Tuesday, December 16, 2014

What Could Andrea Horwath Have Done?

The Ontario Liberal majority government has allowed them to show off all their worst attributes. The main thing that Ontario Liberals seem to like to do is to waste billions and billions of taxpayers' dollars on boondoggle gifts to their friends in the private sector. (Of course, if they didn't, those private-sector scum would enthusiastically pour all their resources into the Tea-Baggers in the Ontario PC Party.)

But that's no excuse. When corporate criminals are extorting you and trying to get you to destroy the living standards of hundreds of thousands of people, you should use the legislative process to break their power. Not cave-in to them.

Why didn't Andrea Horwath pull the plug on the corrupt, contempt of the legislature Liberals when she first had the chance? Because Horwath knows that the electorate HATES elections. The robotic corporate-servo-drone McGuinty had resigned in a fit of pique and Kathleen Wynne, not (directly) personally tainted by the gas-plant fiasco might very well have forced some people to be accountable for this criminal (whatever partisan hacks have to say about it) misuse  of the people's money. That alternative appeared better than forcing an election for what the voters (in their ignorance) would have thought was an unimportant scandal.

Surprisingly, the scandal had legs. People knew that three-quarters of a billion dollars is a lot to spend for purely partisan purposes. (Despite what shameless Liberal hacks might think.) And, no doubt, partisan hacks of the Progressive Conservative persuasion never hesitated to vent to Horwath about this disgusting Liberal arrogance, criminal waste and anti-democratic behaviour. (I can just hear them in their self-righteous, hackneyed fury.) Horwath started to believe that she should defeat the Liberals. They were in contempt of the legislature after all. But defeat them and give the just-as-contemptuous-of-the-legislature PC's power?

What to do? What to do?

In my mind, she played it all wrong. Wynne was able to put a lot of genuinely good proposals in that budget of hers. But it was accompanied (as we see now, and many should have at the time) with all sorts of privatization and other failed neo-liberal policies. Horwath came out against the budget without negotiations, and saw herself painted as "voting against the most progressive budget in years."

She should have negotiated.

She shouldn't have campaigned from the right. She could have talked about being a good steward of the people's taxes, but without antagonizing the public sector unions (which she did). She shouldn't have taken the concerns of small business to heart while once again leaving the working poor hanging out to dry. Small-business has its own parties.

She should have stuck to her guns about the Liberals privatization and PPP-swindles.

But first and foremost, she should not have defeated the budget based on anger about a scandal she had a chance to attack around half-a-year ago. She should have consulted with the party's base (including all those activists her advisors derided as self-interest, out-of-touch codgers).

But Horwath is, herself, mired in the stink of stupid party politics. The permanent staff of the NDP has got to be the most useless, clueless, hopeless, mediocre fuckwads ever assembled. Decade-after-decade, these contaminated doofuses preach moderation, middle-of-the-road-ism, and slavish devotion to whatever flotsam and jetsam gets washed ashore as the party's leadership. They dissipate the activist spirit and it was only the implosion of the federal Liberals that gave them a new lease on life. Horwath listened to them (and her own centrism) and lost touch with the people who voted NDP year after year. She then abused the party's democracy by foisting the nauseating Adam Giambrone on the Scarborough-Guildwood riding association in a dubious decision that the brass has refused to investigate and explained away with the most obvious bullshit excuses.

Thanks to the total ineptness of Tim Hudak, the Liberals stormed to the majority whereupon they proceeded to cover-up and lie their way through exposes of their treasury-busting corruption and incompetence.

Such is politics in Canada.

Sunday, December 14, 2014

Ontario Liberal Corruption and Arrogance

It is a sign of the debased level of capitalist democracy that we are constantly faced with a "choice" between idiot, retrograde racist asshole thieves (the "Conservatives") and slightly less-idiotic, socially progressive thieves (the Liberals). I pointedly left the insult "asshole" in there because that's how the Ontario Liberals have been behaving with their majority in the face of the Ontario Auditor General's damning report.

When the Auditor General says that Ontario wasted $8 billion on excess costs brought about by private=sector thieves via "Public-Private-Partnerships" the Wynne Liberals say that Ontario simply didn't have the public-sector capacity to build things without the private sector. As if the Office of the Auditor General came to its conclusions mindlessly believing the province had resources that it didn't have.

I mean, the fact of the matter is that the labour movement has demonstrated for years and years that PPP's end up costing more than having the public sector go it alone. The Ontario Liberals are shamelessly corrupt. They know this. All the time that they're cutting programs for the majority, they double-down on the revenue-busting tax-cuts and on the steady, multi-billion dollar gifts for their private-sector masters.

With the fiasco of the smart meters and the above-market energy prices costing Ontarians an extra $50 billion, the Liberal Energy Minister had the audacity to say that the AG had obviously been overwhelmed by the complexities of the issues (and therefore off by $50 billion!!!). The subject matter wasn't too complicated for the corrupt Liberals or their bureaucratic partners.

This is the sort of bullshit we have to deal with, just to hold-off the cromagnon abominations of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party and shit-head Tim Hudak's dreams of being the errand boy of the Walton's and the Koch Brothers north of the 49th Parallel.

Sickeningly, the ONDP and the federal NDP can only see themselves being a more "reasonable" set of corporate sell-outs than the Liberals. The whole thing makes me sick.

Friday, December 12, 2014

Mulcair/Trudeau would DESTROY this country!!!!!

 
Right-wingers are given to hyperbole because they're not good at putting things into perspective. Hypocrisy is second nature to them. So that's why you'll often hear one of them bellowing words to the effect of how either of the Liberals or the NDP would be a disaster for Canada.

To my knowledge though, it tends to be right-wingers who are in power when people die from drinking tap water. It's right-wing governments that cause us to die from eating tainted meat. It's right-wing governments that decimate our hospitals to the point where people die in ambulances driving around looking for an emergency room that can take them in.

What about AdScam? ADSCAM ADSCAM ADSCAM ADSCAM ADSCAM (!!!!!) ?????

The harpercons are guilty of AdScam on steroids! All that money for "security" since 2006, ... money that they can't account for,  or, in the case of Tony Clement, simply brazenly used to pork-barrel in his riding. All those outside lawyers they've been paying, only they won't tell us what they've been paying them for. All those contractors they've been hiring for reasons unknown, ... are we to imagine that the election fraudster harpercon party has been on the up-and-up, hiring people for necessary government work?

Look at the total disregard, the total contempt for our parliamentary system of government harper has displayed. What's left to be destroyed?

No. Anyone who supports the harpercons is either abysmally ignorant, a shameless hypocrite, or a cynical liar.

Wednesday, December 10, 2014

Bill C-639 (Amended!)

Dr. Dawg talks about it here. Another private member's bill that has the full backing of the harpercon government. This one will criminalize people who peacefully "interfere" with the "enjoyment" of "critical infrastructure." This includes 10-year sentences for protesters who block the building of a pipeline to bring bitumen to the BC coast where it will spill into the coastal waters and devastate them. Or the oil pipeline itself (built below standards by underpaid foreign labour) will leak and flood the lands of one of Canada's First Nations.

Cue the shit-heads both at that National Post link, and at Dr. Dawg's (the usual fecal-brains, Peter1, kazyrght, Marky Mark) sputtering about their right to drive around without being inconvenienced. To his credit, Marky Mark is fanatically consistent about everyone's right to not be inconvenienced.)

Let me try to explain things to these stupid motherfuckers; Society is not a bunch of happy, smiley people, holding hands and skipping from one flower-covered hill to the next. In Canada, for instance, our political system is dominated by greedy, selfish fossil-fuels industry assholes, and corrupt, stupid Bay Street criminals, with assorted villains from other industries playing secondary roles. Our elites can, and do, gouge people, fleece people, abuse people, betray people, kill people.

Some people (those with more brains than you apparently) care about the health of the planet, or the rights of people in Afghanistan and Iraq to not be slaughtered, or about missing Aboriginal women, than about your general rights to "convenience" (the opposite, I assume of your being "inconvenienced"). Or, some people have a personal stake in something that they feel is greater than, say, your right to drive around conveniently from place to place. Maybe they've got loved ones in a country that we're planning to attack. Maybe it's their lands that will be destroyed by a leaking pipeline. Maybe it's them and their peers who are risk of being kidnapped and murdered. Maybe they stand to lose pensions that will condemn them to poverty and misery. Maybe they're already poor and miserable and they think the government should help them out? Maybe greedy, short-sighted and stupid assholes are trying to raise their tuitions and plunge them into crippling debt.

The price of living in a quasi-democracy like Canada is that you sometimes have to be inconvenienced by protests held by people who care about something more than they care about your right to flit about like the carefree sheep that you want to be.

First Amendment: That it be added to this blog-post that this bullshit legislation is being proposed to deal with protesters who are responding to a pipeline that is being built AFTER the harpercons used their stolen majority to ram-through omnibus bills that gutted environmental and democratic safeguards that had been created through decades of democratic processes.

The shamelessness of harpercon scum makes your head spin.

Second Amendment: That it be added to this blog-post that perhaps we should retain this legislation after the harpercons have all been imprisoned. We could then accuse those capitalist scum who use economic black-mail of trying to "interfere with our enjoyment of critical infrastructure"  and lock their asses up with their harpercon errand boys. They don't have a god-given right to take Canadian money out of the country because they disagree with the results of the democratic process.

Third Amendment: (And i wasn't expecting this one.) That the anonymous anti-democratic coward who left a puerile insult in my comments section be instructed to leave something slightly more substantial than that if it wants to see it's writing published. Stretch that lil' brain of yours darling. Otherwise fuck-off.

Monday, December 8, 2014

Wynne vs harper & his prostitution law

I'm not a fan of Kathleen Wynne. She was a willing team member of the corrupt and anti-democratic McGuinty gang. She passed a "progressive" budget that's chock-full of privatizations and revenue-busting tax-cuts. But the fact of the matter is that I hate harper even more. His regime is vastly more corrupt and anti-democratic.

So I'm finding it interesting that Wynne and harper are in conflict over his recent anti-prostitution law. I don't like this law because it uselessly re-criminalizes sex-work in ways that the Supreme Court already found unconstitutional. I'm willing to see how the Nordic Model works in practice, but only if a law focuses on the buyers of sexual services, and only if it is accompanied by social welfare support programs that the Nordic countries have.

But it's interesting that Wynne has chosen this issue (which has divided the feminist community) to take a stand against harper. There has to be some political calculation on her part to make a public criticism of harper on this. I also think its a sign of things to come as the harpercons get more desperate and insufferable. They're no friends of Ontario and i think Wynne is going to force them to make this very clear to Ontario voters in the federal election.

harper has avoided meeting with Canada's premiers because he's a gutless wonder who is terrified of meeting with anyone as an equal. We forget that Canadian premiers are very powerful people within our system. I think Wynne, with her majority, is set to make stephen harper very aware of this fact.

Sunday, December 7, 2014

"Mad Man" or just a "Man"?

I think I can answer my own questions. Was the murderer of Geneviève Bergeron, Hélène Colgan, Nathalie Croteau, Barbara Daigneault, Anne-Marie Edward, Maud Haviernick, Maryse Laganière, Maryse Leclair, Anne-Marie Lemay, Sonia Pelletier, Michèle Richard, Annie St-Arneault, Annie Turcotte, Barbara Klucznik-Widajewicz, a symptom of a wider malaise of misogyny in society, or was he just the archetypal crazy loner?

Because it's important to know when someone is representative of a serious social problem and when someone is an isolated example and not representative of general traits of a wider group or a wider social problem.

What separates the perpetrator of the Montreal Massacre from the two recent perpetrators of what stephen harper and assorted idiots are calling symptoms of the rise of Islamic terrorism in Canada? What is the criteria for judging one as part of a larger problem and the others as just individuals with serious mental problems?

I think the important factor is whether the wider problems being described are very much real, or, ridiculous on their face. For instance, is it the case that men are violent towards women? Do we beat our wives? Stalk ex-wives and girlfriends and kill them? Murder prostitutes? Rape? Exclude them from earning livelihoods? Of obtaining educations? Deny them the vote? Disregard their testimony in court? Condemn their sexuality? Consider them defiling entities in our religions? (If we don't currently do any of those things now, did we do it in the past and do we have men among us who endorse doing it again?) And do we not have men attacking the movement ("feminism") that fights back against the systemic oppression of women ("patriarchy")?

The Montreal murderer was an insane individual. But he was also representative of a wider social problem and the precise nature of his insane act was no doubt fueled by concepts encouraged by the culture he lived in.

Now then, on to the scourge of "Islamicism," ... Were those two murderers of Canadian Forces' members evidence of a genuine danger? Is it true that Islamic fundamentalists "hate us for our freedoms" and are hoping to conquer us through isolated acts of terrorism, and subject us all (including the United States) to the insane dictates of a new Caliphate?*

Or, is it the case that even if these two killers believed in all of that, that the whole idea is completely absurd, and that, therefore, whether they believed it or not, they should be treated as examples of mental illness and not a reason for us to line-up behind stephen harper and his idiotic crusades and our elites' serial assaults on our human and political rights?

So, I think it's safe to say that those people who insist that the Montreal Massacre was not just the work of one sick individual, but a manifestation of societal sickness, are correct, and that the people who want to pretend that "Islamicism" is a genuine danger are using the cases of two damaged individuals to make us afraid of a non-problem.

*I'm not even going to present the counter-arguments made by sane people about the problem of Muslim terrorists.

Saturday, December 6, 2014

More Evidence of harper's Cowardice

We all remember when macho, wargasm, strong values, strong everything, stephen harper was weeping and peeing in a closet while his colleagues were barricading their caucus room against a mentally-ill gunman.

Search this blog for further commentary on stephen harper's innate cowardice.

Today, the CBC presents further evidence of harper's fear of the world. The Conservative Party (in response to complaints that are a result of deliberate under-funding) has recommended that the Access to Information program be able to raise its fees for filling out a request from $5 to $25. Because, obviously, harper is afraid of an informed electorate.

How anyone could get so clueless, stupid, or scuzzy, to support this monstrosity is completely beyond me.