to US empire building.

At the same time, this also goes along way to understanding why the event can't be called Palestinian Liberation Week or any such combination of terms which might glorify and empower Palestinians. I hope I'm wrong, and excuse me for being harsh, the way I see it, what is critical for the Left is not who the Palestinians are in themselves but their relational status to the State of Israel.

While I certainly agree that victims shouldn't have to be perfect in order to earn our solidarity, I also don't think victims should be exalted to a place of almost divine abjecthood, of sublime object cause of our ideology, and the Left has a strong track record of doing so, starting with that most glorious and morally untouchable object: the Proletariat. But here I get stuck, I don't really know where to go next. Is it possible to simultaneously be in solidarity with and to call into question, a victim? I get economic forces of oppression, I get the need to resist blaming the victim, and I understand the need to adopt a culturally relative approach. But I'm still troubled by the often appalling treatment of women and the ghastly treatment of "queers", not to mention our reluctance to speak up against those abuses because of a group's victimhood. It seems the only way to justify not speaking up is either intimidation or by entirely blaming an oppressor and thereby denying agency. Any thoughts would be appreciated.

* a handful of overeducated, overprivileged mostly geeky white males who have nothing better to do than troll the web all day in their pajamas from their hovels in Parkdale, provided they've managed to move out of their parents' basements.

** it would be interesting to compare the Palestinian struggle not only with South African liberation movement, but also with the Tibetan struggle to return home
______________
Update:

I did forget to mention that Warren Kinsella needs to be graced with a Cherniak Award for his hypocrisy over this. A Cherniak award is given to a Liberal who displays exceptional degree of malicious misreading, of willful distortion, of wanton decontextualization, of utter disingenuousness, and/ or basic intellectual dishonesty. When Warren pounced all over DiNovo for "losing it", I'm left to wonder why he found it so objectionable, understanding that for Kinsella flagrant hypocrisy doesn't apply to people who have handed him his ass in an election.

Regardless what could have been so objectionable from Kinsella's point of view?

1. That she was being labelled a Zionist (something Kinsella all too readily admits). 2. That she lashed out at someone insulting her online (Kinsella's online behaviour has not exactly been exemplary; he not only retaliates, he's been known to commission online "lynchings" and outings of people through his blog, he's made numerous sexist and racist gaucherie in public)

I also would think that Kinsella might have shown a little more sensitivity for someone who's been receiving violent threats, since I'm sure he's not unfamiliar with that territory.

Needless to say, my comment was not approved, but other interesting comments were. And one, by the very same Cherniak for whom the award is named, who chimed in to pile on DiNovo only to be questioned why he would object to DiNovo's "zionism". After all, it doesn't get more rabidly zionist than Cherniak. At the same time, it does seem that Kinsella has had a change of heart and that the State of Israel may not be beyond reproach after all, since he's quite content to allow a comment arguing in favour of Israeli apartheid.

Wanted: New Home for a Non-Deranged Socialist, or How I got the Boot from Babble

2010-03-10T09:21:00.007-05:00

I know that for Liberals/Conservatives the term "deranged Socialist" is simply redundant, but what about within Socialist/ Leftist discourse? Is there a place on the Left for a democratic socialist whose politics include not only Marx, but also Christ, Gandhi, Beckett, Levinas, Derrida, Lacan and a healthy splash of Zizek to name a few. From Marx, I take political economy, from Christ and Gandhi I take strength, compassion, radical love, and a praxis where means and ends are inextricably linked such that the magnanimity of a goal never justifies achieving that goal ignobly. From Beckett and Derrida I take a path of interminable openness parodic laughter and intellectual humility. From Levinas and Lacan I take a respect for alterity. And from Zizek, I take the wonderful zeal, intensity, contradiction and brilliance that is Zizek.

I know I'm asking a lot, but at this point I'd settle for a home where the Left tolerates debate and doesn't respond with knee-jerk reactionary feeding frenzies when one of its allies publicly disagrees with a singular aspect of their revolutionary politics. At this point I'd settle for a home where members are not banned because a moderator finds their posts pompous. Not inflammatory, not incendiary, not offensive, not intellectually dishonest, but in the subjective opinion of the moderator, riddled with "pomposity". All of this while tolerating, in fact implicitly encouraging, favoured members to hurl epithets, name call, as well as to speak cynically, disingenuously, and quite frankly abusively.

I am, of course speaking of that beacon of Leftist enlightenment, Rabble, and I speak as synthome, a former member censored and banished for displaying, you guessed it, "pomposity" (which I take to mean disagreeing with the essentialist fundamentalist views currently held on Rabble). I implore dear readers to weigh in on whether my banishment seems justified. Interesting that not one of those enlightened and "progressive" voices even raised an eyebrow at my banishment. It was passed over in complete silence, suggesting there was either unanimity of agreement or people were intimidated to speak up for fear of being banished themselves. Whatever the case, the total silence is symptomatic.

More importantly can anyone point me towards a Socialist community that believes in ethicality, democratic ideals, intellectual rigour, justice for all, and intimidation by none? I refuse to be intimidated by fundamentalism whether it be political (e.g. Unionist on Rabble), atheist (e.g. Richard Dawkins), or religious (Islamic, Christian or otherwise). Furthermore, I refuse to elevate victimhood to the impenetrable unquestionable status of a sublime object/ Cause (whether "the Proletariat", "the Palestinian", "the baby seal"). I believe in speaking the truth and I believe in love, and thus in truth spoken out of love.

Not that I wish to promote Rabble, but here are some threads in which the deranged Left is in fine form and in which yours truly, le sinthome (synthome), responds, leading to my eventual deactivation (followed by my brief re-emergence as objet_petit_a. Incidentally, I am open to the idea that I'm the crazy one. So let me know...

Here, here, here.

The Real Assault on Democracy

2010-02-09T12:22:00.012-05:00

While Stephen Harper has provided obvious fodder in the last few months for the assertion that our democracy is crumbling, we ought not to lose sight of the fact that the real assault on democracy is being perpetrated by the Liberals. Harper throws wrecking balls at democracy, but Liberals are the water damage that erodes the foundation. Which is more insidious? I believe the duplicity and surreptitiousness of the Liberals is ultimately worse. Firstly, because Liberals are no better than Conservatives and secondly because the public, sadly even "progressives", repeatedly fall for the illusion that Liberals are an answer to the erosion of democracy and the future of Canada. Two examples come to mind from today's news.

In a real democracy, there ought to be a functioning progressive and critical voice represented in the spectrum of mainstream media. In Canada, for instance, even red necks, beer guzzling populists, and potbellied army loving mullet wearing males who revel in the destruction of the planet regularly are reflected The Toronto Sun and the National Post. Similarly, smarmy careerists and opportunists of middling intelligence burdened by colonial guilt but not really willing to do anything substantive about it and who equate democracy with Liberalism and conflate pragmatism with entitlement will find themselves reflected in The Toronto Star. What about a critical Left perspective? Wholly absent from mainstream media (yes in part owing to failures of the Left as well).

To anyone who has ever doubted that The Star is anything but a shill for the Liberal Party, you need to look no further than than today's paper which leads with a vicious, calculated and sensationalistic attack on Adam Giambrone. That an alleged affair by a mayoral candidate would make the news is not surprising. What is surprising is the newsbroker. If the Toronto Sun (which I'm sure is relishing piling on Giamrone) or Sue-Ann Levy (expect her hysterical contribution soon) had led the charge of such an attack, I wouldn't have blinked, but this was perpetrated by The Star; and in a fashion meant deliberately not only to sully his character but to destroy his political campaign. For right-wing Puritans the news of an affair would have been enough, but you add the revelations of the political staging of his live-in relationship and you add a whole new layer of dishonesty and opportunism. And what do Liberals notoriously excel at? Yes, staging, co-ordinated photo-ops, creating false appearances, and win at all costs opportunism.

Here's another take on events, about as substantiated as the Star's revelations. This entire episode reeks of gutter politics, precisely those not unknown to that prototypical Liberal, George Smitherman. Wonder if he's ever used his office inappropriately. The Star story is far too crafted and is deliberately nuanced to undermine the political campaign. This is clearly not done in the interests of the public, but transparently politically motivated. While various candidates stand to benefit from this crippling blow to Giambrone, Smitherman has the most to gain in that it virtually makes him an uncontested front runner. I'm not suggesting that the Smitherman goons have paid this woman to come forward (not that it's beneath them), rather that the changing political culture at the Star, as the unabashed mouthpiece of the Ontario Liberals, is such that it too now shamelessly engages in the same sleek, demeaning and nefarious kind of politics that characterize the modern Ontario Liberals.

I mean, even if what is reported is accurate, is it really that reprehensible that Giambrone would attempt to minimize his relationship if trying to seduce someone else? I certainly hope we never reach the day when all of our correspondences, especially those about which we have an expectation of privacy, become public. You can bet, however, that if someone did come forward with allegations about Smitherman's inappropriate sexual or professional behaviour, The Star would not take the lead.

Lastly, I understand that tomorrow across Ontario will be held a forced ratification vote amongst the province's 9000 or so "full-time" faculty, a majority of whom are really not at all full-time but partial-load (which means no class limits, no job security, no pay for prep or evaluation). My understanding also is that the average annual salary of these faculty is just over 30000. My sense is that the dispute is hardly about a bunch of overpaid facultyThere are also about 8000 part-time & "sessional" teachers who do the bulk of the teaching, but that's a whole other story.

For the membership to accept the imposed final offer is quite simply is a capitulation to the continued undermining of collective bargaining and democracy in this province. The attack on this constitutionally protected right was brazenly started by Mike Harris who shamelessly repealed anti-scab legislation, made union certification more difficult and decertification easier, even repealing a law that had allowed farm labourers to unionize. Here's my problem: The current Liberal government swept into power promising to reverse the damage only to surreptitiously continue the assault on organized labour. Each time workers are legislated back to work, each time a forced ratification vote is granted, it only naturalizes these insidious assaults on democracy. And it is precisely in recessionary times that we must not cede ground.

For the record, a forced ratification vote is nothing but a calculated attempt to circumvent a duly elected representative union executive and its bargaining team by ignoring its legitimacy and attempting to sway the membership directly. It is neither endemic nor helpful to reaching negotiated settlements.

P.S. Sociopathic military leaders? That's only the second place I'd go looking for sociopaths. Number #1 location in Canada for sociopaths: Bay St., Toronto.

Translating Kinsella #5

2009-12-22T10:00:00.006-05:00

During my usual morning strolling about the web, I am astonished to find out that our parliamentary democracy is in trouble. After all if Coyne and Kinsella are in agreement, it must be true. The obvious response is, where the f*ck have the two of you been? Our democracy has been thinning and receding longer and faster than has Kinsella's hairline?

On the subject of thinning democracies, I wonder how many people read last week about Dr. Milner's (a political scientist: you know someone who knows something about political science) report charging Canada's political institutions with being among the most dysfunctional of any in Western democracies. From Fair Vote Canada:

Canada has replaced Italy as the prime example of unstable and ineffective political institutions, according to Dr. Henry Milner, writing in the just published winter/spring 2010 issue of Inroads: The Canadian Journal of Opinion. As he puts it:

"Political science undergraduates used to learn about Italy as the model of dysfunctional political institutions, characterized by frequent elections and constant uncertainty under minority governments at the mercy of shifting political alliances. Italy transformed its electoral institutions in the 1990s, and while hardly perfect now – as the antics of Signor Berlusconi demonstrate – it has lost its place as model of dysfunctionality among stable democracies to, of all countries, Canada.

Dr. Milner is one of Canada’s leading academic authorities on electoral systems. The complete article is available here.

“Every nation wants to be number one at something,” said Fair Vote Canada President Bronwen Bruch, “but our political leaders should be ashamed of this dubious achievement. How long will they continue to impede electoral reform in Canada? How low does voter turnout have to fall and how high does public cynicism have to grow before they take action? Let’s hope there is a young Tommy Douglas of Democracy out there with the courage and ability to push ahead on long-overdue electoral reform.”

Our political institutions are a joke, our electoral system is inherently undemocratic, our levels of political apathy and lack of civic engagement: unprecedented. I don't need the detainee issue to tell me that our democracy is in crisis!

Phrase du jour: "crisis in our democracy" sometimes used interchangeably with "democratic renewal" (cf. Dalton McGuinty). When a prominent Liberal uses either of these phrases, it typically means "The Conservatives are overtly undermining what we erode surreptitiously and more elegantly. Besides when we get caught we have the good grace to say "oops we're sorry, let's move on now". Now let's count the votes, I think we can win."

There is a glaring difference, however, between the two warnings regarding the state of our democracy. Andrew Coyne, to whom am I ideologically opposed, writes with his usual deliberateness, genuineness, and competence. Coyne, let's not forget, is one of the few conservative (or liberal for that matter) voices in defense of electoral reform.

Warren Kinsella's lament over the state of our democracy, very quickly and predictably reveals itself as little more than an opportunity to hammer Conservatives and gain leverage in a purely political game. If Kinsella thinks the Liberals have been any less complicit in the erosion of our democracy, he is not only incompetent, he is delusional.

What troubles me most, however, is that more people may inform their opinions of the current sate of our democracy from the likes of Kinsella than from those who are more capable and knowledgeable. This is not a matter of being ideologically neutral in political commentary (that is impossible in my view), but it is a matter of competency, integrity, and knowledge. Kinsella's very skilled at manipulation and messaging (i.e. politics), although I'm not sure I'd consider him an academic authority on political science.

Translating Kinsella #4

2009-12-16T09:39:00.008-05:00

What's the difference between a Tory and Liberal?

Easy. The Tory stabs you in the front. The Liberal stabs you in the back. Yet, a knife by any other name would still be a neoliberal procapitalist swine nose deep in the pockets of big business and more concerned with votes than with people.

Anyway onto the word du jour: APOLOGY.

When Kinsella or any Liberal make an apology it means neither an apologia (to speak [rationally] in one's defense) nor the more contemporary "apology" (an expression of sincere regret for harmful action). Indeed, in the Liberal world an apology actually means the very opposite: a fleeting admission of wrongdoing followed by a rambling disavowal or rationalization in the desperate hope of not having an unethical action cost too many votes nor linger belatedly in the public's mind.

We've seen Kinsella apologize publicly for his public stupidity (i.e. his blog) several times (his sexist portrayal of Lisa Macleod, his racist insensitive remarks), so one would think he's learned a thing or two about contrition, reparation, apology. So how did he respond to the latest Liberal fiasco (an utterly tasteless photoshopped version of the famous photograph of Ruby shooting Oswald in the stomach in which Oswald's face is replaced by Stephen Harper's)???

Kinsella's response was remarkable only in its predictability. First, take the high road. Admit it was stupid and as he says "full stop". Oh, if only that were the case! "Full stop" for Kinsella means two things. First, look at me, I'm an honourable man who could threaten to equivocate but instead I'll assume the full brunt of my unethical actions. In reality, it's a pause of breath in order to buy time to equivocate and rationalize. Note the line immediately following "full stop". The lesson is not that being an asshole is wrong, but simply be more careful next time with the crap you post. Although, based on Kinsella's public blundering, I'm not sure he's the best person to hand out that advice.

Next, comes the equivocation and rationalization that undermines wholly an attempted apology. What we did was stupid BUT you haven't heard the rationatization yet.

1. Conservatives did the same with Dion.

2. At least we disciplined the idiot responsible (I wonder if Kinsella reprimanded himself after his cock ups)

3. We "apologized" (which we immediately disavowed through all this rationalization)

Of course nothing resembling a real apology was ever forthcoming. There is no ownership of the offence, no regret, no contrition. Only disavowal, beautifully embodied in the image captioned "Liberals apologize for photo". Rather than holding up the offending material in an act of contrition, Kinsella is holding up an image of Dion, which he hopes will rationalize the behaviour of Liberals and exonerate them in the eyes of the public.

One last thing. What to make of Liberals when they behave unethically yet refuse even to "apologize", even in the Liberal sense of the term?? I'm thinking here of their desperate smear of my MPP, in which Kinsella was a seminal participant. Does it get much worse than attempting to besmirch a person's long earned character with something they did 40 years ago as a teenager while living on the streets of Toronto? Does it get much worse than attempting to label someone as a friend of pedophiliacs and "axe murderers" by willfully misreading passages in an award winning theological treatise and in her past sermons? Does it get much worse than translating scurrilous libel into Polish and targeting the Polish/ Catholic households in the hopes of raising their wrath against an upstart United Church minister? Yet, never an apology by any of them. Is that because their pangs of conscience prevented them from issuing their typical hollow apology? Or are they just assholes? Something tells me the former is less of an option!

Harper scares me, but no more than a Liberal. After all, a knife by any other name ...

Neoliberalism As Water Balloon on Vimeo

2009-10-21T22:47:00.004-04:00

At the request of one of my esteemed commenters (incidentally an avowed Liberal but of the rarest kind: intelligent and thoughtful), I am spending time on practical and prosaic considerations beckoning in these hard times. Thanks to the blog Relentlessly Progressive Political Economy for first drawing my attention to this brilliant video, in which even Liberals will be able to detect fundamental contradictions in the very system they hold so dear!

more about "Neoliberalism As Water Balloon on Vimeo", posted with vodpod

Translating Kinsella #3 (Updated)

2009-10-17T11:34:00.015-04:00

Once again, for the benefit of the spin impaired and the Kinsella challenged, a summary and translation of the week that was in Kinsella land.

Thanksgiving weekend marked the release of Narcissiev 2.0 (the imperious and arrogant Liberal leader gets a bit of a makeover to appear more modest, compassionate, a kind of newfound sympathy for the poor and working class folk). If I didn't know better (you know, Kennedy's open support for Bob Rae and all), I'd think he'd taken some lessons from Gerrard Kennedy on how to manipulate the public into thinking you actually care about poverty rather than votes.

The work week begins with a shot at the NDP, who apparently weren't quick enough to layout the possibility that Harper will attempt to engineer his own government's defeat with the HST. What Warren doesn't tell you, however, is that the only reason this is now a very real possibility is that the Liberals' ill-timed attempt to bring down the government, their failure to bring anything to the table, and their incessant internal squabbling have offered Harper an opportunity at forming a majority government the next time Canadians go to the polls. If Harper is secretly licking his lips to have an election, we have no one but the Liberals to thank!

Which brings me to the overspun phrase of the week in Kinsella land: "less unpopular". When Kinsella refers to the Conservatives having become "less unpopular" what he really means is Liberals are free falling and Conservatives are steadily edging toward a majority. I ask a similar question that I asked last week. If Harper is reviled, and the Conservatives are less unpopular, what does that make Ignatieff and the Liberals? Wouldn't that make Ignatieff the profoundly reviled leader of a grossly unpopular party???

Not to worry, Kinsella's week was only beginning, and he quickly found a bone to chew on for the remainder of the week: Conservative pork barreling and a politics of arrogance and entitlement. Now, all decent people should be indignant at the Conservatives' deployment of tax payer dollars, especially when Harper railed so strongly against the Liberals when they engaged in likewise cynical and disingenuous politics, while running on a platform of accountability and transparency).

However, here's my question. Does a man who brazenly puts on his website that he ran the war rooms of Jean Chretien and Dalton McGuinty not sound stupefyingly hypocritical when claiming to be aggrieved by Harper's Conservatives? Relegating the Sponsorship scandal aside and to the past (although let's face it, the not so distant nor the not so irrelevant past which today's Liberals want us to think it is), Kinsella has present ties with the McGuinty Liberals.

McGuinty Liberal governments have been arrogant and corrupt to the core and plagued by scandal after scandal. The recent eHealth boondoggle was only the most recent and largest (to date that is) of the reckless and grossly negligent use of public treasury by the McGuinty Liberals. McGuinty's governments have deployed "slush funds", and have been repeatedly scolded by the auditor general for lacking transparency and accountability in their accounting practices and their disbursement of public treasury. McGuinty governments are no less arrogant nor any less filled with overweening entitlement than Harper's Conservative government. McGuinty Liberals may appear a little more contrite when caught acting grievously negligent with our money, but don't let that fool you. From a Liberal point of view, it is not pork barreling that is wrong, it is getting caught; for that may cost them the only thing a Liberal values: YOUR VOTE!

As someone who very carefully observed and documented the negative attack by Kinsella et al on my now MPP, Cheri DiNovo, I have to say that perhaps even more dismaying than the kind of politics exhibited by Liberals, was the lesson drawn by Liberals. For this young brood of Liberals, which takes their cue from Kinsella (the Cherniaks, the Bowie's, Derek "Born with a Tail" Raymaker etc.), the chilling lesson was not that attempting to destroy a person's long earned reputation and good name is wrong, but that their error was the way in which they attempted to defame and dishonour this person in public. As they claimed at the time, they should have just released "the information" to media and let the media run with it and not they themselves.

Update:
Michael Narcissieff v2.0 codenamed TIN MAN FINDS HEART seems well under way. Seems that having not managed to dupe adults, "Miky" has opted for a longer term strategy (pretend you're Mr. Rogers, snow the kids with your false pretense and hope they vote for you when they're older). Problem is, in the couple of photos I've seen from this ridiculous photo-op, the children haven't appear the least bit impressed. As far as the announcement is concerned, Stageleft has the best riposte. What's next, a raise the minimum wage campaign, an outcry for affordable housing, for increasing welfare and disability benefits. Remember when Ignatieff sought "real" reform on employment insurance to protect workers. Well he quickly abandoned that when he thought he might have a shot at winning a forced election. Not even a child is fooled by Ignatieff's recent LEFT TURN.

Not quite the same as covering a Beatles song with Yo-Yo Ma backing up, but I believe

2009-10-10T10:31:00.011-04:00

A little less Narcissieff Beta version 2.0 released .

Not wanting to bad mouth the Daily Bread Food Bank because I've volunteered and worked with them in the past and they do amazing work, but Daily Bread definitely knows which side of the toast is buttered. Being essentially a Liberal run organization (the last two executive directors were Liberal MP Gerrard Kennedy and Kennedy campaign booster Gail Nyberg), it is often out of step with other anti-poverty groups and often the first to lend some credibility to the Ontario Liberals' disingenuous attempts to deal with housing and poverty.

Note the political mileage that Gerrard Kennedy has extracted from sitting as ED of the Daily Bread Food Bank. Sitting on a board usually means very little, but for Kennedy it has enabled him to masquerade as an anti-poverty activist and extricate votes from "progressive" swing voters.

Still, hat's off to Daily Bread which despite being hijacked by Liberals keeps equality and justice alive. Pretty much my feelings about democracy. Despite neoliberals (Conservatives & Liberals) best efforts to either pervert or mitigate it, a democracy of the people will prevail.

Update:

"Michael" is such a compassionate man of the people; not an elitist bone in his body (unless you're Ukranian but that's a story for another day). For a more kindhearted advocate of the poor and downtrodden, perhaps only..... Gerrard Kennedy.

As well, for all you social conservatives don't fail to notice that Michael & Zsuzsanna are well suited to your nukelar (cf. Dubya) family values discourse. One "Hail Mary directed at "progressives"; one "Our Father" aimed at social conservatives (I mean, Ward, June, and Wally Cleaver- don't think "the Beav" can vote yet).

No counterspin needed, the recent spin attempts unwind themselves.

Translating Kinsella #2

2009-10-10T05:29:00.011-04:00

For the benefit of the spin impaired and the Kinsella challenged, I thought I might provide another installment of translating Kinsella. The tortured and defiled word of the moment is "brilliant", a word used by Kinsella to describe Paul Martin's cheap shot at the Conservatives. You see, in Kinsellaland "brilliant" means predictably partisan, shallow analysis, and a word to be bandied about when trying desperately to survive an unthinkably abysmal couple of weeks. This isn't, however, about piling on; rather about counterspinning. So here we go in the week that was Kinsella's "musings" (remember back when the blog was named Kinsella's "musings" as if reflection not deflection were the impetus for the writing).

The week begins with textbook disavowal, under the guise of Kinsella's media rules: "When the National Post editorial board says you are making political mistakes, it means you aren't, at all. Keep doing what you are doing." Deny, deny, deny in the hope that it is a lie.

Then, having been outdone at manipulating the Canadian public by Stephen Harper, Kinsella must have been beside himself. That gratuitous photo-op could have been "Michael's", and the Liberals not the Conservatives could be flirting with a majority. In referring to Harper as "reviled Conservative Prime Minister", what is he saying about Ignatieff, whose approval ratings have steadily declined and are well below Harper's?

To be honest, what really made me take notice this past week was Kinsella's shameless deployment of a true working class hero of the Left, Pete Seeger, singing "Michael, row the boat ashore". While in keeping with contemporary Liberal ideology's penchant for saying, promising, and doing whatever it takes to win, it still seems a little hypocritical to reach that far Left for inspiration. Secondly, the song itself is a kind of "we shall overcome" anthem, referencing the archangel Michael, field commander of the Army of God. So Warren needed his batteries recharged, we can all appreciate that. I just hope he didn't identify with the role of the Liberal archangel in the service of the Liberal Cause. Or worse, that he didn't see "Michael", Ignatieff that is, as the archangel.

The rest of Kinsella's week is essentially consumed with flailing attacks on Harper, ending the week finally on a much less abrasive, almost conciliatory tone. One might think Ignatieff is about to set sail in an different direction. Seems as though Ignatieff is tired of being "framed" by the Conservatives. Apparently we're about to see a more cooperative and congenial Ignatieff. It's almost as though Ignatieff might have come around to the realization that the political pursuit of "the common good" is not necessarily equatable with repeating old cards about Conservatives, nor the self-evident entitlement of the Liberals to govern. Apparently, you have to bring some ideas to the table. Perhaps rather than a coronation in Vancouver, the federal Liberals could have discussed, I don't know, policy. Anyway, I suspect that since Ignatieff is seemingly about to adopt Jack Layton's position, we might see less bravado and fewer chickens up on Kinsella's site.

BTW, to appease Mr. Kinsella's newfound interest in economics, I would humbly send him over to The Progressive Economics Forum should he want to experience a real discussion on economics, and yes, sometimes punctuated with real brilliant insight.

Hearts & Minds Issue #3

2009-10-05T19:53:00.008-04:00

Long overdue, but below is the third issue of Hearts & Minds. If there's a more engaged and intelligent riding association than the Parkdale High Park NDP Riding Association, I'd love to see it. While this newsletter results almost entirely from the heroic volunteer effort J. MacNeil, I contend it is as good as anything else out there.

It is such a shame that Peggy Nash was undone by strategic voting in the previous federal election (sadly many of them women who fell for Kennedy's "charm", I mean bullsh*t; there's more in the name than in the man to be sure).

Visit the Parkdale High Park NDP Riding Association website for more information or to subscribe for this excellent newsletter.

Hearts & Minds #3

To all who call themselves "progressives" yet vote Liberal, Please Read!

2009-09-25T11:07:00.004-04:00

I would like to think that being "progressive" entails a whole series of critical renegotiations (one's relation to capitalism, to democracy, even to politics itself) as well as certain political demands (electoral reform, justice, civil rights etc.). Yet, I'll settle for this one. To all self-styled "progressives" who vote Liberal, please re-examine your assumption that the Liberals are in fact "progressive". That may be the most singularly dangerous piece of unquestioned self-evidence circulating out there. Thanks to Jan from the Bruce for drawing my attention to this excellent piece exposing the federal Liberals led by Ignatieff as hollow and false champions of the "Left".

I urge "progressives" to read fully and carefully the linked article, particularly those who voted "strategically" in last year's election (one of the casualties of which was incumbent Peggy Nash being ousted by Gerard Kennedy- that is, a first rate parliamentarian and true champion of the Left, respected by all, being replaced by a second rate politician and false "progressive"). Here's a sample:

On Friday, the Liberal Party of Canada threw down the gauntlet and submitted a vote of no confidence in the minority government led by Conservative PM Stephen Harper. Many progressives might think "why not?" Harper is, after all, a wolf in wolf’s clothing, managing to run a neoconservative, neoliberal government with voter support of his party in the mid-30 percent range, and all the rest of Canada to his left.

Unfortunately, Harper’s challenger, Liberal Party leader Michael Ignatieff, is just as much a wolf, but poses a much greater danger to the Left because he dresses as our shepherd...

Until Friday, Michael Ignatieff’s Liberals had supported the Conservative government in 79 consecutive confidence votes since 2007. That wouldn’t be so concerning if the Liberals had been winning major concessions for progressives, but no such luck.

At a basic level, Ignatieff has acted in ideological accord with the Conservatives. Ignatieff is short on details of how he would have behaved any differently than Harper, even when agitating for an election. If he is a progressive at all, it is in hindsight only: whether in the States or in Parliament, Ignatieff goes along when policy is being made, denies problems as they occur and complains unconvincingly about the consequences.

Ouch! In today's Globe & Mail

2009-09-25T08:35:00.009-04:00

On the bright side: it's not like it was a top Liberal making the salient point that "Michael" is a little too Narcissieff.

Rick Salutin
Narcissieff in the mirror of politics
Judgment day: Michael Ignatieff will make a seriously bad candidate

Perhaps Michael Ignatieff's views weren't as sinister as they once seemed. When, for instance, he wrote in favour of what's been called torture lite, which means torture that doesn't leave marks; or supported the war on Iraq, which he halfheartedly recanted; or the Responsibility to Protect doctrine, which really only applies to the right of powerful nations to attack weak ones; or selective bombing of the Balkans in the 1990s. Maybe he just had a twerpy impulse to follow where those in power – the Clintons, Bushes or Blairs – led.

So let's turn to the consequential question for Canadian politics – not what he thinks but how he'll campaign. This was always the doubtful element: Can he lead the Liberal Party to victory? Remember that he never won the leadership. He began as a strong favourite, frittered that away and lost to Stéphane Dion. Then he seized power last winter without having to face challenges from Bob Rae or Dominic LeBlanc. He has yet to show he can win.

My own sense is that he'll make a seriously bad candidate, due to what I'd call his narcissism. This isn't so much about adoring yourself, as being so self-absorbed that your sense of how others react to you goes missing. A therapist I know says it usually involves “a great deal of self-referencing. A real other doesn't exist except as an extension of themselves.” This won't be useful when you're asking for people's votes, against other candidates.

For instance: “I've been lucky in my life to meet famous people.” And, “I just pick up the phone and call some of my friends in his [the Obama] administration.” As if we should be impressed, or envious. He recounted how witty he and the Prez got with each other (“He said, rather amusingly …”). And how the President complimented him on things he'd written, which “made this particular Canadian author feel pretty good.” That stuff may go down well with adoring audiences at author readings but, in politics, it's better to have your flunkies leak it for you. We're not at Harbourfront any more, Toto.

He told CBC Radio's Eleanor Wachtel that politics is “the most incredible adventure of all the adventures I've had in my life. … It's been unforgettable no matter how it turns out.” But for people in the country, how it turns out is what counts; he can save all the savouring for his next memoir. He told Adam Gopnik of The New Yorker: “I've been a spectator a lot of my life but this is about acting. … You have to be ready for combat, and you have to lead troops.” It's not that it's wrong to reflect on life's twists and turns, but he seems so captivated and preoccupied. Instead of revelling in the fab experience of being an actor, how about just Doing Something?

It's this misplaced emphasis that suggests an emotional tone deafness. The narcissism makes you oblivious to signals sent by others about how they perceive you, leading, one fears, to bad times on the campaign trail.

It's not the same as egomania, which can work in politics. Egomania requires you to be aware of others in order to dominate or manipulate them. With narcissism, you barely notice them, you bask in your own presence and assume everyone does. Even Stéphane Dion didn't seem narcissistic. Just arrogant: a guy who felt so superior, he was sure everyone would follow his lead. But narcissism blocks the reality of others, hence the stream of off-putting remarks.

Narcissieff himself seems to have a sense of this. “What is it that a great politician knows?” he asked Adam Gopnik. “I'm trying to learn that.” You might expect him to have had a clue before running to be PM, but at least he's asking. Trouble is, a narcissistic makeup can stand in the way of finding an answer. It cuts off the natural ability to pay attention to others. He looks, someone said recently, as if he's Voguing a politician.

Translating Kinsella

2009-09-21T14:48:00.011-04:00

As promised, in the wake of the wanton and desperate spinning on Kinsella's Blog, I thought that periodically I might offer, free of charge, a translation of said blog for the Kinsella impaired (i.e. those who aren't Liberals).

So, yesterday Warren woke up to find that the following had appeared in the Hill Times:

"He's [Ignatieff] put absolutely nothing on the table. It's just empty rhetoric," a top Liberal who supported Mr. Ignatieff (Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Ont.) in both of his leadership campaigns told The Hill Times last week. "It's not enough to say, 'That in good times we're going to bring forward the progress...' If he goes into an election and doesn't really have anything substantive to put on the table, we're looking at a massacre."

Although, this appears to be one of the most sensible and indisputable statements regarding Ignatieff's tenure so far, Warren was not too happy. Predictably Warren saw this as an unwarranted attacked, a betrayal etc., as if even a wisp of criticism of "Michael" will be tolerated by Kinsella. More predictably still was Kinsella's reaction. He responds with intimidation and threatens to hunt down this Liberal mole and put that mole out of his/her misery. He writes: "I intend to find out who you are, little Hill Times source weasel, and I intend to take a chainsaw to your political ambitions, however modest they may be."

No need to counterspin the unveiled threat, but we should note that the bluster, the sturm and drang, is an obvious attempt to distract from the fact that the Hill Times has made a very serious and damaging point regarding the Liberal campaign. Moreover, not to be missed, is Kinsella's attempt to co-opt Susan Delacourt for his cause. My reading of her piece is not that she too wants to hunt down and expose this mole, but that she is simply noting that this kind of instability and infighting is inherent to the Liberal brand, particularly when they're not in power. After all, inherent to Liberal ideology is the sense of entitlement to govern without having to "put anything on the table".

Anyway, a simple translation of Kinsella's blog for the last couple of weeks: a frenzied attempt to overhype his candidate because even a Liberal minority is a long shot in the coming "guerre" as he likes to call it. So disregard the pleas for tickets to sold out events, and the exaggerated claims (Iggy will clean up the economic mess- you mean the one the Liberals are largely responsible for???). Liberals are desperate for an election not because they realistically think they can win this one, but because their chances only get worse from here on out.

So why won't the Liberals form the next government? I think Chantal Hebert nails it with this piece. And like a good Liberal, on the day that Hebert's piece came out, Kinsella sidesteps the insightful article and instead attempts once again simply to change the channel by launching attacks and selectively quoting from the press.

p.s. still on the search for truly intelligent life in the Liberal blogosphere. "Impolitical" is OK, but are there any Liberal blogs capable of being incisive, astute, and simply well written?

Any intelligent Liberals out there?

2009-09-18T13:39:00.006-04:00

Perhaps I should be posting on craigslist or tweeting this, but would someone kindly point me in the direction of an intelligent Liberal blog? It's as if pursuing the centre of the political spectrum necessarily requires limited or middling intelligence. The problem with middling intelligence (shared by the likes of Kinsella and his Sancho Panzas (Cherniak, Bowie, et al) is that it's just enough intelligence to embolden them, but sadly not quite enough to allow them to know better.

I mean, the right wing of the blogosphere may have plenty of drivel, but one can also find there the very intelligent and clever offerings of Edward Michael George or Ghost of a Flea, for instance. I may often disagree vehemently with them, but I can't but respect their writing. Sadly, I have yet to encounter a Liberal blogger whose intelligence I feel compelled to respect.

Anyway, I may soon have to start a Kinsella counterspin/ translation blog. For the last number of months, the spin has been so wanton and irresponsible that it begs to be countered. For example, when the Ontario Liberals retained one of their safest seats anywhere in yesterday's by-election (since being established in 1999, the Liberals have always taken the seat with over 50% of the vote), Kinsella interprets that as being up "against formidable odds".

For now, I'm just glad Kinsella has stopped referring to Ignatieff as "Michael" and followed that up by removing that creepy photo of Ignatieff (you remember, that one in which Ignatieff looks about 35 years old, has windswept hair, is wearing what I believe is a football jersey (gag!) and looks like a college student in search of a keg party). I'm guessing the purpose was to make Ignatieff more down to earth and accessible (remember Dion's problem shedding the image of the "professorial" aloof politician?). Whatever it was, the choice to use that photo appeared a little freaky. Check out Kinsella's posts around January or February of this year and you'll see what I mean. He continually gushes over "Michael" like a teenage girl. But hey, if that's the face that launches you into dreamland, so be it. I'm not here to judge.

_______

Update: I've added hyperlink above to said photo for the benefit of those who asked.

Oh those stalwart and "progressive" Liberals

2009-07-14T11:24:00.004-04:00

I'm not convinced that being a senior Liberal staffer turned Robert Meinzer into an alleged vile predator who has been accused of nine offences relating to an alleged rape and extortion that occurred last summer -- including breaking and entering, assault, forcible confinement, sexual assault, choking, assault with a weapon, extortion and anal intercourse. But I'm pretty sure the hypocrisy and sense of entitlement that comes with being a Liberal didn't help.

I'd like progressive Liberals to step up for electoral reform, but I'd settle for their not viciously attacking women.

What's thinner than a hair? For that's exactly what differentiates Liberals from Conservatives these days. I'm not implying that Conservatives are knuckle dragging misogynists (I reserve that for Liberals), I'm simply pointing out there's precious little that's "progressive" and whole lot of "con" about the Liberal brand. In fact, in Liberals and Conservatives we're really dealing with an incestuous brood of ignorant neoliberals that are increasingly indistinguishable from each other.

I still harbour the fantasy that one day the ideological political struggle will be embodied by libertarians on one side and democratic socialists on the other. Liberals and Conservatives are not only incestuous first cousins; they are entirely redundant and unnecessary.

Jim Coyle writes an excellent piece on Cheri DiNovo

2009-05-11T09:46:00.008-04:00

This goes out to the prudes and self-righteous hypocrite moralists, the petty partisan hacks (especially the Liberal ones, for whom DiNovo's greatest offence clearly was running against them), and any other DiNovo haters (for whom it appears DiNovo's greatest offence is not knowing her place as a woman in politics). Most of the stuff with which people have attempted to smear her reputation would never have become an issue if she were a he, especially one of the hegemonic Liberal or Conservative neoliberal variety.

I haven't always agreed with Jim Coyle, although without question I respect him as much as any MSM journalist writing today. I think today Coyle's right on the money. Cheri DiNovo's endured numerous vicious, disingenuous and irrelevant attacks on her reputation and her record with grace and strength. Her opponents routinely underestimate her mettle. Today's article on my MPP, Cheri DiNovo, is long overdue praise and a fair assessment of her high quality as an MPP. I would expect to see the following in statement in the DiNovo's campaign literature:

But say this: working from the cozy confines of the 10-member NDP caucus, taking up the cause of any underdog who comes along, happy to wear her heart on her sleeve, as outraged by the ear-splitting here-and-now of construction piledrivers outside homes in her riding as she is by the more notorious of history's horrors, DiNovo gives her constituents full value.

Issue# 2- Hearts & Minds: A Newsletter by Members of Parkdale High Park NDP

2009-05-09T12:30:00.009-04:00

This publication is entirely edited, laid out, and posted by volunteers. It is nothing short of superb. If you didn't catch the inaugural issue, it can also be found below. From start to finish these are top notch publications from local and high profile authors. Visit the Parkdale High Park Riding Association website for more information or to subscribe for this excellent newsletter.

Hearts & Minds_Issue #2

Publish at Scribd or explore others: Poetry Health & Medicine poetry writing

Holy Sht: McGuinty's Sht does Stink After All!

2009-05-07T08:26:00.010-04:00

I realize that since assuming power to clean up the mess left behind by Harris/Eves governments, the numerous Liberal scandals (Lottogate, Collegate, etc) have managed only to tarnish very barely the McGuinty Liberals.

Nannygate may finally reveal to Ontarians that not only does this Liberal government stink, it may actually be worse than the Harris/Eves governments. The Liberal record may actually start sticking to the Liberals.

I think Peter Fonseca will lose his cabinet post over this. Then again, I also predicted Colle would lose his post over Collegate, which he did. But here's the rub: he was re-elected.

Still, this one smells different to me!

All in all, Ruby Wednesday proves to be a good day for the NDP. Two cabinet ministers (one actual, the other shadow) in one shot. When will Ontarians wake up to the fact that alternating between Conservative & Liberal governments is simply a futile exercise in the illusion of choice nurtured by neoliberal ideology.

Inaugural issue of Hearts & Minds: A Newsletter by Members of Parkdale High Park NDP

2009-03-19T11:51:00.005-04:00

I continue to insist that Parkdale High Park is among the most engaged, progressive ridings in the country (notwithstanding constituents poor lack of judgment in electing Gerard Kennedy over Peggy Nash). Yes, I'm still bitter and disappointed, but if Peggy Nash can move on, perhaps I should as well.

Regardless, I encourage all to read thoroughly this incredibly high quality newsletter superbly edited by J.A. MacNeil and beautifully formatted by Mike Biliski. I'm very proud of my riding association. Look for monthly installments, if all goes well!!!

Issue One

Publish at Scribd or explore others: Other Brochures & Catalogs culture global

Jewish Canadians Concerned About Suppression of Criticism of Israel

2009-03-16T14:22:00.014-04:00

This statement was rejected by both the Toronto Star and the Globe and Mail (as an op-ed). Please help this important statement get into broad circulation - pass it on to your networks (faculty, community, MPs, university presidents, unions etc.). You may also wish to write to the Star and Globe editorials and express your dismay that they have chosen not to publish it.

Jewish Canadians Concerned About Suppression of Criticism of Israel
James Deutsch, M.D., Ph.D.
Judith Deutsch, M.S.W., R.S.W.
Miriam Garfinkle, M.D.
Over 150 Jewish Canadians signed a statement expressing their concerns about
the campaign to suppress criticism of Israel that is being carried on within
Canada. The signatories include many prominent Canadians, including Ursula
Franklin O.C., Anton Kuerti O.C., Naomi Klein, Dr. Gabor Mate, and
professors Meyer Brownstone (recipient of Pearson Peace Medal), Natalie
Zemon Davis, Michael Neumann, and Judy Rebick. *

The signatories are particularly concerned that unfounded accusations of
anti-Semitism deflect attention from Israel's accountability for what many
have called war crimes in Gaza. They state that B'nai Brith and the
Canadian Jewish Congress have led campaigns to silence criticism of Israel
on university campuses, in labor unions and in other groups. Immigration
Minister Jason Kenney and Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff unquestioningly
echo the views of these particular Jewish organizations.
They strongly state that they are against all expressions of racism. While
firmly committed to resisting any form of prejudice against Jewish people,
their statement explicitly states that these spurious allegations of
anti-Semitism bring the anti-Communist terror of the 1950s vividly to mind.
The statement underlines the immeasurable suffering and injustice to the
Palestinian people due to the severe poverty, daily humiliations, and
military invasions inflicted by the State of Israel.

Jewish Canadians Concerned about Suppression of Criticism of Israel

We are Jewish Canadians concerned about all expressions of racism,
anti-Semitism, and social injustice. We believe that the Holocaust legacy
"Never again" means never again for all peoples. It is a tragic turn of
history that the State of Israel, with its ideals of democracy and its dream
of being a safe haven for Jewish people, causes immeasurable suffering and
injustice to the Palestinian people.

We are appalled by recent attempts of prominent Jewish organizations and
leading Canadian politicians to silence protest against the State of Israel.
We are alarmed by the escalation of fear tactics. Charges that those
organizing Israel Apartheid Week or supporting an academic boycott of Israel
are anti-Semites promoting hatred bring the anti-Communist terror of the
1950s vividly to mind. We believe this serves to deflect attention from
Israel's flagrant violations of international humanitarian law.

B'nai Brith and the Canadian Jewish Congress have pressured university
presidents and administrations to silence debate and discussion specifically
regarding Palestine/Israel. In a full-page ad in a national newspaper,
B'nai Brith urged donors to withhold funds from universities because
"anti-Semitic hate fests" were being allowed on campuses. Immigration
Minister Jason Kenney and Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff have echoed these
arguments. While university administrators have resisted demands to shut
down Israel Apartheid week, some Ontario university presidents have bowed to
this disinformation campaign by suspending and fining students, confiscating
posters, and infringing on free speech.

We do not believe that Israel acts in self-defense. Israel is the largest
recipient of US foreign aid, receiving $3 million/day. It has the fourth
strongest army in the world. Before the invasion of Gaza on 27 December
2008, Israel's siege had already created a humanitarian catastrophe there,
with severe impoverishment, malnutrition, and destroyed infrastructure. It
is crucial that forums for discussion of Israel's accountability to the
international community for what many have called war crimes be allowed to
proceed unrestricted by specious claims of anti-Semitism.
We recognize that anti-Semitism is a reality in Canada as elsewhere, and we
are fully committed to resisting any act of hatred against Jews. At the
same time, we condemn false charges of anti-Semitism against student
organizations, unions, and other groups and people exercising their
democratic right to freedom of speech and association regarding legitimate
criticism of the State of Israel.

Signatories:
Abigail Bakan
Adam Balsam
Sharon Baltman
Julia Barnett
Lainie Basman
Jody Berland
Sam Blatt
Geri Blinik
Anita Block
Elizabeth Block
Sheila Block
Hannah Briemberg
Mark Brill
Stephen Brot
Meyer Brownstone
Eliza Burroughs
Smadar Carmon
Gyda Chud
Charles P. Cohen
Nathalie Cohen
David Copeland
Natalie Zemon Davis
Eliza Deutsch
James Deutsch
Judith Deutsch
Abbe Edelson
Jack Etkin
Elle Flanders
Danielle Frank
Ursula Franklin
Dan Freeman-Maloy
Miriam Garfinkle
Alisa Gayle
Jack Gegenberg
Mark Golden
Brenda Goldstein
Sue Goldstein
Cy Gonick
Marnina Gonick
Rachel Gotthilf
Amy Gottleib
Kevin A. Gould
Daina Green
Lisa Frances Greenspoon
Ricardo Grinspun
Cathy Gulkin
Rachel Gurofsky
Deboran Guterman
Yesse Gutman
Freda Guttman
Judy Haiven
Michael Hanna-Fein
Jean Hanson
Jan Heynen
Maria Heynen
Adam Hofmann
Jake Javanshir
Jeannie Kamins
Marylin Kanee
Howard S. Kaplan
Gilda Katz
Maxine Kaufman-Lacusta
Mira Khazzam
Bonnie Sher Klein
Mark Klein
Martin Klein
Naomi Klein
Joshua Katz-Rosene
Ryan Katz-Rosene
Judy Koch
Anton Kuerti
Jason Kunin
Aaron Lakoff
Michael Lambek
Natalie LaRoche
Richard Borshay Lee
Andy Lehrer
Gabriel Levin
Gabriel Levine
Joel Lexchin
Kim Linekin
Abby Lippman
Lee Lorch
Martin Lukacs
Audrey Macklin
Elise Maltin
Richard Marcuse
Wayne Mark
Gabor Mate
Arthur Milner
Anna Miransky
Dorit Naaman
Joanne Naiman
Neil Naiman
Michael Neumann
David-Marc Newman
David Noble
Clare O'Connor
Robin Ostow
Andre W. Payant
Jenny Peto
Simone Powell
Chanda Prescod-Weinstein
Fabienne Presentey
Yacov Rabkin
Diana Ralph
Naomi Rankin
Judy Rebick
Ester Reiter
Jillian Rogin
Richard Roman
Joseph Rosen
Herman Rosenfeld
Martha Roth
Marty Roth
Ruben Roth
E.Natalie Rothman
B. Sack
Ben Saifer
Miriam Sampaio
Jacob Scheir
Fred Schloessinger
Alan Sears
Shlomit Segal
Edward H. Shaffer
Noa Shaindlinger
Ray Shankman
Eva Sharell
Elliot Shek
Sid Shniad
Max Silverman
Samuel Singer
Elizabeth Solloway
Susan Starkman
Greg Starr
Jonathan Sterne
Jeremy Stolow
Rhonda Sussman
Vera Szoke
Joe Tannenbaum
Howard Tessler
Marion Traub-Werner
Ceyda Turan
Sandra Tychsen
Cheryl Wagner
Jon McPhedran Waitzer
David Wall
Naomi Binder Wall
Kathy Wazana
Karen Weisberg
Barry Weisleder
Paul Weinberg
Judith Weisman
Suzanne Weiss
Abraham Weizfeld
Ernie Yacub
B.H. Yael
Yedida Zalik
Melvin Zimmerman

The Star endorses Andrea Horwath for leader of ONDP

2009-02-22T16:49:00.012-05:00

Seems to me this could be Horwath's kiss of death! Remember The Star endorsed Stephane Dion in the last federal election. Stephane who? Exactly!

Of Free Speech

2009-02-20T13:20:00.005-05:00

Today I responded to the following comments by Publius as I attempted to gather some thoughts around free speech and Human Rights Commissions. Any further thoughts?

In a free society people have a right to be foolish, wise, narrow minded or enlightened. Curtailing their right to speech does not change their mind, it simply drives their views underground. You're trying to set up a duality here. That between fighting racism and preserving freedom their needs to be compromise. So these commissions are that compromise, whatever the details involved in how they are run. I'll put to you that if you're really, and truly, interested in fighting the type of mentality that puts up signs saying "No Irish Need Apply" the last thing you should do is prevent them from putting up those sides. You don't fight racism by banning racist speech. These Human Rights Commissions - a darkly ironic name at best - are based upon a very great conceit: That you can force people to think as you choose them to think. They are defended as institutions that prevent discriminaton. They do nothing of the sort. Hauling a few bigoted landlords or employers before these commissions, and more recently hapless fools trying to criticize gay marriage by quoting from scripture - surely something that should bother an ordained minister such as yourself - does precious little to help the lot of the marginalized.

Only the ignorant or clumsy bigot is ever caught by these types of laws. If someone doesn't want to hire Irish or Jewish workers, they can find other excuses. No doubt, you'll reply that we can pass more laws to prevent that. Have employers complete yet more reams of government paperwork to ensure they behave as you wish. If you carry this to its logical conclusion you have a totalitarian state, where any bureaucrat can question your motives or intentions. The slippery slope maybe a cliche, but like most cliches it's also the truth. Had the Davis government foreseen how these commissions' remits would have expanded thirty years ago, they probably wouldn't have been created.

The essence of being human is free will. Force and mind are opposites. No matter how right you are, you cannot force someone to agree with you. You may compel outward conformity, but the second your head is turned the heart and mind's true intentions will reveal themselves. If the goal is to fight racism, then let the racists speak freely. The best disinfectant is sunlight, another cliche and fundamental truth.

Perhaps you're afraid that if we don't have these commissions, then once again we'll see the No Irish Need Apply Signs. Perhaps a few, not many. Why? Because racism is an anathema to most Canadians. Any shopkeeper who placed such a sign in their window would open themselves to public humiliation and boycott. Much more quickly than any government agency could act, the market would have spoken. Either the sign will come down or the shopkeeper would finds himself in another line of work. Have a little faith - to pardon the expression - and believe that the people of Canada are grown-up enough to choose for themselves. And decent enough to choose wisely and justly.

There is this strange paranoia among those in government, especially on the Left, that unless men are regulated to within an inch of their lives they will run riot. It is only by the grace of the politician and the bureaucrat that we live in relative harmony. This is another conceit. Societies determined governments, not the other way around, and individuals compose a society.

If you had had these commissions a century ago, and there were similar institutions in the English speaking world then - recall the Lord Chamberlain - they would NOT have opposed the anti-Jewish or anti-Irish bigotry of their times. Governments are no wiser or morally superior to the societies they emerge from. The only reason we have these commissions is because of the well meaning, but misguided attitudes of many Canadians. Because they find racism so appalling they applaud efforts to stamp it out, not paying close attention to the subversion of their traditional rights undertaken in their name.

The Human Rights Commissions are immoral because they deny us our inalienable rights, they are impractical because they fail to accomplish what they set out to do. They are impractical because they are immoral. One day, perhaps in the distant future, statists such as yourself will understand that decency, justice and compassion cannot be brought forth at the point of a gun. That freedom is both the moral and the practical.

"In a free society people have a right to be foolish, wise, narrow minded or enlightened."

Is the concept of a "free society" so obvious and self-evident? I'm curious that you didn't describe such a right of expression as unconditional/unlimited (or is it implied that all rights are unlimited?). Does our freedom of expression entitle us to libelous or hate speech (is that covered by the right to be "foolish" or are you cleverly avoiding it?)? Because, of course, one of the problems with rights is that they sometimes bump up against other rights and thus they can't all be absolute. When rights conflict, I assume you adhere to some harmonizing standard. What is it? The harm principle, the Law, the invisible Hand of the market, Reason or do you flip a coin to decide which right supersedes another right. Or is your world so well greased that rights never conflict? My sense is that the very definition and contours of a free society is dynamic and highly contested in a given society. We do this in our everyday lives, as well as through elections, activism, etc.

I'm always intrigued that those who ardently defend people's right to impart information which is stupid, hateful, and defamatory so seldom appeal to what are widely acknowledge as other facets of the freedom of speech; namely, the right to seek and receive information and ideas. Freedom of speech for me is intertwined with a host of other rights and concepts. For instance, the right to education. If we're going to, as much as possible, defend people's right to express themselves we ought to provide people with the best education possible. Ignorance and freedom of expression are a volatile mix.

As well, often when I think of freedom of expression, I think of J.S. Mill's concept of the tyranny of the majority. It seems to me the spirit of free speech for him was to mitigate against the tyranny of the majority. Majoritarian systems are much more democratic than the alternatives, but an inherent danger is the "tyranny of prevailing opinion and feeling" for which their can be no safeguard in law. It's like the invisible law of conformity which shapes people's values and behaviour.

You're little hero Mark Steyn claims "I agree with the view that the ultimate minority is the individual and classically, historically, common law has been entirely antipathetic to group rights, because who can speak for a group? The notion of group rights should be an abomination to a settled democracy as old as this province."

He ignores, I think two important points. First, this works nicely when an individual has been granted personhood and thus full rights. It hasn't always worked so very well for the non-white, the unpropertied, for women, etc. because for most of the glorious history of our great democracy members of these groups didn't qualify as individuals upon whom was conferred full rights of personhood. It was in fighting for group rights that members came to be seen as full persons. Second, setting up the individual as the sole locus of freedom ignores the shaping power of culture and the tyranny of the majority.

You seem to argue for a libertarian approach to unregulated speech. I think the argument parallels the argument for a self-regulating market. Pursuit of self-interest in an unfettered market will lead necessarily to a better and more ethical society because there is the invisible Hand (is this God's own hand or some other invisible hand?) ever so slightly intervening and guiding the market. The same applies to the self-regulating marketplace of free speech. Limit no individual act of expression (child pornography, hate speech, libel included) and have faith in the invisible POWER of Logos? (Reason/God), perhaps Evolution? to naturally select out bad ideas and nudge us progressively towards some absolute Good. I have several issues with this. If the invisible power guiding the self-regulating market of ideas is God, and here I assume the Christian God, my Christian God is a non-interventionist God. If the guarantor is Reason/Enlightenment, as an advocate of psychoanalysis, the Frankfurt School, and Post-structuralism I say "burn me once, shame on you, burn me twice shame on me". If a kind of Darwinian natural selection is behind this, then there is no guarantee that the ultimate aim is Good, since evolution admits of no teleological, necessary conclusions.

Believing in invisible forces is one thing, (I can let that slide, I'm partial to an "unconscious" myself) but the faith possessed by the faithful is just so fragile. Why is that those professing to be free speechers so often resort to purely ideological/tautological, puerile, hateful defenses of their very narrow worldview? Don't believe me, go to SDA (I would suggest Kathy Shaidle's site but she's one free speecher who doesn't believe in a comments section) and post a contrarian comment, and you will be met with bile, personal attacks, dogmatic and self-evident statements. Unreason not Reason is what awaits you in the free speecher world.

More importantly, if libertarian unconditional free speechers really had faith in Reason, why are they so often moved primarily by fear and looming catastrophe's. I mean, free speechers, I implore you, go all in! If God, Reason will prevail in your wonderful self-regulating market trust and have faith that the socialists, and wanton liberals, and evil Islam will all be vanquished by the Invisible Hand.

"I'll put to you that if you're really, and truly, interested in fighting the type of mentality that puts up signs saying "No Irish Need Apply" the last thing you should do is prevent them from putting up those sides [sic]. You don't fight racism by banning racist speech."

Even Steyn understands that banning putting up such signs is not simply a matter of banning racist speech. It's a discriminatory practice that impinges on the law. As he says, "I think that's to do with basic equality before the law. I recognize laws of public accommodation. I recognize, for example, that if you have a restaurant, you can't say that the Jews sit at this table and the Muslims sit at that table." I think trying to be more free speechey than Steyn puts you automatically in pretty dangerous territory.

re: Fighting Racism. I don't believe we should ban/censor speech that is racist. But nor do I believe as you suggest that racist bigotry should go unopposed, by government or individuals. I don't understand why free speechers would argue for their right to shoot out bigotry, but not their right to experience the recoil associated with it. Fighting racism has many components and one of them is contesting cultural norms, ideas, values that could legitimize racism. I believe people are more profoundly influenced by culture and socialization than you suggest. We are engaged in culture war! Then there's the issue of power and structural inequality, but you probably, I bet as a white man, don't subscribe to such silly notions, so I won't go there.

But more importantly, I find it interesting that you set the matter up as an either/ or situation. You concede a kind of market driven utilitarian ethics towards racism. Racist discrimination will be stamped out because the consequences visited upon racist bigots through by the nice ethical market and the humiliation that would follow will curtail such behaviour. Will their minds follow? What of prejudice? If consequences shape behaviour, isn't a HRC just another consequence in the fight against prejudice and discrimination?

"Only the ignorant or clumsy bigot is ever caught by these types of laws."

You seem to have a high opinion of bigotry. My experience is that bigots are quite proud and brazen.

"These Human Rights Commissions - a darkly ironic name at best - are based upon a very great conceit: That you can force people to think as you choose them to think. They are defended as institutions that prevent discriminaton."

Seems to me HRC's were set up (how effectively is open to discussion) to assist people facing discrimination. The idea of providing advocacy to empower people to fight discriminatory practices is laudable. I also don't find HRC's acting in their capacities as commentators not to be terribly objectionable (although I do have some sympathy with Steyn when he argues that a certain case was possibly prejudiced by such commentary). Your view that HRC's are part of a governmental regulation of people to within an inch of their lives, or forceful thought control, or attempting to generate justice and compassion from the barrel of a gun, and, of course, the inevitable comparisons to Nazi Germany that would soon follow are "just a tad outside". You're being just a bit histrionic and, frankly, disingenuous.

Kinsella's Disasters

2009-02-03T18:03:00.006-05:00

Ever notice a structural similarity amongst Kinsella's disasters:

1. Stupid, insulting, puerile slur (usually in the course of trying to impress his sophomoric friends)

2. Disavow (damage control, delete posts, even alter cached google pages to make himself look clever).

3. You live by disingenuous attacks, you...

4. Because Kinsella has never shown any contrition or genuine concern for those whom he scurrilously attacks, the same generosity and forgiveness is shown to him. Shitstorm.

5. Threaten to equivocate. Equivocate, anyway by trivialization or deflection.

6. Standard apology. "I have tirelessly exposed and fought sexism, racism etc, I'm really not a sexist, and racist. I'm sorry. Especially sorry that Michael's not too happy with me right now. All I wanted to do was be cool forever and help Liberals win elections". (btw don't you love the hastily constructed scene of contrition complete with "I'm sorry" sign printed in Chinese characters?)

I wrote the following during his cock-up with Lisa MacLeod. Substitute "sexist" with "racist" and nothing has really changed:

I don't think Warren Kinsella is a sexist. He's certainly no knuckle dragging Conservative, but I also don't think he's ideologically committed to ending sexism and other injustices. This was a sexist act and all the more dangerous for its innocence and banality. Because the moment we really need to worry about is when people start turning a blind eye to this type of thing. That's my whole point. As a Liberal ideologue, his arrogant commitment to personal gain and winning, even unscrupulously, is simply deeper than any commitment to progressive politics, to the disenfranchised and marginalized, to the poor, to a more just and equitable society. I'm struck that in his apology what he seems most contrite about is not his offending Lisa Macleod and women everywhere, but that the cartoon was tactically a stupid move that backfired. It cost the Liberals points in the race for re-election and made Kinsella look bad.

More here, and here.

p.s. wouldn't one expect that someone who tirelessly works on behalf of human rights everywhere would be more sensitive to the subtleties of racism and thereby even more culpable when found offending?

The Harper Dictatorship

2008-12-06T13:48:00.002-05:00

Gratefully, despite our best attempts to defile it (e.g. trying to make it compatible with capitalism) DEMOCRACY will prevail. Despite our best efforts to forestall it, there is an Enlightenment to come, one marked by incessant interrogation, by justice. There is a democracy to come, one carried in a promise from the future, not the past, that shapes the present moment. And while I can but hope that the coalition is a whisper of that promise, I know Stephen Harper is the denial of that prayer from the future.

Looking at the CRISIS in "the financial crisis", or Alan Greenspan was not only asleep all these years but he never was wearing any clothes

2008-10-27T09:35:00.013-04:00

I've heard a lot about the "financial" in the "financial crisis", but little regarding the "crisis" in the financial crisis. Perhaps we should stop and listen to an analyst of a persuasion other than the economic one, even if only briefly. Jacques-Alain Miller is one of the world's most renowned psychoanalysts.

The financial universe is an architecture made of fictions and its keystone is what Lacan called a “subject supposed to know”, to know why and how. Who plays this part? The concert of authorities, from where sometimes a voice is detached, Alan Greenspan, for example, in his time. The financial players base their behavior on this. The fictional and hyper-reflexive unit holds by the “belief” in the authorities, i.e. through the transference to the subject supposed to know. If this subject falters, there is a crisis, a falling apart of the foundations, which of course involves effects of panic.

However, the financial subject supposed to know was already quite subdued because of deregulation. And this happened because the financial world believed, in its infatuated delusion, to be able to work things out without the function of the subject supposed to know. Firstly, the real state assets become waste. Secondly, gradually shit permeates everything. Thirdly, there is a gigantic negative transfer vis-à-vis the authorities; the electric shock of the Paulson/Bernanke plan angers the public: the crisis is one of trust; and it will last till the subject supposed to know is reconstructed. This will come in the long term by way of a new set of Bretton Woods accords, a council enjoined to speak the truth about the truth.

On the related matter of the baselessness of liberal economic theory see RPPE.

Message to "Strategic Voters" in Parkdale High Park: Vote Peggy Nash

2008-10-14T08:06:00.004-04:00

You know that in principle I'm profoundly against strategic voting, which I see as the symptom not the cure for a deeply flawed electoral system. But I guess if there's one thing worse than "strategic voting" it's "non strategic strategic voting". "Strategic voting" advocates say to vote for Peggy Nash in the riding of Parkdale High Park.

Wouldn't want you to vote for the other guy thinking you were voting "strategically".

p.s. contrary to misinformation that's out there Elizabeth May is NOT telling Green supporters to vote Liberal.

p.s.s. Even voteforenvironment.ca, a site hopelessly skewed in favour of the Liberals, is recommending that voters of Parkdale High Park vote freely with their hearts. Both Peggy Nash and the other guy are "environmental stars".

Dr Dawg, one of Canada's best bloggers, officially endorses the NDP

2008-10-14T07:17:00.003-04:00

I know it's not a shocker, but do link over there for some very compelling reasons to vote for Jack Layton and the NDP.

Jason Cherniak is Deliberately Misleading Voters, Or Cherniak a Liberal to the End

2008-10-13T14:22:00.007-04:00

When Cherniak writes that "Elizabeth May has told her supporters to vote Liberal in ridings where Liberals can win," he is willfully lying. Cherniak needs either to quote a source that says otherwise, or retract his story. From the Green Party website Oct. 12, 2008, "Elizabeth May did not advise strategic voting":

Green Party leader Elizabeth May has not called on voters to abandon Green Party candidates. A news story that states otherwise is misleading.

Ms. May did say that, "Being honest with the voters, I acknowledge that there is concern over vote-splitting in a small number of ridings. But I am not going to say 'vote Liberal here, vote NDP there.'

"I do understand how difficult choices can be due to the perverse results of the first-past-the-post voting system. Canada needs an electoral system that accurately represents how Canadians vote.

"I repeated over and over that I would not advise voters to vote for anyone other than Greens. Attempts to misrepresent my position on this issue are tiring. I do not support strategic voting and I have not advised voters to choose any candidate other than Green."

A Message from Peggy Nash

2008-10-13T11:55:00.011-04:00

Throughout this campaign I've written mainly with the "progressive" voter in mind, and have attempted to discredit the Liberal Party of Canada's claim to represent that label. I've discussed things like disingenuous or cynical politics played by Liberals (here, here, here, here). I've noted Dion's highly dubious costing of the Liberal platform and his "regressive" voodoo economics around the Liberal position on slashing corporate tax rates. Progressive voters really just need to keep in mind, that if the Liberal Party of Canada actually stood for "progress", they would run on electoral reform to address a failing, unfair electoral system which produces things like strategic voting and I believe is partly responsible for decreasing voter turnouts and citizen participation in our democracy.

Peggy Nash really needs no introduction. She is among the most respected MP's in the House of Commons by her peers and by parliamentarians. About the race in Parkdale High Park read here, here, here. Election Prediction Project now predicts Peggy Nash the winner.

A message from Peggy Nash:

WHAT THEY'RE SAYING ABOUT PEGGY:

“Peggy Nash brings years of real experience in negotiating with some of Canada’s largest businesses. Canada needs her judgement and skills in the House of Commons in this time of uncertainty and worry.”
Jim Stanford, Economist and Contributing Columnist, Globe and Mail

“This exemplary woman is not a promise. Peggy Nash is a given.”
Cheri DiNovo, MPP Parkdale- High Park

“ You can vote with more than your heart, even your head, for … Peggy Nash in Parkdale-High Park…. and be confident that you will have made your mark beside the name of one of the best MPs that Canada will elect next week.”
NOW, October, 9, 2008

“One of the best local MPs in any party….”
Don Martin, The National Post, October 6, 2008

“…power chick NDP (MP) Peggy Nash… and MPP Cheri DiNovo, they have the riding all sewn up”
Christina Blizzard, Toronto Sun, Sept 24, 2008

“Kudos …to MP Peggy Nash for spurring opposition to the sale of Canadarm and Radarsat-2 satellite technology to a U.S. defence contractor...”
David Olive, Toronto Star, April 14, 2008

“Laurels to …MP Peggy Nash: For standing up for Ontario; too often our representatives in Ottawa forget their roots.”
Editorial Page, Toronto Star, March 1, 2008

Democracy Watch slams Liberals: Good government grade of "F", even worse than Conservatives

2008-10-10T14:01:00.002-04:00

From Democracy Watch:

NDP Receives Best Grade in Report Card on Parties' Good Government Platforms, Greens Close Behind, Conservatives and Liberals Receive Worst Grades.

p.s. sadly Democracy Watch also applies "Dishonesty Downgrade" to All parties

Dion thinks politics is a golf game: Takes a mulligan, then another, then yet another

2008-10-09T23:29:00.025-04:00

This is an embarrassment. I would be ashamed to have this weasling opportunist as my Prime Minister, especially on an international stage. If Dion can only perform in a tightly controled and scripted situation (like the partisan confines of CBC giving him a free hour on Cross Country Check-Up), then Layton was right to punk his ass. If Dion can't perform the duties of the Official opposition what is he doing running for PM?

Until now, I've steered clear of criticizing Dion as a poor leader. I have previously called him the wrong leader (strategically a very poor choice to stop Harper) but eventually it's difficult to ignore that besides wrong policies, Dion is very awkward, plain and unimpressive. Gerard Kennedy picked the runt of the litter of leaders; a determined, likable runt, but also kind of pathetic and incompetent. From The Star a while back:

"I [said Dion] was elected to lead the people of this party to leave a better planet."

"No," said Bob Rae. "You were elected because you're not me and you're not Michael Ignatieff."

Update:
Apparently this latest bout of "lack of comprehensionitis", known more commonly as "What? You expect me to work without a tele prompter!" is contagious. Watch the Liberal candidate trying to defend Dion. What a nightmare!

Update II:

Cherniak tries to brush this off as a not uncommon request for clarification. Well at least he doesn't stupidly try to make hay out of this and compare it to the Con attack on Chretien. But he also doesn't ignore it, which means he knows this could really hurt Dion.

Dion's response to a question he should have been well prepared for was simply NOT prime ministerial. I mean the last week or so, Dion has done little but personally attack the other leaders, and he has repeatedly attacked Harper for his insensitivity and his failure to respond to economic situation. When asked quite simply, "OK wise guy, what would you have done?", Dion doesn't ask for clarification (which I think is perfectly appropriate) he asks for a do over 3 TIMES. So far, I think I've resisted attacking Dion unfairly. But this man just seems to dissolve under pressure. I've seen that awkward, dazed, and confused expression in Dion all too often. Remember when Layton put him in his place at the English debate, Dion was motionless and speechless.

BTW, Kudos to Layton for not immediately jumping on this one. Dion said he and the Liberals wouldn't go negative and that they would run a dignified campaign, not a chance. Liberals practice gutter politics no less than Conservatives. Period!

Dion's Voodoo Economics, or taking the "progress" out of "progressive"

2008-10-08T06:52:00.010-04:00

While the lazy and brazen shills for Dion over at the CBC and the Star prepare to cheerlead Dion's plan for the economy today, thought I'd post some information on Dion's economics that you'll never hear from them, but you nevertheless should know. It vexes me to think that Canadians are heading into polling stations for such an important vote so completely swindled and uninformed, owing in some measure to their own apathy and lack of interest, but in large measure to a negligent and partisan media. Actually, what "progressive" voters REALLY need to understand is that the LIBERALS ARE NOT "PROGRESSIVE."

I believe most would agree that the ballot issue in this election is fiscal responsibility and the economy. Now I'm not especially trained in economics, thus I have to rely on people who know much more in this area than I do.

re: Fiscal Responsibility

The old canard that NDP governments are not fiscally responsible is simply NOT TRUE. A government financial report tracking the performance of provincial and territorial governments for the past 21 years reveals that when it comes to balancing budgets NDP governments are the most fiscally responsible governments and that Liberal governments are the most fiscally irresponsible governments. NDP governments have posted surpluses 48% of the time, while Liberal governments have posted surpluses only 23% of the time.

re: corporate taxes

I've previously noted the study by economist Jim Stanford at Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives which argues that slashing corporate taxes in Canada has served only to widen the gap between oil producing provinces and the rest of Canada, not to mention that they've had NO measured beneficial impacts on business investment and R & D.

Erin Weir at The Progressive Economics Forum (which brings together over 125 progressive economists) challenges the Liberals' claim that not only have previous Liberal corporate tax cuts NOT contributed to the current economic crisis, but those cuts actually raised government revenues and helped balance our country’s budget. The Liberal claim is simply "voodoo economics" not supported by theory ("the notion that lower corporate tax rates increased corporate tax revenue is reminiscent of Ronald Reagan") nor by the chronology of events. Erin concludes:

corporate tax cuts have not achieved their stated goals of attracting more investment or reported profits to Canada. Certainly, they have not increased corporate tax revenues.

p.s. If you link to PEF article please note the comments section where we see what a healthy and intelligent debate might sound like.

re: costing of Liberal platform

According to Andrew Jackson of the PEF the costing of the Liberal platform "is dubious at best" (a nice way of saying cynical and disingenuous at worst):

I stand by my earlier argument that they [the Liberals] can’t balance the Budget, deeply cut corporate taxes, oppose new taxes (outside the internally consistent green shift package) AND make major new spending promises outside the green shift - all in the context of a slumping economy.

The costing here is dubious at best.

We get four year spending and tax reduction totals with little or no detail on timing. No adjustment is really made for slowing growth and rising unemployment.

Clearly a lot of the good new stuff outside the green shift is shunted off to the future. As a key case in point, last week the Liberals promised to bring in a $1.25 Billion per year national child care program. Today, that program is costed at $1.5 Billion over 4 years. That’s a slow phase in, to say the least. Another case in point is municipal infrastructure spending, which barely increases over the status quo for the next four years.

We get a modest dose of Reaganomics and supply-side tax cut magic. Cutting the tax rate on income trusts will supposedly raise $1 Billion in new revenues.

The Liberals actually raise the ante on balanced budgets, promising Martin era determination to run surpluses to pay down debt. They promise to restore the $3 Billion Contingency Reserve - to my mind implying spending cuts “come hell or high water” even if we go into recession.

That’s bad enough, What is worse is that their fiscal plan depends on unspecificed cuts of $12 Billion over 4 years - a not inconsiderable sum after continuing rounds of “program review.”

Last but not least, they say they will borrow $25 Billion to fund post secondary education, but this will somehow be done outside the Government of Canada spending envelope and promised debt reduction.

Dion is practicing voodoo "regressive" economics supported by a dubiously costed platform. And he has the gall to dismiss the NDP plan as "socialist" and a "job killer". I wonder how the electorate become so misinformed when leaders like Dion resort to old canards, fear mongering, and Red baiting. Dion is the WRONG leader! Otherwise Liberals would be staring at a majority right now, instead of same old same old.

p.s. I welcome debate and rebuttals of these assertions, for otherwise I can only assume they are accurate.

Now we know why the Liberals aren't running on electoral reform!

2008-10-07T11:16:00.011-04:00

While desperately groveling for the "progressive" vote, Liberal hack Jason Cherniak unwittingly tells the truth about why the Liberals refuse to run on electoral reform, and, incidentally, why McGuinty did everything possible to make sure MMP didn't come to pass in Ontario. Cherniak writes:

Progressive voters need to understand that the seat distribution in Canada favours the Liberals over any other party.

Oh really! Actually, what "progressive" voters need to understand is that the Liberals are NOT running on electoral reform, which, in my view, disqualifies them from any claims to the term "progressive." Strategic voting is a symptom of the flaw in the system, not a cure! In fact, if we're going to play to a strength of the FPTP system (i.e. local representation) we should all simply vote for the candidate which best represents our interest and desires.

Actually, what "progressive" voters need to understand is that if the Liberals were at all interested in genuinely advocating "strategic voting", they would be urging voters to vote for the "progressive" option (be it NDP, Green or Liberal) that best stands a chance at beating a Conservative candidate. Cherniak is advocating all progressives vote Liberal everywhere except, and this is a howler, where Liberals have been at 10% in the past. Then, and only then, vote freely for a "progressive" option. Give me a break, this is an insult to "strategic voting", which is itself already an insult.

Actually, what "progressive" voters need to understand is that the Liberals abdicated a fundamental responsibility in any democracy: that of the Official Opposition. Their arrogance and sense of entitlement to being the naturally governing party resulted in an Absent Opposition that is a breach of democracy itself. Gerard Kennedy has the audacity to publicly claim the Liberals sat idly by (while a mission in Afghanistan was being extended, while budgets slashing funding to literacy programs, women's programs, to social programs were passed, while freedom to information and the court challenges program was attacked) for the benefit of Canadians.

Actually, what "progressive" voters need to understand is that it was the Liberals that put us in this position in the first place. A vote for the Liberals is a vote to reward the party that best stood a chance at stopping Harper for making sure Harper returns to government virtually unchallenged. A vote for the Liberals is a vote for a selfish choice of leader (one which couldn't have played better into Harper's hands), a vote for a "professorial" uncommunicative leader who was unable to rein in the huge resentful egos that stood to his left and right nor do anything to heal the old rifts in the party. A vote for the Liberals is a vote for a caucus in disarray.

Actually, what "progressive" voters need to understand is that Liberal governments and Conservative governments are much more similar than is commonly assumed!

Actually, what "progressive" voters REALLY need to understand is that the LIBERALS ARE NOT "PROGRESSIVE."

Desperate Dion attempting to connect with "the kids", or how effective Cold War era Red baiting will be for Dion

2008-10-05T08:41:00.010-04:00

Oh the incompetence coupled with desperation!

Cherniak "Gives it to Dion"?

2008-10-03T09:25:00.006-04:00

Hey Cherniak wakes up and doesn't go "wee look at me! Look ma, I made it I made it. The MSM noticed me!" Instead today he rails against the press for not providing more coverage on D'Yawn's performance last night and, moreover, accuses the press of swiftboating Dion.

Btw, did anyone buy the whole I'm not whining because Dion was NOT pronounced the winner thing? I think the truth is without that headline the Liberals are officially out of the running to form the next government. Duceppe was right when he said besides himself there were three other candidates also not in the running to become the next PM (a fair shot at Layton, but also a direct shot at Dion, who still pretends the Liberals can win).

I was also struck by the line in Cherniak's post "Even the Toronto Star doesn't allow readers to read what Dion said in response to Stephen Harper when they first print the attack." What could this mean other than an admission that the Star is indeed a Liberal rag and shill?

Anyways, prior to this post, Cherniak headlines a post "I GIVE IT TO DION". Hey I'm not judgmental, but others can draw their own inferences. Still, to Cherniak's claiming a victory for Dion in last night's debate, I have to say "No fuc*ing kidding. What else would you ever have done?" A better headline might have been Layton gives it to Dion:

When petty opportunism, intellectual dishonesty, and cynical politics come home to roost

2008-10-01T09:21:00.007-04:00

I was prepared to write something about another day, same old same old. You know, Cherniak wakes up this morning and goes "wee look at me! Look ma, I made it I made it! I'm on TV! I'm a totally disingenuous windbag who long ago traded in integrity, principles, and critical thinking for good ole Liberal opportunism and entitlement."

Then something else caught my eye, and I thought, this could be the train wreck that people who read Cherniak have tuned in for. It could be nothing, or it could be the sound of Cherniak's McCarthyist politics coming home to roost.

There were signs that Cherniak was a runaway train already two years ago. Here and Here.

So much for Dion not going negative, or hanging Gerard Kennedy out to dry

2008-09-30T11:53:00.003-04:00

Even a brief perusal of their website will confirm that CBC has brazenly become a shill for the Liberal Party of Canada. If that's not enough proof, last Sunday, just as the Liberals were desperate to turn around their sagging fortunes (tied with the NDP), CBC Radio magically comes to the rescue granting Stephane Dion a full hour of free (or rather tax payer funded) air time, on a very popular nationally broadcast show on politics, Cross Country Check-Up. I await to see if the same courtesy (invitation to appear in this highly coveted time slot) and hospitality (serving up easy questions and allowing Dion uninterruptedly to proselytize, to mischaracterize his opponents, to misrepresent their platforms, etc.) is extended to Jack Layton and Stephen Harper.

That The Star should do the same is shameful and irresponsible, but it is not, in my opinion, an obstruction of democracy and fair elections as is the case with the CBC, which is publicly funded. The Star is privately owned and supported and may express, however prejudicially or irresponsibly, whatever opinions it wishes. In fact, I'd be surprised if the Star's editorial board doesn't come out and officially endorse the LPC. But again, that the CBC, a publicly funded network for all Canadians, is essentially endorsing one party over the others, refusing to engage in responsible reporting and not informing Canadians as best it can, all with money that I cannot voluntarily donate, is a basic affront to democracy and a clear obstruction of free and democratic elections.

Anyways, I don't pretend to be surprised or even shocked that Dion and the Liberals have thrown all principles over board and have gone decidedly and desperately negative. I knew it was around the corner when CBC started using the words "more aggressive" and "feisty" to describe Dion's approach heading to the debate. Of course, that was simply code for "going negative in a big way." And have Dion's Liberals ever started the mud slinging and the gutter politics. They're desperately looking through everything candidates has ever said or done that might rightly or wrongly be construed in a negative light. They're looking for "truthers", exposing Harper's "plagiarism", tapping into old fears in Ontario that a Harper government would be worse than a Mike Harris government, demanding apologies and resignations. Some of it strategically motivated (i.e. looking to hurt NDP candidates in BC where Liberals were really slipping), while some is just perpetrated out of malice and distress.

And the Liberals have gone negative because it works! To get votes that is. Except it also works to cheapen democracy and to decrease voter interest and turnout.

Yet there might be some collateral damage in all of this. Gerard Kennedy will likely become a casualty of this approach. The few Liberal candidates actually running on the Left of the Liberal Party and running on principles rather than Liberal brand will likely be hurt by this.

Gerard Kennedy, whether principled or not, has been forced to run on principles, because otherwise he's seen as either the kingmaker with poor judgment who served up Dion and ensured the return of a Harper government. Or the king maker who chose selfishly to position himself to for a future run at the leadership, thereby ensuring the return of a Harper government. Kennedy's only tack now is that of principle: he truly chose Dion out of principle, which conveniently fits in with the whole food bank activist thing, working together thing, etc... Kennedy is running on a principle and a clean campaign.

Problem is, as Kennedy begins to adopt more and more the desperation of the Liberal Party and goes decidedly negative, he also undermines his electability. For instance, at an all candidates meeting last night, when pushed on Liberal absenteeism as the Official Opposition, Kennedy couldn't respond with a tactical justification (i.e. our squabbling and infighting coupled with our low polling meant we would have lost an election). Thus, Kennedy responded that the Liberals' ineffectual opposition was, in reality, honourable and done on behalf of all Canadians. Of course, he was rightly and resoundingly booed. There is never an upright reason to abdicate a basic democratic duty!

At that same meeting, constituents also began to see a more desperate Kennedy, who like the Liberal party, is resorting to fear mongering and tapping into the fears Ontarians have regarding the Harris/Eves governments. This tack can easily backfire on Kennedy. It wasn't the Canadian people that handed Stephen Harper a "majority" the last couple of years, it was the Liberal Party of Canada. Many Canadians, thanks to the LPC experienced the Harper "majority" as "not horribly bad government" (the same strategy made so successful in Ontario by McGuinty), and thus, the fear mongering is likely to be less effective. Thus, resorting to fear mongering undermines both the credibility of the LPC and the honour on which Kennedy is running.

Going dirty in this riding also is not very wise, since one of the nastiest smears in Ontario politics happened in Parkdale High Park and constituents seemed to vote resoundingly to denounce negative campaigning. Constituents here are intelligent, ethical, and not easily deceived. Kennedy is implicated in two ways. First, it was his abandoning of the riding to seek, rather impossibly, the leadership of the LPC that sparked that fateful by-election in the first place. Second, Gerard Kennedy was a DIRECT participant in the smear campaign against now MPP DiNovo. So much for principle, honour, and the high road!

Going decidedly and nastily negative is not "Progressive". Just another reason for "progressives" not to vote for Liberals.

re: Cherniak's frenzied zeal to pin label of "Truther" on anything that moves

2008-09-29T18:48:00.015-04:00

Cherniak wakes up this morning and goes "wee look at me! Look ma, I made it I made it! I'm a totally disingenuous windbag who long ago traded in integrity, principles, and critical thinking for good ole Liberal opportunism and entitlement." That plus some of his other views might explain his zeal to pin a "truther" label on anyone who dares to question the Official 9/11 story.

To parrot Cherniak: "I give no commentary. I only ask that my readers (and hopefully some professional media) be the judges." See here and here.

P.S. It is very interesting to watch Stephane Dion hypocritically claim that he is above gutter politics and that he will conduct a different kind of campaign. Dion neurotically whines that he's been the target of a massive Conservative conspiracy. Dion vilifies Harper at every turn. He deliberately misrepresents his opponents' positions. He gutlessly sits idly by as his thugs engage in his dirty work. This may qualify him as a Liberal, but not to the claim that he is doing things differently.

I should note that when Cherniak, then blog campaign co-chair for Stephane Dion, shamelessly participated in what John McGrath (Queens Park reporter) described as the worst smear campaign he'd witnessed in Ontario politics, Dion, presumably aware, never condemned the tactics.

Truth is, as Cherniak inadvertently admitted yesterday, the Liberals and Conservatives are part of the same family, neither are above running dirty, smear filled campaigns. They are, in fact, virtually indistinguishable.

Holy Sh*t: I agree with Cherniak

2008-09-29T11:07:00.004-04:00

Today, Cherniak finally admits a point I've been trying to make far less eloquently and forcefully. Cherniak concedes Stephen Harper is an uncle and that he doesn't scare! Yes, indeed, the Conservative and Liberals are birds of a feather: corporate socialists and private capitalists. I wonder how much they'll end up rewarding their corporate friends for overextending their greed.

ps. I realize Cherniak wrote "Uncle Steve [Harper] doesn't care". But it could have been a Freudian slip. Besides Cherniak did say "UNCLE". How fitting, Liberals conceding already. But the CBC and The Star are only now ramping up their shilling of the Liberals to try to make sure their patrons don't get wiped off the face of the political spectrum in Canada. One little problem, the CBC is paid for by all Canadians, but let's not let a basic affront to democracy get in the way.

Dion: women, whine, and song

2008-09-29T09:04:00.009-04:00

From The Toronto Sun. I was listening to a documentary last night, which discussed how the language and linguistic style of our political leaders (in this case the French language) helps shape the public's perception of them. When, Dion's French was discussed, it was referred to as exact, refined, but also that his speaking style was detached and "professorial". Professorial is a patronizing attitude that conveys superiority, and it also is used derogatorily to refer to insensitivity, detachment, and lack of connection. As one commenter put it, great leaders inspire in the public a perception that they are there to listen to them. To some extent, all our political leaders are "professorial" but Dion's particular weakness, one conveyed either in his effete French or his body language is his awkwardness and failure to connect with people. Fair enough, if I were standing that close to Ruby Dhalla, I might too feel "uncomfortable" (that's all I call it), but this is common body language for Dion. I mean, there seems a dis-ease about Dion when he's too intimate and close to people (see also his reaction in photo with Rae). I believe this is why he's not connecting with the electorate, not because of relatively poor English. Chretien massacred the English language (apparently French also) but he nonetheless connected with the public.

On Dion and women. Dion sided with a Conservative budget that announced massive cuts to women's programs. For 13 years, the Liberals promised a Child Care program (arguably the most obvious and important way to help women), and failed to deliver. Dion may have a number of women candidates, but its clear he doesn't listen to them. Some of his prominent women candidates like Martha Hall Findlay and Carolyn Bennett, not to mention most "progressives" have repeatedly called for electoral reform. In ignoring all those pleas, Dion forfeits any right to call himself a "progressive".

On Dion and song. Well it's the same old song and dance. Dion asking "progressives" to reward the Liberals for failing to perform their basic duty as Opposition, for squandering an opportunity to present a credible challenge to Harper, and for insulting their intelligence.

The NDP is the only credible choice for "progressives". Women will be much better represented in choosing NDP. 41% of the last NDP caucus were women, the largest percentage of any party. Moreover, Layton's plan of investing in people and families, rather than the corporate socialism of the Liberals and Conservatives, will strive to create a just and fair society where every man and women can have an equal opportunity to participate fully in their society. Layton has announced poverty reduction targets, chid care program, chid benefits, increased minimum wage, pharmacare. It is the recognition that social justice is not only ethical, but smart business.

Dion: whine and cheese!

2008-09-28T22:18:00.018-04:00

From The Globe & Mail. This was supposed to have been a photo-op to showcase Liberal unity and the leader's confidence, but it looks to me that Bob Rae has just planted the kiss of death on Stephane Dion.

Note that Stephane Dion keeps getting invited on CBC radio where he is served up big fat slow pitches to hit. Dion prattles on with old baseless canards about the NDP and indulges his delusions of grandeur by whining about being the most targeted man in history. Today he was on "Cross Country Check-Up for a full hour. Has the CBC officially endorsed the LPC or will the other leaders be invited to appear on this publicly funded station?

A couple of reactions to Dion's "blasting" of the NDP. Dion has no justifiable claim to calling the Liberals a "progressive" party. He propped up a Conservative government for over two years, and kept agreeing to extend the war in Afghanistan. Dion voted for a Conservative budget that cut funding to women's programs, cut the court challenges program, cut literacy funding and attacked social spending. Moreover, until the Liberals run on electoral reform they continue to support a flawed democracy and have no right to call themselves "progressives".

Dion attacks the idea of repealing the corporate tax cuts and the strategic investment in business, particularly the green economy, which he misrepresents as an "old-fashioned socialist approach" that is not being used anywhere. Well, the idea of closing loopholes that allow greedy corporations to eschew their responsibility, and not slashing corporate tax seems good enough to be a cornerstone of Barack Obama's economic plan. In fact, slashing corporate taxes, and a trickle down economic philosophy seems to me the outdated approach, and we might consider Layton's approach as the truly "progressive" approach.

According to the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, a study conducted by economist Jim Stanford found that corporate tax cuts will only increase gap between oil-producing provinces and rest of country. The CCPA states:

"Despite what Finance Minister Flaherty says, corporate tax cuts are an especially uneven policy tool,” Stanford says. “These corporate tax cuts constitute a significant net fiscal shift in favour of Alberta, and away from Ontario and every other non-oil-producing province.”
According to the study, Canada’s three oil-producing provinces, which account for 15% of the population, generate 36% of corporate profits—and can be expected to reap a similarly large share of the benefits of corporate tax reductions. On a per capita basis, companies operating in the oil-producing provinces can be expected to receive three times as much benefit from the tax cuts as companies in the rest of the country.
The study also questions the economic impact of corporate tax cuts. Despite the dramatic decline in corporate tax rates this decade, business spending on capital equipment and R&D has been remarkably sluggish—even as Canadian companies are enjoying all-time record profits.
“Corporate tax cuts, as expensive as they have been and will continue to be, have had no visible impact on the broad pattern of business investment at all,” Stanford says.
“In addition to asking whether the regional and sectoral impacts of the Harper government’s $15 billion annual corporate tax cuts are fair and acceptable to the majority of Canadians, we should also ask whether they will have any beneficial impact on Canada’s economy at all,” concludes Stanford.

Vickky Angstrom in the comments section of the G&M article linked to above, puts it well:

Dion doesn't understand what the NDP knows: the strongest economic platform IS healthcare, education and childcare. These stabilize the society so that the creativity of business can flourish. Investing in people is smart business.

Liberal SEXISM and other comments on Andrew McKeever

2008-09-28T08:42:00.011-04:00

The whole Andrew McKeever debacle has become a bit fascinating to me. It has so many angles.

It has become part of one of the dominant narratives of this election campaign: lazy journalists, often being fed trash by unscrupulous campaigns, more preoccupied with "Gotcha" journalism than laying out real issues so that voters might make informed decisions.

It shows we need to do a better job of educating and socializing our children. What often happens in the virtual world is structurally similar to urban violence on the streets. Emotionally and intellectually stunted people incapable of dealing with anger and frustration lashing out in the most vile and inappropriate ways at people with whom they feel no human connection. Now I get that the consequences are often different, and that this scenario avoids the analysis of power and class structure for instance, but there are interesting similarities. We haven't appropriate ways for discharging aggression and dealing with confrontation and conflict. By the way, those who ignore McKeever's defense that his comments were exchanged in the heat of the moment, ignore that posting on the web is potentially more explosive than face to face heated exchanges. One often discounts that there is a human being on the other end and lashes out in the most dehumanizing ways.

Next, and I say this tongue and cheek, but also with a great amount of compassion. We are seeing the emergence of a new class of political beings: the Cyber Dweebs (unattractive, insignificant, socially inept people who are so desperate to feel empowered and gain some sense of control that they take refuge in cyperspace, where they bully, attack, and insult others while feeling immortal and unassailable). Traditionally politicians and those in positions of power or aspiring for them could bully, attack, insult people to their face with impunity (their rants, unsolicited sexual advances and insults directed at their staff haven't been preserved for posterity). Those days are over!

I am serious here, and the irony isn't lost on me that I sometimes engage in this very behaviour myself. Look at Cherniak, look at McKeever. They are obviously pitiful and pathetic figures. I cringe at the thought what their childhood and high school experiences might have been like. However, it is interesting that even in cyperspace a kind of social stratification still pertains, and that class distinctions still apply. Cherniak has the monetary, cultural, and social capital that situates him in a certain place in cyberspace and McKeever doesn't and thereby is situated in a different position.

Should Andrew McKeever be fired? Personally I don't really feel strongly either way. His comments were completely outrageous and venomous. His view on war resisters was completely baseless, unethical and not in keeping with NDP policy, but they were made prior to representing the NDP in any official capacity. Perhaps he's changed his mind, perhaps he respectfully disagrees with that aspect of NDP policy. Perhaps policy and debate on dealing with war resisters could be the focus of a report, but that would require work.

Lastly, and most importantly, there's the issue of SEXISM. Sexism, like classicism, racism, ageism, ableism, etc. knows no bounds. The discourses, values and narratives which inform our existence shape all of our realities virtual, fantasmatic, "real," and otherwise. McKeever's comments were offensive, abusive, and sexist. He should rightly be condemned for his comments. He has openly acknowledged and actually sincerely apologized to all he directly offended. In fact, the very woman, Krystalline Kraus, he outrageously offended has openly accepted his apology, and they have issued a joint statement which we should all read before passing judgement.

Here, however, I would like to point out two significant differences between "progressives" and Liberals/Conservatives. McKeever took ownership of his offense, and apologized contritely. Within a "progressive" online community such as babble, there was open dialogue, debate, and dissension. Contrast this to a conservative online community, where dissension is often not tolerated. Or to online discussions by Liberals around Lesley Hughes, none of which were substantive, all of which were concerned with polling and improving the public perception of Dion. For instance, is there no room to critique the official account of 9/11 or the events leading up to and following 9/11?

Anyways, Kraus openly accepted McKeever's apology and in today's Toronto Sun called the attempt to make political hay out of this by the Liberals a "dirty tactic". You see, even when they "defend" women, Liberals can't help being sexist. They don't necessarily want to be sexist, and often do it the most subtle way, but Liberals can't help being sexist. Civil rights and social justice are merely Liberal strategies to get votes, but Liberals can't change what they are: ideologically committed to the oppressively wealthy.

Is it lost on Durham Liberal candidate Bryan Ransom, that his indignation on behalf of Kraus is nothing but patronizing and self-serving. She's accepted the apology, she's moved on, but somehow the Liberals know what's best for Kraus. As she says:

"If they [the Liberals] were so concerned about how I was treated, they would have contacted me first."

The Toronto Star should be ashamed!

2008-09-27T07:50:00.014-04:00

I was wondering when The Star would ramp up it shilling for the Liberal Party of Canada, and I guess today's Saturday edition must have been decided as the best time to do so. I suspect that next Saturday is when we'll see the editorial board come out and officially endorse the LPC. I still maintain The Star should have been claimed as a campaign expense by the McGuinty Liberals last year and that they failed the public miserably in their coverage of the provincial election.

It's unfortunate that the Left and progressives in this country need to be dependent on the whims of the CBC and The Star in order that occasionally and inconsistently their voices may be heard in the MSM. But, it's downright shameful when The Star resorts to this kind of irresponsible, transparently biased, reporting. Seriously, in this story The Star approaches Cherniakian levels of desperation and disingenuousness. As we've seen in the last couple of days, The Star's story line to aid and abet the Liberals is going to be to attempt to refashion Dion's image as leader and to create the impression that the tide is turning.

Thus, under the banner of Winning Support, we see the bold headline "Dion in need of converts". We are then told the story of conversion of Sue Cox. I think Sue Cox was chosen because apparently women supporters of the Liberal Party have been drifting over to Conservatives for a more phallic leader. But anyway, this articulate woman had come to see Dion with a certain negative predisposition and amazingly walked away "completely changed". Cox's conversion was of biblical proportion. It was like Saul becoming Paul on the road to Damascus. The tide is turning, Dion is a really leader (note how, he defended Lesley Hughes, then after flip flopping, following apparently heavy influence from Jewish community groups, he showed leadership and fired her, without even telling her). The tide is turning, the campaign isn't over. We have a leader. Right? Well, not so much. (numbers today showed NDP and Liberals tied in support at 21% and Liberals bleeding support to Conservatives).

Back to the article, and Sue Cox could have been one of those women lured to the dark side by Stephen Harper, but having seen Stephane Dion, she has become a "CONVERT". This is all well and good if by "CONVERT", The Star actually means "shill, decoy, Liberal hack, and Gerard Kennedy campaign worker. I repeat, The Star, and Bruce Campion-Smith particularly, should be ashamed of their grossly incompetent journalism. Just about everyone in Toronto knows Sue Cox's direct connections to the LPC.

While Gerard "don't hate me cause I'm a spoon fed white boy "Professor" who fights poverty sitting on a chair earning good coin" Kennedy was building up his "incredulous" reputation as a poverty activist, Sue Cox was his right hand woman, who eventually became herself the Director of The Daily Bread Food Bank (this is not a shot a the Food Bank which has served our community admirably, but to the extent it has done so, it is largely because of the many people who volunteer and who actually roll up their sleeves and go meet poverty head on). Sue Cox endorsed Kennedy's run a the Liberal leadership, and has been working on his campaign to represent Parkdale High Park. She is also part of the Parkdale-High Park Federal Liberal Riding Association.

So, I'm left wondering. How can anyone with any integrity refer to Sue Cox as a convert. Perhaps, the headline should have read "Liberal insiders finally starting to respect Dion". But then again, perhaps that headline should've come ago so that the Liberals could have mounted a credible challenge and alternative to Stephen Harper. More worrisome, however, is the brash and transparent attempt to propagandize for the Liberals and deceive the reader! This article was clearly contrived to attempt create a different image of Stephane Dion and to reverse the trend for Gerard Kennedy, whose star is rapid falling here in Parkdale High Park.

In this week's NOW Magazine

2008-09-26T20:46:00.011-04:00

Kingmaker Kennedy’s crisis
TARNISHED GOLDEN BOY TRIES TO RESURRECT HOPE AGAINST PEOPLE’S CHOICE NASH
BY ANDREW CASH

It’s a glorious, sunny Saturday morning, the second-last day of summer, but Gerard Kennedy is standing in the middle of a shitstorm.

Mainstreeting on posh Bloor West Village, where even the No Frills seems high-end, Kennedy, shirt sleeves rolled up, suit jacket perpetually thrown over his shoulder, spends much of the morning sticking up for the guy he made Liberal boss, Stéphane Dion.

“You picked the wrong guy,” says more than one passerby.

“You should have been the leader,” remark others.

A number of the locals stop to give him an earful about how bad Dion’s sales job of the Green Shift has been.
While it isn’t all bad news, it’s clear that there’s more on the line for Kennedy than simply knocking off popular NDP incumbent Peggy Nash. Like maybe his political career.

“That’s a no-brainer,” he says of the stakes in this campaign.

He’s still in debt from his failed leadership bid, his party’s campaign has yet to catch a big wave, and many blame him as leadership kingmaker. The former provincial education minister needs a win.

Though he won here provincially twice with massive percentages, the contest in this lefty riding, which runs the gamut from million-dollar digs in High Park to the homeless hanging on in an increasingly yuppified area, is far from in the bag.

One passerby sums up the mood. “He’s great, but I wish he wasn’t running in this riding. I’m voting for Peggy.”
Indeed, many feel that if Kennedy was really serious about stopping Stephen Harper, he’d use his star power in a riding with a Tory rather than NDP incumbent.

“I did consider running in western Canada since I have roots there,” he tells me, “but in the end it would have been too much on the family to pull up and move out west.”

“You have to have a reason to be in a community,” he says. “Look, I have a lot of regard for Peggy, but I have to run in a place where I have an affinity. It isn’t that easy to just drop yourself into a riding.”

Probably not, but this concentration of competing lefty cred has gotta be the kind of thing that soothes Harper to sleep at night.

If Kennedy is waging a shadow campaign, fighting the demons of leadership races past and carrying water for a weak leader, Nash seems by comparison to be travelling very light indeed. Credit the strong loyalty she inspires and the near flawless national NDP campaign.

Nash has a formidable organization. With provincial counterpart Cheri DiNovo, who first took the seat in the by-election created by Kennedy’s resignation, riding shotgun, she’s door-knocking on West Queen West, home to beautiful Victorian renos and a high concentration of new immigrants.

Nash, as the NDP’s industry critic, took a string of initiatives that include introducing a bill for a federal $10 minimum wage, campaigning against the foreign takeover of space company MacDonald Dettwiler and pushing for a resolution making the Dalai Lama an honorary Canadian citizen.

She’s worked hard with the growing Tibetan community in her riding, and many recognize her. She and DiNovo seem to be having a ball as they cruise through the ’hood. I’ve never seen canvassing politicians having such a good time.

But her lightheartedness shouldn’t be misread. A former CAW labour negotiator before bagging the riding in the 2006 rematch with Lib Sarmite Bulte, she’s tough.

“People here don’t want you to just show up at election time,” she says pointedly about the fact that Lib leadership contender Kennedy was a no-show pretty much everywhere for two years after the convention.

“There are ongoing community struggles, and people want to see representation,” says Nash.

They also want to stop Stephen Harper. Kennedy, who uses the word “progressive” countless times today to describe his politics, says he’s really concerned that, even if a majority of Canadians vote against the Harper agenda, the Tories will still form the next government.

“It’s in the country’s interest to have a progressive coalition. We’re trying to create one within the Liberal party. Is that gonna work? We’ll find out. If it doesn’t work, there may be other ways to get things done.”

But Nash isn’t having any of it. “How is voting to stay in Afghanistan until 2012 ‘progressive’? How is supporting a budget that cut funding to women’s programs, cut the court challenges program, cut literacy funding and attacked social spending a progressive alternative?” she asks.

Sure, the Tories don’t have a ghost of a chance here, but it’s all still music to Stephen Harper’s ears.

Cherniak keeps digging and digging....

2008-09-26T14:07:00.004-04:00

An update from this morning... Lesley Hughes has been fired.

Cherniak denounces Liberal candidate and supports her dismissal, for which, incidentally, he is largely responsible. Hooray, a moment of integrity, the ship is righted, and my faith in politics restored, right? Wrong!!!!

As someone who saw Cherniak throw Ontario Liberal cabinet minister Michael Colle under the bus in order to spare McGuinty the embarrassment of running a "slush fund", I'm not surprised to see him discard a Liberal candidate to suit his ulterior motive: Cherniak wants his shit to somehow end up sticking to Jack Layton. Let's read his "denouncement" carefully.

My how quickly he refers to Lesley Hughes as "the former candidate". Just this morning Dion was defending her, then an about face, a she's dropped just like that. But what we shouldn't miss here is that Cherniak ultimately wants to connect the condemnation of Leslie Hughes to a need to similarly condemn the leader of the NDP. Thus, rather than denouncing her for writing on the 9/11 Truth Conspiracy, he rebukes instead her support of Truth theorists. This way, when, in the next sentence, he decries that "it is far more serious when the leader of the NDP encourages 9/11 truth conspiracy theorists than when one Liberal candidate has to be dropped because of it", the reader is meant NOT to see the enormous differences. Hughes didn't simply encourage or support this position, she adhered to, wrote about, and perpetuated the Conspiracy. Jack Layton refused to be rude and impolite to a Truther. At worst, Layton could be accused of pandering, which all politicians do. To attempt to think otherwise and to link his actions with those of Lesley Hughes is well... Cherniakian ("thoroughly scurrilous, desperate and disingenuous"). Hope Cherniak is proud of himself.

Of course, another issue would have been what an honest discussion might look like. Was Hughes wrong in everything she wrote? Was there prior intelligence that suggested an imminent attack? Is the "official" version all there is to say about 9/11? Certainly we know that governments never manipulate their electorate. I mean who doesn't believe that Iraq was directly involved in 9/11 and that it was harboring loads of WMD's which required military intervention?

Cherniak fall down and go BOOM!

2008-09-26T07:05:00.011-04:00

Not content to help elect rival candidates one at at a time through his sleazy attacks, his inane arguments, and his complete lack of scrupples, Cherniak seems to have stepped up his game and joined the chorus to eliminate the LPC altogether.

Note to Cherniak: You did such a wonderful job electing NDP MPP Cheri DiNovo in my riding of Parkdale High Park, I was wondering if would mind attacking Peggy Nash and consolidate her position as the favored candidate in the riding?

When last we saw Cherniak, he was like a dog with a bone, trying desperately to unravel some "Truther" lead that would result in damage to the NDP. Problem is Cherniak's puerile and desperate pranks have exploded in his face, possibly leading to the resignation/ firing of one of his own candidates. As Dr. Dawg notes, I suspect Cherniak will now come out and denounce the Liberal candidate, Leslie Hughes, especially given that her words had such an anti-Semitic hue.

Cherniak was hoping to break a story that would gain traction. Well he has, here, here. Even the MSM has picked up the Cherniak's "story", except the report is that Liberals are running a "truther", here.

Cherniak has been in the wrong party all along. Rest assured, he'll be able to ply his "talents" for the CPC soon enough. This video thanks to Sean in Saskatchewan sums up pretty well what was reprehensible about his attacks. Cherniak is part of the evolution of negative campaigning. First it was reluctant, strategic use of negative attacks, then it was the unabashed not always strategic use of negative attacks. Now it's throw as much shit as you can and pray it sticks.

Pundits beginning to predict a Kennedy loss in Parkdale High Park

2008-09-25T06:24:00.007-04:00

(image courtesy of janfromthebruce)

I usually agree with Christina Blizzard, who always calls them as she sees them.

Political recycling bin
No reducing, lots of reusing as many past politicians use name recognition en route to ballot box
By CHRISTINA BLIZZARD

Checking out some federal lawn signs these days, you could be forgiven for thinking you were caught in a time warp.

The political space and time continuum seems to have become bizarrely bent out of shape. A former premier, a former NDP cabinet minister, one of McGuinty's former cabinet ministers, a clutch of Mike Harris-era former provincial Tory cabinet ministers and the odd backbencher all have their names on the hustings.

They're '90s names in an '08 world.

It's like reduce, reuse and recycle for politicians....

A lot of Liberal insiders are wishing it were Rae taking on Prime Minister Stephen Harper, New Democratic honcho Jack Layton and Green Leader Elizabeth May in the TV debate.

Rae is a formidable debater, with experience in televised debating. And his French is better than Dion's English.

Rae is set for an easy win -- especially since the Tory candidate running against him, Chris Reid, was forced to quit over some oddball blog entries.

Which brings us to former McGuinty education minister Gerard Kennedy. He's in tough in Parkdale-High Park against NDP power chick Peggy Nash. Provincially the riding is held by another popular New Democrat woman, Cheri DiNovo. Between DiNovo and Nash, they have the riding all sewn up.

If Kennedy loses, it will be poetic justice. He was the guy who foisted Dion on an unsuspecting party by throwing his support behind him in the leadership convention.

TIGHT RACE

Most pundits predict it will be adieu, Gerard. And the end of his political career. Any openings at the food bank, I wonder?

Is Cherniak a global warming denier who concedes he's the dumbest blogger in Canada and believes the Liberal Party is in ruins?

2008-09-24T19:49:00.016-04:00

Yesterday, Cherniak posted a comment by a nutter named Jay Currie. Currie is a global warming denier who fears we're possibly on the cusp of a new Ice Age.

I suspect that, as the planet cools and the science underpinning “global warming/climate change” unravels there will be a rush to the exits on the part of politicians who are discovering that climate hysteria was a mile wide and half an inch deep.
Now, not even M. Dion’s supporters really have a clue what he is prattling on about with his Green Shift and, if he has any wit, he will quietly shelve the program and run on some issue people actually care about.

Currie espouses the view that Canada only needs two political parties (a right & left) and believes the Liberal Party has reached the end of its shelf life, proving thereby that he's not completely nuts.

Cynics have suggested that this election is about financially bankrupting the Liberal Party. I would not be at all surprised if they are right. It is time for the Liberal Party to end. It is time for Canada to have a left party and a right one. The Liberal Party is simply in the way.
The Liberals climbed on board the dying Green/Kyoto trope and, finally, have found the issue which could finish them. They will make assorted noises about national unity and assorted women’s issues and just how very scary Harper and the CPC are; but I suspect those noises will be their death rattle.

Oh one final thing. Currie seems to think that Cherniak is Canada's dumbest blogger:

Canada’s dumbest Liberal, Jason Cherniak, desperate to wedge his nose just a little further up M. Dion’s derriere has just accused the Lying Jackal [nutter talk meaning Warren Kinsella] of criticizing M. Dion’s brilliant (won’t raise the price of gas a penny, no, really) carbon tax because the Lying Jackal lies on behalf of energy companies who are Daisy’s clients.

I think Cherniak should explain himself. Discerning bloggers want to know. Does Cherniak believe the Liberal apocalypse is around the corner? Does he still think the Green Shift is good policy? Or is all the hot air he's been spewing his attempt to fend off the Ice Age that's about to befall humanity? Does he really think he's the dumbest blogger in Canada? We know Kinsella schooled Cherniak, but how's his nose?

What's that you say? Guilt by association and disingenuousness only counts when done by a petty, little Liberal hack. So sorry. My bad.

Holy Sh*t: Cherniak's Blown a Gasket

2008-09-23T23:10:00.007-04:00

Last time I saw this kind of desperation out of dweeb hack extraordinaire, Jason Cherniak, he was inadvertently helping elect MPP Cheri DiNovo in Parkdale High Park. So it bodes well for the NDP.

This is sheer calumny. The disingenuousness and plain ignorance needed to concoct this kind of frenzied attack on Jack Layton is astounding. It's not as if Cherniak's above this kind of ridiculous scurrilousness. Read more here, here, here, here. Yesterday, when Cherniak took Jack Layton's bait and helped diffuse his own party's announcement, he simply came across as the buffoon that he normally is. But this is the amped up Cherniak that only comes out when he's truly desperate and afraid he's going to lose. This is the point at which if he were a child, he would either wreck the game or take the ball and run home crying (mind you I've seen Cherniak and something tells me he wasn't much of an athlete growing up). Actually I suspect it was a childhood fraught with overindulgence at home, compensating for a total lack of respect and popularity, that has forged the character of the resilient, intransigent, overconfident and often oblivious little man known as Jason Cherniak.

I find it incredulous that Cherniak, who spends so much time attacking Harper, has no problem engaging in Republican antics. His attack is pure innuendo and mudslingling. It is a hail Mary pass cast out of sheer hopelessness. It is akin to "Obama, that's a funny sounding name, must make you a non-Christian, terrorist sympathizing America hating Islamicist". Note that for Cherniak any questioning of the 9/11 events, is conspiratorial and can take only two forms: the towers were deliberately imploded or the attack was a part of a larger Jewish conspiracy. Whatever 9/11 is, it's clear that it's neither of these two conspiracies, but neither is it reducible to the "official story". 9/11 was an attack, a trauma, a pretext for an imperial war on Iraq, an opportunity for legislate an on attack personal freedoms, the moment the neocons had desperately awaited etc., etc. Apparently, Jack Layton also knows Naomi Klein and Avi Lewis, those radical anarchists threatening the very security and foundation of the West. Oops maybe I've already said too much. However, a discussion on the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), now that might be interesting!

Anyways to continue would only serve to dignify Cherniak's moronic attempt to raise the specter of anti-Semitism, or the Red Scare, or any other bogeyman that might stick. Perhaps a more topical post could be a real discussion on Afghanistan? I guess when facts and reason don't work in Cherniak's favour (certainly couldn't make the costing of the Liberal platform work), he resorts to this. Keep digging Cherniak, you can always hit a new bottom.

For criticism of Cherniak's desperate smear see here, here, and here.

Gerard Kennedy Put Us on this Path

2008-09-23T15:32:00.004-04:00

Another take on Chantal Hebert's comment that"Kennedy put us on this path":

A Vote for Dion is a Vote for Harper!

2008-09-23T15:04:00.007-04:00

Good analysis at "Blevkog": h/t to janfromthebruce

I was hoping Cherniak wouldn't blurt out anything too stupid during the election campaign, but

2008-09-23T07:53:00.016-04:00

I should have known better. I've always conceded that Cherniak's a good Liberal (petty, opportunistic, moderately intelligent but not enough to be self-critical, has an abiding sense of entitlement, overindulged, and win at all costs approach that will forego any dignity or integrity if need be).

First, anyone with any intelligence reads Cherniak not for substance but more in the way many watch a Nascar race; that is, secretly waiting for the inevitable car crash. And Cherniak always delivers. Whether its ridiculous gaffes, inane arguments, or malicious assaults on a person's character, Cherniak delivers. Still, it's especially fun watching him spin out during election campaigns. Sad part is, Cherniak probably believes he is "as influential as the mainstream media", when in fact, what he does share with mainstream media is that he too is purely a shill. In this case, a shill for the Liberal Party, just as are the Toronto Star and, regrettably, the CBC. Sadly, there is no critical, progressive, left mainstream media in this country and I believe Canadians suffer for it.

Anyways, as the only Ontarian that has somehow connected with Stephane Dion (oops I forgot Gerard Kennedy, but we all know Kennedy's support for Dion was purely based on opportunism and best positioning himself for a future run at the leadership following Dion's foreseeable failure), Cherniak must be especially vested in this campaign. Otherwise, why would he do something that's new, even for the shameless Liberal that he is, and simply start making stuff up? I mean we're used to disingenuous misreading, spin, but not complete invention. From this post we read:

This morning, Jack Layton changed his entire campaign and admitted that Stéphane Dion would be the next prime minister in a coalition government. His only argument is now that it should be a coalition with the NDP.

Cherniak was asked in his comments section to provide proof for this unbelievable assertion. And, of course none was forthcoming because he wished it into existence. In fact, if anyone has conceded this race it has been the Liberal Party of Canada. Note how the fear mongering has changed from we must stop the Harper Conservatives to we must stop a Harper Conservative majority. Any why are Canadians now facing an inexorable return to government by Harper's Conservatives? Because the Liberals have been too busy pursuing selfish opportunistic politics, backstabbing one another, bungling decision after decision, unable to unite and take on the Conservatives.

The Liberals were dismal as the Official opposition. In fact, they were absent as an opposition. They allowed Harper to dictate the agenda in parliament and the timing of the election. And most critically they (i.e. Gerard Kennedy) chose the absolute worst leader to position themselves to challenge the Conservatives the next time around. A meek, mild, seemingly neurotic and anxious leader, unable to rein in his caucus, who seems detached and academic, who is resoundingly despised in Quebec, who can't connect and communicate with Ontarians. Might as well have handed the victory to Harper the moment the writ was dropped. Thanks for nothing LPC. And you have the gall to ask me to reward you with my vote. The best that can come out of this now is that the NDP gain as many seats as possible so that we don't end up with a strong and active Official opposition. And, perhaps Canadians will begin to see the desperate need for electoral reform. The NDP and the Greens already have!

One last thing. On the subject of the costing the Liberal Platform, I thought readers might want to read the reaction of The Progressive Economics Forum (The PEF brings together over 125 progressive economists, working in universities, the labour movement, and activist research organizations). According to Andrew Jackson of the PEF:

I stand by my earlier argument that they [the Liberals] can’t balance the Budget, deeply cut corporate taxes, oppose new taxes (outside the internally consistent green shift package) AND make major new spending promises outside the green shift - all in the context of a slumping economy.

The costing here is dubious at best.

We get four year spending and tax reduction totals with little or no detail on timing. No adjustment is really made for slowing growth and rising unemployment.

Clearly a lot of the good new stuff outside the green shift is shunted off to the future. As a key case in point, last week the Liberals promised to bring in a $1.25 Billion per year national child care program. Today, that program is costed at $1.5 Billion over 4 years. That’s a slow phase in, to say the least. Another case in point is municipal infrastructure spending, which barely increases over the status quo for the next four years.

We get a modest dose of Reaganomics and supply-side tax cut magic. Cutting the tax rate on income trusts will supposedly raise $1 Billion in new revenues.

The Liberals actually raise the ante on balanced budgets, promising Martin era determination to run surpluses to pay down debt. They promise to restore the $3 Billion Contingency Reserve - to my mind implying spending cuts “come hell or high water” even if we go into recession.

That’s bad enough, What is worse is that their fiscal plan depends on unspecificed cuts of $12 Billion over 4 years - a not inconsiderable sum after continuing rounds of “program review.”

Peggy Nash also responded:

“Mr. Dion wants to keep in place every penny of Stephen Harper’s corporate tax giveaway and even cut deeper. It’s not credible to cut corporate taxes deeper than Stephen Harper and still keep commitments to new spending.

Despite releasing his platform, Mr. Dion still doesn’t have targets to reduce greenhouse gases, still has no plan to train more doctors and still doesn’t have a plan to stop the gouging of average consumers.

If this platform was supposed to be the channel changer for Stéphane Dion, it looks like the batteries just fell out of his remote.”

Golden Boy Gerard Kennedy Not Really So Golden: Response to "The Star" today

2008-09-21T14:16:00.016-04:00

In The Star today, the brief synopsis of Parkdale High Park contains a number of questionable assumptions. First, there is the contention that "high-income people in the large houses" didn't form part of the broad base of support that elected incumbent Peggy Nash. I'm not so sure. I would think, in the absence of a strong Conservative candidate, long time Conservatives would just as easily cast their vote for a person they perceive as honest and principled, even if misguided (NDPer), as a person they perceive as an opportunist and an eternal rival (Liberal). In any event, high income people in large houses shouldn't be decisive in this election, but if they were it shoudn't particularly hurt Nash, who is certainly well liked and respected in Swansea, Bloor West, and the Humber River.

Second, there is an assumption that the increased affluence in the riding favours the Liberals. Again, I'm not so sure. We saw a year ago, a riding that voted resoundingly for Cheri DiNovo and the NDP. If the sign war is any indication, as Chantal Hebert notes, Nash's support is strong and holding. In Parkdale High Park, it's not only about gentrification and affluence, it's also about an educated, intelligent and progressive electorate. This was the riding that soundly rebuked a nasty Ontario Liberal smear campaign against DiNovo in 2006. It should not be missed be that Gerard Kennedy himself participated in the mudslinging.

This leads to my third issue with the article. The Golden boy himself, Gerard Kennedy. In my previous post, I argued why Peggy Nash not only does not deserve to be punished, but in fact, deserves to be re-elected. Similarly, it should not at all be self-evident that Gerard Kennedy will reclaim the seat for the Liberals. There are plenty of reasons not to vote for Kennedy. First, he abandoned the riding, and doesn't really have roots in the riding (he doesn't live or work in the riding). Kennedy has shown that he's not above gutter politics. Kennedy participated in the Liberal smear of DiNovo, and he was implicated in anti-semitic slurs against Bob Rae during the Liberal leadership race. Gerard Kennedy is obviously a consummate opportunist. In supporting Dion for leadership, he cast his support in a way that would best position him for a future run at the leadership rather than with a candidate that could actually challenge Harper in forming the next government. Hebert is right in saying that "Kennedy put us on this path".

A rich white boy of privilege who's failed to complete even a BA (although he's quite content to insult all those who have laboured tirelessly to complete a doctorate by accepting a post as Distinguished Visiting Professor at Ryerson). A white boy who's worked his way up the political ladder through sheer opportunism and privilege. Never have I seen a politician advance so far on so little. Sitting as executive director of a food bank is hardly the same as devoting life and career with sleeves rolled up among the poor and disenfranchised, changing lives one by one, as DiNovo and Nash have done. Maybe Golden boy is not so golden.

The Liberal Party of Canada may reward opportunism, but discerning voters will not reward the party (nor the candidate singularly responsible for Dion becoming leader) whose infighting, bungling and incompetence have ensured that Harper returns to government unimpeded.

I just can't believe the Liberals have the gall and audacity to ask for votes from "progressives" in order to stop the Conservatives. If the Liberals really wanted "progressives" to unite against Harper, why would they run Kennedy in Parkdale High Park, and not a riding where he could have used his "star power" to take out a Conservative incumbent? Also, notice the Liberals are NOT at the same time asking "progressives" to cast their votes for the NDP or Greens in ridings where those parties have a chance to beat a Conservative candidate. Lastly, if the Liberals were at all concerned with the "progressive" vote, they would run on "electoral reform", and they aren't!

Kennedy put us on this path
CHANTAL HÉBERT

If the abundance of NDP lawn signs in the Toronto riding of Parkdale-High Park is any indication, it is not a foregone conclusion that Liberal Gerard Kennedy will beat incumbent Peggy Nash and enter the House of Commons next month. But even in his absence, the next Parliament would very much bear his indelible mark.

As the kingmaker at the convention that crowned Stéphane Dion, Kennedy is the person most responsible for the dynamics of the 2008 campaign.

His decision to bypass the two front-runners in favour of a Quebec dark horse has changed the shape of the election race among the five parties.

Had Kennedy made a different choice, the election might already have come and gone. When they entered their convention in December 2006, the Liberals had the wind in their sails. With his government running afoul of public opinion on core issues such as Afghanistan and climate change, Stephen Harper's minority regime looked destined to be a mere interlude between Liberal regimes.

Instead, the Liberals peaked shortly after Dion's victory. Since then, not a week has gone by without more evidence of the unintended consequences of the convention outcome.

One of them has been to shut the Liberals out of the biggest shift in the Quebec paradigm in 40 years.

At a time when Quebecers were poised to put the unity wars behind them, bringing upon the party a leader most Liberals from Quebec were adamant that they could not sell was, to say the least, presumptuous.

Another has been to help achieve what scores of past NDP leaders could not, by giving the New Democrats an opening in Quebec. A Léger Marketing poll published yesterday showed the NDP to be a growing threat to the Liberals in Montreal, their last stronghold in the province.

Since the convention, Kennedy's decision has been shown to be the product of two ill-informed miscalculations.

Among the candidates, he took the most vocal stance against the Quebec nation resolution. That and future leadership considerations led him to Dion, a Quebecer and a unity warrior, rather than to a fellow Ontarian.

But if Kennedy thought he was supporting a like-minded federalist or that he was advancing Canadian unity, he was mistaken.

When it comes to federalism, Dion and Kennedy ultimately have precious little in common.

The latter belongs to the school of Liberals – largely Ontario-based – for whom the Fathers of Confederation erred when they designated health care and education as exclusive provincial responsibilities.

Dion is of a different persuasion.

Under Jean Chrétien, he would not go to the barricades for the Millennium Scholarship Fund, on the basis that it was an unwarranted federal intrusion into a provincial jurisdiction. Under Paul Martin, he argued in favour of an asymmetrical agreement on health care with Quebec.

Far from sharing the sense that the term nation, when it is associated to Quebec, is a bad word, Dion goes out of his way to use it on the campaign trail.

And well he should. The nation resolution has cut the legs from under the sovereignty movement and accelerated the decline of its influence.

It has also lifted Conservative fortunes in the province.

Whenever he is in Quebec, Harper mentions the resolution, always to heartfelt applause. Every time that happens, it is hard not to think that but for Kennedy playing the apprentice sorcerer at the convention, a Liberal leader would be getting credit and Quebec votes for bringing the nation issue to the fore.

Federal Election 2008: Parkdale High Park

2008-09-15T22:22:00.010-04:00

There are numerous ways to break down this tightly contested race between Peggy Nash and Gerard Kennedy. While I believe that we desperately need to reform our electoral system if we want to revitalize our democracy, given what we have to work with, we should first focus on the strengths of the First Past the Post system to mitigate its inherent unfairness. An obvious strength of the FPTP system is that it allows voters to establish a direct and local connection with their elected representatives. In the FPTP system, each voter really is asked to evaluate the candidates running in the riding and choose from among those the one that will best represent and defend his/her interests. For PHP, in a head to head comparison, Peggy Nash is the clear and superior choice for most voters, particularly progressive voters.

Peggy Nash is the incumbent who, with MPP Cheri DiNovo, helps make this one of the best represented ridings I can think of. Peggy Nash has served this riding admirably and her hard work and commitment are unrivaled. Nash has deep roots in the riding, is very well respected and liked, and is well worthy of re-election. She is a bona fide advocate for small business,the arts, workers, and the poor alike. Her life and career prove that. Progressives and anti-poverty activists surely will find their interests better reflected in Peggy Nash.

Gerard Kennedy, on the other hand, may have provincial political experience, but he has never represented the riding at a federal level. He doesn't live in the riding, nor has he served the riding in any official capacity for well over two years. Although he was quite popular when he served as MPP, it may have been a little presumptuous to expect to return unabated after having abandoned the riding the way he did. Moreover, the title of kingmaker seems to have lost some of the sheen, owing to the fact that Kennedy, by ensuring that Dion would become leader of the LPC, may be seen as partly responsible for the mess in which the Liberal Party currently finds itself. All resulting in what surely looks like an unchallenged road to either a large minority or a small majority government for Stephen Harper.

Still, a perennial flaw of the FPTP system is "strategic voting". "A vote for the NDP is a vote for Harper" say the Liberals around here. No, a vote for the NDP is a vote for the best candidate AND a vote for the only party that stood consistently and vehemently against Harper. It was in fact the Liberals who essentially allowed the Harper Conservatives to govern as a majority government during the last parliamentary session. It is the Liberals who, because of infighting, backstabbing, holding grudges, choosing the wrong leader and policies, have turned this election into a virtual lock for the Conservatives, with the only race being for Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. Thus, if we're really going to be "strategic" (i.e. vote to attenuate the dangers of a Harper Conservative government), the call across the land actually should be to vote NDP. Who can doubt that Jack Layton and the NDP as official opposition would be more effective against Harper than Dion and the squabbling Liberals? Why reward the Liberals for their incompetency? Why not give Jack Layton and a united NDP caucus the responsibilities attached to the Official Opposition? Liberals and Conservatives are already complicit on some many fronts. Let's not perpetuate that in our parliament, where the role of opposition is as fundamental as governing.

Peggy Nash must be doing something right...

2008-04-29T10:51:00.005-04:00

Of course she is. Her constituents in Parkdale-High Park well know this. Her reputation in the House of Commons also speaks for itself. But the most encouraging sign is that Warren Kinsella has decided to take a swipe at Peggy Nash. I suspect this arrogant dismissal is only the beginning. Perhaps to be followed up with a photoshopped photo of Peggy Nash with a thought bubble implying something to the effect that politics is man's work and that Ms Nash, or whatever her name is, would feel far more in her element were she to be baking cookies in her kitchen. Oh wait, Kinsella's tried that one before. Didn't work so well.

Fact is, Gerard "there's no shame in a rich private school boy not finishing his BA" Kennedy is not himself underestimating Peggy Nash. And for good reason; he is in for the political fight of his life. A lot of the Kennedy sheen has worn off since he abandoned PHP. Many don't remember or know who Gerard Kennedy is, and for those who do remember Kennedy, it might not necessarily work to his benefit. Educators and parents of children in the riding's schools are not too thrilled with Kennedy's return. Kennedy's advocacy for the poor and marginalized is as disingenuous as Sylvia Watson's was. And we saw how well that worked against Cheri DiNovo. Peggy Nash is becoming more entrenched in this riding with each passing day. She and DiNovo are indeed a formidable team.

For Kinsella to not even dignify the incumbent by mentioning her by name is crass and arrogant. Yet this is precisely the most heartening sign for Peggy Nash supporters. For as recent history has shown those who've been the target of Kinsella's smears have fared quite well at the ballot box. I'm thinking here of Cheri DiNovo, Lisa Macleod, and even Randy Hillier. All elected, the first two resoundingly so.

Winner of Blogosphere's Best April Fool's Joke.... Cherniak

2008-04-05T08:38:00.015-04:00

Although he got his dates a little mixed up (I suspect he just doesn't know how to set the clock on his new computer and woke up Thursday morning thinking it was April 1st), this post coming from Cherniak could only have been meant as an April Fool's joke. I have to confess I almost fell for this line:

As a person in politics, I believe in holding my opponents accountable just as much as the next person. However, I do not believe in destroying a person's reputation unless that person deserves it.

Anyone who's read Cherniak's drivel for any length of time, knows that Cherniak aspires to nothing less than being a political hit man. In fact, in his zeal to destroy people's reputations he has been forced to retract and apologize numerous times on his blog. He will smear anybody and anything if he thinks it will further the Liberal cause. He lives for the least bit of approval from such hired guns as Kinsella. Just from recent memory you might recall Frank Klees is a member of the Orange Order, Tory Staffer Valentin Erikson, accusing Conservatives of stealing a stock photo from a porn website.

And then of course there was the little incident of stirring up a shit storm against my MPP, a smear incidentally for which Cherniak has never apologized nor has retracted. Worse, after being inundated with criticism from all sides, Cherniak, in a legendary bout of self delusion, actually believed he was the one being smeared. In that utterly absurd smear, not only were comments deliberately misread and misrepresented to portray the Reverend Doctor as an advocate of ordination for "pedophiles & axe murders", and defender of serial killers, but also Cherniak, Kinsella, Bowie, and the Ontario Liberals reached back over 40 years in time to when this woman was a teen on the streets of Yorkville to smear her reputation, a part of her history which she never denied.

So Cherniak you insolent little man, where do you get the temerity to suggest that we turn away from vile, hateful remarks made by a 40 year old man 17 years ago, yet haven't the least bit of compunction about engaging in a smear going back 40 years to attack a 17 year old teenager? Which scenario do you think holds out greater hope for change? Perhaps go back to your scurrilous posts and read in the comments something about forgiveness, a theological concept which you deploy with an incompetency matched only by your cynical zealotry.

You see, the truth is that what Cherniak really meant to say was "I do not believe in destroying another person's reputation unless it somehow benefits the Liberals or somehow advances my esteem within that party." What do all of you believe Cherniak would have done with the tape had he found it?

Speaking of which, and very briefly. Knowing full well that had the Liberals or Conservatives had in their grimy little hands such damaging evidence they would have deployed it in a heartbeat, there's admittedly a dark part of me that takes pleasure in what has unfolded. However, ethically I don't advocate this as a political tactic nor do I think Tom Lukiwski should be forced to resign. After all, he was speaking the truth of his party and has remained faithful to that truth.

Still, those were hateful, vile remarks and he and his party should be held accountable and at the very least be forced to own those odious comments. For as long as we have people who, as one Conservative caller did yesterday on a radio talk show, question what on earth Lukiwski has to apologize about, then clearly this is not about the past but about the present. And while I don't believe Lukiwki's apology to be as contrite, genuine, or abject, as many have portrayed it (it was a typical self-serving political apology), I do think it is important for Canadians, and in particular, Conservatives, to hear from Tom Kukiwski himself. He said commendably:

"The comments I made . . . should not be tolerated in any society," ...They should not be tolerated today, they should not have been tolerated in 1991, they should not have been tolerated in years previous to that."

The future of Canadian politics

2008-03-19T11:03:00.007-04:00

Just thinking out loud here and would appreciate any and all thoughts out there. I've been thinking about some of these things for some time now, but with all the formidable "rise" of the Greens in urban Canada stuff, I thought it timely.

First, the problem as I see it. The Canadian political landscape is mired in brokerage politics in which our political parties, solely in the pursuit of power, increasingly disavow an ideological core in the name of brokering various regional, economic, cultural, and ideological interests. To be more precise, narrower and principled ideological positions that used to define political parties, have been replaced by a new fluid ideological core: pure opportunism, be all things to everyone and win at any and all costs. Regrettably, brokerage politics has infected all parties, even the most regional and ideologically committed parties like the Bloc and the NDP. But let's also recognize that brokerage politics is a sine qua non of the Liberal and the Conservative parties, only made more insidious by the fact that obfuscated in their attempts to broker different interests (merely for the purposes of culling their vote) is an indispensable loyalty not to "the common good", but to one abiding interest: that of the wealthy.

Brokerage politics contributes in no small measure to two of the biggest issues afflicting Canadian politics today: abysmal political participation (voters do not see themselves reflected in the political parties, they see that neither their individual interests nor those of the common good are being served), endless and unabashed negative campaigning (the byproduct of placing winning at all costs above serving the common good, above presenting a platform and vision to voters about which they may feel included and excited). Of course, we also can't discount the systemic causes of this malaise (our electoral system, power/class relations created by capitalism and the ideologies that prop up this system of exploitation --ruthless individualism, narcissistic gratification, the myth of the free market which increasingly comes to mean the monopolized market, the myth of meritocracy, the Horatio Alger myth...).

Instead, I would like to see political parties that distinguish themselves by transparently and steadfastly pursuing an ideological vision; a vision of what they believe truly to be in the interests of the common good, a vision of their ideal society. I would like to take part in shaping a future society in which democracy and justice truly prevails, in which citizens are guided by bliss and passion, by beauty and truth, and the affirmation not the denigration of one another. And I'd like to know whether or not the political party I support, am a member of, or vote for shares my vision.

Problem is, as brokerage parties the Liberals and Conservatives cannot be counted on to be stay the course or to steadfastly adhere to any vision. They can only be counted on to move with the polls and to chase votes by any means necessary. Second, were the Liberals and Conservatives ever to expose their deepest ideological cores it would be revealed that these are political parties beholden to very narrow economic interests and committed to a worldview of the war of all against all (they prefer the word "competition") with little desire for real democracy and justice. For liberal democracy is just a front for the rich to stay rich. Conservatives represent the vestiges of the former aristocracy (old money) and the Liberals represent the vestiges of the new business class in whose interest liberal democracies were created (new money).

In the future, then, Canada will be a two party system. But not of the Liberal/Tory same old story variety (that is so 18th century). Rather, the political landscape will be governed by two principled political reincarnations of the old Left/Right political spectrum, both working towards similar utopias, albeit both in very different ways. Yes, the future of Canadian politics is the NDP and the Green Party. Any takers?

New Democrats Beware, Cherniak's Giddy Again

2008-03-18T22:59:00.025-04:00

re: Cherniaks's post on Feb. 12, 2008.
"I've always been somewhat naive. My goal is to enjoy life, try to make a difference and let others do what they need to do to succeed in a similar way... In the end, though, I’d rather be the naïve nice guy than the cynical jackass."

How naive do you presuppose readers to be? This is doublespeak in its purest manifestation. You may be many things, but naive is not one of them. There is not the merest word in this blog which isn't ruthlessly calculated and contrived solely for political effect (even if it sometimes backfires).

As for your willingness to make a difference and your liberal attitude to enable others to do the same. Your petty partisanship is incontrovertible. Your lack of scruples is matched only by your unquenchable desire to win and so you have found a good home in the Liberal Party.

As far as your not being "the cynical jackass", I've got two words for you: Cheri DiNovo. Readers with short memories, may want to revisit your role in the shameless smear perpetrated by the Ontario Liberal Party and aided and abetted by one, Warren Kinsella, on my MPP.

Forgive me if I have difficulty seeing badgering bullies as victims.

I thought since Cherniak has not approved any of my recent comments on his blog, like the one above, I'd post a few short comments of my own.

I would invite people to peruse Cherniak's blog to gain a sense of the increasing contempt (see this tactical gem, for instance) and disregard (such as his wanton support for strategic voting and claim that a vote for the NDP or the Greens is a wasted vote) for the electorate. Sadly, this typifies contemporary Liberal politics and it is this kind of contempt which obviously facilitates the Liberal Party's recent blatant refusal to perform its duties as the official opposition in this government, at least a refusal to adhere to any principle or integrity in that capacity. Cherniak's arrogance and inflated sense of entitlement have long been an expected feature of Liberal brokerage politics.

The shift towards unapologetic negative campaigning and an utter contempt for voters, however, I believe to be more recent turns. This does little to stem the trend of declining voter turnout, with which, as an advocate for democracy, I can't help but be disappointed. Now, as for the two major political parties whose sole and obvious obligation is to corporate and business interests, I'm not sure they're too worried. In fact, the demoralization of the electorate seems to be a pretty effective way for preserving and perpetuating existing power relations.

About the by-elections. First of all, if Cherniak wishes to disavow the trouncing received by the Liberals in Desnethé–Missinippi–Churchill River by pointing to low voter turnout (25%), would he argue that Martha Hall Findlay's victory should similarly be qualified and mitigated, since there was even a lower voter turnout (24.4%) in Willowdale? Does he also cast doubt on Bob Rae's victory given the low voter turnout there as well (27.9%). Running two high profile candidates who previously ran for leadership of the party in extremely safe Liberal seats only resulted in the expected (although I highly doubt the same will be said of Gerard Kennedy who will be going up against Peggy Nash in the next federal election). The victories in Toronto were in no way surprising, nor were they resounding. More telling is Cherniak's calm reaction to the results in Vancouver-Quadra, clearly the surprise of the night. I'm sure Cherniak was shitting himself (perhaps George Smitherman was nearby with an adult diaper), but what do we get from him? The results were closer than I would have liked, but a win is a win is a win. Blah blah blah. So why the giddiness?

This was a test of Dion's leadership and he was not vindicated. There is no Liberal momentum here and, without a doubt, Stephane Dion will never be Prime Minister of Canada. The truth of the by-elections, as Bill Graham unwittingly let escape last night as he introduced Dion at Bob Rae's victory party, is that in the Liberal Party there is "a new leader". As if Ignatieff wasn't enough of an affliction on the right side of Dion's caucus, he now must worry about a wart on the left side of his caucus. Dion is already repeatedly upstaged by his "team" and Bob Rae will simply make Dion completely redundant in the Liberal Party. I can only hope Bob Rae does for the Liberal Party of Canada what he did for the New Democrats in Ontario.

As for the "rise" of right wing Libertarian environmentalists, I mean the Green Party, that's a very worthwhile subject and one to be discussed another day. Perhaps we could start with some Paulitics. How can we reconcile the inherent logic of capitalism, the enemy of nature, with environmentalism? Especially an environmentalist approach that seeks to affect change solely by market manipulation and without any recourse to government regulation? Is anyone surprised that the NDP is routinely considered by environmentalists to have the best environmental platform of all the parties?

Post election wrap up:Brokerage politics at its best

2007-10-14T08:30:00.001-04:00

Congratulations to the Ontario Liberals for proving once again that winning an election is more important than pursuing the common good or adhering to ideological principles. Brokerage politics at its best. Congratulations too to The Toronto Star, without whom the Liberals may have had actually to campaign and defend their dismal record. Further congratulations to The Star for helping manufacture an ethos of apathy, indifference and ignorance that resulted in the lowest voter turnout in Ontario's history. That faith based school funding became the ballot issue is a complete farce. The Toronto Star is at best incompetent for falling into the Liberal trap or at worst complicit for colluding with the Liberals in making the ballot issue what it was. At a time when this province is on the precipice of having to make some of the most important decisions in its history, we hold an election in which all debate and discussion of the issues was stifled and preempted by a non-issue (according to an environics poll last week, faith based funding, while highly divisive, was THE decisive issue for only 3% of Ontarians).

Meanwhile, our province is today faced with considerable and grave decisions about our short and long term futures. Our environment desperately needs attention. Our way of living is not sustainable. Our manufacturing sector is being decimated in a global economy and there are warnings that a recession is around the corner. Our health care and education systems are still broken. Child poverty is at alarmingly high levels. Working families are a paycheck away from poverty. And seniors, many more of whom we'll soon have to take care of, are being treated in an appallingly undignified way.

And what have we done? Not only have we stifled public debate on the direction Ontarians may have chosen to go on these critical issues, but also we've handed a recklessly arrogant and smug government, with an abysmal record, absolute power in dealing with these issues. Actually when I say we, I really mean 22% of all eligible voters (lowest turnout in history and an overwhelming majority granted by 22% of voters and tell me we don't desperately need electoral reform). And that about sums it all up.

So when Warren Kinsella argues that the election was a validation of the Ontario Liberal motto, "change that's working", perhaps he should have finished the clause. Change that's working to blunt affect and breed more cynicism in the electorate. Change that's working to produce the lowest voter turnout in history. Change that's working to redefine what it means to vote for change. Change that's working to redefine what the electorate considers acceptable governance. The real motto of this election was: vote for us, we're not horribly bad government. And even on this Ontarians were utterly beguiled, for this government was in truth nefarious.

But not all was bad news. In my riding of Parkdale High Park, unquestionably one of the most intelligent, engaged, and progressive ridings in the entire province, voters saw fit to vote in their best interest and resoundingly re-elected Cheri DiNovo with 45% of the vote. It was, if I'm not mistaken, the largest gains made by the NDP from 2003 (increase of 30%), but more astoundingly, represents a turnaround of 103%. Liberals won the riding in 2003 with 58% and the NDP claimed it in 2007 with 45%.

Ontario Election 2007: Parkdale High Park

2007-10-06T23:40:00.000-04:00

There's no question that Cheri DiNovo, the incumbent, has proven her mettle in the course of the last year. She succeeded in the face of an outrageously nasty smear campaign waged by Sylvia Watson, endorsed by Dalton McGuinty, with a supporting cast made up of 11 cabinet ministers, Bob Rae, Gerard Kennedy. And the scurrilous and abusive material was courtesy mainly of Jason Cherniak (now running for Central Region President for the LPC (O) ) and Warren Kinsella (who loves to dish out crap, but doesn't like it when it's thrown back at him or his friends). Not only did DiNovo persevere (some of the literature that was distributed to my house was outright incendiary and malicious) but perhaps she was made a stronger politician because of it.

DiNovo has been an unquestionable force at Queen's Park, exceeding expectations of supporters and detractors alike. Christina Blizzard, of the Toronto Sun, in her appraisal of MPP's performances awarded only two grades in the "A" range, and one was to Cheri DiNovo. John Tory, when asked on a recent radio program which one of the MPP's in the legislature not part of PC caucus he would like to pry away from the other parties, paused, and said "Cheri DiNovo". For a summary of her year at Queen's Park see here. Personally, I like that she also brought some much needed style to Queen's Park. I like that she portrays a markedly different image of "the left" than often projected in our media (you know, Birkenstocks, cargo pants, home knit sweaters...). Fashion, style, appreciation of fine and beautiful things should not limited to any one group of people (European socialists have long shown this). For me, what makes the bourgeoisie what they are is not simply the trappings of wealth, but its attitude and way of obtaining wealth. I recently read an inane commenter calling the NDP a bunch of white wine socialists (it may have been funny if he had said white whine socialists). To that I say bravo. And to single malt and cognac socialists, I say bravo. To socialists who spend $1000 dollars on a Barcelona chair, I say bravo. To those socialists who see beauty in a Barnett Newman painting, I say bravo. To those socialists who read bourgeois, untamable theorists like Derrida, Lacan, Zizek, Hegel I say bravo.

Oh, but I've digressed. In the rematch between Cheri DiNovo and Sylvia Watson one would think this a no contest. DiNovo is clearly the superior candidate. But there are other factors. Watson is not running an overt smear campaign this time (although her campaign team has been slinging mud and have been caught in some compromising tactics at democraticSpace). "The Ghosts for Sylvia Watson" (Sept. 11) from the by-election past seem to be haunting this campaign as well. There are also the landlords for Watson (buildings with numerous tenants, many of them not Watson supporters, adorned only with Watson signs). All to say, that while Watson is obviously losing the sign war, she is holding her own in parts of Parkdale.

This is significant because Watson's tactic, as unbelievable as it is for a discerning voter, seems to be to try to peel off the poor vote, while hoping that hard core Liberals as well as involuntary Liberals (e.g. some of the immigrant voters who've voted Liberal ever since they arrived in Canada and have in fact been largely taken for granted by the Liberal party) will just come out and do their part. In the meantime, Watson, a wealthy lawyer living in a million dollar house, walks around with another faux advocate for the poor, Gerard Kennedy, hoping to strip away some of the Parkdale vote. Sadly, this strategy may, in fact, gain her some votes. I say sadly because the Liberals are a party born of the rich for the rich (the original liberating impulse of the Liberals was towards liberating markets from regulation) whose support in the twentieth century of a welfare state has less to do with actually caring about people than wanting to enable capitalism to prosper (unfettered capitalism is very ugly and very unworkable, think of Dickens' London). And to have any of the poor in Parkdale deceived into voting for Watson and the Liberals is, in my view, a real travesty. There is no question that the poor, the working poor, the marginalized, the lost, the hungry of Parkdale would best be served by DiNovo, and the NDP, their true and tireless advocates. But, many people regrettably don't vote in their own best interest.

Then, there's the whole, strategic voting thing (of course, a by-product of having an unfit and undemocratic electoral system, which incidentally Watson supports). Until it became clear that McGuinty is going to form a second majority government, I think Watson may have been helped by "progressives" and swing voters who would rather vote to try to ensure that John Tory didn't form the government than vote for the truly "progressive" representative in their riding. This seems a non factor now.

Green Party supporters, although among the most principled voters, too are faced with a strategic choice between voting for their candidates (who still have no chance of gaining a seat) or at least having some of their concerns voiced in the legislature. The NDP, has now, and has for a long time, an abiding concern for the environment. It believes in fully funded education and health care. It is socially progressive. It is against nuclear energy. While the Green Party may have different means of achieving these things, it is committed to them, which is why many Greens, typically lefty Greens, I would think, vote NDP (in Europe the Greens & Social Democrats have formed coalitions). I suspect that the Liberal party would be the last party a Green would vote for, since the Liberal Party is the least ideological and principled of the political parties. The Liberals have been so successful because they play brokerage politics, swinging to the right or to the left as it suits them best, casting as big a net as possible.

In the final analysis, I think that if DiNovo's campaign does a strong job of pulling her vote, then she should be awarded re-election on Wednesday, but as to whether DiNovo will win by a larger or smaller margin than last year I really can't say. What I can risk is that DiNovo will likely not win by the same margin (8%).