The Return of Michael "The Little Fascist" Sona

For those of you who may recall, it was the little gun-loving Fascist, Michael Sona who was responsible for the disruption of the advanced polling station and near theft of a ballot box at Guelph University during the 2011 Federal Election. The point being to suppress the University vote which tends to be more left-leaning. His actions of course, set a precedent for all advanced polls at all Universities across the country and voter suppression, along with the wide spread dissemination of misinformation and fear-mongering became a central theme and tactic in the eventual Conservative victory

Nothing came from little Mickey's actions that Spring. No charges were leveled, and no one was held accountable. But that entire election was pock-marked by allegations of dirty tricks, vandalism and suppression of the media, all at the hands of the quasi-Tories (a party that is Conservative in name only, the name having been usurped by the carviverous Reform/Alliance Party in  2003). And no one seemed to care, least of all the voters....until now.

Finally, opposition parties are following up on allegations of wide-spread automated phone campaigns that may have cost opposition parties a number of seats, particularly in vote-rich Ontario. Of course, the Reform-a-Cons are countering with their own allegations as they are seldom prone to accepting responsibility for their actions (plausible deniability and slander being the order of the day) and the name of Mickey Sona has surfaced once again. He has apparently been termed a "Tory Staffer" who has resigned in the wake of the "Dirty Tricks" scandal which Liberal Leader Bob Rae has called "Nixonian" in nature.

"Is that a gun under your jacket Mickey or are you just glad to see me"?

Tory staffers are, of course, expendable and are routinely thrown under the wheels of the bus in order to divert shame from the party, the PMO or Harper himself. But also what has become routine, is for resigned Tory staffers to be quietly rehired once the heat has died down. So don't expect we've heard the end of little Mickey Sona quite yet. His is a zeal and willingness to "do what ever it takes to win" that have become a highly valued commodity in the Reform-a-Con party.

The Conservative's Sick Relationship With Big Oil

It's pretty much a given that our current federal Government fellatiates big business and the "1%" on a fairly regular basis.  Hell, our majority Government are nothing more than "bitches in suits" to Alberta Oil and the Tar Sands. And our Conservative government are pretty arrogant about it, believing that servicing the syphilitic members of the affluent is not only an honour and a privilege, but also  what's in the best interest of the country. They carry out their mission from the Godless with ruthless abandon, systematically severing the heads from all those who threaten their status with the corporate world. And they demand gilt embossed business cards in return for all the time they spend on their knees.

But let's say, for the sake of argument, that these Neo Cons truly believe in what they are doing, thinking that reshaping the country by burying our social values while giving free reign to the Corporatist minority is really good for the country. Let's just imagine for a moment that they really aren't reptilian aliens bent on world domination and enslaving the entire human population. It's a stretch I know, but bear with me here.

To say that these guys are capitalists with a capital "C" is pretty much a given. But I would go beyond that, calling them "Corporatists", meaning that they value the 1% over and above all other human beings, believing that these "movers and shakers" are superior beings, here to bestow their greatness upon all the land and that  reducing the population to nothing more than indentured servitude is in everybody's best interest. They believe that their brand of economics, based on the Calgary School, the Chicago School and the Fraser Institute is vastly superior to anything that has come before it. Never mind that their philosophies are nothing more than rehashed Classical or Neo economic Liberalism. They believe that a robust and completely unfettered Corporate class will make everything right in our land. That their unbridled success will in someway benefit all of us as well as our country and our society in general. The theory behind this being that the "invisible hand" of Capitalism will make things even out, make sure that the wealth somehow trickles down to us lowly surfs and that the laws of supply and demand will regulate the market place.

The problem is, the "invisible hand" doesn't exist. It is nothing more than a mythical creature, about as credible as the existence of Unicorns, or perhaps more appropriately, Minotaurs. The proof of which is in the ever widening gulf between the rich and the poor and the reality that 1% of our population holds over 35% of all the wealth in the world and that our financial institutions are able to hold on to literally, trillions of dollars and are refusing to share it. 

Where was the "invisible hand" when the housing bubble burst in the States? When large financial institutions got fat off of peddling false hopes to the population? Was there any omnipotent self-regulating deity around to tell the banks that what they were doing was killing the economy and bankrupting millions of poor working schmucks like you and I? Nope! They had an angle and they worked it to the max, at the expense of you and I, then received trillions of dollars in bail-out money from the American Government just so they could keep their doors open... and give bonuses to their execs, and to subsequently hoard it. They behaved like gluttonous spoiled kids in a candy store with no parent about to moderate their sugar intake. Nope, no self-regulating Capitalist Gods were present then. 

The heart and soul of Capitalism is Consumerism. In order for Capitalism to work, there needs to be a healthy population with money in their pockets  who are able to "consume". The advent of the labour movement and the subsequent rise of the middle class made for a very healthy Capitalist society in the mid 20th century. People had rights and freedoms as well as a chicken in every pot and two cars in every garage. Our way of life seemed vastly superior to the more oppressive communist regimes of the time and it ultimately buried communism on the world stage. In the end, the Berlin Wall fell and all seemed right with the world.

The most industrious of all industrialists, Henry Ford had a lot to do with that. Love him or hate him, Ford realized that if anyone was going to buy the millions of cars he was mass producing, he was going to have to pay his workers better. So he did. They in effect, became the consumers of what Ford was producing. And this arrangement seemed to work for everyone. And that model was replicated over and over again to the benefit of the workers and the industrialists alike.

But now, the Corporatists seem hell bent on exterminating the Labour movement and driving down wages because these wages are supposedly undercutting their profit margins. Like it's our fault that these guys can't be as rich as they want to be.  I wonder what Ford would have to say about an industrialist who blames the market place for their inability to succeed. But then, he once said that:"A business that makes nothing but money is a poor business". Looking at our financial institutions today, very prophetic words I would say.

Like it or not, we the consumers, are the cattle that feed the Corporate giants. They are supposed to keep us fat and healthy so that they, in turn, can become  fatter and healthier. It's supposed to be a symbiotic relationship. Except the Corporatists, the ones who produce nothing, are behaving more like  cancerous organisms and are looking at killing off their entire heard of consumers in their gluttony.  In so doing, they are dooming their own fate, not to mention that of our country and the entire world.

And while we're on the subject of cancerous organisms, lets take a look at our Corporatist loving Conservative Government's slavish love affair with the Tar Sands. Our heads of state have told us repeatedly that they want Canada to be an energy super-power. And that of course, means scouring every last drop of oil from the Tar Sands, regardless of the impact on the environment. This crazed consumption of a natural resource that neglects the impact on the surrounding environment is much like how a cancerous organism reacts with it's host.

But besides the environmental catastrophe unfolding before our very eyes on a daily basis, lets look at the economic logistics of this. The Conservative's idea of becoming an energy super-power amounts to putting all of our eggs into a very leaky, oily basket. The entire world knows that fossil fuels are killing the environment and we need to find alternative energy resources. And the entire world is beginning to mobilize to that end. Hence, other countries who are investing for the future, are becoming world leaders in alternative sources of energy.  But besides that, fossil fuels are non renewable. That means that we can and will , run out some day. Many scientists already claim we are much closer to that day than we think, hence the panicked rush to look for oil in the arctic, despite the environmental impact and the titanic logistical undertaking involved.

But even before the last drop of crude is sucked from the soil, there will come a tipping point at which the demand will exceed the supply. We may already be there. Why else would we all be so willing to pay such outlandish prices for a tank of gas.  It has been determined that a global oil shortage will occur long before the mass implementation of new sources of energy to power our cars and heat our homes. Hence, economic melt-down because of the myopic vision of our world leaders and their love-fetish with oil.

So building a strong Canada for the future, based on Oil, is like investing heavily in building a buggy whip factory next to one of Henry Ford's factories. It is remarkably short sighted not to mention stupid from an economic stand point. And this from a Prime Minister who claims to be an economist. He should be asking for his money back from the University of Calgary.

Looking then at the Federal Government's sick relationship with the cancerous Corporatists and their destructive, shortsighted investment in the Tar Sands, they must either be high-priced concubines, or at best, simply have rocks in their heads.

A Background Into Harpernomics.

Milton Friedman

I was quite shocked to learn that Milton Freidman, noted Free-Market-Free-Booter and  God-Father of the "Chicago School" of Economics considered himself a "Liberal".

Friedman of course, was Augusto Pinochet's go-to guy in the 70s when the American backed dictator was brutally recreating Chilean society.

Friedman believed that the only purpose for Government was in the protection of the people. Literally meaning, the provision of a military and  police force. And as we know all too well, Pinochet made good use of his. The Government, according to Friedman, has no business regulating business which should be free of any and all constraints to operate in any manner that maximizes profits. All for the greater good of course. In addition, education and healthcare are essentially business opportunities best left to the private sector. Any Government involvement in these areas should be cursory if at all, as with charter schools in the U.S.

So when Friedman referred to himself as a "Liberal", he did not mean in the same sense as a 21st century social Liberal might. He was talking about being an "economic Liberal", meaning it should be open season everywhere in the world for business to do as it pleases.

Now I've always thought of Liberalism as being of the "Social" variety. Meaning it's adherents can range anywhere from the centre of the political spectrum to approaching the far left. To my 21st century understanding, Liberalism is progressive, democratic, big on equal rights and recognizes to varying degrees, the state's responsibility not just to protect it's citizens , but to look after the poor, elderly and marginalized as well. In addition, in the name of equality, every and all citizens have a right to appropriate health care and equal education.

Conversely, I understood "Conservatism" to mean that there is more of a commitment to capitalism and free-markets and a belief that a healthy environment for business meant a healthy economy, happy citizens and a healthy country. In addition, Conservatism recognizes religion, particularly Christianity in the formation of our social values and that "family" in the biblical sense, is the cornerstone of a strong society.

Then, there are areas in the middle of the "Political Centre"  where the modern concepts of Liberalism and Conservatism overlap. This is where you get "Red Tories" and "Blue Liberals" or more accurately, Liberal Conservatives and Conservative Liberals.

On closer examination it appears that the philosophy behind Liberalism, has been around since the 19th century. This earliest form however, is referred to as "Classical-Liberalism" and was the antithesis of Socialism. According to Wikipedia, the core beliefs of Classical-Liberalism are:

"... classical liberals made four assumptions about human nature: People were "egoistic, coldly calculating, essentially inert and atomistic". Being egoistic, people were motivated solely by pain and pleasure. Being calculating, they made decisions intended to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. If there were no opportunity to increase pleasure or reduce pain, they would become inert. Therefore, the only motivation for labor was either the possibility of great reward or fear of hunger. This belief led classical liberal politicians to pass the Poor Law Amendment Act 1834, which limited the provision of social assistance. On the other hand, classical liberals believed that men of higher rank were motivated by ambition. Seeing society as atomistic, they believed that society was no more than the sum of its individual members. These views departed from earlier views of society as a family and, therefore, greater than the sum of its members". 

In addition, our friends at "The Wiki" add this rather chilling observation about Classical-Liberalism:

 
"Adopting Thomas Malthus's population theory, they saw poor urban conditions as inevitable, as they believed population growth would outstrip food production; and they considered that to be desirable, as starvation would help limit population growth. They opposed any income or wealth redistribution, which they believed would be dissipated by the lowest orders".

 Friedrich Hayek

It's no small wonder given the above description that both Milton Friedman and his mentor, Friedrich Hayek are both listed as Classical-Liberals. Though if I hadn't known better, I would have thought that the above description from Wikipedia more accurately described today's more radical right-wing Conservatives. Case in point, I would have assumed the doctrine of Classical-Liberalism sounds more like that of Stephen Harper and his Merry band of Neo-Cons.

 It's interesting to note that Tom Flanagan, A senior member of the "Calgary School" of Economics (a parallel of the Chicago School) is a Conservative, a Senior Fellow at the Conservative leaning Fraser Institute (That's right, the same Fraser institute that has accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations from the American Free-Booting, tea-sipping Koch brothers) and was a top adviser to our Conservative Prime Minister, Stephen Harper. Yet Flanagan claims to be an adherent of the 
 Friedrich Hayek school of economic and political thought. Hayek of course, being a Classical-Liberal.

Tom Flanagan

Today's Classical-Liberals are more accurately referred to as Libertarians. There are varying degrees of Libertarians, all of whom advocate for limited Government, the most extreme of whom, would be anarchists who believe there should be no government what-so-ever.

So, what does all this blather actually mean? Well it means that people like Milton Friedman,  Friedrich Hayek, Tom Flanagan and  Stephen Harper, just to name a few, can accurately label themselves as not just Conservatives, or Neo-Conservatives or Ultra Right-Wing Conservatives, they can also lay claim to the monikers of Liberals, Classical-Liberals or Libertarians. All of which leaves me very, very confused.

Stephen Harper

So I think that the terms "Conservative" and "Liberal" are now entirely out-dated and inaccurate. Even the term "Capitalist" is inaccurate as  Capitalism can be embraced by either modern social-Liberals OR Progressive  Conservatives. But I think there are two phrases that more accurately sum up the two schools of thought that currently find themselves at war with each other.  One is: "Corporatism" which embraces all those notions of Free-Markets and no government, the rich get richer while the poor become cattle for the industrial elite.

The other phrase is a very old one. It's been demonized over the years, starting with the "Red Scare" of the late 40s. It's been drilled into our heads as being a description of evil itself. But today, this label is the antithesis of Corporatism. It is the only one that speaks to a social conscience. It is the only one that embraces equality, progressiveness, all-inclusiveness. It speaks to the rights and freedoms of every citizen in our country. That phrase is "Socialism".

It's time that label was seen in a new light. That it be stripped of the demonic aura that was cast upon it by the Corporatists of Post War America. Socialism is the only label and school of thought that now accurately expresses and encompasses the needs and rights of the average citizen.

We are trapped in a culture war ladies and gentlemen. Harper, Flanagan Friedman and the Corporatists have drawn up the battle lines and you and I are most definitely not on their side. The only way to fight for our rights, to fight for our freedom, to fight the Corporatists, is with Socialism. And yet the one political party in our country who can claim to have a social-democratic conscience, is looking at removing the word "Socialist" from it's mission statement.

So we have to either learn to embrace the concept of Socialism, to stop viewing it as the "Great Red Evil" or learn to embrace the Corporatist role for 99% of all citizens, you and I that is,  as mindless cattle or slave labor for the uber-rich elite.

Social Democracy

Let's Never Forget Who Stephen Harper Is

Let us never forget fellow Canadians, that "Little Stevie Harper" (pictured above) was a powerful influence upon the radical, western-centric, ideological lobby-group-come-political party along with the hyper-evangelical, free-market, anti government flake, Preston Manning. It was little Stevie "The Wonder-kin" Harper who coined the rather catchy 1988 Reform Campaign Slogan of: "The West Want's In". Into what was never adequately explained, but now it appears that "The West "Owns It".

Harper left the Reform Party in 1992 due to a disagreement with Manning, who was not radical enough for Harper's liking. So Stevie became head of the National Citizens Coalition, a Corporate Canada Lobby group who's name is misleading to say the least, and used their $50,000 in third-party print and media advertisement   to spring-board him back into the Reform Party and into Parliament.

Harper left Parliament in 1997 and in that year, made a speech to the Uber-conservative American Think-tank "Council For National Policy" in which he made the following statements:

-"Canada is a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term, and very proud of it"

-"if you're like all Americans, you know almost nothing except for your own country. Which makes you probably knowledgeable about one more country than most Canadians", and

-"the NDP [New Democratic Party] is kind of proof that the Devil lives and interferes in the affairs of men."

Gee! Sounds like  Harper has a distinct lack of respect for Canadians and those principles and values that Canadians have come to embrace as defining our unique culture. 

In 2000, Stevie Harper encouraged Alberta to build a "firewall" around itself to protect it from a Canadian Government which he claimed :
"appears content to become a second-tier socialistic country". In 2002, Harper became the leader of the re-branded Reform Party who now referred to them selves as the "Canadian Alliance". They hoped the new euphemistic name would  gather more centre-right votes and credibility east of Alberta. They were wrong.

In 2003, Peter MacKay was elected the last leader of the floundering Progressive  Conservative Party.  He won leadership on the condition that he not negotiate an amalgamation with the Harper Reform/Alliance party. MacKay made this promise then promptly broke it after assuming the P.C. leadership. This Enabled Steve the Reformist to take control Of the Progressive Conservatives. He promptly dropped the "Progressive" moniker and by usurping the Conservative name, The Reform Party was finally able to gain the attention of voters outside of Alberta, not realizing that Harper was a Reformist in Conservative clothing. 

So never EVER forget fellow Canadians, Stevie Harper was, is and will always be a Reform Partyist. The Conservative Party of today, is simply the old Reform Party, re-branded once again.

And in case you've forgotten, Stephen The Reformist Harper believes in:

-Privatizing our health-care system which would result in a multi-tiered health-care system that would see those with the most money able to buy their way to the front of the line of the best health services while the rest of us would have to make do with understaffed, underfunded, feces infested health clinics.

-Privatizing our education system which, like the health system, would create a multi-tiered system with the rich able to purchase the best education and the rest of us making do with substandard materiel and curriculum. We would all be "just" educated enough to run the machines for Corporate Canada. Consider just how
inequitable our current private University system is.

- Union Busting Meaning that all the services listed above would be non unionized with no protection for employees or clients working for substandard wages while delivering the maximum profits to the private companies running them. This would be the same throughout industry. No unions means no employee protection, no minimum wages and few if any employee rights.

- Removal of all government regulations pertaining to Big Banks and Big Business Again, this would give Corporate Canada carte-blanch to do business as it sees fit at the expense of it's employees and each and every natural resource and asset Canada currently protects.

- Removal of all trade barriers which would give huge multi-national corporations free access to all of our assets and resources. It would be an open invitation to big business to come and rape our country and exploit our children.

- Harper Condemned our lack of support for the invasion of Iraq which in his mind, meant that Canada missed out in the wild and wooly privatization of Iraq, it's oil fields, it's  education, it's health care and it's security. So Stevie would have us perpetually at war. We are leaving Afghanistan in time for Libya. This allows Steve to drape himself in the Flag of Canadian Nationalism while being in on the ground floor of the whole-sale privatization of war ravaged countries.  THIS is why Harper wants to buy F-35 jets and increase spending on the military: Not for the defense of the arctic but for U.S./NATO led war profiteering. 

Yes fellow Canadians, this is our friend Stephen the Reformist. We elected him. His intentions are clear. We can either stop him, or allow him to turn us all into a herd of cattle who are being led blindly and passively to the slaughter, all for the consumption of Corporate Canada.

Thoughts on Stephen Harper and the Israeli Apartheid

It's interesting to note that in the last half century, there have been only five Conservative Prime Ministers. Four of them have been of the Progressive variety. The fifth and current one, well...is Conservative in name only. The current Neo-Con party being nothing more than just another twisted  incarnation of the old Reform/Alliance Party who have used and bastardized the name "Conservative".

But two of those Progressive Prime Ministers, John Diefenbaker and Brian Mulroney were strong ant-apartheid advocates. In fact, it was Mr. Diefenbaker who was instrumental in having South Africa removed from the Commonwealth of Nations for it's refusal to abandon apartheid. These men took a strong stance against a sister nation and co-member of the Commonwealth because they believed it was doing something that was inherently wrong.

I don't believe that either of these Canadian Prime Ministers considered them selves to be the enemy of South Africa. Probably far from it.  Both Canada and South Africa share a democratic and legal tradition that stems from our former mother country of England. We are basically, siblings in the global community. Our societies may be quite distinct, but our values remain very similar. But this didn't stop either Mr. Diefenbaker or Mr. Mulroney, both of whom wore the Progressive label with pride,  from doing what they thought was the right thing.

Today, there is another kind of apartheid going on. This time in Israel. Long simmering hostilities have left the dominant Jewish people of that nation in control and they have gradually, over time, reduced their Palestinian brethren to second class status. They have been sequestered on small parcels of land in an already tiny country. And even these parcels of land are being infringed upon by the Israeli state to the point where Palestinians are now essentially imprisoned and impoverished in their own land.  

This is not a state of affairs that anyone deliberately set out to accomplish. This is a region that has a history of hostility dating back thousands of years. In modern times, the Israeli's- our friends and allies- have fought war after war in an effort to maintain their nation status. As a result, fear, paranoia and hatred have become realities of Israeli existence and it has eventually lead to the current situation with respect to the Palestinians. 

Yes, Israel since it's inception, has been considered a friend and an ally. We here in North America remain strongly connected to the "Holy Land" because of our religious traditions. That and the fact that Israel is a fellow democratic nation that has drawn it's citizenry from all over the world, including Canada. But our friends have crossed a line and have taken the notion of their right to exist to such an extreme as to have inflicted this horrible apartheid on their Palestinian citizens. Yet instead of chastising our friend and Global neighbor for their current state of affairs, our Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, who in reality exists too far out into right field as to be considered a Conservative, has taken the stance that the State of Israel can do no wrong. His attitude seeming to be that: "you stick by your friends no matter what" - and more disturbingly,he  has conveyed the message that anyone who criticizes Israel is probably Anti-Semitic.  

This seems to be an "all-or-nothing" kind of behaviour from our Prime Minister. When it first came to light that Afghan detainees handed over to the local authorities by Canadian troops were being tortured, Mr. Harper blustered on in Parliament that any member of the opposition or the press who was concerned about this issue was more concerned about the well being of the enemy then of our men and women in uniform. These critics most certainly, were absolutely un-Canadian! All or nothing with Mr. Harper. Blind, unconditional support, no matter the cost.

The Prime Minister has stated proudly and categorically that his Government will take several unpopular stances regarding it's foreign policy and will not bow to every "petty dictator who has a vote at the U.N.". A disturbing thought this, that our state leader considers the U.N. to be riddled with petty dictators. This might be a case of sour grapes resulting from Harper's shame-faced inability to gain a seat at the Security Counsel last fall, a seat that was ours to lose. Or it could be a case of twisted convictions/ a psychiatric disorder that renders him incapable of perceiving right from wrong.

What ever the cause of Mr. Harper's "all-or-nothing" world view, it has led to such heinous situations as our government blocking Asbestos from being listed as a hazardous substance by the U.N. (there's that U.N. connection again) because we make boat-loads of cash from shipping it to developing nations. And it has earned Canada the label of "Rogue Nation" by the E.U. So I guess it makes sense then that our Rogue Government would unconditionally support another Rogue Government, Israel.

Oh What a Canada Day!!!

An Iconic Canadian song from some good ol Boys from my Home town of Hamilton Ontario.