My Open Letter to Joyce Murray. . . .

Dear Ms Murray

Like many Canadians of all different political stripes, I got involved in the new open leadership process of the Liberal Party of Canada. Though my politics are considerably left of the LPC, I was still eager to support this experiment in democracy. In addition to my political curiosity at a new process of leadership election, I was also compelled to support you for the position of leader. My inclination to lend you my support had a number of motives including the call from environmental activist David Suzuki. Furthermore, I think gender equality in politics is important to our future and the last thing we need is another white man in a suit leading a federal political party, particularly at a time of such diversity. The concepts of political compromise and cooperation, as well as sustainability are also very important to me and you have been the only candidate for the Liberal Party leadership that has really discussed such issues. Even if my personal politics tend toward being significantly left of the present incarnation of the Federal Liberal Party, I would see the election of a leader who promotes greater democracy and cooperation as a good thing for all Canadians, regardless of their political positions.

However, despite these important issues I must admit that I am in something of a quandary regarding the leadership race. I admit to being deeply disturbed by the fact that you once sat in the cabinet of Gordon Campbell. With the exception of the present Harper Government, I consider the Liberal Party dynasty of Campbell/Clark to be the closest thing to a criminal organization in Canadian Politics today. The BC Liberal Party's concerted attack on organized labour, their disregard for collective bargaining and human rights in general, as well as their shocking distain for protection of the environment make the current Liberal Party of BC a fundamentally anti-democratic party that is so wrapped up in the current global corporatism (which is, at its core, both anti-human and anti-humane) that any association with this government really should render someone unfit to serve in a political capacity. Just as I believe that the entire Federal Leadership of the Conservative Party belongs in prison rather than the House of Commons, due to their attack on democracy, the environment, and human rights; I aslo believe that the BC Liberal Party and those who have served in it belong on trial for what constitutes various crimes against humanity.

Thus, though I would like to see a woman at the helm of a Federal Political party, and though you speak well (and I hope honestly) about political cooperation and reform, as well as sustainability, I suspect that I will be compelled to disengage from the Liberal Party's new experiment in democracy given your close political association with a criminal such as Gordon Campbell. Campbell and Clark represent everything that you claim to distain in politics, they play dirty politics at every level and have a depressing disregard for political, human, and labour rights. Though the political line of scrimmage has admittedly shifted to the right over the past generation,   this shift cannot stand in our way of pursuing principles that have long been recognized as important not only in Canada but internationally. The current attack on such things as the Rand Formula, (by Federal Conservatives as well as BC Liberals) demonstrate a disregard for the very rights we should be standing up to protect. Speaking up for sustainability and cooperation is all good and well, but such a political effort must include recognition of the various ways that multi-national corporations (with the assistance of political parties) are attacking the environment as well as the rights and future prosperity of working people. Environmental sustainability means nothing without the recognition of workers rights and prosperity against the backdrop of ever expanding corporate profits. Thus, if you really believe in the principles you so glibly pontificate about in the public sphere, you surely must condemn leaders like Campbell and Clark who are diametrically opposed to such principles. Furthermore, before we can believe that you really stand for such principles you must explain to voters how you could sit in the cabinet of such an immoral anti-democrat.

KirbyCairo.

We Miss You Roy . . .

This anniversary of the death of my ol' dad seems to have arrived and passed in a strange, dreamlike state. As the time passes it seems more and more unreal that he is gone.

My dad and I were partners in the crime of being misfits. The great bond that we shared is that we never really fit in anywhere, and so we spent a lifetime commiserating over out mutual outsider status.

I have fallen a very long way since Roy left us. But I struggle along.  I cannot open a book, draw a single line, or write a word without an internal nod to all that he taught me and all that we shared. He was the most thoroughly human man I have ever known. Almost entirely self-educated, he weaved through his intellectual weaknesses with a genuine joy for learning and a real pleasure of reading and writing. The heights of his joys were great, and the depths of his lows were genuine anguish. But through it he just loved being alive. The sound of the breeze on a summer day, the color of the sky on an autumn evening; these brought him inestimable pleasure through even his darkest moments. And for that I admire him.

I miss you Roy, every single day.

How Embarrassing Can This Get?

I find the idea that Jim Flaherty is pressuring financial institutions not to lower mortgage rates sadly amusing. I have always said that the conservatives don't really believe in "free-markets." Their real commitment is to well controlled markets manipulated in the interests of the rich. I guarantee that if mortgage rates were at 15 or 16 percent Flaherty wouldn't be making any calls of pressure to financial institutions telling them to lower their rates. And if people were losing their houses all over the place, the HarperCons would tell us that it is unfortunate and all but such events are just market corrections and interference would only make things worse.

Let's not forget that this is "deficit" Jim Flaherty, the man who, despite claims that he opposes deficit spending on principle, appears to be congenitally incapable of balancing a budget. When he was minister of finance in Ontario he left a five billion dollar deficit even in times of relative prosperity. And then, on becoming the federal finance minister, he told people not to invest in Ontario out of personal spite at the Liberal government that threw him and his incompetent cohorts our to office.

This government really is beginning to look downright embarrassing  And as I watch them scramble and squirm they are finally looking like the typical scandal-ridden government that is on its way toward real humiliation at the box office. As everyone who is familiar with Canadian politics, government lose elections rather than oppositions winning them. And watching the Prime Minister chimping it up for a disgraced MP who has been kicked out for what is clearly criminal activity is almost pathetic. And what pushed it over the edge toward just plain embarrassing was listening to a PM say that a disgraced MP who illegially bought an election which he won by only 79 votes was the "best PM" the province has "ever had."

WOW!

I once stood in a used car lot and the salesman told me that the Chrysler minivan was "the best product ever made." I knew at that moment never to buy a car from that guy. Would you by a used car (or a disgraced MP) from this guy?

Thugs, Mugs, and Golden Tugs; Tell me why I don't like Monday. . .

A few thoughts on a chilly March Monday. Only two days from spring yet we are expecting 20 to 30 meters of snow. So it goes.

Today in the HuffPost we have an article in which Bill Gates tells us that capitalism has gone off its rails. Of course, billionaires like Gates, Soros, and Richard Branson need to believe that Capitalism, in Branson's words, has "lost its way," because it this kind of global instability and inequality is what is at the heart of capitalism then these guys have chosen the wrong side of history.  I would humbly correct the titans of industry and tell them that rather than losing its way, capitalism has just entered a new phase. The globalizing phase of capitalism represents a whole new opportunity for international exploitation of workers and the environment. As political borders mean less and less and politicians become the servants of multinational corporations, it simply becomes more and more difficult for people to oppose the worst abuses of capital. In a time when capitalists (at least in the Western, capitalist nations,) depended upon their own working-class as both producers and consumers, it gave the working-class a position from which to fight against their exploitation. Now we simply have a race to the bottom as capitalist to global labour market in a war of all against all. As far as the rich are concerned, capitalism has found its way rather than lost it, and the way it toward environmental distraction and growing inequality everywhere. And we are, to use the old English phrase, their mugs (those who will be their victims).

Meanwhile the group of incompetent, ragtag, thugs that we have the misfortune to call a Federal Government are continuing the raping and pillaging of our nation. Kevin Page, the Parliamentary Budget officer, talked recently about the thuggish intimidation he suffered at the hands of the Harpercons who will do ANYTHING to silence critics and turn people away from the facts. This government is little more than a petty, thirdworld-style dictatorship which is precisely what they claim they despise. They lie, they cheat, they silence, they marginalize, and they seek a world in which a small, wealthy minority have complete power over a desperately impoverished majority.

And today Harper and his buffoons think (boy is that an exaggeration  that all we need is the right kind of pipeline technology and a few Golden Tugboats and we will have no danger of the complete destruction of the BC coastline in a historically large series of oil spills. They conveniently overlook the fact that the billions of dollars that they supposedly are going to spend on safety constitute huge sums of corporate welfare (many, many times more than is spent on average people who really need help).

The irony is, of course, that it is technology that has, in large part, caused us to enter than new phase of capitalism I spoke of. As technology increases, individual entrepreneurship becomes less and less a central mechanism of capitalism. The entry requirements for more and more markets become too much for individuals to become meaningful players (it would take literally billions of dollars to start a new car company for example.) The simple truth is, if you understand what is going on, the so-called market plays less and less a part in the working of capitalism as governments become de facto working-partners of the richest corporations.

But then, most people don't understand what is going on.

So it goes.

ESP, Fuhrers, and a Naked John Baird. . . .

I can predict the future. I am no psychic, just of a practical turn of mind, politically speaking.

I predict that Justin Trudeau will be elected leader of the Liberal Party! Yes, I know, pretty bold of me eh? But wait, there's more. I also predict that after his elected leader the Conservative Party will launch a series of attacks on him.

Ok, ok, so I won't get any interesting odds on my prediction from a bookie. Everyone in the country who is not currently in a coma probably shares this prosaic prediction.

But here is where the predictions will get interesting, as well as the odds. The real question that is on everyone's minds is what happens next. What kind of attack with the Conservatives mount and how will people react. Presumably the Conservative attack dogs have something more up their sleeves than digging up a couple of old Trudeau quotes about Albertans running the country.

"But what could it be?" we all wonder. Will they attack Trudeau for who is father was? Probably a bad bet. Will they attack his good-looks, or suave demeanour? Inexperience?

Who knows. But we can be sure that they will find something to go after.

But then the question becomes how will people react. I thought that the Conservative attacks of Dion would backfire. And they did to a small degree. But Dion was an awkward, milquetoast of a guy and let's face it he was a rather easy target. The attacks on Ignatieff showed no backlash but then there was something slightly sinister and troubling about the Professor and the public never really took to him.

The game has changed since the last round of Conservative attacks. For one thing they have never had to go after a young, suave, good-looking, well-liked Liberal leader. They have not have to attack a leader while they in a majority position. And let's face it a minority gives a government the excellent excuse of a potential impending election to attack the opposition. But most importantly, the Conservatives have now become an embattled government, one that is now a story of corruption as much (if not considerably more) as the one they replaced. Personal attacks by the Conservatives on a young, well-liked, well-spoken guy like Trudeau whose policies seem at this point to be not, in fact, very different from the Conservatives themselves, could be a very dangerous prospect.

We can be sure that they will attack, they can't help it, it is in their DNA. And as it becomes evident that they are in some political struggle, they will only get more desperate and dangerous to themselves. Oh man, I wish I really was psychic but I guess I will have to just watch it unfold with the rest of the mortals. But if I HAD to make a prediction, I see a shirtless John Baird swinging from the chandeliers in the House, Flaherty mumbling to himself, while the fuhrer himself goose-steps up and down the aisle doing his best Charlie Chaplin imitation from "The Great Dictator."

Harper and His Cabal, When Men get Desperate. . .

I haven't watched the thursday political panel on The National for a while but I caught it yesterday and was somewhat surprised by what I heard. The conversation was further evidence that the political mood is changing. Chantal Hébert said that it seems clear now that even Harper and Flaherty can no longer believe that their government is in anyway transparent, and that they must surely understand that their cabal is considerably more opaque that any previous government. Andrew Coyne took up the conversation from there and suggested essentially that Harper is gradually becoming something of a liability to the Conservatives as he paints himself further and further into a corner. Coyne said that there is a core of support of about 30% below which Harper probably can't drop and an upper level of about 40% above which he could never go. Now, while Coyne is correct that Harper, like most autocrates, has a core of support below which he can't drop, I am fairly certain that it is considerably lower than 30%. I believe that it is probably closer to 20% than 30%. In fact, the latest Nanos survey puts Harper's government very close to 30% and if one follows the graph he is still dropping. But wherever you put the core support of Harper and his cabal, Coyne is correct that there is growing voter fatigue with what, even Conservative supporters must understand, is the most secretive and nefarious government in our history. Furthermore  Coyne is correct that this voter fatigue is on the upswing and it will eventually become an insurmountable problem for Harper and the Conservative Party if he continues down this path of secretiveness and aggressive attacks of everything and everyone that opposes them.

I am fairly certain that even a few months ago we would not have heard this kind of matter of fact talk from a guy like Andrew Coyne. This change has come about, I believe, because like Christy Clark's Liberal government in BC, Harper's government is on that downward swing towards unpopularity. And while Harper's stonewalling, secretive style has been relatively effective while he was not perceived to be the leader of a corrupt government of patronage and pork, now that his government is in fact becoming associated with exactly this, his style is becoming counter productive. In other words, a secretive, aloof personality might be perceived as strength in a righteous leader, but in a corrupt one such traits are bound to be perceived  as weak paranoia. And though Coyne didn't use these words, it was exactly this phenomenon to which he was pointing.

In a case like that of Christy Clark, it is probably too late. It dosen't matter what she does at this point because everything she does will be perceived as a desperate effort to cling to power. But Coyne was suggesting that Harper still has a chance to recover if he changes his tune now. The problem is that one surely has to doubt if Harper could change this basic MO of his entire political life. To believe that such a change is possible one would have to believe that Harper's secretive, aloof, and aggressive style is a political affectation adopted for strategic reasons. However, most of us are convinced that these traits are central to Harper's very identity and that as he slowly loses support and an election loss looks to be inevitable. Harper will only get worse as his paranoia takes over his political life.

It is this very point which seems to have motivated Steve Pakin's latest article in which he suggests that Harper might soon resign rather than face a gradual decline into ignominy. While I appreciate Pakin's thoughts on this subject, I think he is overlooking the degree of darkness in Stephen Harper's soul. I am not convinced that Harper has the ability to favor the interest of his Party over his own interests. Niether am I convinced that Harper will ever willingly give up power, even if he lost an election I suspect that Harper and his cabal would seek to keep power through some illegal move, particularly if he lost to someone whose last name is Trudeau.

Aboriginal Peoples, Stockwell Day and Nauseating Racism. . .

If you had the misfortune of seeing Stockwell Day on Power and Politics this evening then you are probably as nauseated as I am. The so-called "Power Panel" predictably addressed the report by Howard Sapers from the Office of the Correctional Investigator concerning the relationship of Aboriginal Peoples to the Injustice system. Howard Sapers, with language not nearly strong enough in my opinion, rightly pointed out that there existed a "systemic discrimination" within the system against aboriginal peoples.

Perhaps even more predictably, my blood began to boil as the lightweight Evan Solomen questioned Stockwell Day concerning this issue and the former leader of the Canadian Alliance told Canadians that it is all a simple matter of "personal responsibility." Day told us that Aboriginal people are in prison at a greater rate because they fail to take personal responsibility for their own lives. Having learned at least a little bit from his years of gaffs in public, Day was careful to make a comparison between different native communities rather than between aboriginal communities and "white" ones. He told us that in those communities where natives have taken 'personal responsibility' they have a much lower crime rate and if only all the communities would adopt this simple solution all would be well.

Day, of course, was careful to avoid addressing the simple issue that by and large those Aboriginal communities which have particularly lower crime rates are those few which are significantly more prosperous, for one reason or another, that others. Thus Day avoided the real implications of his typically conservative opinions, to wit: there are essentially only two choices to explain the fact that Aboriginal peoples represent a much larger portion of the prison population than they do within the general population. Either, A: Aboriginal peoples are inherently more prone to criminal activity than other groups in our country or B: there is a social cause to the high Aboriginal Crime rates. Now option A is inherently racist, but option B is a revelation that no conservative ever wants to admit. Thus Day attempted, unsuccessfully I believe, to thread the needle between these two and so talked about how some Aboriginal Communities have "taken responsibility" while others have not and thus are experiencing greater crime rates.  However, the racist implications should still be glaring regardless of Day's soft-shoe effort. It doesn't matter how carefully Day might construct his comparisons, the fact is that the implications of his position are that native people are in prison because they will not take personal responsibility for themselves and if this failure is not the result of social-economic inequities and centuries of oppression then it must be simply due to the fact that aboriginal peoples are inherently criminal in their outlook. There is simply no way of escaping this racist conclusions of Day's position.

There is, of course, a grand irony with Day's evasion of the real implications of his own opinons, and that is that he doesn't even address the issues behind the Howard Sapers report. To avoid the implications of the problem of 'systemic discrimination' Stockwell Day talked around awkwardly in circles. However, the real issues that Sapers' report points to are that aboriginal peoples not only have uncharacteristically high rates of incarceration because of chronic underfunding of health and eduction for Aboriginal peoples but also because working-class and racialized people are always disadvantaged in legal systems which favor those with the economic power to avoid indictment and prosecution within the system. People with less economic power, whether that is a result of racism or simply economic inequalities, always have higher incarceration rates in part because they can't afford the expensive lawyers etc. Furthermore, this says nothing about the fact that the laws themselves are designed to criminalize certain behaviours while ignoring much so-called "white-collar" crime, such as the fraud in which our own Senators seem to be routinely engaged.

The Conservatives will obviously never publicly admit the racist implications of their opinions and policies. Furthermore, they want us to believe that there are never any social roots of crime, nor that the government policies ignore certain kinds of activity in which richer, more powerful people are engaged. And of course, no one, even more liberally minded people want to admit that if you are rich you have a much greater chance of avoiding serving time in jail for crimes which send poorer people to prison for years.

The simple fact is that if you don't realize that the Injustice system is systemically discriminatory then you just aren't paying attention. And if you can listen to Stockwell Day for more than a couple of seconds without feeling sick to your stomach, you are either not too bright or you have a very strong constitution.