Creative Commons License

Green Island

Ch 13: Gullible's Travels in Neoconland: The Corporate Reactionary Revolution of the 70s

They're Building a Box - and You're In It

Ch 4: The Democracy Scam

Sept 2008

The Canadian Media and the 2008 Election: Reporting or Managing?
Sept 2008

911 Thought Experiment


PEI Revival Plan

The Onward Rocinante archive, for those interested in earlier commentary, and also recent longer missives to the CBC and others, and yet even more other stuff going waaaaaay back.
G'wan, I'm a dying breed, everybody else 'twitters' with 100 character max, and are well along the way to developing brainpower to match - but if you're one of the few looking for longer, thoughtful correspondances - this is one of the last places you're going to find any....


Pogo - what if the 10,000 is wrong and the one guy is right and the one guy is right?

"Rather than love, than money, than fame, give me truth." - Henry David Thoreau

It's every man for himself, the elephant said as he danced among the chickens.
- Tommy Douglas

In this world, we are all butterflies and we need to be mindful of what can happen when we flap our wings
- David Suzuki

Democracy is comin...

Orwell BBC pic
It's a pretty nice farm - but don't confuse being a cow with being a farmer... (no, GO didn't say that, I did, but it goes good with the pic)

...the most destructive form of untruth is sophistry and propaganda by those whose profession it is to report the news... - Walter Lippmann

martin luthor king I have a dream ...
I have a dream ...

Gandhi - be the change
Be the change you want to see in the world ...

picasso's don quixote

Onward Rocinante
Green Island Awaits ....

Monday Dec 1 08

David Frum: Only the losers will survive Ottawa's game of competitive suicide - hahaha it's always amusing to see the frustration and shock and faux-outrage of a bully set back on his heels as the mice get together and sock him in the nose. It's all a parlor game, of course, as it's only a badcop-goodcop charade for the tv watchers and life goes on as always with the Bay St Party ruling all from behind the scenes, but still, in the pantheon of the myths we live by in modern Canada, this is somewhat more amusing than the normal fare. But sometimes one must interject a bit of reality into your frustrated ramblings, just so you know the adults are still watching. You must keep in mind, for instance, no matter how you rail at the 'socialist hordes', that, indeed, most Canadians are 'socialist' in inclination, rather than 'capitalist' - consider, for instance, the Canadian health care system, which is supported by, oh, a conservative (heh heh) estimate would say 80-90% of us, no matter how much the idea makes the neocons and 'Look after yourself!!!' capitalists froth, or how the constant barrage of lies and propaganda from the rightwing media steers them away from voting for the people they really should be voting for (the lower and lower turnouts in Cdn elections since the neocons became ascendant is a sure sign that many people see what is happening, but don't know what to do about it). Mr Frum and his ilk also seem unaware, as does their bullying leader Mr Harper, that, unlike Americans whom they all admire so, Canadians do not vote for their president, that is to say, Prime Minister, directly - they vote for a local MP, and collectively the MPs choose their party leader and which of these leaders shall be PM, a calculus which can be changed without an election. And to whine that Mr Dion was rejected by most Canadians is to pretend to be unaware of the fact that Mr Harper was rejected by almost as many - obviously Canadians aren't that happy with any of their wannabe leaders today. Which ought also be a message to many, but is undoubtedly going unheeded in the heat of partisan battle. Back to reality - but it's always amusing to observe the fantasyland of the NP and it's contributors.


- CBC news - full of opposition to the proposed coalition from Western Canada, the CBC playing some tape from a right wing talk show complaining etc - and an interview with another 'prof' talking about how unhappy people are, and why - and not a WORD from anyone who supports the coalition idea ... and not a word from anyone pointing out that although there are few MPs in the west, there is still a lot of support for the NDP and Libs, and just maybe this is another reason for thinking about some form of PR with the new government (Harper got 65% of the vote in Alberta, 53% in Canada, and less than 50% in BC and Manitoba)- not to mention all the complaining about the Bloc in the coalition - if we had PR, they would have many fewer MPs to start with - but the Greens would then be involved ... and Harper would have been much less likely to have formed the government in the first place - and etc - but not a single word about such things on the CBC or the rest of the Cdn mainstream media - just a bunch of shocked right wing whining about whether or not this is legal, etc ... more dog and pony show stuff, with not a word of useful discussion.

- the island Morning coverage of the coalition is almost entirely negative in spin, jokes about 'monsters' etc, a friendly interview with the PEI Con MP, etc - and a quite noticable contrast with a later interview with Wayne Easter, who is attacked all through (is your 30 bill proposal responsible policy??, seems to be part of a talking points memo from someone, as later Anna Maria will be using the same points attacking Bob Rae) etc - 'if this ends in an election - what is your fiscal responsibility then? etc etc] - attack, attack, attack. Amazing. Not.

- later interview with Rob Russeau from Ottawa - 'these men would not even talk to each other a month ago, now they're in bed' etc - CBC impariality on view for all to see .... Rousseau complains that the NDP have a 'well detailed plan' already, the fiends, well beyond fiscal stimulation - even legislative plans, maybe (a plot from the NDP socialists!!) - the question is, what price was exacted to get the support of the NDP and Bloc??? (this is thematic in the coverage - remember people, this is the SOCIALIST NDP!! DO YOU WANT THEM IN POWER OMG???? - but why is a 'neutral' broadcaster so one-sided in the 'coverage'?)) - they say that many people say they have no right to govern because they were not elected - and etc, all the Con spin, part of the CBC talking points

- the thing is, the spin - they COULD come from the other POV entirely, is this a good move for Canada? Did Harper go too far? and etc - but no, they come at it from the negative, entirely -

- then Hlinka, maybe doing a 'shock doctrine' thing, does his bit to get out the message that CONSUMER debt is pretty much the reason for the current world financial crisis, you irresponsible peasants - and we're not even going to talk about the big guys - it's YOU!! Right, Mikey. CBC - on message, 24/7 etc.

- and then onto the Current, which wastes no time telling us where they are coming from spinwise - during the election, the Bloc was a wasted vote, now they're a valuable ally etc - is this a democracy? A Coup??? - will Dion, soundly rejected by Cdns two months ago, be a PM 'imposed unelected' on Cdns?? (16% of Cdns voted for Harper, not quite so soundly rejected, I guess (maybe 20% of 'eligible' voters)...) - and the opening 'humor', get the message off on the 'right' foot - cannot mix beef, chicken and fish, generally mocking the idea of the coalition -

first 'guest' Con Baird giving his spin - (Lib and a separatist)- then Bob Rae, doing quite a good job, with AM attacking him about whether Cdns have 'a plan' to tell Cdns etc (isn't that up to Cdns?) -

halfHour 2 - opens with more tape from Alberta saying how bad it all is, even from NDP supporters saying how undemocratic this is, etc - spin spin spin spin .... and some comments from people in Newfoundland saying it was ok, to be fair - but later in the 2rd hour she again plays tape from somebody in Calgary promoting the idea that it is illegimate, with no alt view from someone saying it is fine - the guests speak ok to a point, but CBC/AM are pushing the POV that it is not legitimate -

- and finishing the show with another 'comedy' piece mocking the coalition - CBC, on message 24/7, telling you how 'the people who know, and who you follow' think about what is happening here.. - it's a big joke, folks, this '(haha!!) coalition'. (why not a comedy piece mocking Harper and his bullying attitude??) (Me? I don't much care, the whole thing is a dog and pony show, the 'coalition' is at best a good cop side of the story, and no major Bay St policies will change, but the propaganda annoys me).

In the final half hour, the discussion with the constitutional 'experts' is interesting - they are completely boxified - they talk about the rules, and how we must obey the rules - 'democracy' in the box - there are rules we must obey as if they were handed down by God - and they are, I think, sincere, they never think beyond this - who do the rules favor, etc? Democracy, or pretend-democracy? etc


Wednesday - somebody reigned them in, the CBC morning news is considerably more fair than yesterday, a few people actually trying to talk sensibly about the legality of the proposal, and some people from a Quebec radio show indicating they actually supported it. Maybe they're reading this. haha. More yet to come, of course. - but 'Ottawa correspondent' Susan Lund is still giving place of preference to the Harper spin - and although AM talks to Ed Broadbent who makes his case well, she pushes again all the Con talking points - appearance of fairness having Broadbent on, obvious bias with her attacks .


And the lesser evil is - inflation - Actually, it's time for all of us to start realising that ALL of our financial problems have one root - private banks create almost all of our money supply as debt, for which they expect to be paid interest every year - and that's a lot of money - around 3 trillion outstanding in debts in Canada alone. When you have to pay interest on effectively all of your national currency each year, just for the making of it, inflation is inevitable, with all that entails in terms of falling living standards (average incomes NEVER keep up with inflation, think about the difference in anything between now and 30 years ago and how well the average family copes) - and allowing essentially unregulated private banks to create money at will, when their primary purpose is maxing 'investor' takings rather than a stable national economy - and you have the mess we have today. They learned this lesson big time following the crash of 29, but then during the 60s and 70s people forgot those lessons and allowed a corporate-lobbied government to start deregulating - and now 30 years later, bubble - bust time again. He who forgets, or never learns, history and all that. More here - Banketeering .

God knows I try.


Thursday - CBC news starting right off (Susan Lund, intrepid CBC history maker) with their 'impartiality' as the reader notes that Harper spoke with a Canadian flag behind his back, while Dion's presentation was 'out of focus', and gets ONE comment from someone saying Harper was 'a clear winner'. History in the making, the creation of the narrative - this is what will be in the history books, as written by the CBC (alternatives? of course, there are always alternatives, spin one way or another or just do it neutrally - for instance, if the spin was in Dion's favor, they could ignore the quality of the tape and concentrate on content. Or just be neutral, report 'what happened' with no editorializing from the reporters or readers - get a comment from a few people on each side sort of thing - this is not something 'all decent people' would see in one way (terrorist attack on Mumbai, for instance) and thus 'fairness' is not expected - but in Canada, many, many people, quite probably a majority, do not care much for what Harper is doing, so the attempt to form a non-Harper coalition, well within constitutional possibilities, should just be reported neutrally, and let Canadians decide for themselves without the prodding one way or another about what is going on). Way to go CBC. - other comments, but generally more in support of Harper, or denigrating Dion etc. The pattern is that the CBC will by itself repeat the Con 'talking points' as if they were 'news', but the others can make their own points, at whatever time the CBC allows, and, if needed, suitable attacks from the 'hosts' etc to make sure the points don't get too strong.

- Ottawa Morning - Kathleen is stressing that this political crisis is emotional and divisive, and unnecessary!! - people need to calm down!! (take a valium and get back to that tv and do what your Leaders on the CBC tell you to do!!) - nobody is saying that maybe something that gets people involved in their own damn politics with some emotion might be a GOOD thing for a change! (even if it is all a dog and pony show ... )

- 9:00 news (Ch'town) - interviews with people from BC about why the attempt to bring down the gov is a bad idea ... then an interview with some people at a meeting in Ottawa who think the new coalition is not a good idea ... not a WORD from anyone supporting it - such 'neutrality' of reporting we get from the CBC ....

the Current - AM has almost fair interviews with a Con and a couple of Lib-NDP people in the first hour, even some almost hard questions for the Con guy, but then with the letters, the bias comes deep, with a great preponderance of letters mocking the coalition

- it's also interesting that the media is painting this as a 'national crisis' - it's just another sideshow -

- AM asks one guy about the vid, and attacks him as he explains, 'yea but...'

- and ALL the people allowed to speak talk about the east-west split, emphasized here - not a single speaker trying to bring people together, through the coaltion, and etc - all spin, spin, spin, and what is chosen to emphasize or ignore (as in gatekeeping) - choices are made. The media can report - or herd.

On Green Island - in our society, we are raised - indoctrinated really - to believe in a certain way of life - going and working all week, and having a bit of free time at night or weekends for 'personal' stuff. A lot of people are bothered by this, some quite a lot. Many are passive enough by birth that they accept it. But the only reason for this is to produce what Marx termed (accurately enough) 'surplus value' - value that is approriated (to use a polite term - stolen would be more accurate) by the 'owners of production' - capitalists, in the modern world. But what if we had a real democracy, and people had a choice about things like this> There are payoffs, of course, in capitalist land - a lot of creature comforts, for those who are good enough workers - but what about the people who would like a decent sort of life, but with less toys and more free, quality time? Not many options for them around a capitalist society, which demands a great deal of conformity in its workers. What if, for insatnce, Canada was divided from east to west - in the west, work work work, lots of toys, but in the east, work less, and have more of a pioneer life - still the main modern things, electricity, health care, etc, but maybe only 2 or 3 kinds of soap or cereal to choose from, but a lot more free time, a lot more safely in a largely rural environment, etc. And people just chose where in that broad spectrum they wanted to live. You could imagine two scenarios - the eastern places became more western as people opted for more meaningless working hours every week so they could buy more meaningless consumer items, or the reverse - people opted for less work and a smaller choice of consumer products. Well, to ask the question is to answer it - the east would spread, the west would shrink. And so would the capitalist bank accounts, so that choice will never be given to you. You could take it, though.


- the prorogue - no need to comment. dog and pony show writ large. nothing changes. apparently the powers that be felt it was time for a major demonstration or something. reality tv. but still in the box.


And I said ..... ((Thank you, your comment will show up once it is approved.))
Dear neighbour, about what's going on in Canada - The CBC again reading from the neocon talking points and spreading them around as if they were anything but spin - notably in this case "..they formed a surprise coalition and now they want to take power without consulting voters again.." - this is complete nonsense. With 4 major parties in the country, 5 really, 10% of the vote, as the Greens got, is not insignificant, even if they got no seats due to our highly unfair electoral system, coalitions of one sort or another are very much in play after any election, but impossible to predict before the election. The most popular MP in any riding gets elected, and after the dust settles the parties take stock of their relative situations and talk with another, and a coalition may result. It is nonsense to say that a proposed coalition should then suggest another election to see if the electors agree - the electors have already spoken in electing the MPs - knowing full well that a minority government may result, requiring cooperation amongst 2 or more parties to get anything done. This 'argument' is just more smoke thrown out by the Cons desperately trying to cling to power - the simple fact is that a majority of the MPs have indicated they do not have confidence in the party with the most seats, but no majority, and are willing to form a temporary coalition the represents a majority of Canadians. To spin this some other way is simply disingenuous at best, and should be left to party hacks and rightwing newspaper commentators rather than supposedly intelligent commentators on the country's national broadcaster. Especially one supposeldy feeding this misleading spin to our American friends, who already have enough stupid ideas about Canada.


And I said ..... ((Thank you, your comment will show up once it is approved.))
John Turley-Ewart: The party in power is up to Canadians to decide - Rampant partisan BS. If the writer actually cared about Canadians being governed by people they voted for, he'd be using his space to demand we junk this first-past-the-post voting system that so distorts the seat allotment in Parliament and turn to some form of Proportional Representation - of course, this would ensure the neocons NEVER got anywhere near majority territory, so elite-dominated, gerrymandered FPTP is the system of choice for those who back neocon policies supported by a minority of Canadians, for now and evermore. Secondly, to say that parties wishing to form a coaltion need to take that idea to the people is just nonsense, and only the most ideologically (or is that idiotlogically? For some reason the words seem to run together when wandering through the NP comments section) blinded person could wander around spouting such crud - nobody can know ahead of an election how the seats are going to be divided among the parties, it is only AFTER an election that the different parties can start talking about who they might align with - this is nothing new in Canadian politics, and it's only the grossest stupidity that is trying to say that three parties, who find after an election that they represent a majority of Canadians who want to form a government on common policy grounds, should take that proposal back to the people for another election. But logic or truth never got in the way of rightwing whingeing or justifications for stupid ideas, as we have seen so much the last few days, esp in the NP. (doesn't say much for the Canadian 'education' system either, that someone of as little intelligence as this writer obviously has about the Cdn political system could get a PhD in political history)


And I said ..... From the global crisis to Canada's crisis - CM, you need to get a grip on yourself - nobody EVER voted for a 'they' in Canadian politics, because 'they's only happen AFTER elections. By definition. That this 'they' threatens your beloved neocons does not change history nor present realities, and you only show your own shallowness of thought by passing on neocon talking points without thinking about what you are saying.

To the main point, it is frustrating to once again see a leading 'progressive' commentator so un-knowledgable about modern economics - it's not 'banks' we need to be thinking about nationalizing or anything, it is the money supply that needs to be democratized - currently, we allow private banks to create almost all of our money supply as interest-bearing debt (that would be around 98% in Canada, some three trillion dollars) - and as long as we have to pay interest on 'our' money to a private business (es) every year, the financial problems we have been encountering for the last 30 years are absolutely inevitable, and are going to continue getting worse until we understand where our money comes from better, and get it under democratic control. A place to start is here - Banketeering . (and don't start complaining about governments printing money being inflationary - that is another neocon talking point as stupid and lacking in truth as the one about coalitions having to ask the people for permission etc. Read the article first. Then (intelligent) comments welcome.) {{ C M from Calgary, Canada writes: Dave, do you even know what a neocon is...? Neocons don't complain about printing money out of thin air. Neocons are guilty of printing money out of thin air -- as are liberals across the spectrum. Libertarians are the only ones who really understand the roots of this mess. Until the country figures that out your coalition is going to exacerbate the problem all the faster.]]}} CM, as I said, you need to work on some thinking-before-speaking skills. Of course neocons love printing money out of thin air - who do you think controls the current banking system? The outraged complaints usually arise when someone dares suggest that maybe 'we the people' ought to control our money democratically, then they start screaming all sorts of nonsensical lies. As for libertarians having any understanding of anything, mindlessly running around telling people they need to get on a 'gold standard', which you must be referring to as 'the roots of this mess', is just another sort of problem, but equally as big - either we let the people who already own the gold control our money, which is just changing from one group of rich people running the place to another, or we propose that the government nationalize all the gold - and I am sure you would agree that would be met with some considerable screaming and resistance (and it would not be a solution anyway). As I said, read the article. Or not. If you already know everything, I suppose there's not much left to learn. As for knowing what a neocon is - there are many definitions, but generally a neocon is one who supports American style laissez-faire, look-out-for-yourself capitalism, with the attendant lies and justifications for taking over governments and enacting policies that allow their greed free rein, and screw everyone else who isn't as strong or free of ethical restraints. And their flunkies who have been taken in by the adolescent fantasies of Ayn Rand.


Friday (as Karen on Island Morning says, as she does every Friday, 'It's Friday!!', with the cheer loud and clear in her tone - she works for the capitalists, but I bet she'd be happier on Green Island where your time is much more your own and life much less stressful, not having to devote half your working life to the capitalist beast, or do propaganda a lot, some at least of which you have to be aware of, being intelligent enough to host a radio show in the first place ...

CBC 'news' - opening story - "Can the coalition survive?!?" - CBC again working for the neocons, against Canadians - If the Libs can't handle a simple videotape, can they handle a national government? etc etc. (always alternatives - i.e. anything about 'Did the GG do the right thing?' - With opinions from various people about the body blow delivered to Canadian democracy by Harper and the GG, and how the coalition remains determined to Stand Up for Canada!!! - etc etc - you choose your spin in any story, the CBC has obviously chosen Harper.) - and in later versions, once again telling everyone how the coalition is falling apart already - the Harper spin doctors, disguised as the CBC, in action already. A media should report news - in bigbrotherland, it creates it.

- and the Current - 20 minute interview with W Johnson, explaining with no argument why the coalition is against the wishes of Canadians, and should not be allowed, and etc and etc. Way to go neutral CBC. And again the hourly news telling everyone the coaltion is collapsing, infighting, etc. ARE YOU PEASANTS GETTING THE MESSAGE?!?!?!? We are NOT going to talk about what could easily be seen as a much more important story - was it right for the GG to accept Harper's request to prorogue parliament to avoid a no confidence vote???? What does this mean for the future of 'democracy' etc in Canada? Nothing good ..... but then there wasn't much of it left, so it doesn't take much killing. Et tu, CBC??

And I said ..... Peter Foster: The Mugabe solution - the guy looks nice in his suit, but obviously there's little other than neocon indoctrination behind the smile. To say "...that is, where the value of money depends on the prudence, or otherwise, of governments... That was one of the main reasons for the universal trend in the 1990s to make central banks independent of possibly feckless democratically-elected governments..." is just completely wrong, a rewriting of history to suit neocon justification of the mess they have made of everything, and anyone with an actual understanding of history would understand that. Following the crash of 29, caused by out of control banks creating far, far, far too much speculative money, much as they have over the last few years, governments put serious controls in place concerning the power of banks to create money, and from the time the western countries got back on their feet again through and following WWII, the currency was stable, inflation minimal. During the 70s the people forgot the lessons of the Great Depression, the corps and banks bought enough governments and media to arrange for the governments to turn over the money creation power once again completely to private banks, and it's been a roller coaster ever since, bubbles and busts and bailouts. An accountable, democratic government is a MUCH more reliable controller of the money supply (1935-75) than private banks (pre-29 crash, 1975-today) who are much more concerned with maxing their own invester ROIs and creating great amounts of speculative money for currency gambling and derivitave speculation and suchlike than maintaining a stable economy for average citizens. Get some more understanding here Banketeering and here The Corporate Reactionary Revolution HREF=" .

As far as inflation hurting the few for the benefit of the many, more capitalist perverse lies, the actual reverse of the real situation - systemic inflation, the result of having to pay interest on our money supply every year, benefits the banks and the wealthy few at the expense of everyone else. Think of life back in the 70s and before, before the banks started creating all of our money, and too much of it, essentially unregulated, and charging interest for it - one working adult in most households could provide a decent life and cover expenses, own a house, pay for the kid's university, etc - now it takes two adults, and people continue to fall behind, and stress is up and savings down and the economy on a roller coaster - all because of the high and inevitable inflation caused by bank created money. Bank investors profit, of course, as do large businesses, as we all know that cost of living inevitably increases faster than average incomes, thus the continual falling behind.


And I said ..... No one voted for a mess like this - very disappointing from Goar, usually more level-headed than to be spouting rightwing talking points - Dion 'eager for the prize he hadn't won'?? Cheap shot, ad hominem, juvenile; 'can't communicate with 3/4 of the electorate'?? simply not true - he is very eloquent, comes across as MUCH more sincere than Harper; 'unequivocal repudiation'?? he was rejected by 75% of voters, yes - but Harper by 65% - not a lot of difference. we aren't impressed with any of them right now ... and not impressed with the media much more, either ...


And I said ..... Governor General boxed in by Harper "...the legitimacy of a Prime Minister Canadians recently elected, and quite decisively so ..." ????? Of Cdns who voted, Harper got 37%, of Cdns of voting age, make that maybe 20% - 'decisive'???? More people did not vote for anyone than voted for Harper - I would say the most decisive message from the last election is that most Cdns are not very happy with what's on offer politically.


And I said ..... A letter to the Governor General - A 'distinguished' law prof at Canada's most prestigious law school says that a signed contract has no legal import. My my.
And he seems to be unaware of the primary question here - is it a good idea to set the precedent that a PM can prorogue parliament for no other reason than he faces a confidence motion he knows he will lose, but wishes to retain power?
Amazing Canada. Indeed. Amazing Canadian 'law'. Amazing Cdn 'jurists'. Lewis Carroll. Alice. We aren't in Kansas anymore, Toto.


And I said ..... Public panel: What does the political crisis mean for Canada - I'm just wondering which of you neocon talking points bots wants to direct me to letters or whatever you wrote four years ago when Harper was trying to convince the NDP and Bloc to join him in bringing down Martin - "Mr Harper, it's a good plan, but don't forget, you have to demand an election and see if the people of Canada support your plan with the damned socialists and even more damned separatists before actually doing this ...' and etc. Anyone? Your ignorance of parliamentary procedure is stunning, but I suppose that's to be expected in people who take their marching orders from Talking Points memos whose only purpose is to obfusticate the actual situation they do not wish to acknowledge and lead people astray. I am so frustrated with you people because there is indeed a coup underway here, but it is not Dion et al who are behind it, it is Harper et al, refusing to acknowledge the majority of MPs who have stated they no longer have confidence in his MINORITY government, which is perfectly normal in any minority situation. Harper has, if you do some math beyond your talking points, the support of approximately 20% of the Canadian voting public. By the same standards, of course, the other three have only about 25% support - but that is still more than Harper. The whole system needs some serious overhaul, starting with the PR that pumpkinhead (apt name) denigrated - what it does not need is 'fixing' by the Harper-Bay St-Mainstream Media coalition by driving yet another big nail into what little is left of 'democracy' in this country by closing parliament rather than allowing the majority to speak.


And I said ..... Liberals pitch Dion exit plan There's a kind of feeding frenzy going on here, and some day a lot of people are going to wake up and think, OMG, were we really that stupid? Driven, of course, by the media and cons, with apparently a handful of 'lib' backroom traitors, for some reason that is less than clear, although it is known that the Cons and Harper would dearly like to see the end of the Liberal party altogether, perhaps as some kind of revenge for what they did to themselves with Mulroney in 93, or perhaps just to increase their own chances of getting a majority, which is something most Star readers would, I think, **really** regret. You're gonna regret this someday, folks. Act in haste, repent in leisure, as the old saying goes. I have no particular fondness for Dion, but I do care what happens to Canada, and you're all lookin pretty bad here.


Sunday - Enright - sounding a bit more level headed than most CBC stuff, maybe the few remaining oldtimers put their foot down about the blatant bias or something of the last few months, or years really, reacting in some shock to the state to which they have helped bring the country. Enright talked to Ignatieff and some Con senator, and the difference was striking - Egnatieff sounding very intelligent and concerned and like somebody who actually cared for the country, and the Con senator sounding like every other Con supporter we've been hearing, Con talking points trying to mislead and lie about everything, and 'we're really wonderful, they're all terrible', and etc. To think about how so many Canadians have been suckered in by these people is really depressing.


What came before ...... Monday Nov 24 08.

Kelly McParland: Lament of the baby boomers - this is SOOOOO neocon / capitalist - create serious problems through seriously bad policies, and then as soon as the shit is blowing through the fan big time and people are looking around for someone to string up, start finger-pointing and blaming the victims. We are short of money for looking after our seniors and other things because during the 70s the neocons took over our governments and began the racket I have written about called Banketeering . The baby boomers were, I'll grant, pretty lazy about looking after their democracy and allowing these people to take over, but they had a lot of propaganda thrown their way as well, and were far too trusting of the capitalist media and their lies. Which continues to this day - there are few people more brainwashed than the average person posting on the NP lists. It would take books to respond to this stuff, but you could start enlightenment here - The Corporate Reactionary Revolution , and get a heads up about the current meltdown and what is really happening here - Ultimate Sting . Careful, there's words with more than three syllables and sentences with more than 8 words, if you're used to tv soundbites, they could prove challenging. But then saving our country from these people is going to be a serious challenge, so this could prove useful exercise. (oh, and this is part of the blog at Onward Rocinante - if you want to tell all your friends where intelligent commentary can be found)


Economic storm engulfing cities - some suggestions for Cdn mayors: You can use the Bank of Canada for essentially interest-free loans. Neocon governments prefer you use commercial banks and enrich their friends, but maybe it's time to push back a bit and fight for Canada for Canadians. For more background, try Ultimate Sting and Banketeering


Daring to think about deficits - The so-called 'structural' deficit can also result from an intentional decision reduce income below projected spending plus reasonable surplus for rainy days. As the neocons have done. Not clever, catches up sooner or later. The solution is not more spending cuts, or borrowing, but increasing income (taxes) to reasonable levels. And then, if you have an income deficit, why, as the government, would you go to private banks and let them create money to borrow, when you could create the money yourself? Hmmm - things that cannot be explained in a few hundred words - more detail here - Banketeering (and even more more here - Ultimate Sting )


Deflation's big game - - Inflation - banks create too much money. Deflation - they don't create enough money. Funny there don't appear to be any 'economists' who understand such a simple idea. Kind of like explaining the Emperor's New Clothes to the King's Court whose posh lives depend on keeping the king happy, I guess. The simple root cause of everything wrong today, and for the last couple of hundred years, is that banks create almost all of our money supply essentially out of thin air - and demand something real as 'interest' on the payback (and that's a lot of money, even in Canada - something like three trillion bucks outstanding debt, on which they want interest every year). The thing is, you borrow X imaginary and you can pay back X imaginary - but the Y interest you gotta come up with some other way. When you kick that up to three trillion X, that's a lotta Y that is 'real property' that is going to get turned over to the banks. They win when they make bubbles, and they win when they stop creating money and strangle everyone. And it's all going to keep happening until We the People start acting like Canada is a sovereign country that creates its own money debt free, rather than a vassal country under the rule of they who create our money. Think about it. More here - Banketeering (and even more more here - Ultimate Sting )


PM discovers Keynes.. - Bubbles are too much money in circulation. Depressions are not enough money in circulation. Banks create money. Private banks create the money, either too much or not enough. Banks prosper in either inflationary times or depressions ( a few may go under, but that just leaves more for the rest and makes them more powerful). Go behind the curtain - Banketeering ...


- there have been a number of articles and comments lately about people like Howard Zinn or Noam Chomsky not being actively on board the 911 so-called 'truth movement' (which I of course am one of, believing that whatever happened that day, the Official Conspiracy Theory is NOT it) - there are many people who start attacking these people when they are asked about the so-called '9111 Truth' and etc. I do not agree, and when a couple of things came through an email list I subscribe to, I responded thusly: (just so you know)

I don't entirely agree with this kind of thing - I think that people like Chomsky, Zinn, and Ali have been great fighters and thinkers and writers in their time against a lot of seriously bad things, and still are for that matter, and that they do not agree with everything that everyone who opposes capitalists or the crimes they are accused of should not, in my opinion, be grounds to dismiss them and all of their work out of hand - actually, you could make a good argument that this kind of tactic is another divide and conquer tactic - if you have ten strong beliefs, according to this kind of thinking, then you must be enemies with someone who only agrees with nine of those beliefs!! (or not necessarily enemies, but at least not friends, and dismiss everything the other person says - which is, I would submit, going to get you into some pretty strange places). I think it is better to just walk your own path (strongly), and when that path is shared with others, this is good, when some of your companions on a certain path diverge for a time, that should be fine too, as long as they are not active enemies in some way - and I don't think you can say someone's disinclination to support your every cause actively makes them an enemy, in the same way, for instance, with these guys, as say PNAC would be pretty much our enemy, in all ways at all times. People like these do not have to apologize to anyone, after lifetimes of fighting for (or against) things we all have agreed with in earlier days, and I think we do them an injustice when we attack them like this (or not 'we', for right or wrong, I haven't been on this bandwagon, actually). It doesn't really matter to me that these people do not see the 911 fight as important, or want to get involved - that in no way at all changes my beliefs about how important this fight is, nor makes me in any way inclined to abandon it - I don't formulate my beliefs on who believes whatever, nor do I reject my beliefs because of what someone else does not believe, I listen to all sides, and make up my own mind, regardless of who else shares or does not share those beliefs. And people who would abandon such a fight because someone like Zinn or whoever says they do not believe in it strongly enough to make it an issue would not really be a companion worth having in the fight - people who follow others, rather than fight because they believe themselves, are never of that much use anyway. More could be said, but that's about the heart of it and much else calls.


Wednesday - Distracted easily? You're getting older - junk science and junk 'journalism' - for what purpose? You have 12 older people and 12 'younger' older people, whatever that is supposed to mean, out of a population of millions - reliability very small. No indication of how the people were chosen, which is important - you can choose people to prove anything you want to prove, really - more small reliability. No indication of what the television show was that 'distracted' them - if you have an intelligent adult, and there is a documentary about something important, they will probably find that more interesting than dealing with some meaningless arithmetic calculation on a pocket calucluator they have just been handed but have never used before and don't see any need to spend time learning. Younger people these days have notoriously short attention spans, they have diseases named after them and special new drugs to make them more docile - how does this relate to the story? Why is the Star promoting yet more looking down on older people? And etc. How can you respond to an article like this in 1,000 characters? Does anyone else care? Onward Rocinante -


CBC News chief to become Toronto Star publisher - interesting they decided to put this info in the 'arts and entertainment' section. But I suppose good propaganda and indoctrination maintenance is something of an art form. Black art, but still .... and what we find in the 'news' papers these days certainly has a lot more to do with entertaining the masses rather than keeping them informed. Ultimate Sting .


John Ivison: Fiscal update now a declaration of war - I don't suppose kicking the libs, ndps and greens (or what is left of 'democracy' in this country for that matter) where it hurts will trouble many on the NP 'discussion/mindless rant' lists, but you ought to have a read of the Rev Neimuller story, and wonder who is going to stick up for you when it's your turn - if you think the neocons and the NWO will have any use for footsoldiers after you've done your work for them, you're going to be sadly disappointed, I predict. Ultimate Sting .


-the current, Indian 'terror' attacks - at the end, the final thing we get to hear, some 'senior analyst' talking about how this proves that there is an international terror plot!!! - and they hate our freedom and democracy and that is their only driving motive, so we have to protect ourselves!!

Second part - some lady from the Monk Center and some thing called the 'International Center of Political Psychology' (really...) - talking about Harper's 'cognitive dissonance' - the trouble he must be going through, etc, the poor man, after he earlier said no deficit, NEVER NO SIR!!, and now actually having to consider such a thing, and even say it is a good thing - this is complete, 100% in the box bullshit - politicians lie without a second's thought, this whole show is just more damage control to keep people from going anywhere near the root causes of the whole problem - neither of these speakers (AM and the interviewee) can believe this, so their contempt for the listeners is total, playing out this little charade for the peasants, treating people like morons, like robots, automotons who will believe anything the people in the Ministry of Truth feed them. And to the extent 'the people' listen to this without protest - they are. What else can you say?

- 3rd half hour = Diane Francis and the lady from the CCPA sharing in the damage control pep talk, a little good cop-bad cop stuff, but basically they are all (3) on message, and not a word about bank created money, the source of the entire meltdown, and the door to the solutions

Life in capitalistland. Same old same old.


The Dirty Thirties offer some important lessons for Harper: The main lesson that was learned following 29 was that banks and unbridled capitalism are very dangerous to society. Various measures were put in place to control both, including the Bank of Canada, which did a good job of bringing the country back to prosperity, funding the Canadian effort in the WWII, and the great infrastructure building and social programs following the war. In the 70s the neocons took over, and the bank of Canada was phased out - and the capitalists deregulated again, and it's been a roller coaster of bubbles and bailouts ever since, culminating with the current global financial meltdown. How truly is it said, he who forgets the lessons of the past is bound to repeat them. Two things to help relearn things forgotten - Banketeering and Ultimate Sting .


masters voice - reporting news or writing on blank slate! - Island Morning, some 'economist' explaining how the current deflation is actually caused by consumers not spending - and then on the Current, another 'guest' making the 'point' quite strongly that when we look for the causes of this financial meltdown, you damned peasants look in the mirror, right!!!??? Too much credit with credit cards!!! Them damned people in the US buying houses they could not afford, wow!!

This is damage control gone insane - it's apparent the financial wizards who have engineered this whole mess out of sheer greed and stupidity are pretty concerned the peasants might start to understand what actually happened here, and be looking for some blood, so the proactive drive to shift blame away from the people who ought to be in jail to the victims is on big time, with, as usual, the willing compliance of their media. Apparently successfully - there don't appear to be many clues out there in tv-viewerland about what is really going on.


Saturday - How bad will it get? Facing the worst financial crisis in decades, five experts chart out the future ... - but, but, but .... he queried with some confusion, aren't these the same people who completely failed to foresee the current meltdown developing, speaking as financial 'experts' for the same institutions which have been involved in a series of Canadian bubbles and bailouts and other assorted crises going back to around 1980? Doesn't anyone know of Einstein's famous quote about not solving problems with the same level of consiousnesss from which the problems arose? Or what about the old (but well true) notion that he who refuses to learn history, and learn from history, is bound to repeat it - again, and again, and again, it appears with these people, and those who listen to them and lazily, foolishly, refuse to think for themselves? And what about the very truism that these people are working for institutions which are hardly neutral in this debate - they have been centrally involved in creating this problem, and are very much interested in maintaining a system which affords them great wealth and power - you can be quite sure that anything they have to say will be said with this as their first priority, and if actual solutions to this crisis would involved serious restrictions on that wealth and power their willingness to talk about such things might be less than forthcoming?

We are not going to get out of this mess with any chance of a more stable future until people start to understand one thing - the root of this entire problem is that banks create almost all of our money supply (~98% in Canada) essentially out of thin air, with no effective government oversight and no practical rules of any sort to stop them from creating far too much for speculative purposes thus leading to bubbles such as we are just suffering the crash of, or no way to stop them from, in moments of panic and withdrawal, then shrinking the money supply they create thus leading to the various hardships associated with too LITTLE money floating around rather than too much. And, of course, they demand 'interest' on all of the money they create out of thin air, which has led to all of our current financial problems, including inflation, low savings, and high debt loads in general. And this is an insane situation anyway, for any country that pretends to be sovereign - as you cannot be sovereign as long as some other power is creating your money supply. And for those whose knee-jerk reaction is that governments creating money leads to inflation and other problems - just get your heads out of the sand and see what bank-created money hath wrought. More here - Banketeering . Peter Foster: Ferguson's fears - We have to remember that the alternatives to capitalism have always wound up worse - Well, first we have to note this - "...Professor Ferguson is - unusually for an academic - a fan of capitalism..." - but this just exposes the writer's fantasies about the way the western world works, which are quite untrue, as are most NP-ian fantasies about the Vast Leftwing Conspiracy - the implication that university courses (taught, of course, by 'academics') are somehow hotbeds of anti-capitalism simply doesn't accord with the facts. You may be able to find the odd independent thinker in 21st century universities, but the great bulk of 'economics' courses taught in university are solidly pro-capitalist in orientation, stressing the supremacy of 'the market' and Freidmanian economic 'ideas' (I just made that up, I think, I like it - that suggestion of 'mania >> maniac >> insanity' etc is quite appropriate when applied to Freidman and Chicago-school 'economics'). Well, if you can call 'policies' with the sole purpose of justifying greed and stupidity an idea. C'mon, anybody tell me just ONE economist getting space in Canadian newspapers or radio who speaks an anti-capitalist message? There are none (there may be a few in Canadian universities, but they certainly get no space in the mainstream media). And those modern things attaching themselves like parasites to universities, 'business' schools and etc - all teaching the glories of capitalism - maybe I've missed something, but are there any adjunct institutions in Canadian universities calling themselves something like the 'College of Socialist Economics' or anything? Of course not (who would fund such a thing, after all?)

So, we just need to note, when considering anything this author writes, that it is all to be taken with some rather large grains of salt, proceeding as he does from an obvious and substantial disconnect with reality in the first place.

And I suppose I've written beyond the average attention span of an NP reader, so will leave it here, although much more could be said. Perhaps later.

{{AND later, in response to some comments (needing a short break) -

Standing - obviously, along with the writer of this piece, you keep your head firmly inside some Great Left Wing Conspiracy Hide the Children!!! box, and write from there without bothering to stick your head out to see what the real world is like - ( a capitalist dominated dystopia these days). I actually do listen to the first few hours of CBC morning shows every day, and every day I get Business Digest a couple of times, and a couple of times a week I get Michael Hlinka, and we get regular commentary from speakers from the Conference Board of Canada and such places, all telling us how WONDERful!!! capitalism is, and many others giving the same message. I am aware of no regular commentator on the morning shows who regularly gets a chance to answer these people with anything even remotely approaching a 'Maybe Capitalism isn't so great, eh??' stance - I have written them frequently about this, but of course such letters are never read or responded to. You're right (no pun intended, but if the shoe fits...) about a complete lack of balance on the CBC, as in the Cdn media in general - it's about 50% rightwing wacko (take your pick of NP writers), 45% sort of center right wing (Globe, most of the Star), and the very odd central-leftist who gets a few words every now and then (Stanford, Salutin once a week, Linda McQuaig (OMG HEX SIGN HEX SIGN!!!) every couple of weeks in the Star - can't think of any other regulars offhand).

As to 'a range of academics in universities' - you may note that I never said there weren't a range of academics in the universities, I simply said that economics **courses** are all capitalist oriented in nature, and graduates well indoctrinated in the capitalist message. As to that being because Capitalism (ALL BOW!!) is the greatest economic system ever invented - again, get your head of the fantasy box you live in and look around at the huge global meltdown and ongoing theft of your gods. This is not as good as it gets. (have a read here - Ultimate Sting - if you're ready for some OTB (out of the box) thinking )

Bb- Jim Standford does not speak any anti-capitalist message, he just speaks of a kinder, gentler capitalism - and as such he is just as wrong-headed as the rest of you - this is a cancer, and the only cure is complete excision. But he gets a pretty good paycheck for being a 'good' capitalist. They pay their better minions pretty good. It's a pretty shallow vision that sees only two choices - that in order to avoid the problems of a centrally controlled economy, the only alternative is unbridled capitalism. What about just one more alternative, something sort of between the two extremes of complete control and complete freedom - a 'free' sort of market where people work as they like and buy as they like with the money they make, but with some rules to ensure that it is actually free - that some larger players in the market, with perhaps a certain lack of normal human inhibitions against things like stealing and lying and intimidating others to get their way, are controlled so they do not dominate the 'free' market and turn it to their own interests? And these rules not imposed by some central authority, which would tend to negate the 'freedom' aspect we speak of, but rules democratically chosen, after proposals and debates and votes and such things, rules that a clear majority of the citizens of this democracy supported? No, that is very much NOT what we have nowadays - people are kept very much in the dark about what rules their society operates under, rules which are made in secret and favor the interests of the few over the many, and there is very little actual 'democracy' to be found here, all propaganda to the contrary notwithstanding.


Neil Hrab: Time for some triage in the bailout business - Some good ideas, but your indoctrination is showing (don't feel bad, after 30 years there aren't many of us with open eyes left). The 'socialist handout' is yet another capitalist myth (actually a 'perverse capitalist lie' which I have written of elswewhere ) - try dragging your head out of the television, that great indoctrination machine, and just look around!! - who is getting the big handouts, and have been for the last 30 years?!?!? - it is the capitalists who ALWAYS get the handouts! When WE as a society decide, for instance, to implement a program like the Canadian Health Insurance System - that is not a 'socialist handout' - it is a program implemented by a people who believe that a political system based on social democratic lines is the best kind of system, and as caring human beings we want to look out for one another. - that you people still mindlessly mouth this idea of lazy welfare bums stealing huge amounts of money from hard working, generous capitalists kind of boggles the mind. The current 'bailout' is just the latest incarnation - if you just think of the Cdn national debt, for instance, you will realise (note I said 'think', not again mouth capitalist lies) that something like two trillion dollars of Canadian taxpayer money has been handed over to capitalists in the name of servicing this 'debt' -

The Onward Rocinante archive can be found __here__, for those interested in earlier out-of-the-box commentary, and also recent longer missives to the CBC and others, and yet even more other stuff going waaaaaay back. the tv abyss is watching

Einstein - cannot solve a problem with the same consciousness you created it with - come to Green Island

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 License.