Is the Movie "Interstellar" Liberal or Conservative? (Subliminal Messages)

 I suspect that Interstellar's hidden message may be conservative, despite the seemingly liberal image of the Earth's environment collapsing.

This is not a review of the movie, it is an analysis of the hidden messages in the movie, and whether it is mainly conservative or liberal.  So there will be spoilers below.  And by the way, I don't think that the bias in the message is severe enough to spoil the movie for anyone.  I barely noticed it at the time.

On the face of it, we have America unable to feed itself, with the return of giant dust storms like the 1930's.  But more than just America, in the movie "Interstellar", the entire world is in the same state of environmental decline, and humans will not be able to survive another generation.

This could  be a liberal message because Liberals believe in global warming, and apparently, conservatives don't.  But actually, I think it is made clear in the movie that this destruction of the Earth is caused by blight or diseases ruining the crops.  If you are a die-hard Conservative, you can then assume that dead crops may be causing these dust storms, and not global warming.  However, this argument can be taken either way.  For example the severity of the Mountain Pine Beetle's recent destructiveness may be linked to climate change.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_pine_beetle


I hope I'm not misrepresenting the conservative point of view, but I think the Conservative point of view is sometimes stated like this: "we do not need to be careful of the environment, because human ingenuity will find a way to save us no matter how much destruction we cause."

I will put a quote and a link here to a conservative website doing a similar political analysis of this movie:

"there isn’t the slightest doubt that Nolan’s view of climate change is that it is simply another of the many environmental situations that man is equipped to cope with. In the context of the film, this means extreme actions that make for cinematically exciting scenes, but on an allegorical level Nolan is saying, “Mankind has the creativity to respond to crises, even global ones."

http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2014/11/07/5-conservative-themes-hidden-in-interstellar/4/

Is it truly a conservative viewpoint, that if the Earth is failing, we do not need to save the whole planet, we simply need save Humans, probably by getting us off planet Earth? And is it truly a liberal attitude that we need to preserve our planet because we believe that Humans are just evolved monkeys and therefore we are not smart enough to invent a way to survive? If so, then this movie's hidden message really is conservative. Because in the movie, mankind does discover two ways to survive beyond planet Earth.  At the end we see these giant spaceships, complete with farms, where people are living with no need for planet Earth.  And the movie also presents the possibility of colonizing one of the planets on the other side of the worm hole.

As a liberal watching the movie, I admit that I was simply not convinced that either of these survival plans was really possible.   I guess if I was a conservative, I may look at the movie thinking those survival strategies are reasonable, and that the destruction of the Earth is the really unlikely scenario. But it's the ending of the movie that points to the hidden message being truly conservative.  Those huge orbiting space colonies are the result of the scientific work by Murphy, solving the riddle of gravity, and thereby allowing humans to build these giant structures and lift them off the earth without much trouble.  But as far as I'm concerned, overcoming gravity is no more likely than black magic or holy miracles at this time.

Then, in case gravity was not defeated, "plan B", was to fly through a worm hole to another habitable planet.  But Plan B would not allow any more than a handful of existing humans  to survive. Those handful of humans that take this trip could take human genetic material to the new planet, and so regenerate the human race again, similar to Noah and the Ark.  Again, I am not aware of any theories that humans, or anything, really could get through a worm hole if they really exist.  So I think both Plan A and Plan B are just cop outs without any real scientific basis.

So we come back to planet Earth, and the big question: is it worth preserving or should we simply exploit our planet to the maximum then bug out?  What I find strangest is that preserving the Earth has become a Liberal point of view in recent years, while developing technology to escape the Earth used to be the Liberal point of view.  In the past, Conservatives were really all about "conserving" and liberals were all about scientific discoveries (such as evolution, DNA, nuclear physics, and the Earth is not flat).  Ironically, the people most intent on self destructing planet Earth today are not the scientists, they are the religious nuts who believe the end of times are at hand, and their political allies, the Conservatives.  But the theoretical scientists are the ones who have the best chance of inventing the technology needed to save us, and they are mostly liberal, working outside the corporate culture of short term profitability.

Birdwatching Can Get Political... if you are in Canada.

Mary Ann and I both belong to a club called the Kitchener Waterloo Field Naturalists.  It would be unkind of me to call them (I mean us) birdwatchers, because we are much more. In addition to watching, and counting, species of birds, we are also watching trees, flowers, mosses, insects, fungi, salamanders and lichen.  And probably a lot more, since I am not one of the most observant members of that club.

It came to my attention that there was a CBC news item about the club.  The story is that the Federal Tax department (CRA) sent a letter to the KWFN, warning them to not get too political. Apparently, the club had sent a letter or two to politicians, urging that (a) bees were at risk due to some chemical spray, and (b) the Ontario Government should not water down the "Endangered Species Act".

The CBC news item
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/revenue-canada-targets-birdwatchers-for-political-activity-1.2799546

The letter from the CRA to the KWFN
www.kwfn.ca/CRA_Items/CRA_Letter_2014.pdf

Now, I know that feelings can sometimes start running high about threats of a tax audit. At least one member of the club was willing to speak to CBC reporters about his feelings of being muzzled by the Federal Government (in the embedded video).

On the other hand, you have level headed internet commenters like 123noitall saying
"Follow the rules like everyone else...or drop your charitable status and do it on your own."

I want to take an objective position here, and try to be fair about this news story.  First, the CRA did in their letter admit that the KWFN had done nothing wrong.  So why did the KWFN get a warning letter?  Because in their official financial statement, they had reported 0 dollars under political expenses.  Since writing two letters can easily cost you a few dollars postage*, the CRA merely was reminding the club that it should report this as a political expense.  The Federal government has decided it is political to write a letter to politicians urging them to pass or amend laws. And once the political expenses get over 10% of your budget, you are deemed too political, and must abandon your tax free status.  The KWFN also had a speaker at one meeting talking about the tar sands, and urged members via their website to look into the David Suzuki "Blue Dot" tour.  All these things could cost money- so many megabytes of web space, and honorariums for speakers.

*A further wrinkle is that you are allowed to send mail postage free within Canada to the Government under these rules, which I'm not sure if they apply to provincial governments:
http://www.canadapost.ca/tools/pg/manual/PGgovtmail-e.asp

The CRA, for its own part also has to be very careful to not give the appearance of partisan bias.  So they have to be very careful to investigate conservative bird watching clubs just as much as liberal bird watching clubs.  It's the same when they are investigating millions of dollars being hidden offshore by wealthy Canadians.  They cannot investigate just the liberal minded tax avoiders, they must pay equal attention to conservatives hiding their money offshore. And I guess they have been pretty non-partisan about the whole thing, because the CRA don't really have the budget to investigate any offshore banking (liberal or conservative), while they do have an increase in their budget to check out virtually all birdwatching clubs in Canada for unreported political activity, liberal or conservative alike.

So I don't think there is really all that much muzzling for us free Canadian citizens to be concerned about.  As long as you correctly report your expenses when sending a letter to your member of parliament, you will be fine.

All this brouhaha is actually the fault of the Green Party. Because of their party platform, caring for the environment has become a political thing.  And if some other party opposes the Green Party, then caring for nature and the environment becomes not only political, but partisan. I predict that one day, some political party will make it a policy to destroy the environment.  From that day on, any club that enjoys preserving nature will be automatically be considered a partisan political group.

Here is a link to another blogger who has commented on this story, but he is not as even handed as I was in my judgment.
http://montrealsimon.blogspot.ca/2014/10/big-brother-harper-and-gentle.html

Picture: Steven Harper and his wife set an example, engaged in some non political birdwatching.  Ironically, he has a bird sanctuary named after him in Israel. The Stephen J. Harper Hula Valley Bird Sanctuary Visitor and Education Centre, Israel
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harper-tours-holy-sites-in-israel-visits-bird-sanctuary-named-after-him/article16446088/

Where is the Real Disappointment?

Look at this picture of Putin for Prez. from http://secretdatabase.blogspot.ca/2014/04/putin-fair-haired-poster-boy-and.html

Are Americans nuts, or is this a Russian ploy to take over the world?

But it does seem that many Americans are disappointed with Obama.  Especially those who listen to Fox News, but the disappointment is spilling over to other outlets, such as the Washington Post and CNN. I saw part of a program on CNN titled "Is Obama the "Disappointer-in-Chief"?  And then I found an article on the Washington Post website titled "Barack Obama, disappointer in chief"  by Aaron David Miller.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/barack-obama-disappointer-in-chief/2014/10/10/eeb90022-48ac-11e4-b72e-d60a9229cc10_story.html

Speaking as a Canadian, who was relieved to see Obama win the 2008 election, I am not disappointed.  Well, at least I am not disappointed by Obama except for one thing, there should have been some major prison sentences for the Bank CEO's who instead got huge bonuses from the bailout.  But since I didn't pay for that bailout with my taxes, I guess I have nothing to complain about.

But I can understand why many Americans feel disappointment.  They look at presidents like George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and JFK and they think that Obama simply doesn't measure up.  Washington was the military genius who defeated Britain in the war of independence, Lincoln freed the slaves, FDR ended the depression and won two wars (counting Germany and Japan separately), JFK was a very nice looking president who would have done more if they had not killed him.  Compared to those guys, Obama seems to be just a pretender to the title of Best. President. Ever.

But let me set the record straight.  Those other presidents are historical figures, while Obama is a current events kind of guy (for now).  If you move forward about 100 years, Obama will still be known as the first black president in US history.  And, if I guess right, there should be less racism in the US than there is today, so it is quite possible that history books will be very kind to Barack Obama, just as they were to those other guys.  And a lot kinder than Fox News, CNN and Aaron David Miller. History will remember Obama as the president who gave the USA decent health care.  Of course I am assuming (going by Canada's history) that health care will not bankrupt the United States.  And in 100 years, he will still be the president who got Osama Bin Laden. (If anyone asks)

My own interest was mainly in recovering the US (and Canadian) economy, which was teetering on the brink of collapse. Actually, I'm pretty sure that the Republicans under Palin and McCain would have recovered the economy too, as they were already involved in bailing out the banks under President Bush.

But now I'm starting to worry that the Republicans will gain power yet again, and start another war and crash the economy like they did last time.  Especially if they cannot learn any lessons from the Democrats who were able to steer the country away from disaster under Obama.

And P.S. for the Fox News announcers wailing that we need Mr. Putin as president of the U.S.A.   Are you nuts?  It's one thing to whine about everything Obama does, from mustard on a hamburger to his high(normal)-rise blue jeans.  But to wish for Putin as president?  Well, I'm sure he would "get things done", but he is now pretty much a dictator in his home country of Russia, and seems to have the same power as the Communist party did in the past.  Are you really willing to give up freedom so easily just to be able to scare a few Arab terrorists in the Middle East?  Now, that is disappointing.

The Bowe Bergdahl Controversy Real or Fake?

American soldier, Sgt Bowe Bergdahl is returning home after 5 years in captivity by the Taliban.  And when he gets home, it seems he will be the centre of a controversy pitting Republicans vs Democrats.  If the story so far is any indication, controversy will be based not on fair minded analysis, but on the ongoing US political propaganda war.

Up to now, I have found that there is a damaging propaganda war, creating storms of controversy about everything from the death of the US ambassador in Benghazi, to the use of spicy mustard on the President's hamburger, to the high waisted jeans he wore to throw the first pitch at a baseball game.  Texas has threatened to secede from the union, Generals in the field have been fired for showing lack of respect to the Commander in Chief. Congress is at a virtual stalemate.

Is this new controversy real or is it all made up nonsense?  I confess that I have a certain bias toward Obama, as I think he has actually done very well, although even the killing of Osama Bin Laden was turned into propaganda against Obama, and a vindication of everything the previous Republican administration had achieved.  If that can be made into a propaganda point, what can be made of Bowe Bergdahl?

The Democrat's side of Bowe Bergdahl's case,  is this.  He was the only US prisoner of war still held by the Taliban, and so they did a prisoner exchange to bring him home.  If not, he would have been left behind after the US withdrawal, and probably died due to declining health or some other unspecified immediate threat.

The Republican side is this.  Bowe snuck away from the base in Afghanistan, leaving behind a letter he wrote criticizing the US conduct of the war.  Then six soldiers died in trying to find him and bring him home safely.  Now the president of the USA is encouraging more deserters, and has broken tradition by negotiating with terrorists, and releasing five highly dangerous terrorists from Guantanamo, so that they can go and fight again and kill more Americans.

It is shocking to me that six soldier could have died on a mission to rescue a deserter.  If I was in charge of the military in Afghanistan, I would have said "It's not worth it, let him go!".  But it seems more realistic when I see that the military orders were this: If you hear that Bergdahl might be in a certain village, on your next patrol, take a closer look at that village for any signs of his presence.  This makes more sense to me, because most of the time, soldiers are not really sure of which village to patrol, but they need to patrol something, and the rumour of an American presence is enough reason to take a peek and ask a few questions.  Two soldiers were ambushed while patrolling a village where they also thought Bergdahl may be hiding, but I don't think that was much different than the usual casualties while on patrol.  Apparently four other soldier died when their base was attacked, and the argument from Republicans is that this would not have happened if soldiers were not out on patrol looking for Bergdahl.

So in the end, is it a rational argument based on what is good for the country, or is it irrational political propaganda designed to hamstring the current President and administration?

About the 6 soldiers dying, I don't really see how Obama could be blamed.  In fact, if it was true, and he could have been blamed, this controversy would have hit the fan five years ago, when it actually happened.  So the 6 dead soldiers were not directly caused by Obama's actions nor are they any reason why a soldier might be denied the right to return home in a prisoner exchange.

About the desertion, I think the controversy is premature.  I don't think there has actually been a statement by the military that Bowe Bergdahl is not going to be declared a deserter after a court-martial.  But again, I don't see how it's Obama's fault that Bergdahl has not already been shot for desertion. Time will tell for this one, and it would be nice to have a court martial first.

About releasing Taliban prisoners, well it seems about time, as the war is almost over. At a certain point, you need to either free them or execute them.  What else are you going to do?

It seems reasonable to ask questions and point out lack of judgment by the President.  But in a partisan frenzy, you can stray too far from reason, and then dissent becomes bad for the country and for the democratic process.

Picture: Jani and Bob Bergdahl, family members awaiting the return.

The Harper Doctrine: A Talk at CIGI by John Ibbitson

Last night I attended a talk at CIGI in Waterloo by John Ibbitson http://www.cigionline.org/events/harper-doctrine-conservative-foreign-policy-revolution.

The title was The Harper Doctrine: A Conservative Foreign-Policy Revolution.  FYI: Harper is Canada's current Prime Minister, and the person responsible for changes in Canada's foreign policy in the last 7 years.

Although I consider John Ibbitson to be a conservative leaning  (http://withinacertaindistance.blogspot.ca/2012/06/someone-fire-john-ibbitson-please.html)  columnist, and it was -15c, I went anyway, as Mary Ann wanted to go.

My initial thought was that Harper has no original foreign policy.  He simply mimics the foreign policy of the right wing USA, especially Republicans, but to some extent the Democrats too.  For example, he matches the Republicans disdain for the UN, their dismantling of the Kyoto agreement, and their one-sided support for Israel.  He seems to want Canada to cease being a peacekeeper, and become a combat-hardened nation like the US, I assume to help them in  foreign wars.  He even uses the catch phrases of the Republicans like "we won't cut and run".

In his talk, Ibbitson started off by stating that he had come to the conclusion that there was no Harper doctrine and that anyway, doctrines are actually associated with superpowers.  Later on, he stated that Harper's love for Israel developed when he was a teenager, and was not simply a ploy to grab the Jewish vote.  And I assume he was trying to imply without actually coming out and saying it, that Harper was not necessarily copying US foreign policy. I still think that's debatable.

During the talk, Ibbitson took a big swipe at the Province of Quebec for it's newly proposed legislation banning religious garb while performing civil servant or government jobs.  According to Ibbitson, this is clearly a discriminatory practice, effectively banning religions from the teaching profession, hospitals, police etc.  I don't want to get onto a different track here, but I think there is a big difference between banning religions in government jobs and banning religious garb while on the job (and let's also remember religious garb in some cases includes the carrying of weapons).  I'm sure those religions, if they want to accommodate more secular, multicultural Canadian ways, can also find ways to modify their strict "dress codes" to allow their people to take government jobs. After all, look at the Catholic Church and how it finally allowed people to eat fish on Friday, after first making it optional on airplanes. Look at how some religions have abandoned the practice of honour killings (at least in Canada). Most of these religious dress codes are more cultural than a core religious values, but I can leave that for others to argue.  I'm not sure why Ibbitson thought he needed to bring it up, except to point out how Quebec was worse than the rest of Canada.

Ibbitson also talked about how the Conservatives had a strong and growing political coalition that now includes immigrants, the suburbs of most big Canadian cities, and the rural areas of Canada, with very strong support in the Western provinces (that are also still growing in population and influence).  He did not mention that most Canadian voters did not vote for Harper, and that in a true runoff election he would probably lose. From my own point of view, if not for the unfortunate left wing split between Liberals, Green, and NDP; the Conservatives would still be an opposition party.  And just because the west is growing does not mean that all westerners are extreme right wing conservatives like Harper.

In summary, Ibbitson referred to Canada's foreign policy from WW2 up to Harper in 2006, as "Laurentian" and Harper's foreign policy as "Conservative".  My own feeling is that the so-called "Laurentian" policy (a policy based on diplomacy, respect for the UN and world court, peacekeeping, and fairness to all) is more like a "Canadian" foreign policy, while Harper's policy is more like "mini-right wing USA" foreign policy, carried out by his puppet government supported by US oil companies and US evangelicals.  And an embarrassment to most Canadians.

So in the entire talk, which I will admit was fast paced, funny, and worth hearing, Ibbitson described Canada's political situation and foreign policy with the all the conservative assumptions and prejudices.  So it  was not necessarily a balanced view, and he never did mention how Harper's doctrine looks to be a copy of Bush's US foreign policy.  And none of the questions from the audience brought up the subject either. I suppose I shouldn't complain, as I had the opportunity to bring it up myself at the talk, but didn't.  I guess I prefer to write about it in a blog instead.

Green Party of Canada: Good or Bad Science?

Here is something I came across in the National Post.  The headline reads

"Elizabeth May’s Party of Science seems to support a lot of unscientific public policies".

I don't always vote for the Green Party, but that is mainly because we don't have runoff voting.  Your first vote better count when you vote in Canada.  I support science, and any party that also genuinely supports science.  So if it's true that the Green Party is supporting a lot of unscientific public policies, I will not vote for them.

Knowing already that the National Post runs a lot of prejudiced material supporting the Conservative Party, and knowing that many NP titles do not match the article they were pasted to, I decided to read it and see for myself whether the Green Party was science based or B.S. based.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/11/15/elizabeth-mays-so-called-party-of-science-seems-to-support-a-lot-of-unscientific-public-policies/

I would have to say first, that for once the title matched the content of the article.  And that seems to support my rule that if the title matches the URL link name, then it didn't get a make-over by the Propaganda-wise Title Editor.  So now on to the content and see if the conclusions are fair.

The first jab comes from Michael Kruse (I don't recognize the name)

“I really think the Green Party is just doing the same things everybody else does, which is to make up an idea that matches with your ideology, and then go looking for evidence to support it,” said Michael Kruse, chair of Bad Science Watch, a non-profit devoted to rooting out false science in public policy.

I had to investigate who Michael Kruse is.  Although he does not seem to be a scientist, he has set up a non-profit group called "Bad Science Watch".  I didn't see anything on the web site about global warming, but I did see something about Wifi radiation.  "Investigating ant-wifi activism in Canada."  Then I did a cross check and found that the Green Party (or Elizabeth May) has said that we rolled out wifi too quickly in schools without proving that it is harmless. So if understand correctly, that makes Elizabeth May an anti- wifi activist, and so Michael Kruse is not a really impartial scientist making his anti-Green party claim.

Furthermore, if Bad Science Watch is committed to rooting out *all* bad science in public policy, maybe they should be investigating how the Conservative government is ignoring global warming.

At this point, I have not really settled yet whether Michael Kruse is an impartial  commentator.  And so far I have only gone through about 10% of this National Post article.  I'm not sure I have the time to slog out all the remaining details, so after the first dodgy reference, I will just start to skim for glaring errors.

If it is Green Party policy to oppose new scientific technology, such as Wifi, nuclear power, genetically modified foods, coal powerplants, and tar sands development, that does not necessarily make them unscientific.  They would only be unscientific if they opposed these technologies regardless of scientific evidence.  But the Green party clearly states that they believe that much of the true unbiased scientific research has been undermined by corporate interests, with big think tanks funding pseudo scientific research to support their profitable activities.

Continuing in the rest of the NP article, I notice this:

GreenParty.ca, for instance, is host to a two-part blog post earnestly trumpeting the evidence for “abiotic oil,” a theory from Stalinist Russia that petroleum is not derived from biological matter, but is rather a geological substance dating to the origins of the earth.

I happen to think it is particularly nasty (though not unusual for the NP) that the article finds this way to link the Green Party to Stalin.  But Abiotic Oil is not a policy of the Green Party at all.

The blog they refer to is here, is written by David Bergey.  This blog is, as they said, hosted by the Green Party website.
http://www.greenparty.ca/blogs/12489/2012-08-28/more-evidence-abiotic-oil

But of the three comments following this blog post, all are dismissive of abiotic oil, mainly because it is unscientific.  And abiotic oil theory has not been the basis of any policies of the Green Party.

Picture: I found the picture  of the kitties on the internet.  I added the word "Science" to illustrate the dilemma facing scientist who are offered funding by large corporations.

Are Cost of Living Subsidies for Northern Canada Too Expensive?

Do Canadian First Nations people in the north of Canada really have too high a cost of living?  Do we need to keep subsidizing them? I want to help answer this question.  Here is a comment to start us off.

Mike Zwarich Yesterday 11:00

You have to wonder whether it would help, just a bit, if they moved to a part of Canada where it didn't cost ridiculous amounts of money to ship things to them.
When it costs $20 for a jug of milk, you know you're not going to have the standard of living that we enjoy in most of Canada.

https://plus.google.com/+NationalPost/posts

(I cannot continue without addressing the Freudian slip calling the southern part of Canada "most of Canada".  It's not most of Canada.  Now I can go on.)

In answer not only to Mike Zwarich, but to everyone I know who is at a loss about why Indians and Eskimos (or First Nations people) continue to live in that part of Canada where milk is expensive, it is not because Canadians are a stupid people.  The answer is partly in the subject of  sovereignty. I may have to explain "sovereignty" later, in the meantime you could Google it if you didn't learn it in high school history.
Now, here is a quote from a government of Canada website about our sovereignty.

http://www.northernstrategy.gc.ca/sov/index-eng.asp

With 40% of our landmass in the territories, 162,000 kilometres of Arctic coastline and 25% of the global Arctic – Canada is undeniably an Arctic nation. The Government is firmly exercising our sovereignty over our Arctic lands and waters – sovereignty that is long-standing, well-established and based on historic title, international law and the presence of Inuit and other Aboriginal peoples for thousands of years.
At the same time, international interest in the Arctic region is growing, in part as a result of possibilities for resource development, climate change and new or longer access to transportation routes. Canada is demonstrating effective stewardship and leadership internationally, to promote a stable, rules-based Arctic region where the rights of sovereign states are respected in accordance with international law and diplomacy.

I think there are two problems some Canadians have in understanding the north of Canada.  First is, most Canadians do not live there, have never even visited there, never would want to visit there even if it was an all expenses paid trip.  Most Canadians are huddled close to the US border, and spend more time wishing they could get into the US than wondering about what goes on in 90% of Canada's land territory.  Second, never take "sovereignty" for granted, no matter how uninhabitable the land is, somebody always wants it.  See how Canada is already fighting Denmark over possession of some island nobody even knew existed?  We have fought most wars over sovereignty, believe it or not.

Yes, Canada is the second largest country in the world.  Most Canadians are aware of that fact, although they do not really understand it.  We often call the 49th parallel the border between Canada and the USA, and yet most Canadian cities are on the American (or southern) side of that imaginary line called the 49th parallel.  Feel free to look that one up on a map.  I will concede Winnipeg, Regina, Saskatoon, Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver are north.  Victoria BC is south of the line, so is Toronto, Montreal, Fredericton NB, Halifax NS,  St. John's NL, and Punkeydoodles Crns., ON.  And (I'm guessing) 80% of the population of the country, along with 3 entire provinces.

Canadians think they understand that Canada is really big, yet they do not understand how much of it they have not seen, how much is almost a wilderness.  That is a problem, when you remember that most Canadians do not really understand why Canada, with a population of only 35 million (now, it used to be less) has sovereignty over this huge land mass, larger than the entire United States of America.

One way to exercise sovereignty is to buy military equipment and train a large army, navy and air force. Canada with only 35 million people, does not actually have the economic ability to do that, and still maintain a high standard of living for it's masses huddled along the border. Russia can hold its territory with a population of 144 million and 17 million square km. (8.4 people/sq km) Canada's 35 million people claim 10 million sq. km. (3.5 people/sq km).  For the Russians, claiming all that territory involved shipping millions of prisoners in chains to Siberia, raising a huge army and keeping everyone's standard of living quite low.  Canada has had a relatively easy time of it, for various reasons that I don't really know right now, but I'm sure it'll come to me.  But part of our equation would have to be our hospitals, schools, airports, harbours, the extensive maps, and the Canadians who live in the far north, and most of them are still First Nations people.

In the end, it is much cheaper and more effective to claim land by treating the First Nations people as part of Canada than to bring them south to live in squalor in Saskatoon and spending a hundred times as much money on new jet fighters.  A ten dollar litre of milk doesn't seem so expensive now, does it?

Picture: From http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/battle-for-the-arctic-heats-up-1.796010

John F Kennedy Joins Ronald Reagan in Conservative Mythology

We have just had the 50th anniversary of John F Kennedy's death.  The memory is fuzzy now, I seem to recall that it was announced by the teacher while I was in school, but I don't remember which teacher or which grade.

Now we come to a modern headline attributed to Fox News.  "JFK posthumously joins the Republican Party".  That headline appeared as a text crawl in the Simpsons cartoon a few years ago, and resulted in the cartoonist Matt Groening receiving a warning from the Fox owners that he must stop putting fake Fox News crawls on his weekly TV animation.  Apparently, because people could not tell the difference between joke news and Fox news.

Now making it much harder to tell the difference between humour and fact:  On the 50th anniversary of JFK's death, Fox News joins a "growing body of thought" that JFK was more a conservative than a liberal.

This growing body of thought is backed up by a book by Ira Stoll  "JFK, Conservative".  Here are some quotes from Kennedy's life to back up the research.

http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2013/11/22/jfk-a-conservative-12-quotes-from-the-liberal-icon-that-you-wont-believe/

I don't want to say these quotes are cherry-picked, or that they ignore famous quotes where Kennedy called himself a liberal, but let me take the worst of them for a closer look.

"5. I’d be very happy to tell them I’m not a liberal at all…I’m not comfortable with those people. Saturday Evening Post, June 1953 "

I don't actually have the book, I'm not sure if the "dot dot dot" was in the book or not.  But as a self-taught bullshit detector, I have learned to recognize telltale signs, and one of the easiest to spot for a novice is "..."


The full quote is actually

“I’m not a liberal at all. I never joined the Americans for Democratic Action—I’m not comfortable with those people.”
John F. Kennedy in the Saturday Evening Post, 1956"

from www.sonoma.edu/exed/olli/nkhandout1.pdf‎

Other than getting the wrong year, the missing "..." actually is about joining the ADA, a liberal organization that ranks politicians on a scale of 0 to 100 on their liberal views.  They were like a self appointed organization to define who was liberal and who was not, and how pure they were with the liberal agenda.  It seems to me that the "..." on this web page is being used to leave out important information rather than unimportant information.  If Kennedy refers to "being uncomfortable with those people", he is not referring to "liberals", he is referring to a specific sub-group, the ADA.  It's kind of like a conservative distancing themselves from the Tea Party.


What's next on the conservative agenda, now that JFK has joined their ranks?  I expect to see a Fox News crawl on the Simpsons "Lee Harvey Oswald posthumously joins Democratic Party".  Except, of course that the Simpsons can no longer do news crawls attributed to Fox News.

Picture: from http://www.salon.com/2013/11/22/the_rights_jfk_myth_now_they_claim_he_was_conservative/

American Exceptionalism, According to Putin

Apparently, a tempest is brewing over American Exceptionalism.  It started this way.  Syria's president, under attack by rebels, allegedly used chemical weapons (like nerve gas) to kill many innocent civilians.  President Obama, having warned Syria previously that the use of such weapons would not be tolerated, began to make preparations to bomb Syria as punishment.  This bombing did not have the approval of the UN, because Russia is an ally of Syria, and would veto the move.  Russia proposed a plan where Syria would hand over all it's chemical weapons to an international agency for destruction, and sign the international ban on the use of chemical weapons.  Obama cautiously agreed to this solution.

Next, in an unusual move, Russian President Putin took out an ad in the New York Times.  In his ad, he explained his side of the story to the American people.  He said that the chemical weapons attack was a fake by the rebels to encourage the US to bomb the Syrian Army.  And he apparently made some negative comments about "American Exceptionalism".

So what is American Exceptionalism?  There is an entry in Wikipedia to help define it, but not all Americans agree on this definition.  Apparently, to American right wing extremists, it means that America is the greatest country on Earth, and consequently, international law does not apply to them.  (One reason why the USA does not support the International Criminal Court at The Hague).  In other words, they may bomb whoever they like (e.g. Serbia), and invade any other country that they consider to be a potential threat (e.g. Iraq).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism

Putin warned that this "exceptionalism" idea is dangerous to world peace.  He probably got this idea from the Russian experience in World War 2, where they were invaded by a country whose main philosophy resembled the extremist interpretation of "American Exceptionalism".  So given the many millions of Russians killed in that war, which the Russians eventually won (With American aid, I might add), it would be natural for Putin to make such a statement.  Because whether or not American Exceptionalism is dangerous, other countries may adopt similar postures, and begin to flout international law.

But the fine points of this debate seem to be lost on the American Conservatives.  Fox News, and The American Spectator are some examples.

http://spectator.org/archives/2013/09/13/putin-exposes-the-secrets-of-a

Is American Exceptionalism real?  Well, if it ever was real, it is getting less real all the time.  The first indication of being a truly exceptional country is to have a well educated, well informed, and tolerant population.  This ignorant fury by some conservatives demonstrates just how unexceptional Americans are. Every country in the world has a portion of its people who are easily brainwashed, greedy and bloodthirsty.  We are really all the same, although Putin did also say we were also all different.

Picture: I photoshopped the statue of liberty, replacing the torch with the gun.

Conservative Theory that Trudeau is Going for the Stoner Vote

Stoner Kitty

I began to read this opinion piece online from the "Star Phoenix", and before the first paragraph was done, I was already getting that "right wing nutjob" vibe from the author, Les MacPherson.

http://www.thestarphoenix.com/news/Legalized+costly+buzz+kill+thanks+Justin/8762041/story.html

I didn't know this until I checked the internet, but yes, the Saskatoon Star Phoenix is owned by the same group as the right wing National Post.  So there is a good chance this is purposeful conservative propaganda.

Breaking down the article to its basic arguments and assumptions:

- Justin Trudeau (Liberal Leader) is promising to legalize pot in order to capture the all important stoner vote.

- Stoners will hate legalization, (if it happens) as government meddling will make pot more expensive and less appealing.

- Dealers will hate legalization, as they will be put out of business by excessive government regulation and taxing.

- Trudeau will not legalize marijuana anyway, he is only lying.  Hypocritical liberal governments do more marijuana busts than conservative governments.

- Conclusion: Trudeau should wait until the US legalizes marijuana before doing anything.

- Recommendation (implied): Don't vote for Trudeau, as he is a hypocrite and a Socialist, (if that is not too redundant)


Seems like an inoffensive article, but there are some underlying right-wing assumptions that I do not accept.

- The negative stereotyping and use of the pejorative name stoner.  Why are conservatives always stereotyping people????  OOOPS now I'm stereotyping.  Anyway, it's true.

- The assumption that all the people who want marijuana legalized are stoners, and only stoners want marijuana legalized.  That is not true, as many "non-stoners" believe that decriminalizing marijuana will boost our economy.  (a non-stoner is the opposite of what a stoner is supposed to be in this article, I have no other definition for it).

- The assumption that if the government gets involved in the marijuana business, things will fall apart.  This is dumb, even from a conservative free market point of view.  OK, we need a short lesson in right wing free enterprise.  ILLEGAL activities are not free enterprise.  LEGAL activities are not automatically "government run". By Les MacPherson's logic, black market gasoline would be cheaper and more potent than legal pump gas. I don't think so.

- Les's conclusion is typical of your basic Canadian Conservative:  Wait until the US does it, on the assumption that, except for Obama, the US is always right.

Picture:  http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/stoned-cat

Is Justin Trudeau Really Flip Flopping on Charity?

Justin Trudeau, new leader of the Liberal Party of Canada has gotten into more trouble with the Conservatives.

Many months ago, Justin Trudeau was paid $20,000 by the Grace Foundation to be a speaker at a fundraiser.  Later on, a letter was sent from someone at the Grace Foundation to ask for the money back. It was not returned, and about a week ago,  the letter to Trudeau was made public by the Prime Minister's Office.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/charity-makes-statement-regarding-justin-trudeau-public-speaking-fee-dispute/article12735221/

The view from a seemingly Liberal slanted website:
http://thecanadianpoliticalscene.blogspot.ca/2013/06/grace-foundation-never-authorized.html

Is the scandal here that Trudeau charged an outlandish amount of money, considering that it was a charity, after all?

Or is it more of a scandal that The Grace Foundation engaged somebody at a mutually agreed amount, then demanded the money be returned, because they are a charity.

Or is the biggest scandal that the Grace Foundation asked an individual for donations, then upon receiving no response, attempted to shame them by publicizing their name?

Incidentally, not all charities are the same, as I have found out over the course of my life.  Some charities really do good work for the most unfortunate people, other totally legitimate, but more self-serving charities are only to fund local projects in wealthy neighbourhoods.

The Grace Foundation is legally a charitable organization, but I consider it more an unpaid auxiliary to the "Church of St. John and St. Stephen Home". Before I start feeling sorry for the residents of that Seniors home, I would like to know what fees they are charged, and who is allowed into that home, and why they are admitted.  Most of the better seniors homes (like this one) are not charitable institutions, and I would guess that many of the Grace Foundation board members volunteer mainly as a way to get priority admittance for their aged parents when the time comes.

I would consider a "real" charity to be something like "Doctors Without Borders", or a soup kitchen.  An example here in Kitchener is "The Working Centre", that helps unemployed people get jobs.

It's not such a bad thing to give money to a real charity, although some people get awfully worked up about giving money to poor people.  But I prefer to at least be given a choice in my charitable donations, and be allowed to do it privately.  I would not appreciate being publicly humiliated by any charity that I decline to donate money to.

The chairman of the board of the Grace Foundation has said he regrets that this issue has been made public, that he did not agree to it, and does not know why the letter was made public without official knowledge of the board.  That is a reasonable response.

Unfortunately, Justin changed his mind later and offered to give back the money to the Grace Foundation. I think that's a bad mistake, but I'm sure he can recover from headlines like the (conservative) London Free Press "Trudeau Flip Flops on Charity".

What the Grace Foundation should do now is ask for a matching donation from the Conservatives.  And ask any overtly conservative board members for a refund of any  expense money they paid them, such as mailing expenses. If the conservatives have millions of dollars to waste on negative TV ad campaigns, surely they could afford to donate a little to charity, especially when donating to charity becomes such a well publicized event.

I Do Not Know Brian Mulroney, But I Voted For Him

Brian Mulroney, Prime Minister of Canada from 1983 to 1993, was born in Baie Comeau, Quebec.  Coincidentally so was I, but I was never Prime Minister of Canada.

I have said in my blog that I voted Conservative twice, both of those were for Brian Mulroney. (not in the same election, of course)  I used to be a lot more conservative back then, than I appear to be today.  Partly because I have changed a little, but more because of the extremism on the right in the USA, which spills over into Canada.

Although Brian Mulroney was elected democratically twice, by the time his last term was finished, Canadians hated the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada so much that the party no longer exists today. When I took a vacation in Saint Lucia in 1992, Mulroney's reputation had sunk very low.  A local street vendor approached me to buy some coconuts, and somehow it slipped out that I was Canadian.  He offered me his condolences, because we had such a horrible Prime Minister.

St Lucia was not the first time I had problems with Brian Mulroney's reputation.  When I was teaching in Sept-Iles QC, in 1973-75, Brian Mulroney was the CEO of the Iron Ore Company of Canada, and Sept Iles was a one-company town built by IOC.  The teachers on staff knew that both of us were from Baie Comeau, which was located not very far away.  Brian was in the process of shutting down the IOC's biggest iron mine, which did not sit well with the townspeople.  So I got several comments associating me with Brian, which was not true, as I never knew him or even attended the same school with him.  And anyway, he was ten years older than me.

When Brian became Prime Minister, all of a sudden Baie Comeau went from being a quiet unknown backwater town to being a well known town nationally.  Before this, if someone asked where I was from, I could say Baie Comeau, and generally receive blank stares in response.  When  Brian campaigned for prime minister, he made a very big deal being a "boy from Baie Comeau".  So after that successful campaign, whenever it came out where I was from, I was always asked if I knew Brian Mulroney.  And as time went on, and Brian became more and more hated, I felt a greater need to distance myself from him, pointing out that I always lived on Laval St. while Brian lived on Champlain St. The notoriety has died down a lot, but today I occasionally have this same reaction from people who find out where I live.  Canadians apparently have long memories.

Compared to today's conservatives, I think he was a good prime minister.  But there was the GST tax, that I suppose most people still blame him for.  I don't feel the GST was a bad tax, as it replaced a hidden tax. But many Canadians think differently.  On the other hand, he initiated the Acid Rain pact with the USA, that effectively put a stop to the acid rain pollution in the eighties.  Brian also spoke out against South Africa in the international campaign to stop apartheid.  Brian also brought in the Free Trade pact between Canada and the USA, which has given us prosperity even up to today.  Yes, I know Canadians love to complain about how poor we are, but that's because Canadians don't get out much, and half our brains, and all our asses are frozen in winter.  That's the simple excuse for our stupidity.

Long after Brian Mulroney left office, we found out that he had accepted bribes from an aircraft manufacturer to buy their merchandise.

Back when Brian was debating Liberal John Turner in the first election, it was all about appointing political friends to the senate (as it is again today).  During the debate, Brian pointed out all the recent dubious Liberal appointees to the senate (made by the previous leader Trudeau) and asked why John Turner did not cancel them.  Turner Replied that he had no option.

Brian replied

"You had an option, sir. You could have said, 'I am not going to do it. This is wrong for Canada, and I am not going to ask Canadians to pay the price.' You had an option, sir--to say 'no' — and you chose to say 'yes' to the old attitudes and the old stories of the Liberal Party."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Mulroney#Party_leader

Picture:  http://historyofthegreatwhitenorth.blogspot.ca/2011/05/brian-mulroney-boy-from-baie-comeau.html

The End for America is Now in Sight

Finally after six years of back-to-back Obama scandals, I realize the right wing people are not nut jobs.  It looks like they were right all along.

A few days ago, there was a joint press conference with the Prime Minister of Turkey and President Obama of the United States.  During the conference, there was a light drizzle of rain. Obama forced two US Marines to hold umbrellas: one over his own head, and the other over the head of the Turkish state.  To me, this was an insignificant act.  The marines were standing around doing nothing anyway.  It's not like they were busy at the time rescuing the U.S. Ambassador in Benghazi.  No no, they were just standing around listening to a bunch of stupid questions being fielded by Obama and the Turkish guy.  They were probably hoping the rain would intensify enough to call off the whole thing.

But I was wrong.  This was not insignificant. What I did not know, was that no US president had ever asked a Marine to hold an umbrella over his head during a press conference - other than Obama.  And it was not the first time for Obama either.  The linked video clearly shows pictures of various Presidents holding their own umbrellas, and other pictures of Obama getting marines to hold his umbrella.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sI_3hLrixOU

Now for the true insult of this seemingly small act.  If you didn't notice yourself, don't be embarrassed.  It means you are probably not from the Southern U.S. Many Canadians, like me, will miss this too.  Here is the clue: Look at the skin colour of the two men.  The one holding the umbrella is white, the one having the umbrella held over him is black. Therein lies the insult to real Americans (i.e. Southerners).

The true American way to do this, and one that would not have raised a single eyebrow south of Cincinnati and East of Waco Texas, would have been for the white guy to be the President of the USA, and the black guy to be the Marine holding the umbrella.

This umbrella thing was Obama's plan all along.  Health Care was a mere diversion. Killing Osama Bin Laden, a smoke screen.  Boosting the Dow Jones from 7,000 to 15,000 in six years was a red herring.  The hidden plan was to humiliate the white race by making them hold umbrellas for black people, thus destroying the real America.  There is no going back. Real Americans will have to reluctantly, and with heavy hearts, begin gearing up for the second Civil War  (or as real Americans prefer to call it:  "the Second War Between the States" or  "Second War for Southern Independence" or  "Second War of Northern Aggression".) And finally, Al Quaida's plan will be complete: America torn apart just like they destroyed the Soviet Union back in 1990.  All their thanks go to Obama.

An outsiders opinion (from Nigeria) http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/350336

Picture: From http://astuteblogger.blogspot.ca/2013/05/obama-umbrellas-and-what-it-all-rev.html

Mike Duffy Discussion on CBC

On the CBC last night I watched Power & Politics with Evan Solomon.  They had a panel discussing the Mike Duffy affair.  In this case, Senator Mike Duffy accepted a gift of $90,000 from the Conservative Prime Minister's Chief of Staff.

In the panel discussion, I thought there was a lot of unwarranted support for Mike Duffy. Maybe they were even handed because the CBC is afraid of losing its government funding.  But in my mind, and the mind of 97% of Canadians, this gift was against the law, which clearly says senators cannot accept gifts.

I do not accept the excuses given.

1.  That the gift came out of the personal pocket of the Chief of Staff makes no difference to the law.

2.  A second argument was that the gift was simply to cover the money that Mike Duffy was forced to repay the government from a previous scandal involving expenses.  This is a red herring.

3.  That Mike Duffy is sick, (possibly dying??) and is trying to protect his estate from a huge debt load.  While of course I have some human sympathy on this, it really should not enter the debate, as Evan Solomon mentioned last night.

4. The rules are confusing.

There is a reason why Senators are not allowed to accept gifts, and that is to protect our government from corruption in office.  I know people try to get around this law all the time, but that makes it even more important to protect this principal of our political system.  Why are we even debating it?  Might as well just end this farce of democracy right now, if that's what we really think.  Luckily, most Canadians are not yet stupid enough to let it go.

Mike Duffy has a questionable history, too.  He was once a journalist, who helped the conservatives get elected a few years ago.  He aired a show that made Liberal leader Stephan Dion look foolish, days before the election.  After Dion lost the election, Duffy was awarded the position of Senator by the Conservative leader Stephen Harper (who won the election).

It seems that Mike Duffy's ethics and principles are just as weak as a senator as they were as a journalist. He never really seemed to understand that this political position was not just a reward for underhanded political hacksterism. A senator in the federal government has certain responsibilities, and is actually governed by a code of ethics, even though I suppose many people treat it as a joke in Canada, where senators are not elected.  But Mike Duffy seems to understand very little of the requirements of his post.  And I believe some of the blame goes back to Stephen Harper, who once promised to eliminate the Senate, but now pads it with ignorant sycophants.


Picture: http://www.leaderpost.com/news/Auditor+general+take+over+senate+probe/7962385/story.html

Jon Stewart Agrees with Fox News About Obama's IRS Scandal

Last night I was watching the Daily Show with Jon Stewart.  Jon Stewart is usually a pro-Obama supporter, although he claims to be neutral.  Last night Jon sided with Fox News against Obama on one (or maybe two) issues.  Mainly, it was the issue of the IRS investigating right wing organizations.  Apparently the Internal Revenue Service in the US is targeting Republican political groups by investigating their tax-exempt status, while letting Democrat (or liberal) groups get through without much scrutiny.

I disagree with Jon Stewart on this.  By the way I also disagree with Fox News, but that almost goes without saying.  And now, since Obama has apologized, and says changes will be made to the IRS, I also disagree with Obama.

The IRS is supposed to investigate organizations seeking tax exempt status.  That is how they discover fraudulent operations claiming tax exempt status.  If you stop them from investigating organizations that have right wing sounding names, you are simply giving a pass to organizations with "Tea-Party" or "Patriot" in their names.

Let's assume there are lots of fraudulent operations in the USA applying for tax exempt status, just for the sake of argument.  Even before this scandal, it would be likely that many of these scams would be targeting gullible right wing fanatics.  That is because gullible right wing fanatics have lots of money, and of course they are gullible.  So the logical thing to do would be to put words like Tea Party, or Patriot in their name.  Just because they are called "Patriot-Tea-Party-something or other",  does not mean these scams are truly right wing politically.  But now that the IRS cannot investigate any new organization that sounds right wing, I think all of these fraud artists will be soon be using right wing sounding names.

The IRS was actually helping the Tea Party by weeding out fraudulent operators preying on their right wing supporters.   But, to be fair, as Newt Gingrich says, the IRS should at least spend equal time investigating organizations applying for tax-exempt status with  "Terrorist" in their names.

Picture: From http://www.occupycorporatism.com/irs-scandal-unites-patriot-movement-as-no-politician-has-been-able-to/

Killer Domestic Drones, Did Rand Paul Change His Mind?

There is a bit of a debate about the use of drones to kill people.  Over the last ten years, the use of drones has increased, and the technology has moved forward.

Basically, a drone is a remote controlled airplane.  I guess the actual definition continually varies, but to me it means an airplane with a video camera in it that relays the view back to a remote operator.  Apparently the real definition of drones includes non-human non-remote computer controlled aircraft, but I think that is an entirely different thing.  For me, the key thing about drones is that they are using human intelligence.  The controversial use of drones is to assassinate suspected terrorists with missiles fired from the drone, which results in a lot of collateral damage (i.e. probably innocent people killed or maimed in the strikes.)

Recently, the US administration announced that they would expand the use of drones to Americans as well as foreigners, which resulted in a great outcry. Then it was announced that absolutely no Americans would be killed in America.  This targeting of Americans would only be if these people holding American citizenship were overseas engaged in anti-American terrorist plots (or suspected of doing so).

But now we come back to America.  Rand Paul, the libertarian politician and son of Ron Paul, filibustered the use of drones in America. But  after the Boston Marathon bombings, Rand Paul backed down and said that he never opposed using drones in an immediately threatening situation, for example a person coming out of a liquor store, after committing a robbery,  with a gun and fifty dollars.

The Young Turks (Cenk Uygur rant about Rand Paul's about face)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07MH-WhrlK8

Rand Paul (Before Boston bombings)

“No American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court,” 

Rand Paul (after)

“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and $50 in cash, I don’t care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him,” 

A political blogger commenting on Rand Paul
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/04/23/rand-paul-faces-blowback-after-new-drone-comments/

How can we ever have an intelligent debate about topics like this when people appear to be willing to shift their position dramatically depending on how they feel on a given day?  I believe this is a dramatic shift in position, although many right wing conservatives do not think it is.  Apparently, for right wingers, it was so obvious drones would and should be used for killing bad guys, that they forgot to mention it.  They are only opposed to drones flying over their outdoor hot tubs.

More questions: Since when is somebody carrying a gun fair game in the USA?  I thought there was this thing about "the right to bear arms"?  I am probably missing something, but when this person comes out of the liquor store with a gun and fifty dollars, how do you know that he committed the crime?  And is he (she) really an immediate threat?  Wouldn't that depend on what kind of gun they were carrying, on where they were pointing it, on whether it was loaded, or if maybe it was a toy gun?  I'm thinking that a person coming out of the liquor store with a gun and $50 is relatively harmless unless you try to stop them.

A domestic police drone would probably not be equipped with Hellfire missiles.  At least I hope not.  Some possible weapons a domestic drone could be equipped with would be smaller guns, rubber bullets, tear gas, a taser, paintball bullets, maybe a net?   A domestic drone only needs to detain, slow down, or track an individual.  A foreign drone  kills mainly because it operates without human police assistance.

Being a Canadian, I don't really understand the USA, but I remember back in the early nineties, in Panama City Beach, Florida, seeing a sign "Drive Thru Liquor and Machine Gun Rental".  Assuming I went in there and rented a machine gun, then the person behind me in line pulled a robbery, I could be killed by a drone on my way out. (according to Rand Paul's scenario.)

Picture: Huffington Post comments on drones replacing police helicopters
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/11/domestic-drones_n_2854589.html

Trudeau vs. Harper About Bombers

Canada's Federal Liberal Party has a new leader, Justin Trudeau, son of the famous Pierre Trudeau who was Prime minister of Canada during the seventies.

Already, it looks like there is a battle between the present Conservative Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, and Justin Trudeau.

The opening salvo, fired by the Conservatives, was a round of attack ads, taking Justin's words, quoting him as saying "Quebecers are better than the rest of Canadians."*  And the ads continue on to say "Trudeau is in over his head."

Now back to real life, and hours after the bombing of the Boston Marathon, Justin says in a CBC interview, (in part) "we have to look at the root causes".

Was Justin's comment an attack on the Prime Minister?  Whether it was an attack or not, it did draw return fire from the Prime Minister. A few hours later, then Stephen made a statement that people should not be sitting around rationalizing or making excuses for bombers.  All we should do is make sure we have harsh punishments.

And now the ball was in Justin's court.  He could back down and apologise to the Prime Minister. Or he could ignore the jibe.  Or, I guess he could tell the Prime Minister to shut up and mind his own business.  What did Justin do?

Justin said [something like] the Prime Minister should rethink how far he wants to go in politicizing tragedies.

This really got the Conservatives fired up, and there were counter-counter attacks on the CBC program "Power Politics with Evan Solomon".  On that show, the NDP (Now Canada's official opposition party) jumped in on the side of the Conservatives, saying an apology from Justin Trudeau to Stephen Harper would be nice.

This is not over yet.

There is obviously some kind of school yard fight going on.  The new guy has shown his face in the playground, and words get exchanged with Stephen, the kid with the biggest entourage.  Some might call him the bully. So the way you view this altercation will depend on your view of Stephen Harper.  I personally am leaning toward cheering on Justin.  He has certainly shown willingness to stand up for himself.  But can he also be disciplined and in control of his emotions?  In my opinion, the worst he could do would be to apologise for that simple statement.  Because it is actually true that we need to look at what might be motivating these psychopaths.  Yes, you heard that right.  Even psychopaths have some kind of motivation.  And it is possible to know what it is, and we need need to know what it is. Harsh punishments cannot be the only answer.  A Liberal must not apologise for supporting a scientific approach.


* P.S. Is it true that A. Quebecers are better than the rest of Canadians? B. Justin really said that?

As I was born in Quebec I am inclined to agree with A. although it may not be a good thing for a politician to say publicly.  But it seems that for B. the answer is no, that is not what Justin said.  The conservatives edited a sentence in order to isolate those words.  I think that tells you a lot more about the tactics of Conservatives than it does about Justin Trudeau.

Picture: Photoshop job by "The Lost Motorcyclist"

The Royal Bank Foreign Worker Project Goes Too Far

There is a story creating some concern in Canada, about our biggest bank, the Royal Bank of Canada, hiring foreign workers to replace Canadian workers.  All by itself, this would not be enough to cause outrage, as we have been doing this for years. But now there is a combination of circumstances that could make this "the straw that broke the camel's back".

- Canadians are aware that good jobs have been shipped overseas for many years: Computer jobs, phone answering jobs, manufacturing jobs. I don't know how many jobs have gone overseas, but I am aware of many local industries and offices that have simply closed down.  I think it is widespread enough to harm our economy, if not now, sometime in the future.  We know jobs pay a lot lower wages overseas than in Canada, and I guess we understand why.

- Canadians may not be aware that many jobs even in Canada are filled by foreign workers on temporary visas.  Over 100,000 in 2001 growing to over 300,000 in 2012.  It used to make sense, because these are mostly jobs we don't care for such as fruit picking.  They are supposed to pay Canadian wages, though really it's not, because Canadians apparently cannot afford to work for those wages any more.

- There are also high tech jobs, or skilled jobs that not enough Canadians are trained for.  I personally know at least one person who was recruited overseas to work in Canada in such a job.  I think there is a need for a limited amount of this type of recruiting.  These jobs are also supposed to pay Canadian wages.

But this is just too much: Unskilled foreign workers on temporary visas, replacing Canadian workers, at a lower salary, in Canada, recruited to do a job that some Canadians have invested their own time and money at University and college to qualify for.  I don't care if it's a mistake, or a loophole, or an accident, or any other excuse. If this continues, even the CEO's job may be outsourced.  After all, it would improve the corporation profits by $10,000,000 per year (the CEO salary, minus whatever we have to pay the replacement on a temporary CEO work visa).  The resulting executive decisions couldn't be any more short sighted.

I am somewhat at fault myself, as a shareholder in the Royal Bank.  And so the only decent thing to do is begin divesting shares in favour of some company that does not outsource its jobs, if there are any left.

Already, we have a case in Canada going before the court, where Chinese temporary workers were hired by a Chinese mining company to work in a mine in Canada.  Once again, it was a combination of circumstances.  As I understand it, the Chinese company bought mining rights in Canada.  The Canadian government assumed that there would be jobs for Canadians in the deal.  The Chinese company put out help wanted ads, but no Canadian miners qualified, so they were forced to bring in Chinese workers on "temporary" work visas.  Is appears that one of the requirements listed for the job was fluency in speaking Mandarin.

I looked up some of the facts in the Globe and Mail article here:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/jobs/ottawa-pushes-for-answers-as-uproar-over-rbc-outsourcing-gains-volume/article10870961/

Picture: From a foreign worker application support website
http://www.routleylaw.com/immigration-legal-services-overview/

Was the Jeep Move to China Really a Lie?

The Weekly Standard website ran this blog from Mark Hemingway titled "PolitiFact Concedes Their 'Lie of the Year' is the 'Literal Truth'"

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/politifact-admits-their-lie-year-literal-truth_696336.html

So Politifacts awarded the "Lie of the Year" to the Republican ad saying that Jeep was moving its production to China.  Mark Hemingway points out that the so-called lie was actually the truth, because the wording of the ad was more like "the Obama administration played a hand in selling Chrysler to Italians, who are going to build Jeeps in China."

Politifacts concedes this:

"The Romney campaign was crafty with its word choice, so campaign aides could claim to be speaking the literal truth, but the ad left a false impression that all Jeep production was being moved to China."

My impression was that this ad, true or not, was trying to get people to vote Republican by showing Obama in a bad light.  And it backfired, not because it was a lie or because it was the truth, but simply because it made people realize that Obama had done a good thing.

First, this ad ran in Ohio, where they actually make Jeeps, and so people do real serious fact-checking on any statement about Chrysler moving to China.

Obama had a hand in selling Chrysler to the Italians.  However, anyone who knows the car business understands that Chrysler had previously been sold to Mercedes Benz (a German firm), which had nothing to do with Obama. And selling to Fiat (an Italian company) is not the same as selling to a Chinese firm that is moving production to China. Second, Chrysler declared bankruptcy, also not Obama's fault.  Chrysler (makers of Jeep) did get a financial bailout from Obama, and that was what most people in Ohio were thinking about when they saw the ad, so it's not surprising the ad backfired.  So thousands of jobs were saved by Obama, and this ad simply highlighted how out of touch the Republicans were with the car-making public of Ohio.

The second "fact" highlighted by the ad, trying to make Obama look bad was Jeep production moving to China. Admittedly the ad narrative didn't say jobs "moving" to China. (although the words "return to China"  appeared briefly in print)  It said "Jeeps would be built in China", possibly giving the impression that jobs would be moving.  Actually, this was a NEW assembly plant in the planning stages, that Chrysler had not yet announced publicly.  So Chrysler was forced to come out with a public statement that the plant was a new assembly facility to build Jeeps for the emerging Chinese market.  Was that bad news for the Ohio workers? No, it was actually good news.  Only a PR specialist with no knowledge of the car business would think it was bad news.  Let me explain why its good news (I am not a Chrysler worker, but I know people who have worked for car companies, and there are many car factories around here.)  So this is why it is good news to open a Jeep assembly plant in China. The assembly plant is often a way to open up a market to your cars, just as Japanese makers have opened assembly plants in Canada to sell their cars.  When a new market opens up with a new assembly plant, many components of that car are still made in the home factories.  And some jobs actually go to Americans who move to China to help supervise the construction and operation of the plant.  Also, being a new market, no jobs are lost at home.

Actually, setting up a plant in China could be good or bad, depending on how the deal is worded, and the conditions that are set by China. It could be very bad if the Chinese plant started exporting ultra-cheap Chinese Jeeps to the USA or other parts of the world.  It could be very good if the Chinese assembly plant opened up a huge new market in China for American built components in Chinese-assembled Jeeps.  But if this deal is the way things usually work, it's a good deal for Jeep and Chrysler.

In the final analysis, this ad backfired because it gave the impression that this deal was going to be bad for Ohio, where they make Jeeps, and it left Ohioans wondering if Romney and the rest of the Republicans cared about them at all.  Because Romney himself had misunderstood this point and said in a speech that "Jeep was moving to China".  If Romney himself misunderstood the issue, I'm not sure you can get away with the claim that "The ad was worded clearly enough that nobody could mistake it."

The basis of the ad was an incorrect news story from Bloomberg, saying that Fiat, which owns Chrysler, "plans to return Jeep output to China and may eventually make all of its models in the country."  The ad was careful to not make the same mistake. But by picking up this story without fact checking it, the Republican campaign further reinforced the negative perception that they wanted the car companies to fail, and were prepared to let them fail, while Obama had done something good by keeping them alive.

Ironically, the ad starts out "Who will do more for the car industry...?"  When the dust settled, and the points were clarified, the answer turned out to be Obama.

Quoting the ad:
"Obama took Chrysler into bankruptcy and sold it to the Italians, who are going to build Jeeps in China."  The key "fact" being left out is that Chrysler is back in business in the USA because of Obama's bailout that was vigorously opposed by the Republicans, including Romney.  Such an ad may work with voters who don't know much about the business, but it was stupid to run it in Ohio.

Then the printed false quote from Bloomberg was superimposed on the video of the ad in case you didn't see it, it came at 23 seconds in.  (Almost like subliminal messaging) But the ultimate lie was that Romney would do more for the car business than Obama.

What is a Marxist-Leninist Capitalist Tool?

Another Forbes Magazine article by Mark Hendrickson titled "President Obama's Marxist-Leninist Economics: Fact And Fiction" takes a scholarly look at whether Obama's policies are truly Marxist-Leninist, or whether this is just name-calling.  However, despite the scholarly first paragraph it then soon loses the high road.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhendrickson/2012/07/26/president-obamas-marxist-leninist-economics-fact-and-fiction/

Mark Hendrickson's final paragraph in this article does a better job than I ever could of summarizing the entire article. Here it is in Mark's own words:

"In closing, I repeat that we should not recklessly call Obama a “Marxist-Leninist.” Although it’s too long and cumbersome a label for a generation addicted to sound bites and simplistic labels, a fair description of Obama and his economic goals is to say that he is “an interventionist, corporatist, statist, Big Government progressive, free-market-hating control freak who favors economic policies of a Marxist-Leninist flavor.”"

Whew. That was a mouthful. I had to look up some of the words in his "fair description of Obama".  "Corporatism".. is that a new swearword?  I had to check with Wikipedia, and honestly I don't see how the word could be applied to Obama any more than it could be applied to either the NRA or to Christian Fundamentalists, or even to corporations, actually.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism


And statist too? Wikipedia says

"statism (French: étatisme) is the belief that a government should control either economic or social policy, or both, to some degree.[1][2][3][4] Statism is effectively the opposite of anarchism."

So Obama is opposed to anarchy and favours some degree of state control of economic policy.  Is that all?

I was afraid I was missing something here, and so I went to Conservapedia to see if there was a different definition on Statism.  And I think I found one.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Statism

"A statist government treats its political sovereignty as a platform for moral sovereignty. In other words, as ultimate sovereign, the state is therefore not subject to God, the Bible, natural law, or any other religion or ethical system. A statist government need not be accountable to its own citizens.
The philosopher Georg Hegel described the state as "God walking on earth".[2] In other words, as the state is the ultimate power in life, it assumes the status of God and can do as it pleases. This line of thinking influenced the political thought of Karl Marx. "

So according to conservatives, a statist opposes God's rule. Now back to Wikipedia to define a theocracy (where God does rule):

"Theocracy is a form of government in which a deity is officially recognized as the civil Ruler and official policy is governed by officials regarded as divinely guided, or is pursuant to the doctrine of a particular religion or religious group.[1][2][3]
From the perspective of the theocratic government, "God himself is recognized as the head" of the state,[4]

The arguments against theocracy, taken directly from Conservapedia:

• "Stifling of speech. In a theocracy, it would be counterlogical to allow the citizens to know, or accept other religions or ideologies. Presumably, some mechanism will be placed to prevent dangerous speech, or make the ideas within artificially unwanted.
• Thought is severely engineered, to prevent "dangerous" thoughts (Atheism, etc).
• Unaccountable government. Because the government is supposedly an extension of a deity, they cannot be held accountable."

Sounds to me like high praise for Obama the Statist, from Conservapedia.  But then, wasn't it Conservapedia that defined Hitler as a Leftist, and then defined Leftists as opposed to military spending?

In the end, I think there is a twist of logic in Mark Hendrickson's essay.  Apparently, Obama is not a true perfect Marxist Leninist, but then, neither was Marx or Lenin.  Therefore, according to Hendrickson, it is even more correct to call Obama a Marxist-Leninist.  Because Obama, like Lenin, is not a perfect Marxist-Leninist either.

Mark Hendrickson first states that the standards for being called a Marxist Leninist are set impossibly high. But then he sets the bar impossibly low.

Picture: from the Marxist-Leninist Study Guide http://marxistleninist.wordpress.com/study-guide/