The Red Rooster Newspaper

Project Hero - reply from Joyce Green

2010-04-01T11:03:00.000-07:00

I sent a letter to the professors at the University of Regina who signed an Open Letter to U of R President Timmons in regards to its Project Hero program. That open letter can be found here: .

This is the reply I received from Joyce Green, Professor of the Poli-Sci department at U of R:

Dear Mr. Van Lane:

Thanks for your note; we appreciate the support.

We are aware of several facebook groups, some of which appear to have the same creator, an individual involved with the Conservative and Saskatchewan parties.

Our position is as follows:

The letter we signed was intended neither to criticize individual soldiers, nor to deprive or deny anyone of financial support to pursue post-secondary education. The criticism was directed against one scholarship program, the “Project Hero” program, and not at any other support for, or scholarships targeted to, veterans or their families. We note that the federal government can and does provide for education assistance for families of soldiers, and thus, there is no policy need for Project Hero. The benefits provided under the "Children of Deceased Veterans Education Assistance Act C-28" provides for educational expenses. (Please consult Veterans’ Affairs Canada for more information.)

At issue here was our perception that “Project Hero” was designed for essentially partisan political purposes, as a way of using the Universities, as institutions, to endorse Canada’s current military presence in Afghanistan. As the “Project Hero” program requires the Universities themselves to bear the costs of the tuition waivers it offers (in contrast to privately or externally funded scholarship programs, in which the costs are borne by third parties), it requires the Universities to treat one particular subset of students as different from all others, including those students who are children of wounded soldiers, as well as the children of any number of other risky and honourable professions.

This compromises the political neutrality of the University; at its worst, it potentially makes the institution into a cheerleader for the policy of whichever government happens to be in power. It is our view that a distance should be maintained between universities and governments (whether conservative, liberal, or social democratic), and that this program compromises that distance, making it that much more difficult to have open and unconstrained conversations in our universities about Canadian foreign policies.

Sincerely,

Joyce A. Green
Professor
Department of Political Science
University of Regina
Regina, Saskatchewan S4S 0A2
Canada

2010 Vancouver Olympics - a Gift That Keeps On Taking

2009-07-30T07:28:00.001-07:00

Thanks for the Olympics, Santa - but what I really wanted was a public daycare system

In May of 2007 the provincial government released a 'business plan' in which the ultimate cost of the Olympics to the public wasn't revealed.

As Chris Shaw wrote in his book, Five Ring Circus, the IOC refuses to allow any city to host the Olympics unless public money is guaranteed. This is because the Olympics are such a colossal business risk that no sensible business person would underwrite it.

So, public inputs are taken from hospitals, schools, and daycares so a few people can chase each other around an ice rink or zip down an icy course in a bobsled while thousands of others watch live and billions watch on TV.

Why spend money removing the 100 million landmines in the world or retooling the economies or fighting poverty when you can vicariously experience the thrill of victory or the agony of defeat. That kid in Afghanistan, who stepped one of those landmines and is now hopping around on one foot, is thinking the same thing. "Bobsledding, mom. Quick, quick, come look!"

Then why is the public taxpayer 'investing' in this fucking orgy? Because we were told that in the worst case scenario we'd 'break even' and in the best case scenario we'd make $200 million. Now, in my books (and remember I'm coming from a loonie left POV - you know, the people who couldn't manage a hot dog stand) 'breaking even' means the income is equal to the expense. So, if the expenses are $12 then the income is $12 and the result is no gain - but no loss either. When my mom breaks even in at the slots in Reno it's because she left home with $300 and she returned with $300, which doesn't happen very often such is the nature of gambling.

So, how do we the taxpayer recoup public money, or investment? Well, through taxes silly. And where do we collect taxes? We collect income tax and sales tax.

It appears the cost of the Olympics to taxpayers will be closer to $3 billion than to $600 million. The cost of security alone ballooned from $85 million to $1 billion - the same ratio as if I said "It's gonna cost you 85 bucks" and then once the contract was signed I revealed "plus another $915."

The Olympics span a period of 13 days.

The taxpayers don't share in any revenue from the broadcast rights or from the licensing of the games, etc. The public didn't make any money in the development of properties, etc.

Yes, we're going to collect taxes from ourselves, in the form of taxes on our income. If our income increases by massive amounts the taxes will reflect an increase in provincial revenue.

Mostly we hope to recoup our investment in the games from the visitors to Vancouver who come for the Olympic experience who will leave behind massive amounts of money in the form of sales taxes.

Now here are some basic calculations:

Let's say $3 billion is the target (our break even).

PST is 7%.

Therefore $3 billion represents 7% of the total expenditures during the 13 days. Thus the Olympic experience has to generate an extra $42,857,142, 857 in taxable sales. Or almost $3.2 billion dollars a day.

The population of the Metro Vancouver area is close to 2 million people. Let's assume that we'll get 2 million people during the 13 days visiting us. They will have to spend $1648 per day for the full 13 days. So a family of four will have to spend nearly $6600 a day (and that doesn't include food since it's not taxable).

You can massage the numbers by increasing the number of touristy days to a month or double the number of people or say the increase of income tax will account for greater revenues. On and on.

But if I came to you and said "I have a great business opportunity for you" and I gave you these numbers I'm sure it'd be a difficult moment for both of us. Unless, I wore a tie. Then you'd probably think, "he's got loads of experience and he wears a tie. And he says things like 'traction', 'inputs' and 'aggressive'".

And by the way, if we don't get the sales tax from those visitors, that means an increase in our property taxes (that $100 million bill we plopped into the developer's bank account for the Olympic Village means an increase of about $2000 in property tax for Vancouverites - and if you spread it over the several years there will be financing costs).

And doubling the population of Vancouver (2 million people i) is going to lead to massive delivery problems, consumption costs, etc.

Had we used the money to develop a public day care program each family would be relieved of between $8000 and $12000 per child per year in expenses and it would have employed about 64,000 people in good paying jobs and it would have done a lot of other things almost equal in goodness as bobsledding.

xo

M

Old Barry Goldwater and the young me

2009-04-14T06:48:00.000-07:00

What do we want? Freedom! When we do want it? Soon!

Ah, youth. The newness of life, the excitement of fresh ideas, the certainty. I was strolling recently amoung my book collection and came across an old friend and influence sitting there ignominiously nestled between Marx and Engels on one side and Trotsky on the other, Senator Barry Goldwater.

Goldwater was the Senator from Arizona and the Republican nominee for the US presidency in 1964. He was a true, state's rights, limited government conservative. He wrote a book in 1960 in the last days of Dwight Eisenhower's tenure in the White House called Conscience of a Conservative. This book, a manifesto of conservatism, introduced me to the ideas of the honest right; it explained a creed of freedom against an oppressive government, the principled position taken by the writers of the American constitution, and an individual's and state's rights vs. federal rights. Its language was clear, simple, direct. I read it at 15 and still remembered phrases as I reread them 30 years later.

"Conservatism...puts material things in their proper place - that has a structured view of the human being and human society, in which economics plays only a subsidiary role" he writes in his introduction. Socialism, he says, subordinates all other considerations to man's material well-being. People are social, creative and spiritual. Conservatism, he believes, understand this; socialism does not.

In those youthful days I read Ayn Rand, Barbera Amiel. I read Gary Allen's None Dare Call It Conspiracy and John Stormer's None Dare Call It Treason. The ideas were fresh and influential the first time I came across them and they stayed with me for years.

When Gov. Ronald Reagan entered the White House, he came to power speaking the words that Senator Barry Goldwater had written and campaigned on 16 years earlier (Reagan gave the keynote at the RNC 1964). I was 17 years old and steeped in the conservative philosophy.

Seeing Reagan in action for the next eight years, then four years of Bush, plus our own unctuous Prime Minister, Brian "Pay-Me-Cash" Mulroney, the AIDS crisis, and neo-conservatism disabused me of the certainty a better world would be made from the efforts of the honest right.

I began to see a 'marketplace' that, left to its own forces, brought infected milk to market, poisoned watersheds, gave thalidomide to pregnant mothers. The marketplace ignored (and lied about) smoking and cancer, about the contraindications of SSRIs. People would be forced to work at the lowest wage in the worst conditions possible using the strange Orwellian argument that it necessary to 'create wealth'. Moneymen lied about the true nature of the financial instruments they created and we're seeing the economic fallout of that. Poverty increased. The governments grew its military and had no hestitation of using it against its own citizens. I saw the war-on-drugs as an excuse to militarize the urban centres.

In short, the problem of keeping the individual, or classes of individuals, from cheating, lying and stealing became apparent. How do people exercise protection, keep themselves from being enslaved, abused or marginalized except through the powers of the state.

I came to realize that Barry Goldwater's politics let me down in every aspect. There isn't a page in Conscience of a Conservative with which I can now completely agree. Ayn Rand turned out to be a political philospher divorced from reality. Gary Allen and John Stormer were...well, they're fucking Birchers, man.

I have to say that, as I wistfully read Barry Goldwater again, the idea of a political philosophy in which the people, equal before the law, with clean hearts and honest minds come together to help each other as needed, who resist coercing or being coerced, still appealed to me. But the fact is the strong will kill and eat the weak because strength and decency are not always coincident in the same person, because we've created a society of 'getting our own' instead of helping each other. We don't think of the human wants and hurts of others when we make our choices. We're more Amway than St. Matthew.

Goldwater's political philosophy, despite his denial, is all about money in the end. His arguments for personal freedom never carried with it an equally forceful argument for responsibility. By removing responsibility from the equation he paved the way for deregulation, inaction, injustice and the 'redistribution of wealth' into the hands of the few instead of the many.

When one doesn't contribute to help the poor, to help the halt, to build community, or defend justice one can't enjoy freedom. We're all in this together. We live or die based on the decisions, great and small, we make towards each other.

Still, being young was fun, even if I was an idiotic, mouthy right-wing punk. And I loved Barry Goldwater so much I stole his glasses.

Peace.

MVL

I'll see your Milton Friedman and raise you four John Kenneth Galbraiths

2009-02-12T10:54:00.000-08:00

Economic swordsmanship is sexy

John Kenneth Galbraith, Canadian born, Harvard professor, economist, advisor to President Kennedy, speechwriter for Adlai Stevenson. In the 20th century whenever something interesting was being done in the world of economics or public policy Galbraith was never too far away if he wasn't in the centre of things.

Of all intellectuals and public policy people I can't decide whether it is Keynes or Galbraith I like most.

Here are some JKG quotes from Wiki-quote (I went there to remind myself where I pulled a quote from):

Relevant for the these days of economic 'bailouts' and the nitpicking debates.

In the usual (though certainly not in every) public decision on economic policy, the choice is between courses that are almost equally good or equally bad. It is the narrowest decisions that are most ardently debated. If the world is lucky enough to enjoy peace, it may even one day make the discovery, to the horror of doctrinaire free-enterprisers and doctrinaire planners alike, that what is called capitalism and what is called socialism are both capable of working quite well. "The American Economy: Its Substance and Myth," quoted in Years of the Modern (1949), ed. J.W. Chase

A great response to the so-called 9/11 paradigm shift. The principle holds even if he was speaking specifically about economic models.

When you see reference to a new paradigm you should always, under all circumstances, take cover. Because ever since the great tulipmania in 1637, speculation has always been covered by a new paradigm. There was never a paradigm so new and so wonderful as the one that covered John Law and the South Sea Bubble — until the day of disaster. Quoted in Ben Laurance and William Keegan, "Galbraith on crashes, Japan and Walking Sticks", The Observer (1998-06-21)

A note to the doctrinaire left and, especially these days, the doctrinaire right. When you have 15 million children starving to death annually and a billion people hungry you should be looking for economies and public policies that work. To be deaf to the cries of the poor in order to keep your cherished beliefs from being contradicted is cruel.

I react to what is necessary. I would like to eschew any formula. There are some things where the government is absolutely inevitable, which we cannot get along without comprehensive state action. But there are many things — producing consumer goods, producing a wide range of entertainment, producing a wide level of cultural activity — where the market system, which independent activity is also important, so I react pragmatically. Where the market works, I'm for that. Where the government is necessary, I'm for that. I'm deeply suspicious of somebody who says, "I'm in favor of privatization," or, "I'm deeply in favor of public ownership." I'm in favor of whatever works in the particular case. from Bookends interview with Brian Lamb (1994)

From Age of Uncertainty (1977). This is one of my favourite quotes from a book that is almost completely quotable.

All of the great leaders have had one characteristic in common: it was the willingness to confront unequivocally the major anxiety of their people in their time. This, and not much else, is the essence of leadership.

A bonus quote from Money: Whence it came and Where it went. The first Galbraith book I read with chapters on John Law, coin sweating, gold standards, and paper money. It also has the best summary of American attitudes towards government and policy.

It is well-known that Americans are opposed to taxation without representation. It is equally true that Americans are also opposed to taxation with representation.

xo

MVL

Pfizer and Off-label Marketing

2009-01-12T11:04:00.000-08:00

Oh, no you didn't!

This article was pulled from the New England Journal of Medicine. It is reprinted in full. The text formatting is my own and was done on the fly.

The article's overview is this: Pfizer had an agressive marketing campaign to increase sales (use) of Neurontin for conditions for which it was not approved (off-label). They bumped Neurontin's US sales from $98 million to over $3 billion using these tactics.

The question is: if the Conservative government passes legislation that allows medical marketing like this (as they tried with C-51) then what restrictions will they put in place to protect public health and the public purse from being abused like this?

Pfizer settled part of the suit out of court with a $500 million payment.

It's a fairly easy read so I encourage you to dig into it.

These marketing methods were not found to be illegal in themselves; they were illegal insofar as they promoted off-label prescription.

Landefeld CS, Steinman MA.

The Neurontin Legacy - Marketing through
Misinformation and Manipulation. 2009; 360: 103-6 (8 January)

Old drugs usually fade away. Sometimes, however, they leave surprising legacies. In 1997, for example, a study comparing the effects of brand-name and generic formulations of levothyroxine led to an uproar over the discovery that the manufacturer of the brand-name product suppressed publication of the result that the two formulations were equivalent.

Recently, lawsuits alleging damages from illegal marketing of another old drug, gabapentin (Neurontin), have yielded remarkable discoveries about the structure and function of pharmaceutical marketing.

Patented in 1977 and approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1993 in doses of up to 1800 mg per day as adjunctive therapy for partial complex seizures, Neurontin became a surprise blockbuster for Parke-Davis, a division of Warner-Lambert, which was purchased by Pfizer in 2000.

U.S. sales rose from $98 million in 1995 to nearly $3 billion in 2004 before Neurontin faced generic competition and lost most U.S. sales.

The rise of Neurontin would have been unheralded except for a quirk of fate: a young biologist, David Franklin, went to work for Parke-Davis on April 1, 1996. Fresh out of postdoctoral training at Harvard, Franklin soon grew concerned that he was participating in illegal marketing. At a training seminar for "medical liaisons" on April 16, 1996, Franklin and his peers were told that FDA regulations required a fair and balanced presentation and prohibited promotion of a drug for off-label uses, selling by medical liaisons, and soliciting of inquiries from physicians. Six days later, a Parke-Davis executive reportedly told Franklin: I want you out there every day selling Neurontin. . . . We all know Neurontin's not growing for adjunctive therapy, besides that's not where the money is. Pain management, now that's money. Monotherapy [for epilepsy], that's money. . . . We can't wait for [physicians] to ask, we need [to] get out there and tell them up front. Dinner programs, CME programs, consultantships all work great but don't forget the one-on-one. That's where we need to be, holding their hand and whispering in their ear, Neurontin for pain, Neurontin for monotherapy, Neurontin for bipolar, Neurontin for everything. I don't want to see a single patient coming off Neurontin before they've been up to at least 4800 mg/day. I don't want to hear that safety crap either, have you tried Neurontin, every one of you should take one just to see there is nothing, it's a great drug.¹

Three months later, Franklin left Parke-Davis and filed a suit (ultimately,United States of America ex rel. David Franklin vs. Pfizer, Inc., and Parke-Davis Division of Warner-Lambert Company) alleging that off-label marketing of Neurontin constituted "false claims" designed to elicit payments from the federal government. On May 13, 2004, Warner-Lambert agreed to plead guilty and to pay more than $430 million to resolve criminal charges and civil liabilities. A class-action suit was filed the next day in federal court on behalf of private parties who had paid for illegally marketed Neurontin; this case (now known as In Re: Neurontin Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation) remains active.

The Franklin case placed more than 8000 pages of corporate documents in the public domain; these documents are now available in a searchable digital library at the University of California, San Francisco. The class-action suit also generated detailed testimony and reports that are available through the Federal Judiciary's Public Access to Court Electronic Records Service Center.

The Neurontin cases have revealed the mechanisms of action of a comprehensive marketing campaign - its goals and strategies, tactics and programs, and the participation of particular physicians and institutions.2 The campaign involved the systematic use of deception and misinformation to create a biased evidence base and manipulate physicians' beliefs and prescribing behaviors. These marketing methods were not found to be illegal in themselves; they were illegal insofar as they promoted off-label prescription. Thus, the importance of the cases lies largely in the light they shed on marketing methods that may be widespread but remain unseen because companies are rarely prosecuted for illegal marketing.

The Neurontin marketing plan consisted of both general strategies - such as the promotion of Neurontin use among high-prescribing physicians and cultivation of thought leaders - and tactical programs.2 Local physicians were recruited, trained, and paid to serve as speakers in "peer-to-peer selling" programs, which the company saw as "one of the most effective ways to communicate our message." Academic leaders were solicited with educational grants, research grants, and speaking opportunities; some received up to $158,250 over a 4-year period. Advisory boards and "consultants" were convened so that the firm could cultivate relationships with them and deliver "a hard-hitting message about Neurontin."

Marketing "tactics" included education, publications, and research whose promotional intent was disguised, in addition to more transparent activities, such as advertising and sales visits.² "Educational programs" reflected the belief that "medical education drives this market!" Teleconferences involving practicing physicians were moderated by physicians who were paid as much as $176,100 over 4 years. Parke-Davis formed speakers bureaus and sought "strong Neurontin advocates and users to speak locally for Neurontin." "Unrestricted educational grants" were made to for-profit medical-education companies that produced programs to discuss unapproved uses of Neurontin and to grant credit approved by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education.

A "publication strategy" was designed to increase the use of Neurontin for neuropathic pain and bipolar disorder, off-label indications with great revenue potential. Parke-Davis contracted with medical-education companies to produce articles on prespecified topics, target journals, titles, potential authors to be "chosen at the discretion of Parke-Davis," and "a consistent message" in keeping with promotional goals; some articles were ghost-written.

"Research" was designed and commissioned specifically to promote Neurontin use. A large seeding trial was conducted to "teach physicians to titrate Neurontin to clinical effect" and "to give neurologists the opportunity to titrate to higher doses [up to twice the FDA-approved limit] when needed."

In a recently unsealed 318-page analysis of research sponsored by Parke-Davis, epidemiologist Kay Dickersin concluded that available documents demonstrate "a remarkable assemblage of evidence of reporting biases that amount to outright deception of the biomedical community, and suppression of scientific truth concerning the effectiveness of Neurontin for migraine, bipolar disorders, and pain."³ For example, publication was delayed for a report on a multicenter, placebo-controlled study that found no effect of Neurontin on the primary outcome measure for neuropathic pain because "we [Parke-Davis employees] should take care not to publish anything that damages neurontin's marketing success."

Ultimately, ghost-written manuscripts downplayed the lack of effect on the primary outcome and emphasized other outcomes and subgroup analyses that favored Neurontin. Although guest authorship and commercial bias in research are a well-recognized threat to scientific integrity, the documentation of comprehensive manipulation of research and publication related to Neurontin is remarkable.

What is Neurontin's legacy? First, we have learned that pharmaceutical marketing can be comprehensive, strategic, well financed, disguised as "education" and "research," influential, and very effective. Promotion of Neurontin was neither discrete, compartmentalized, nor readily apparent; instead, it was intercalated in nearly every aspect of physicians' professional lives, from the accoutrements of practice to lectures, professional meetings, and publications. Although some pharmaceutical marketing may be less opaque, deceptive, and manipulative, evidence indicates that drug promotion can corrupt the science, teaching, and practice of medicine.⁴

Second, such comprehensive marketing involved many people and institutions that apparently failed to recognize the serious ethical and legal problems with their actions. Employees of Parke-Davis, the medical-education companies it hired, and many physicians (consultants, advisors, educators, and researchers) all participated knowingly. Universities, hospitals, professional organizations, and foundations also participated, and oversight agencies such as the FDA and the Department of Justice did not intervene quickly. Apparently, there was a shared acceptance that Parke-Davis's marketing was simply business as usual.

Finally, these cases substantiate the emerging conviction that "drastic action is essential" to preserve the integrity of medical science and practice and to justify public trust.4 We believe that such action should include the routine placement of legally discovered documents in the public domain, the study of such documents to inform strategies for minimizing abuses, the establishment of penalties that eliminate the profit to be gained through illegal marketing, and the independent public funding of peer-reviewed pharmaceutical research through a National Institute for Pharmaceutical Research that might be funded by a tax on all drug sales.⁵

Will our profession soon feel compelled to advocate for such actions to preserve our integrity, our social contract, and ultimately our privileges? Neurontin's most important legacy may be promoting our discussion of these issues and perhaps pushing us beyond the tipping point to action.

Drs. Landefeld and Steinman report serving as unpaid consultants to the plaintiff's attorney in United States of America ex rel. David Franklin vs. Pfizer, Inc., and Parke-Davis Division of Warner-Lambert Company and participating in the creation of the Drug Industry Document Archive by the University of California, San Francisco, Kalmanovitz Library, an effort that was funded in part by Thomas Greene, whose law firm represented David Franklin in the case.

Dr. Steinman also reports receiving support from an educational grant funded by the Attorney General Settlement Fund that arose from the Franklin case. No other potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not
necessarily reflect the official views of the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Source Information
Dr. Landefeld is a professor of medicine and chief of the Division of Geriatrics at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), San Francisco; associate chief of staff for geriatrics and extended care at the San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center (SFVAMC), San Francisco; and a fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.

Dr. Steinman is an assistant professor of medicine at UCSF and a staff physician at SFVAMC.

References

1. Disclosure of information by relator David P. Franklin pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3730 b(2), page 11. (Accessed December 16, 2008, at
http://dida.library.ucsf.edu/pdf/rab00a10.)

2. Steinman MA, Bero LA, Chren MM, Landefeld CS. The promotion of gabapentin: an analysis of internal industry documents. Ann Intern Med 2006;145:284-293. [Free Full Text]

3. Dickersin K. Reporting and other biases in studies of Neurontin for migraine, psychiatric/bipolar disorders, nociceptive pain, and neuropathic pain. August 10, 2008. (Accessed December 16, 2008, at
http://www.pharmalot.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/neurontin-dickersin-2.pdf.)

4. DeAngelis CD, Fontanarosa PB. Impugning the integrity of medical science: the adverse effects of industry influence. JAMA 2008;299:1833-1835. [Free Full Text]

5. Landefeld CS. Commercial support and bias in pharmaceutical research. Am J Med 2004;117:876-878.

John Baird Lacerates My Ears

2008-12-04T15:30:00.000-08:00

Democracy requires your complete obedience

I am listening to John Baird wax abusive over the NDP-Lib marriage of convenience in an interview with Peter Vandusen on CPAC's Primetime Politics.

He's pulled out the 'separatists' and 'socialist' taint that will work wonders in Buttfuck, Alberta forgetting that his party also works with the 'separatists' whenever convenient. I remember Harper's promise to straighten out the fiscal imbalance situation with Quebec (a BQ demand), to give Quebec a seat at the UNESCO (a BQ demand), declared Quebec a 'nation' and used their 2006 budget to give Quebec what it wanted in exchange for the BQ support.

As for 'socialist', what could that mean? Universal health care? Social services? State funded education? Progressive income tax? Yeah, baby, it's fucking frightening what the 'socialists' might do if they got hold of the levers of power.

Bob Rae insisted to Peter Vandusen that the letter of agreement with the BQ includes only a promise of support on fiscal measures introduced by a Lib-NDP coalition government. It in no way means a BQ veto over legislation, says Rae; neither does it guarantee support for legislation (which means that the parties will have to work together to come to an agreement on points in common - I suppose the Conservatives would be welcome to add their acidic 2 bits to any proposed legislation). Rae said that the BQ has agreed in writing to support fiscal policies for the next 18 months giving a coalition government stability.

John Baird counters with his insistence that the 'real' agreement (the secret one, the one they're not talking about) between these parties is way more sinister; the evil BQ are working their black arts to suck the political life out of Canada (perhaps possibly going as far as demanding a seat for Quebec as a special delegate to UNESCO).

He says that he is stunned that a 'small band' of 'leftists' and 'separatists' would steal parliament and overturn the recent federal election. When Vandusen countered that they aren't such a small band since they form a majority Baird did not even pause; the velocity of sentence didn't change but it's trajectory did. He was stunned, stunned, he said. This is carte blanche for the 'leftists' to drive the Brinks trucks up to Parliament Hill and start loading up the money.

Poor John. Democracy never looked so confusing for him.

Email exchange between Chuck and I

2008-12-02T15:19:00.000-08:00

Charles Adler doesn't appeal to me as much as it does to Chuck

Chuck,

I disagree almost completely with this...what is it...article? [Ed. note: it's a blog entry that Chuck emailed to me]

In our parliamentary system all MPs are elected to the House. Some MPs form into groups and alliances before or after their election.

The Governor General offers the reins of government to those groups or alliances she feels has the confidence of the House.

It's not a coup if she offers the reins to another party or alliance if the first group fails to build consensus to hold the confidence of the House. (And there is no guarantee she won't simply dissolve the parliament and trigger an election.)

It's not an autocracy but a cooperative democracy we run in Canada.

A minority government, by definition, must govern with the consent and cooperation of opposition members in the House.

What the fuck is this sudden horror over 'separatists'? In a calculated political move Prime Minister Harper acknowledged Quebec as a 'nation' during the last parliament. He campaigned in 2006 and 2008 in Quebec with the statement, "Les Liberaux ne veux pas et le BQ ne peut pas former un gouvernment federal pour les Quebecois" which means essentially that the Liberals won't and the BQ can't form a government for Quebec. Harper offered himself as the Federalist option.

With the help of the BQ the Harper Conservatives, who were a minority government, passed the 2006 budget.

But now that the BQ are actually on the verge of forming part of a coalition government he (and others) are complaining that they're 'separatists' - you know, people who think they form a 'nation' within Canada. Once you eat your cake like that, you've got to shit it - you can't have it both ways.

The BQ are elected to the House by the people in Quebec, the majority of who chose to remain Canadians; there is no appetite within Quebec to reopen the question of sovereignty. Yet, nevertheless they chose to elect MPs from Le Bloc. Perhaps because they feel that the BQ represent their social values better than the Harper Conservatives, the Liberals or the NDP. Therefore it's natural the BQ form part of a coalition government as the government is supposed to represent all of Canada and all Canadians. What sort of 'representational democracy' would it be if it were otherwise?

And what if Ontario and Quebec said BC and Alberta MPs couldn't participate as members of the government? British Columbians would all be constipated with unexpressed anger and Albertans would all divorce their spouses.

The Conservatives received 37% of the popular vote during the last election; the remaining parties received 63%. It's the 63% that are pulling off this so-called 'coup'.

This is what a democracy looks like. I'm not big on authoritarian fucks like Harper telling me what is democratic and what isn't; what's the "biggest political gamble in history", or who's self-serving. I read history. I'm familiar with the look-and-feel of democracy. I know what self-serving smells like.

As PM had Harper spent more time building on points of agreement with MPs instead of creating conflict he'd have the support of the right-of-centre members of both the BQ and the Liberals. Harper is politically smart and a gifted strategist but he's flawed by being a sour man who leads a sour band of politicians; a leader must, by definition, be a team player. The when-I-say-jump-you-say-how-high kind of leader is the sort that gets fragged; people who want to be that kind of 'leader' should get a fucking dog; real people, honest people, don't put up with that sort of shit.

I'm enjoying this spectacle. Maybe a Prime Minister Dion, a man who certainly doesn't deserve the vitriol and disrespect spat on him over the last 24 months, will find Harper a nice job as Rat-catcher General.

Cheers,

M

PS: What out-ethics are involved in secretly taping a private caucus meeting and then broadcasting it as proof that people in Ottawa are 'cooperating' and 'working together' and 'building consensus' - all the things that people generally do when they work together for a common goal and cause.

The root word for parliament is 'talk'. It's sad that communication is held in such disdain around this country.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Adler" To: "Chuck" Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 3:16 AM
Subject: Re: Coup

The Three Stooges of Coupscam
by Charles Adler Dec 1/08

Let's be clear about something. The ECONOMY has NOTHING to do with the not so silent coup that is taking place as we watch history...need a name for it? remember Adscam? Call this one COUPSCAM. It's a perfect name for what's happening on several levels and it is so Canadian..So bilingual. So au bilingue. COUPSCAM. A coup that is dressed up as a bid by the opposition to help the economy. Of course it is not anything close to that, as we learned over the weekend when we heard the tape of Jack Layton telling his caucus, that he had a deal in place way back when with Gilles Duceppe, to strike when the iron became hot. The economy would simply be the rationale used to hit, and to hit hard. One needs to forgive anyone who regular votes Liberal if they feel some shame listening to Jack Layton the of the architects of the coup, who along with Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe, leading the Liberals into the corral. The Liberals were at one time known as the natural national governing party. They now have become the sheep being herded by the two great sheep herders of Canada, the two men who are motivated by their love of country? Now to quote from Sheep herder Layton from his weekend NDP
caucus meeting..."We’re in the middle of a very historic time, *and we’re
playing a key role in it, in some ways a catalytic role actually, because as
we think back, we’ll realize that nobody really imagined that it would be
possible for the Bloc Quebecois, the Liberal party of Canada ever to enter
into any kind of a discussion around the future of the country and it turned out that we were the glue*, and spotted and prepared for the opportunity, and had taken the steps that were required so that when that opportunity arose, which was when Mr. Harper made his disastrous strategic error, by not providing stimulus to the economy, and instead playing political games, we were able to move, and things began to move very quickly, however, many obstacles remain in our way, and so we’re in a real battle now. The negotiating process, I am, by the way in very regular touch with the leader of the Liberal party, and the leader of the Bloc, frequently every day."

So there you have it Sheep Herder Layton saying that they were preparing for the opportunity and it arose last week. This is known in polite circles as opportunism. Many of you who have emailed me in the last few days have been calling it treason. For the record this is not legal treason. But one would not be on shaky ground in calling it ethical treason. Nobody doubts that this plot is undermining confidence in Canada and nobody doubts that this will sew seeds of resentment in various parts of Canada. Nobody doubts that it will make this a less unified country. Imagine the reaction in Western Canada if a coup led by the the Toronto based NDP of Jack Layton and Quebec separatists manages to succeed and in doing so , immediately does damage to their number one economic target the ENERGY industry. Does anyone doubt that the pols in the east who want to hit the Conservatives will, if given power, hit the energy industry? The can do with carbon taxes and other schemes designed to attack Western Canadian wealth. These sheep herders know that the flames of Western Separatism will immediately be ignited and how could that possibly damage the fortunes of Quebec Separatism? A growing western separatist movement is Quebec sovereignty's best friend. Is it any wonder that Gilles Duceppe acts like a guy who knows he will have one very Merry Christmas? Does anyone find it ironic that people like Jean Chretien and
Stephane Dion who made reputations for themselves as staunch federalists would now in the lust for naked power lie down with the separatist lion. Coupscam has many consequences. And a damaged confederation is just one of them. Those who thrive on chaos, people like Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe and Bob Rae are loving this. One of the big questions today is What is Michael Ignatieff thinking? If he is using that big brain of his, as opposed to the little brain some of the plotters are using, he will understand that a Liberal government dog that is being wagged by a NDP/BlocQuebecois tale is a dog that will be euthanized by the Canadian voter.

Folks what you need to remember the most about COUPSCAM is that it could not happen without an incredible amount of blood lust coming from ancient liberal party hacks who have seen the set on their empire. One of those hacks is Scott Reid. He used to be a Paul Martin guy, his communications guy, during the decline and fall of Liberalism in the wake of ADSCAM. Scott Reid took his bitterness and blood lust to his computer key board on the weekend and tapped out the following. If you have some tiny shreds of doubt about what motivates Liberals to get on board Coup Scam, this will shred the shreds.

"After all, Stephen Harper is the most dangerous animal lurking in the
jungles of Parliament, writes Scott Reid. Kill him. Kill him dead. Do not,
whatever you do, provide him with an opportunity to extend his hold on
power. Because you can be damn certain he will never again be so reckless as to give you a chance to finish him off. ..The other elephant in the room is leadership. Stephane Dion has bargained his way to the drive wheel of the new government. Good for him, but only if it suits the greater good. If Mr. Dion can make his case, then great. If he can't, move to an alternative - and do it fast.

Mr. Harper knows that his greatest advantage lies in Mr. Dion's weakness.
The coalition can't let that impulse triumph. Don't permit the defeat of Mr. Harper to depend upon Mr. Dion's personal credibility - or that of any
single individual, for that matter. There's too much at stake."

Those are the words of former Paul Martin communications director Scott
Reid. They tell you 2 things. 1) Coup Scam is not about serving the public
interest. It is about putting hemlock in Stephen Harper's orange juice. It
is not about economic satisfaction. It is about political assassination. 2)
Reid points out while Harper is the target, Dion needs to be either a useful dunce or an expendable nuisance. The plotter who wishes to kill Harper could care less about whether or not Dion is collateral damage. There's too much at stake says the Liberal hack. No single individual matters. No single individual can be permitted to get in the way. And so the man who was part of the plot to overthrow Jean Chretien,not for economic reasons or patriotic reasons but for the most partisan of reasons, now wishes to destroy Stephen Harper.

There are a few things I'd like to say personally to the major players in
Coup Scam.

To Jack Layton:

Jack a couple of months ago you said you wanted to be prime minister and that was the job you were applying for. You had to know at the time that you would not get that job going through the front door and that was confirmed with the election results. But since Harper was a dozen seats short of a majority, you saw your move and you made it and over the weekend, you confessed it. It's now on tape as historical record. I guess if you are looking for a seat at the cabinet table, this is as good as it gets. Bet you're disappointed as hell that Svend Robinson is no longer a member of your caucus. Bet you think he would make as good a foreign affairs minister as you would a finance minister. Good luck with that Jack. And wish us all good luck. The Stock Market is just above 8 thousand 4hundred today. I guess from your perspective that is still 8 thousand four hundred more than your favorite number for Capitalism, ZERO.

To Gilles Duceppe:

Well I have to admit you must be laughing all the way to the bank these
days. When it come to fund raising your separatist brothers are more
bankrupt than Lehman Brothers. But over the last few years the Canadian
taxpayer has sent you more than 5 million dollars. You sit in the hammock.
We send you millions. It's a great deal for you and about to get a lot
better. While you won't likely have a seat at the cabinet table, you will be
an armed guard at the door, and if they don't do the right things at the
table, I suppose you can take them hostage, or to use Scott Reid's words,
just kill them all. Who knows? Maybe since you are holding the gun, maybe you can negotiate yourself a cabinet portfolio. May I respectfully suggest Minister of National Disunity.

And finally to Stephane Dion:

It must be a great disappointment to you Mr. Dion that as someone who prided himself on being an arch enemy of separatism, that your final political act is to become it's lap dog. Hard to believe you are doing this. At one point these bums characterized you as a rat. That graphic of you as a rat with the long narrow nose and the rat whiskers, was plastered everywhere in Quebec. You betrayed Quebec they said. You were a rat. These creeps and and thugs even blamed you for your own father's suicide. They said he killed himself because he was ashamed of you. And now you are willing to break bread with them and break the democratic will of the Canaidian voter. And all for what? So that you can have an asterisk in the Canadian history books. You can get the get the tax payer to pay for your six month lease on 24 Sussex Drive. Is this worth it to you Mr. Dion. Is this the way you want to go out, as a dog on a leash held by Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe?

People over the years have told me that you are an honest man, a
compassionate man, an earnest man. I now find it hard to think of you as a man. A man faces the voters and honours their decision. Now you have chosen to dishonour their decision, to dishonour democracy, to dishonour Canada.

Canada will survive Coupscam. I always have faith in the inherent decency of the Canadian people. But we will pay a heavy price. Our loony will get
plucked. Our wealth will get plundered and at times our faith in Canada and pride in its people will be tested. But we will survive. Canada has had much tougher opponents than Jack Layton, Gilles Duceppe and Stephane Dion, the Three Stooges of Coup Scam.

Charles Adler

The Arts and Culture Fist Fight

2008-09-30T18:18:00.000-07:00

The Conservatives ignore the maxim of 'let sleeping dogs lie'

Stephen Harper slapped the arts community in the face with a wet fish last week. Ordinary Canadians, he says, when they come home from a tiring day at work, don't think the arts community has anything to offer them in terms of entertainment or in terms of a discipline.

The francophone community in Quebec has, perhaps, taken offense.

If this is perceived as English Canada snatching resources from the mouths of Quebecois artists it may revitalize the whole sovereignty debates. Again.

It's pretty funny as a video.

To make this video more understandable for you earnest anglos 'le phoque' is a seal and 'ti' is an abbreviation of 'petit', meaning 'little'.

Spare the Rod, Spoil Everything

2008-09-30T09:16:00.000-07:00

The Ideological Gospel of Crime and Punishment According to the Conservatives

The Conservative government has been hard at work these last two years pulling the levers of power. They've been remarkably successful in changing the lives of Canadians, in seemingly small but actually important ways.

The Harper Record, published by the CCPA, is a compendium of the policy changes and government shifts that have been implemented by this minority government.

For instance, the Conservative government has avowed to get tough on crime with mandatory minimum sentences etc. It apparently costs $83,000 to incarcerate a person for one year. But if the intent is to reduce crime and increase security for Canadian households we might take this into consideration:

Investing in Crime Prevention

The evidence is conclusive that the most effective way to prevent crime is to ensure healthier children, stronger families, better schools and more cohesive communities. Crime prevention through social development is a sound investment. The dividends include less violence, safer communities and significant cost savings in the criminal justice system and in almost every other area of public and private spending.

This quote is pulled from the 1996 Public Health Agency of Canada site.

The Conservatives have vowed to increase penalties for violent juvenile crime and disdains the advice of those working in 'ivory towers', for example those who actually work in youth justice. But violent crime is on the decline in Canada. Significantly, Quebec has the lowest per capita violent crime statistic nationally (59 per 1000) while Alberta has the highest (160). I'll give you two guesses as to which of these two provinces has invested more heavily in the social development, 'soft-on-crime', ivory tower approaches so disdained by Harper.

Further, the statistics indicate that people under age 25 are more likely to be victims of violent crimes. Which may mean, as Harper claims, that youth are reckless and violent because there are no consequences. Or it may mean that the lack of community-based mentoring, the necessity of two income families, lack of educational opportunities, etc are conditions that create dire consequences for society at large and especially for youth.

The overall per capita murder rate in Canada in 2005 was 2.4 per 100,000. Quebec's homicide rate was approximately 1 murder per 100,000 citizens, while Alberta's was almost 3.5 per 100,000. (Those bastards in PEI are choosing not to carry their blood-lust weight in Canada - there wasn't a murder on the island in either 2004 or 2005.)

It is important to target gangs and organized crime since they were responsible for 16% of all murders in 2005, up from 3% in 1995.

The instrument of choice in the killing of others is either a knife or a gun (stabbing and gun shot wounds predominate in homicides in Canada). The focus on increasing penalties for gun related crimes has, perhaps, its genesis in fact that a gun is the weapon of choice for gangs. But disrupting crime and organized crime before it happens might be a better way of increasing personal security for Canadians instead of increasing punishment after your little sister has been gunned down in the cross fire of two rival gangs.

Click here and here for Canadian crime stats. Click here to download the Juristat Homicide in Canada PDF.

Further the Conservatives have altered the government's drug strategy to an anti-drug strategy and shifted the drug addiction and abuse portfolio from the Ministry of Health (a harm reduction strategy) to the Ministry of Justice (an enforcement strategy). The Minister of Health, Tony Clemente, has vowed to close down Vancouver's Insite program despite evidence of success and international admiration for the program.

This is significant because intoxicants are involved in most homicides and most violent crimes. Drug addiction creates enormous pressures on our social resources (ambulance, police, insurance claims) and on quality of life for those afflicted. A pure enforcement strategy (more police and more jail) isn't likely to increase security because it doesn't solve the problem at almost any level. (And it's financially expensive.)

Crime is a social and community problem that affects everyone at some point. The most likely solution mixes enforcement with investment in health care (8% of those accused of homicide are mentally ill; drug and alcohol abuse are common catalysts in violent crime), invest in social services and education, and invest in the creation of meaningful and viable job programs (in theory people are less likely to steal for survival if they are gainfully employed - admittedly this hypothetical doesn't explain the theft of whole economies by the powerful).

So, we all agree we don't want crime and violence in our communities. The question is do we use all the tools at our disposal and approach this intelligently.

xoxo

MVL

"Tell the rabble to be quiet; we anticipate a riot"

2008-09-26T07:53:00.000-07:00

if you can't quote Jesus Christ Superstar during an election...

I have to admit that the Nanos Poll numbers don't look particularly good for the political future of Canada, unless you're a Conservative Party enthusiast.

When Harper called a pre-emptive election despite his passage of fixed-date elections, I thought people would be more upset than they were. When he started wearing an avuncular blue cardigan and being photographed at the kitchen table of 'ordinary Canadians' (I suspect he was actually photoshopped by CPC hacks at HQ) I thought people would see right through the deceit. I was positive they would remember his record during his time in office.

Bill C10, Bill C51, Bill C61. The tearing up of the Atlantic Accord. The retreat from national daycare. The retreat from Kyoto and the appointment of John Baird as Minister of the Environment. The firing of the nuclear safety commissioner. And, and, and...

Well, apparently not. We like him. Or at least a third of us like him (37%) and this might be enough for the CPC to form a majority government come October 15, 2008.

Rather than turn to alcohol (well, hello, Shiraz) and despair I decided to download The Harper Record, published by the CCPA and spend the weekend curled up on the sofa, drinking coffee, reading and occasionally talking to my imaginary friend, Jesus.

After I finish this little history of Harper's two and a half years of power I may be hectoring my fellow citizens.

You know, with love.

xo

MVL

After Rapture can I have your stuff?

2008-09-25T17:01:00.000-07:00

A few oily questions and some gaseous considerations (A to G)

I awoke this morning, pre-dawn, and lay in the dark turning over a couple of thoughts.

Here they are in an order that didn't exist in the dim morning light:

a) Why do Americans pay considerably less for gas than Canadians? A US gallon is equal to approximately 4.55 litres. Americans pay $3.70 for a gallon while Canadians pay $1.37 a litre, which is $6.28 a gallon.

b) Exxon Mobile declared $40 billion in profits in 2007. How much profit is taken from every gallon of gas?

This a little complicated. There are many factors involved in sorting out these calculations. Exxon Mobile is not the only company selling gasoline in the US. Exxon Mobile has other markets it profits from.

The US uses 375 million barrels of oil everyday. This is approximately 137 billion of barrels of oil a year, or 5.8 trillion gallons of gas.

(If Exxon makes $0.01 profit on every gallon of gas it would require the sale of 4 trillion gallons of gas to make $40 billion.)

c) what effect does the rise in gas prices have on the choices by Americans and Canadians. Because gas prices go up do Canadians drive less? Or find alternative modes of transport?

d) why did the Liberal Party of Canada present the Green Shift to the electorate as a change in the tax code rather than a shift towards greener technologies? Why doesn't the NDP or the Liberals attack the Conservative position as economically short-sighted?

Harper has said recently that his father and brothers are accountants so he must know that the 'balance sheet' for Canadians includes the liability of climate change. It's like the Conservatives don't want to put that liability on the balance sheet and is thus misrepresenting the actual state of affairs to Canadians.

Are you going to be pissed when you find an unexpected $9 trillion dollar debt comes due? One that wasn't put on the books for political reasons. I'm positive I will be pretty miffed.

e) why do the Liberals or NDP think that adding taxes or rather shifting the tax burden to gas and oil use will effect the choices that Canadians make? What evidence did they consider?

I mean gas used to be had for $0.30 a litre. It used to be had for $0.80 a litre. And $1.00 a litre. No change. No change. No change.

I personally started taking public transit when I accidentally discovered that my work commute took 40 minutes door to door by bus and 25 minutes by car, bus was cheaper, and I could read thrilling current affairs books or collect and send work email by Treo so I'd already been at work for 10 minutes or so before I even arrived.

Now, when I get behind the wheel of a car in rush hour I wonder what sort of fool I was for not thinking of making that change earlier.

Is taxation the best policy to change behaviour? I somehow doubt it will work for cars and gas in the same way it worked for cigarettes.

f) is the American 'problem' with gas prices and 'dependence' on foreign oil solved with off-shore drilling or drilling in ANWR as many in the US say.

The oil needs to be refined. Are the refineries capable of handling the load?

Won't that oil be put on the open market and sold to the highest bidder? Like maybe the Chinese (8% growth in their economy), or India (5.8% growth in their economy), or Buster from Arrested Development (he wanted to bid on his mother but got confused). Why will it find its way into the gas tanks of Americans?

And I thought that Canada supplied most of America's 'foreign' oil anyway.

g) After the Rapture can I have all your stuff?

xo

MVL

Pull my finger; no seriously

2008-08-29T22:09:00.000-07:00

I've either dropped acid or this is hilarious

Either, or.

This is what some commentator said about McCain's choice of Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin:

Really weak choice by McCain. Where is Dan Quayle when you need her?

Ah, that and her pictures as a beauty queen in the frozen North will make this...well, farcical (unless you buy this spin - click here.)

I, of course, am more concerned about the role that the Pentagon will play in the 08/12 White House because I read this book.

xo

Are you talking to me?

2008-08-29T19:09:00.000-07:00

Bo does Denver

Barack Obama delivered the best speech of the political season last night in Denver. He said, "America, we're better than that". And goddamned if that isn't true.

He invited Americans to...well read the damned thing here.

My Obama friends wept. My McCain friends squinted eyes and pursed lips.

Well done, Senator. Well done.

Go forward and don't mess up.

And ask Jimmy Carter how the Pentagon is going to fuck you like a common whore. Take precautions.

xo

M

Say it ain't Joe, Bo!

2008-08-26T10:07:00.000-07:00

Barack Obama hurts my wittle feelings

Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee for US President (I write this on Tuesday and it's all but certain Bo will get the nod this coming Thursday), announced Senator Joe Biden as his Vice-Presidential running mate last Friday.

This hurts my feelings. It's intellectually defensible, strategically arguable, and safe. But emotionally it sucks.

Joe Biden is not the cloth from which Change We Can All Believe In was cut.

He's an intellectual light-weight. He was unimpressive during this year's Democratic debates. He's never framed a foreign affairs issue, or reframed any issue to cut through the spin.

Barack Obama said, in explaining his choice, that Joe Biden 'gets it' and that Joe Biden is ready to be President. Really? Him?

Biden didn't even come close to passing the test for US Presidential material during the Democratic primaries; he failed in his 1987 attempt to be the Democratic nominee when it was revealed that he plagiarized Neil Kinnock, the British Labour leader (channeled him actually according to Jack Shafer in this article). (And this was the second charge of plagiarism against Biden - granted even the Gospels were plagiarized off some guy named Eddy* - and politicians have to do so much talking that it's difficult not to want to channel some other politician now and again - and, they figure, as long as it's on message WTF.)

But mostly, Joe Biden is the wrong choice because Joe Biden doesn't bring anything fresh, new, innovative to the political table. What startling new ideas has he championed? Where is his so-called Change We, etc, etc?

Biden is a political workhorse who commutes home every night to Wilmington, Delaware. He's ground it out in the Senate for 35 years. But workhorses plow fields; they don't develop better methods of land use, or innovate farming processes.

Say it ain't Joe, Bo.

Please leave a message after the tone

The message from the DNC in Denver is that Bo is the leader 'we've been waiting for'. He's The One. Really? Him?

He's capable, they say. He's got integrity, they say. He's an historic choice, they say.

I predict this election is going to be tight. Foremost, because of the race thing. Americans have a race thing. Many Americans don't want to vote for someone who is not like them, someone with whom they can't sit down and relate to 'on a gut level', someone they can't 'have a beer with'. Someone black.

Doesn't make sense to me but that's what they seem to be saying. Personally, I don't care if the leader of a country is an arugula-eating, pointy-headed, elitist as long as he makes sensible, long-term consensus-based, negotiated decisions that keeps everyone alive, who are currently living, and ensures the planet survives for the next two generations or so. You know, for the kids.

The people who can do this well are rare and are sometimes odd. They, say, read books sometimes. They reflect sometimes. They might drink a bottle of Dom Perignon a night. They might be uncommon thinkers. Sometimes.

The problem with this 'Bo can be Our Leader' message is it runs counter to the reality that life is a team sport. No one can do anything alone. Bo won't save the planet. Or your life. Or get you a job 'you can believe in'. If it takes a village to raise a child think about how many people it takes, each doing one action at a time, to change the world. No, Bo can't do it alone.

This is the message I think ought to be delivered:

In 2008 Americans will get it right. We will change Washington by electing a President who isn't afraid; isn't afraid of Americans, isn't afraid of Europeans, or Asians, or Persians; an American who has read Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson. We will elect a President who is worldly, community minded; who has a passport and has been abroad. We will elect a Congress who is interested in public service; who embrace ideas and hard work. In 2008 we will once again fan out and get involved in the local school boards, the city councils, the state legislatures. We will once again be a government of the people for the people. We will take pride in learning how to live and work together. We will make choices that may seem hard, at first, but decisions that will lead us to create community together; we will change the way we do business; we will change the way we live in our cities; we will love our neighbours as best we can. In 2008 we will start to spend less time watching TV and more time celebrating life.

In 2008 we will be the Change We Want to See in the World. Please join us.

That's what I think.

And another thing

Yeah. So, who should Bo have picked as a running mate? Try Colin Powell.

Sure he's another black man and Americans have that race thing. But if McCain thinks he's got the international foreign relations, commander-in-chief thing down cold because he flew a plane over Vietnam in 1969 and spent the last 30 years hobnobbing with defense contractors then wait til he gets a load of Colin Powell's CV.

How many troops has McCain commanded? Yeah, baby. Shut the fuck up and sit the fuck down.

Colin Powell would have reinforced the message that Bo was into working across the aisle and working for all Americans.

Anyway.

Goodnight and God Bless!

xo

MVL

*Ed's Note: Source removed from Internet**
**Ed's Note: Or maybe I was paraphrasing Steven Wright's bit about the Pyramids.

No Blood for Sugar

2008-07-31T15:11:00.000-07:00

We want the Honey without the Bees and we want it now!

I'm reading Alton Brown's I'm Just Here For More Food, his book about baking.

He touches on the history of sugar. He writes the Arabs had perfected the technique required to take the white crystals from the sugarcane plant and were exporting the stuff into Europe for $500 a spoonful.

Finally Europe got fed up being stuck in the dark ages while the Arabs were living the good life, so they launched a thinly veiled religious operation called "the Crusades." One of their goals was to get sugar.

Ah, yes.

Oil. Spices. Sugar. Want. It. Now. Give it.

MVL

Read me a story, Daddy!

2008-07-26T11:38:00.000-07:00

I pillage my credit cards to get some great books!

Some of you may know and some of you may care to know that I am a deeply nerdy political and public affairs junkie. Problems with P3 partnerships? Problems with the official story on the so-called war on terror? The pilfering of public funds and commons by the pursuit of the Olympic dreams? Heathcare issues?

Oh, baby.

These are the books I've just recently purchased.

Michael Heller's Gridlock Economy, How Too Much Ownership Wrecks Markets, Stops Innovation and Costs Lives. A cure for Alzheimer's disease has been found but is not being produced because the cost of 'royalties' to the owners of the cure's component parts is too high. The airwaves in the US are predominately underused because those who hold the rights (bought from the public) are unwillng to let them be used without exacting too high a cost.

So far, a great read. Published by Basic Books. List $27.99.

Alain Deneault's Noir Canada, Pillage, corruption et criminalite en Afrique. The Toronto stock exchange applies political pressures in Africa on behalf of mining and oil companies. This was the book that Barrick Gold sued to keep from being published.

Laure Waridel's Acheter, c'est voter: le cas du cafe. Published by ecosociete. Waridel looks at the path that the coffee bean takes from its tree to your coffee cup. Why your purchasing dollars are a powerful tool in fighting injustice.

I also bought Richard III and now want to be a bunch-backed venomous, murderous toad and seize the throne of medieval England.

Bill C10 - C'mon dear, when is violence ever gratuitous?

2008-03-08T00:48:00.000-08:00

Nothing with nipples, nothing that shows off pie, two people cannot be in love with a third person, no talking horses etc

Ah, careless me.

Bill C10 is colloquially entitled An Act to amend the Income Tax Act, including amendments in relation to foreign investment entities and non-resident trusts, and to provide for the bijural expression of the provisions of that Act and was passed by the House of Parliament on October 29, 2007.

You can download a copy of Bill C10 An Act to amend the Income Tax Act, including, etc, etc by clicking here.

It appears this is not part of the recent federal Canadian budget. I was mistaken, misinformed, confused and/or too lazy to talk to Uncle Internet, who knows all. Mea Culpa. I hope you didn’t bet the farm or break up with your boyfriend over an argument based on data that I uttered carelessly.

But, now, if you did let’s chalk it up to a painful life lesson for you and move on. Let’s turn to page 346 of Bill C10 An Act… and start reading the amendments that the House passed and that now sit before the Senate Standing Committee on Banks, Trusts, etc as they relate to the film industry in Canada

So. Have you read it? It’s on page 350, after the changes to the definition of labour, the payment ratios, the qualified dates, etc. It doesn’t read very clearly since it’s amending the Income Tax Act. So there are a lot of “drop the and after subsection b and insert yawn". It’s not a coherent whole picture – it’s just the changes

On page 350 Bill C10 An Act to amend… amends Subsection 125.4(6) and this is what is causing all the trouble. I think.

The Act allows the Ministry of Heritage to revoke certificates after the fact if the Ministry decides the production in question violates the guidelines with which they’ll come up. Bill C10 is silent on the sorts of guidelines it expects but comments from government spokespersons indicated they would limit content such as gratuitous violence and pornography.

The problem for a filmmaker is the uncertainty of not having money if the content doesn’t meet with approval after the fact.

Great art needs its nuances. And to have guidelines that eliminate nuances, or impose political agendas to replace artistic sensibilities always results in poor, crappy art. Layered, complex continuums and multiple readings can give life and meaning to art. Abridging these complexities to satisfy political pressures isn’t good.

Sometimes provoking discomfort through art results in reflection and rumination. And God knows we need more rumination.

xoxo

M

Bill C10 - Snatching Tax Payers' Money From Dirty Tax Payers

2008-03-07T10:13:00.000-08:00

Canada is a clean society and we don't want your kind around here - unless you're American

Apparently, the Senate will look more closely at Bill C10. Click here to read the press release from the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce.

However, even if the Senate believes the bill to be flawed and that it pushes the government into the role of censor, even if they recommend changes to its language or urge the 'morals clause' be included in the bill upfront it will not likely make a difference.

Click here for the blog from which the following quote came:

Finally, Maureen Parker of the Writers Guild of Canada had this to say today:

I just received a phone call from the Stephane Dion’s chief of staff who advised me that the Senate has now officially (controlled by the Liberals) decided to address the issue of Bill C-10, in particular the requirement for guidelines to ensure that an film, TV or digital program is not contrary to public policy.

Should the Senate decide an amendment is required (and this seems likely), the entire Bill will be sent back to the House for another reading as an amended Bill. If the government manages to raise enough support amongst all of the MP’s it seems that this could mean a non confidence vote for the government. But given that the Liberals, Bloc and NDP are supporting an amendment to this Bill, it doesn’t seem likely that it will become an issue that will bring down the current government and force us into an election. But if it does, we say bring it on.

Except that anyone who has been following Canadian politics knows the Liberals have taken a strategy of talking big and tough but avoiding any skirmish that could lead to an election. The Liberals themselves made amendments to the Conservative budget and then voted against their own amendments. On Wednesday only 11 Liberals voted against the budget (the rest of the Liberal caucus waited in the foyer until the vote was over). To defeat the government's proposed budget (and Bill C10 is embedded in that legislation) would be a vote of non-confidence and it could trigger an election.

If the Senate returns an amended Bill C10 to the House, their past actions suggest it will not be supported by the Liberals if it becomes a matter of confidence.

However, if the Conservatives can be convinced that Bill C10 is unnecessary (what porno? what gratuitous violence?) or impolitic then possible amendments might pass.

But, my question is: what are the chances that the Conservatives are going to agree to delaying the passage of the budget in order to assuage the fears of artists? Especially those unkempt, slightly vulgar, foul-mouthed fuckers who might be degenerate enough to utter words like...well, you know...and do things with kids that we wouldn't even dream of doing with hookers.

I'd say, 'nil'. The Conservatives want a good clean, orderly society in which the trains run on time and if you want your tax credits to make your movie you'll just put on that bow-tie and comb your hair and stop touching your yoni and lingum.

Wankers.

xoxo

M

PS: I've heard that Bill C10 only applies to Canadians making films - not American production companies. Apparently, taxpayers have a right to ensure no Canadian uses his tax credit to make bad, dirty things but we're less concerned about American degenerates.

Let Us Not Speak of Politics, Sex, Abortion or Bad Dirty Things

2008-03-06T18:16:00.000-08:00

Canadian Funding of the Arts - Bill C10

At the risk of seeming alarmist and crying out in pain before I've even been hit let me say that, if it's true, then Bill C10 should die or be partially aborted.

According to an email I received from Marilyn Thomas the Canadian government (minority government) has slipped in a proviso for content review by the Minister of Heritage for films being funding by tax credits.

This amounts to censorship of the arts. Eventually the only films that will be funded will be about children with jam on their mouths and kittens playing with balls of wool.

Sometimes art is provocative, sometimes it's unnecessarily provocative and offensive. Sometimes it deals with subject matter in ways we don't agree with (I can think of the famous American installation of a crucifix standing in a jar of urine which - well, you know).

But let the artists make art. If it speaks to you and it sings then great. If it takes a generation or two for it to begin to vibrate (like Emily Carr) then let's be willing to pass along something valuable to future generations.

Email your MP.

Email the leaders of the opposition parties (Layton, Dion, Duceppe, and whatsername with the Greens).

1. if we are going to fund the arts we must be careful of the content requirements we put in place. Things could get stupidly ugly. As it stands the requirements are the subject matter deal with Canadian issues. I think that's pretty good. Let's leave it at that.

2. if we're to change the tax credit funding mechanisms we should first consult the communities affected. Sort of like let's pretend we live in a democracy and we actually talk about these things and vote on them.

Remember democracy? It was in vogue once but unfortunately it had a definite liberal bias and we've been thinking about letting it lapse as a political system in this country.

3. personally, I want to see more small films from Canadian filmmakers dealing with issues in that small film way. Some of them are boring and treat subject matter like depression and melancholy (and why would we possibly be depressed when we have it all) and some of them show amputees having anal sex or women falling in love with beautiful dead boys (at least, you can comfort yourselves that it's a heterosexual necrophiliac longing).

4. degenerate art? Ahfuckyou! Sorry, a bit of a phlegmy cold.

Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72

2008-03-06T18:14:00.000-08:00

When the going gets Weird, the Weird turn pro

One of you, I can't remember who, recently mentioned Hunter Thompson's Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72 as his or her favourite book and that got me all nostalgic so I went out and bought a new copy (my copy was tattered beyond repair). I started reading it on the bus home (with a quick stop at the liquor store for some beer and some rum in case things were unexpectedly happening on the social scene once home).

I've been closely following the lurching 2008 presidential campaigns in the US and the silly politicking between the Canadian parliamentary parties (firing a safety commissioner for enforcing safety protocols at a nuclear site, a stupid report on Afghanistan, the pig-squealing from the Conservatives because the Senate is on-schedule for examining a bill, the whole KarlHeinz Schrieber debacle, the Liberals thundering rubbish, and the NDP as toy poodles pretending to be real dogs).

My friends have been arguing and debating through emails and wine noshing about the effectiveness of each candidate for the presidential nomination in both political parties in the States.

I liked Huckabee (except for his stupid homophobic pandering to the homophobes) (not many takers in my crowd), Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich (we all agree that, within minutes of becoming president, each would be shot). We've watched and debated every move from Clinton and Obama. We're split evenly between being Mrs. Clintonites and Obamamamas (although I'm secretly rooting for Nader - shhhhh).

Hunter Thompson wrote Fear and Loathing as bi-weekly articles for Rolling Stone magazine covering the remarkably familiar elections of 1972. Richard Milhous Nixon was a hawkish US President, millions of Asians (Cambodian, Vietnamese) were dying in the American stand against 'world terrorism', then called 'communism', as did 50,000 American GIs in what was called 'the Vietnam War', although the US Congress never actually got around to declaring a war.

in 1972 half the Americans protested Vietnam and its cost in financial capital and in loss of life; the other half of Americans felt that to withdraw would demonstrate weakness in the face of encroaching communism. They claimed if 'we' didn't fight them in Asia we'd end up fighting them here.

When Thompson arrived in Washington to begin reporting the political scene he was already notorious as a slightly demented and uncontrollable agent; he drank incessantly, took all sorts of medication and narcotics to help him relax or to really focus on the matter at hand. No one could really figure out where he was coming from and they couldn't anticipate his next move. He made people nervous. He dressed like an off-duty cop but he had some decidedly counter-culture habits and moves.

He asked questions that were too blunt or too far out of the mainstream that he made everyone flinch or boil furiously; no one else asked questions like he did at these press conferences because everyone else wanted to keep working in Washington. No one wants to shit in their own nest, after all.

By a fluke the people who talked to him the most openly were the McGovern people. They were long shots who eventually got the Dem nomination against great odds. And by the time McGovern became a front runner Thompson was as 'embedded' in with that campaign as was possible for someone to be 'embedded', who ate speed like candy and drank Wild Turkey. When the campaign got respectable it was hard for their operatives to control Hunter and keep him from leaving little pools of blood that he drew with each little clackity clack of the keys of his typewriter.

Oddly, Washington hasn't changed too much since then (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Buchanan et al were in the Nixon administration).

And today the rush for the American presidency pretty much brings out the same sort of people today as it did in 1972 (the Clintons organized for McGovern as young idealists). Muskie was the heir apparent and was overtaken by a long shot candidate. The mantra then was 'who can beat Nixon'. The feeling among the Dems was that it really really mattered that this madness stop.

Well, I don't want to spoil it for you but Nixon put his boot so far up McGovern's ass that November he needed several people to help him pull it out.

However, the seeds of Nixon's destruction had already been planted and were sprouting even while Thompson was covering the campaign; BeBe Rebozo's slush fund ($200,000 in a paperbag that Nixon kept in a safe in his office), the Watergate breakin, the illegal activities of the Committee to Re-elect the President (with the fabulous acronym: CREEP), and the insane behaviour of the President (he ordered nuclear armed planes to circle the Soviet Union as part of his 'Mississippi Gambler' strategy bluffing the Soviets to call back the Chinese from their involvement in Vietnam - demonstrating that he knew absolutely nothing about the true dynamics of Sino-Russian relationships - Mao didn't take orders from the Kremlin and hadn't for 30 years at that point - but Nixon was willing to escalate a civil war in a small country in Asia into an international nuclear armegeddon).

I hate Nixon by the way just in case you're wondering.

Fear and Loathing '72 is a great book. It's great for political junkies; great for history buffs; great for fans of 'that terrible weirdness' known as Hunter S. Thompson; it's a terrible book for young and impressionable 16 year olds who, as a result of reading it, slide into a lifelong habit of intellectual questioning and alcohol consumption.

Thomas Pynchon says

2007-12-21T12:10:00.000-08:00

If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers.

It's a little something called 'karma' - and it's always with us

2007-11-18T13:31:00.001-08:00

Granny Strikes Back

xoxo

MVL

Incoherent, incomplete, and brief

2007-11-04T20:24:00.000-08:00

I plunk a few diverse thoughts down on the table - then I make myself tea

These are part of a few notes I've been making for a longer article that I hope to be able to write soon. Apparently, I've been busy.

Basically, my Church (the Anglican Communion) has been pestered over the question of homosexuality and the Christian scriptures, to allow same-sex marriage or not, to ordain practicing homosexuals or not, to accept those who come to the communion and allow them to define (with God) how it is they will be transformed or to have a standard to which all must conform.

The whole debate is a bitch. Here are some of my notes.

Theology - The group vs. the individual - behavioural transformation vs. spiritual awareness

Liberal theology is the theology of individual faith

Conservative theology is the moral indoctrination and discipline of the group

Both use assumptions based on the Xtian scriptures but give different readings to the text and draw different conclusions

Liberal theology uses expositions of scripture to guide a person to a spiritual transformation from within.

Conservative theology uses expositions of scripture to describe a Christian community (the external manifestations of the doctrine).

Liberal theology works from the individual to the group and beyond

Conservative theology works from the group towards managing the individual.

A secular society is one in which political control does not rest with ecclesiastical groups.

A secular society tends to prefer a liberal theology over a conservative theology

For Conservative theologians, secularism is a politic that denies any reference to God or the importance of faith in directing community activities. Secularism is perceived to make the group dynamic impotent over the individual.

Secularism is a politic based on principles arrived at through agreement or consensus: it tries to keep a balance between the needs of the individual and those of society and its various subgroups. Secularism seems to be based on a tradition of equity, English common law, and mechanical sciences. Secularism denies God as important to the group but accepts God as important to an individual or subgroups.

Liberal theology is a fragmented theology (each individual chooses the meaning of her faith and how she manifests or lives it). Conservative theology is a catholic or universal theology (the group dictates the meaning of its religion, the way in which an individual must experience it, and how a person must live or manifest the faith).

Affable, Likable George

2007-08-16T18:20:00.000-07:00

Sweet George - giving lie to the Peter Principle

Molly Ivins was a political syndicated columnist, whose expertise was those odd twists and turns of logic of Texas politics, an ability to decode and interpret the affable racists and Baptist wingnuts of the State Capital's legislature in Austin.

I love Texas. From afar. But it's still love.

I love its history, its colourful characters (Sam Rayburn, Cactus Jack Garner, Sam Houston, Coke Stevenson, and even that prick LBJ), its strident religious outpourings and posturing. I love its state slogan, "Don't Tread on Us". I love pick-up trucks and beer. I love guns and shooting things. Not people, mind you, but things and when they splinter and jump from a bullet crashing through at speeds of over a half a mile a second it just makes me want to swig beer from the neck of an amber bottle and say, 'sweet god damn'.

And reading Molly Ivins, a Texan herself, is a sheer backyard BBQ delight for a Texas loving political junkie. In 1999 she published Shrub - The Short but Happy Political Life of George W. Bush an hilarious overview of the affable wingnut who was, at the time of its publication, running to be the 43th President of the United States of America.

Of course W. didn't have much actual experience in anything but being a frat boy, the son of privilege, white and wealthy. And when Texans elected him to be the Governor of their state it was more because they liked him and they knew the Texas constitution had designed Texas to be a 'weak governor system'; the Governor doesn't have a lot to do and is apparently the fourth or fifth most powerful person in state government, less powerful even than the lieutenant governor. W. couldn't do too much harm.

Which is not to say that he didn't do anything as Governor. He did execute a lot of people, innocent or not and he did convince the Lege to cut 1 billion dollars in taxes (but not for a net tax relief because the state had to increase taxes elsewhere to an equivalent amount). But he pretty much let the true powers operate on their own since he couldn't do much about it anyway.

Prior to being Governor, W. also bought and owned the Texas Rangers baseball team (using other people's money) and got some good Christian players on the team and shagged balls in his underwear with a bunch of good ole boys in a stadium tax payers built (gotta love those rightwingers - they do pull themselves up by taxpayer bootstraps).

In the late seventies and the into the eighties he parlayed his lineage into a million dollar fortune in the oil business, trading on his name and access to his father (Forty-one) who was first Vice-president and then President. And this without finding any oil and losing all his investors money. Not once (Arbusto Oil), not twice (Spectrum), but three times (Harken Oil). I would have lost just as much for half the salary. I'm just saying...

In fact, W. was pretty much a complete failure at everything he ever did - except succeed through charm, privilege, white and wealthy. Being the son of the VP and the P of the USA didn't hurt much. His charm has allowed him to be a career front man for any number of vested interests, political operatives, and corporate lever pullers. He's the slickest, most affable asshole you are ever likely to meet.

It's hard to hate him. Really.

Molly Ivins' book really does hold its relevance 7 years later. The same issues that dogged Bush as Governor and then into the White House have marred his presidency - his dependency on the cruel manipulative and divisive politics (hello, Karl Rove and Lee Atwater), the pretense behind the policies (the war on terror is fundamentally unwinnable because terror is a political technique and idea and not an enemy, the war in Iraq was, is and always will be about oil and pilfering the public purse by a handful of companies, etc).

The question is: whither now? The American political drama is going to get worse in the next few years as they try and extricate themselves out of Iraq having made no friends and gained no 'hand' (to use the Seinfeld phrase) while sinking into a terrible deficit and debt destroying infrastructure in Bagdad. Frankly, wouldn't that money have been better spent upgrading hospitals, renovating schools, restoring civic infrastructures in the US?

Molly died this year of breast cancer. I read her book for the second time seven years after its publication and still love her. She's a Texan after all.

xoxo

MVL

The Problem With Horror is That it Always Get Worse

2007-06-11T07:43:00.000-07:00

Mad? Yes, they are Nuclear Mad!

There is a lot of justification for torture running around in various circles and the recent book A Question of Torture: CIA Interrogation from the Cold War to the War on Terror by Alfred McCoy lays bare the problems of a culture that sanctions it, even with limits. When you start hurting people to extract information it's not long before you're pulling out fingernails or putting electrodes on testicles because you're bored or careless. Morality is frail and can't easily stand alone against our dark natures.

During the 1960's and 70's the CIA ran a program in South East Asia called Phoenix. Essentially, it was a war of terror to combat the spread of communism. According to the figures in the book, over 20,000 people were pulled off the street, tortured for information in all the ways we've grown to know and love, and then shot. It was a system they termed 'pump and dump'.

These techniques spread around the world. Why such drastic measures? Do they work? Was evil god-less communism stopped in its tracks? Or were we who performed or sanctioned this behaviour moved a little closer to being insanely cruel and vicious?

Much is being made of a recent poll in Iraq in which 60 percent of Iraqis felt it was acceptable to kill American forces. Much is being made of the presence of al Qaeda and their murderous works in Iraq. Much is being made of Iran's headlong rush to gaining nuclear weapons.

However, less is being said about North American attitudes towards killing Iraqis in the work of 'liberating' them (how many civilians died during the shock and awe phase of the Iraqi invasion - which itself represents an immoral concept of 'total war'?) We hear of 3500 American lives that have been lost but why do we never hear how many Iraqi lives have been lost? Or wrongfully imprisoned and tortured?

Less is being said over here about the willingness of Americans (and my fellow Canadians) to endlessly torture its enemies, violate our own basic tenets of habeas corpus and legal rights, the rights to a defense, etc. And memory is constantly being rewritten or layered with myth - we don't remember the 900,000 Japanese who were killed over a period of six days of bombing Tokyo during the war in the Pacific by the US Air Force. The attacks of September 11, 2001 killed thousands of innocent people in an act of 'total war' against the West. In 1944 nearly a million Japanese children, women and men too old to fight were burned alive with napalm in the West's total war against the East.

Think about that. We, the Allied forces, burned children alive in an effort to teach their leaders a lesson. Why didn't we just pitchfork them? Did our leaders 'learn a lesson' about our own predatory cultures when the Twin Towers collapsed? We decided (well Curtis LeMay and Leslie Grove decided - we never objected) to make civilians too young to walk and too old to fight a legitimate 'combat target'.

And a willingness to bomb children and women turns everyone into a 'combatant'. There is no such thing as an 'enemy non combatant' then, is there?

I watched the recent Republican debates of candidates seeking the nomination for the US presidency. At least two of the candidates (Mitt Romney, Rudy Guilianni) said they would consider using nuclear weapons against Iran.

This is madness. It's blood-thirstyness. It's insane.

The Americans rushed to war to prevent the Iraqis from using WMD but are perfectly willing to use them against women and children, the old, the halt, the tired and the lame in a weird twist of the promise on the Statue of Liberty.

Americans have lost their mojo. They have lost their sense of ethics, freedom, fairness, and decency. When the front running candidates for political office can openly acknowledge that they are willing to kill millions of people permanent tyranny can't be far behind.

Yes, when we lose our way in the black forests of the soul it's not long before we wind up soldier/slaves in the armies of Hell.

We need, as a nation, as a culture and as a people, to step back and find our moral centre again. We've become the monsters we feared.

M

PJ O'Rourke Explains Iraq To Me

2007-06-01T13:58:00.000-07:00

Bill Maher's Real Time Guest Made Me Spit Beer

PJ O'Rourke, a Republican journalist, explained his objection to invading Iraq was that 'it's certainly a lot more expensive to steal oil than it is to buy it'.

And then he said, 'Republicans should never skip their meds'.

O'Rourke owes me two mouthfuls of Alexander Keiths.

xoxo

MVL

Okay, the woman represents 'the people' and her purse represents 'common assets'

2007-05-16T15:34:00.000-07:00

It Brings a Tear to my Eye, a Beer to my Hand, and a Gnashing of Teeth (Not to Mention the Renting of Garments)

2007-05-15T17:14:00.000-07:00

Outrageous, scandalous reading - perfidy, even - on local political blogs

(Vancouver, BC) - Yeah, politics is limited to nerds with bleeding hearts or thieves in suits - the players seem to be restricted to one or the other of these two narrow groups despite the fact it effects every single one of us. And it does, from urban planning (laying an asphalt city over the best loam in the world in Richmond - 10,000 years to create it and 40 years to fuck it up forever), resource management (why do you get to collect and sell the oil to everyone else - shouldn't it belong to everybody?), to culture and war (we underfund arts and misuse the military), to teaching children to read history, mathematics and art, to plain old police, enforcement of the law, and public order (we're not all brave enough to punch hooligans in the face or use a two by four to stop a murderer from completing his or her crime - thanks copper!)

I have a secret to share with you which I will deny in public for as long as I live (seriously - you never read this); in the eighties I voted for the Progressive Conservative candidates in Vancouver Centre in the first couple or three elections I was eligible to vote: Pat Carney and Kim Campbell. I voted for them because I thought they were capable and talented individuals (and I still do) who would represent the common interests well (and I stand corrected on this point). And they promised to fix the public debt, which even then had spiralled out of control like former sex symbol Gerard Depardieu's weight.

However, when Brian Mulroney left office (after a disappointing position on the Gulf War, a disastous negotiation on NAFTA) the debt was worse than ever and I realized that I needed to pay closer attention to the actual policy decisions made by The Man and it's been a slow slide into becoming a nerdy bleeding heart for me to this day.

Which brings me to Bill Tieleman and Sean Holman not because they are bleeding hearts or anything like it but because they both have excellent local political blogs that are dropping the shit right into the blades of the fan. I've been hurrying home from work to crack open a beer and read the latest revelations.

Remember the raids of the BC Legislature? Remember the sale of the BC Rail? Remember the Liberal promise of the 'most open and accountable government'? Well, the thieves with suits pushed the nerds with bleeding hearts and wishy washy ideas out of office with the promise of making us all rich except when they said all of us they actually meant a handful of them. Who wants to pay taxes when paying taxes means making four dozen guys rich so they can then skip town and leave unfunded the problems of homelessness, increased personal debt, terrible housing for low-income, a crumbling infrastructure in urban centres, disorganized medical care and overworked health care providers, etc, etc ad fucking nauseum? And when they skip town it'll be to Hawaii where they'll sit in their boxer shorts and black socks held up by garters while the catering staff prepare the appetizers and chill the wine for a soiree with the Archbishop and shallow talk of compassion and freedom (sure, the picture is a cheap shot but I wasn't able to spit on Mulroney before he left office so I'm piling it on Campbell - with apologies to his mom - a nice woman - and I'm not kidding about the catered evening either).

Click here to read and subscribe to Bill Tieleman. And click here to read and subscribe to Sean Holman.

And all you kids who just sit and whine...

xoxo

M

The Facts in Dispute Continue to Thwart My Deepest Wishes

2007-05-08T11:36:00.000-07:00

The BC Legislature trial hints at high level political corruption but just might not deliver

Okay, after reading this Globe and Mail article former BC solicitor general Rich Coleman has the benefit of my doubt once more :

Heated investigation required mediator
Competing RCMP teams had to be talked through dispute over diverging theories on suspects
MARK HUME

May 8, 2007

VANCOUVER -- Separate RCMP teams pursuing parallel drug and breach-of-trust investigations became so intensely competitive that a mediator had to be called in to keep them both on track, a Crown attorney in a political-corruption case told the Supreme Court of British Columbia yesterday.

Janet Winteringham, a member of the special prosecution team, talked about the internal police conflict as she opened the Crown's response to defence submissions made during the past two weeks.

Ms. Winteringham told Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett that the arguments the defence had put before the court were based on "a multiplicity of disputed facts ... [and] a number of inaccurate statements."

She said lawyers representing three government employees charged with breach of trust, fraud and money laundering related to the privatization of BC Rail presented a misleading picture based on an incomplete record of events.

For the rest of the article click here.

Bill Tieleman blogs about the court case and emphasizes a different aspect of Winteringham's presentation yesterday here.

Former Solicitor General Coleman - 'j'accuse'

2007-05-04T19:47:00.000-07:00

Michael Bolton (the defense lawyer, not the singer) alleges...

From the Globe and Mail
VANCOUVER — The solicitor general of British Columbia “intervened” in a politically explosive RCMP investigation by heading off police before they could interview one of the most powerful members of cabinet, the Supreme Court of British Columbia was told yesterday.

Defence lawyer Michael Bolton said an RCMP investigative team was set to fly to Hawaii to track down Gary Collins, then finance minister, the day after police raided the B.C. legislature on Dec. 28, 2003.

Read the rest of the article by clicking here

Michael Bolton is the author of Civil Rights in Canada and the only lawyer out of 12 who answered 'yes' to my question 'do you like being a lawyer'.

I never met Rich Coleman.

MVL

Steal these public assets

2007-05-04T14:06:00.000-07:00

You call it 'free enterprise Liberalism' I call it 'screwing the commoner'

(Vancouver, BC) Has anyone been following the story about the raids in the BC Legislature a few years ago? Probably not. There hasn't been anything like the media attention given Glen Clark's trouble (he was cleared of wrong-doing although the Justice said he behaved like an idiot) or the so-called 'fudge it budget' ( I originally wrote that the auditor general studied it and declared that it wasn't but click here for what Morfitt is reported have actually said).

Bill Tieleman has been following the story and reporting on it in his blog. Click here. The BC Rail deal might not have been as clean as we should expect from a government of the people. It also hints at a 'dirty tricks' political campaign (remember Nixon) within the highest level of the Liberal party. And apparently the Justice in the case is not pleased that 'full disclosure' means something different to the Crown prosecutors than it means to the rest of the legal profession. All in all, it appears at first glance that something is rotten in Denmark. And when I say rotten I mean 'corrupt' and when I say Denmark I mean...well, you know.

It all makes interesting reading, especially when the members of the Legislature are about to vote themselves a 29% pay raise. What? Can't a politician make a decent living through influence pedaling, bribery and stealing public assets anymore?!

Pity.

MVL

Marc Emery Went To Jail and All I Got Was a Lousy T-Shirt

2007-05-04T09:00:00.000-07:00

Whose Drug Laws Are They Anyway?

I can't weigh in on this too heavily (yet) because I'm not sure what case is being made by the US federal prosecutors against The Vancouver 3 but on the face of it it seems just so unlikely and unjust.

The definition of extradite is: hand over (a person accused or convicted of a crime) to the jurisdiction of the foreign state in which the crime was committed : Greece refused to extradite him to Italy.

The agreement that is in force seems to be the 1976 Extradition Treaty between the United States of America and Canada. The questions I have are: How can the US petition the Canadian government to arrest and extradict a person who is not acting in ways contrary to Canadian laws? Why is a Canadian being prosecuted under USA drug laws for acts commited on Canadian soil?

This is the same US government that apparently won't participate in the International Court and who 'exempts' its soldiers from prosecution for war crimes. (Okay, this paragraph is a bit of a non-sequitur.)

Click here for more information about how to help the Vancouver 3 get a fair shake on their extradition process.

Click here to support the Vancouver 3 by purchasing a T-shirt.

Namaste!

MVL

It's a Shameless Power Grab

2007-05-02T17:32:00.000-07:00

Now look me in the eye - I am your leader. No, seriously.

(Vancouver, BC) Yes, my masterplan to eventually become Overlord of All Universes is now finally being set into motion - I am running for a position on the Board of Management of the Britannia Community Centre.

I want to serve on the Board to add my energy to the continuing efforts of making East Vancouver a vibrant and dynamic community, a community dedicated to principles of neighbourliness, caring, and increasing cooperative living. I want to help people continue creating a community where you know and care about the those who live around you and they know and care about you.

So, if you live in the Grandview Woodlands neighbourhood, come on down and renew your membership to Britannia and then on May 23 come to the AGM and cast your votes for 7 positions on the Board. And remember that I'm Your Daddy - please vote accordingly.

Cheers,

MVL

Let's Make It Simple - Yes or Yes

2007-04-21T23:21:00.000-07:00

It's a goofy graphic, it pleases me and I want to share

This is the graphic that accompanies the Village Voice article by Harkavy, entitled Going, Going Goniffs: Wolfowitz, Gonzales Get Fragged. I haven't been following too closely Wolfowitz's nepotism troubles at the World Bank but I've been paying a little more attention to Gonzales' "mispoken" kerfuffle over the political firing of US Attorneys.

So, let's make sure we're clear about this - it was alright with the Republican Congress that Gonzales came up with a specious legal justification for a US President to sanction torture (they confirmed him as US Attorney General) but when he works to fire 8 US Attorneys (who are political appointees anyway) because they aren't skipping rope in the way the US President wants them then Congress feels the need to pull out the shivs and restore some moral order.

Strange values.

Mr. Gonzales, our date was over when you mouthed the word 'torture'. I'm sure you can find your own way out.

The Little Blood Red Book

2007-04-21T00:54:00.000-07:00

Tariq Ali said once that, "it's a total failure of the Western imagination that the only enemy they can see is Adolf Hitler."

Mao Tse-Tung, according to the recent biography written by Jung Chang and Jon Halliday, must be the most successful tyrant of all time, responsible for the death of 70 million Chinese. Stalin, Hitler, Mao.

I started reading Mao: The Unknown Story (2005 Knopf) yesterday, at home suffering from viral bronchitis and a massive headache. I’m two hundred pages into his conniving rise to power and already at least 200,000 brutally murdered or betrayed deaths - Mao has just turned forty.

It reminded me that I recently bought a reprint of a classic Communist Chinese propaganda poster (something about “struggle against American Imperialism, Soviet Revisionists, etc”). You’ve probably all seen something similar (the image that accompanies this blog is a version of the poster I bought.)

It's purchase was intended as an ironic piece of art. You know, like when an atheist buys and wears a Jesus t-shirt. Or when a pacifist buys and wears army fatigues. And, besides, I’ve always been a fan of the neo-classical propaganda art of the Soviet regime, with its proleteriat and community focus - dozens of men and women, with square robust features, wearing scarves and driving threshers across fields at harvest time. And I can’t be the only one to appreciate this aethestic since we all more or less dress in work clothes today.

Except that intended irony is feeling flat now as when I want to puke after passages like this:

“...in this purge alone 10,000 were killed...Even today in the area...they dig out bones from one big pit after another....Survivors recalled that many had been “put in jute sacks and thrown into Lake Hong with big stones tied to them. Fishermen did not dare go fishing in the lake, because so many corpses came up, and the colour of the lake changed.” pg 180 Mao, The Unkown Story

It’s not clear whether the victims were drowned or killed first. Burying people alive seemed to be a particular delight for the murderers. As was “running rusty wires through the testicles” of groups of men being lead to their beheading. And, of course, the now CIA standard (taught to the best terrorists and state goons around the world): the hot poker shoved up the anus.

I took the CCP poster from its storage (it hasn’t been framed) and unfurled it and looked at it carefully, sipping tea and listening to the pounding of my headache echo off the living room wall. I still think the print is pretty but, I dunno, the longer I looked at it the more the paper seemed to become slippery with blood.

I think I might have to trade it in for a Jesus t-shirt.

Why They Hate Us - Rejecting 'The Modern'

2007-02-16T07:35:00.000-08:00

And it isn't because Mom always loved us more

I've been sporadically listening to Ethan Nichtern's podcast lectures these last several months. Ethan teaches Buddhist meditation in New York, New York ("it's one hell of a town") and the lectures are interesting enough for me to return a couple of times a month to spend an hour or so and tag along with him and his students while I do chores around the house. I have about 24 hours of his lecture podcasts that I haven't listened to and several individual ones that I've listened to four or five times. A recent lecture called Discipline and Being too Busy to Practice (January 19, 2007) brought up the condition of being 'too busy' as a form of laziness. The gist of his argument was that hectic and frenetic behaviour is a form of avoidance of doing the heavy work of mindfulness, the condition of being aware. Busyness, if you stop and consider it, is something that we're all struggling with. I know very few people (if any) who are not busy, who's lives are not filled with an increasing workload. Even the drunks I know are frantically drinking. We're like beasts of burden laden with gold, silver, spices, silk, and wines carrying it for our masters to trade for gold, silver, spices, silk, and wines which we then carry back for our master's masters.

This year my resolution has been to meditate and work on compassion for other beings (and incidently for myself). I came to this decision after reading several chapters of Jeffrey Hopkin's book (mentioned in an earlier post). I started a notebook in which I've written down the people upon whom I wish to meditate (using the techniques in Hopkin's book); some people are easy as a matter of course (family, friends), some I've included because of their prominence as social leaders, some are troublesome to me because I have an active antagonism towards them and do not easily wish them well.

Early in the mornings I start with a few moments of silent preparation and then I meditate and pray.

These few moments a day in solitude have lead me to seek more solitude in my life in general. I've not been going out at night, nor have I been taking on new projects; I've generally declined spending time with friends; I've been more contemplative and outside of work more likely to be alone than not.

The quietness hasn't been of a brooding nature. I've read a lot, including a couple of detective novels (Boris Akunin, Simenon), gone for contemplative walks, and puttered about the house or napped with two cats curled up on my stomach and chest with Ravi Shankar on the CD player.

But brooding has entered into it as well. You see, it appears I hate my life.

I hate the urgency, the violent agitation and emotions, the striving, the general lack of scruples I see absent around me in everyday life, business as world politics, national and local politics that seem to worship that golden calf we all agree isn't really a god (and we've all been in agreement on that point for at least four thousand years). I'm bothered by people's incessant complaints (when Moses brought the Jews out of Egypt they still complained; they were slaves under the whip but they whined, "were there not enough graves in Egpyt, Moses, you had to bring us to the desert to die?")

Scruple is a good word to consider. It means, "hesitation or uncertainty about doing something because it might be wrong." It comes ultimately from the latin for "rough stone", meaning figuratively "anxiety". That hesitation and uncertainty should play a major role in our lives since we are in the midst of a turbulent cultural upheaval called 'globalization'. It used to be called 'modernization' and 'colonization'. It's almost always involved uprooting people and cultures and destroying their way of life.

The war in Vietnam (1954 - 1974) was created in part by uprooting a whole culture and moving it down river. By disrupting the lives of these Vietnamese they now found they couldn't earn a living and all of their cultural tools and systems no longer worked. Inevitably dissatisfaction entered into life and from that anger and a striking out at the 'enemy'.

The modernization of Japan in the 1850's happened at such a breakneck speed that many felt they threw out the baby with the bathwater. The ancient and established systems of honour and dignity, the higher values and morals of the Samurai society were eliminated as useless. And all this to avoid an unwanted American invasion. Click here for the story of Commodore Perry (I haven't read the website thoroughly but it seems to contain the gist of that history). Eventually, by 1930's a backlash occurred and Japanese intellectuals brooded on how to 'overcome the modern'. And by modern they meant the West. They railed against the West's specialization of knowledge splintering Oriental wholeness. They viewed the West as rootless, faithless, money grubbing, unfeeling, decadent parasites. (source: Occidentalism: The West in the Eyes of Its Enemies

In Kabul today, in Tehran, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Palestine and a dozen other places where the lives of men and women have been disrupted by economic decisions (and Antonia Juhasz' book The Bush Agenda: Invading the World One Economy at a Time can leave no doubt that is the primary motive for these disruptions) where what is good about their cultures has been thrown out along with what is bad and where it has been all replaced by the rootless, faithless, money grabbing, unfeeling urgency we all feel in the West - and anger erupts.

But it doesn't just erupt as a cultural war between fundamentalist Muslims and easy-going Western Christians. It happens in South America, in the Pacific Islands, everywhere 'the modern' uproots the traditional. Soygal Rinpoche writes, "I think the greatest achievement of modern culture is its brilliant selling of samsara and its barren distractions." And he's being kind.

Free Trade Areas are no replacement for community. Broadcasts of Ultimate Fighting on Spike TV are no replacement for community. Conspicuous consumption is no replacement for conversation and contemplation. Caring truly about another is not the same as 'throwing in the rims' when you sell them an SUV for $35,000.

I think that's why they hate us. When we actually stop and think about it, it's the same reason we hate ourselves.

xoxo

MVL

7 Hours to the New Year and Here's What I'm Gonna Do

2006-12-31T17:15:00.000-08:00

My New Year's Resolutions - I Make 'em often and now I'll try and make 'em true

This year I resolve to do at least one thing: take Jeffrey Hopkin's example and develop compassion for others through meditation and other techniques he explains in his book Cultivating Compassion.

We'll see how far I get in developing equanimity for all sentient beings, including those fuckers who do nasty things in this world (see earlier posts). We'll see whether or not comtemplating the fragility of life and the imminence of death will bring me closer to having kindness for all.

Certainly the first 50 or so pages of the book rid me of a day long headache and gave me a sense of purpose for the coming months: meditating on the idea that all beings want happiness and don't want suffering.

If successful, it'll be my Christmas gift to me.

Namaste!

M

It Takes My Breath Away When They Do Things Like That

2006-12-30T11:24:00.000-08:00

Ode to Joy, Joy to the World, Peace on Earth, and all the other meaningless Yadda Yadda Yadda

I spent Christmas wrapped in the warmth of the past watching hour after hour of classic Christmas fare (White Christmas, Holiday Inn, Meet Me in St. Louis, etc) tuned into Turner Classic Movies. It reminded me over and over how simple life appeared to be forty to sixty years ago.

But as it turns out it's not as simple as all of that, is it? Poor Danny Kaye living a lie. Poor Judy Garland a prisoner of her handlers. Poor Jews, homosexuals, gypsies and socialists forced into slavery and then murdered during the Second World War (all the returning soldiers in White Christmas didn't mention that part, did they? The retards were lucky - they were just murdered without having to work for their masters first).

I bought, intentionally, Al Franken's latest paperback The Truth (with jokes). Franken never ceases to crack me up even when he's telling me about how seriously flawed the world around me actually is. In The Truth (with jokes), Franken examines the 2004 US Presidential elections and challenges the assertion that G.W.Bush received a landslide of approval, which Bush termed political capital and said he intended to spend. Politics in the US of A has always been a nasty business, filled with deceit, lies and fraud. Tammany Hall, The Tea Dome Scandal, The Pentagon Papers, Watergate. Just ask Coke Stevenson about electoral fraud (Stevenson ran against Lyndon Johnston for a federal Senate seat in Texas, 1948).

L. Fletcher Prouty wrote a book called JFK. Prouty isn't a person whose life is beyond reproach. He's a man who probably did more good than harm and probaby was more coherent than not. I like him because he wrote the book JFK. Especially the first few chapters of that book.

Prouty explains world events don't just happen. They are caused to happen. This is a basic principle that needs to be understood by everyone on this planet. Wars don't erupt whole cloth; they are created and armed and executed. Political movements have an unseen hand behind them, sometimes many. I still believe accidents occur. After all, Columbus shot for India and found an entirely different continent. But nevertheless, on the whole, things happen because they are caused to happen. By who and why are another set of questions.

Prouty explains that the ordnances and supplies stockpiled in the Pacific for the invasion of Japan weren't routed back to America after Japan's surrender in 1945 but sent on to Korea in preparation for a war there, which they envisioned would take place a few years later. Who envisioned? Well there the story gets a little complex with a long list of bit players and main players. Winston Churchill called them The Cabal. In fact, the players don't change as much from generation to generation as it appears. For instance, do you know who Herman and George Brown are? Well, according to Robert Caro, they had a constuction company that built a hydroelectric dam on land they did not own and stood to lose millions unless a junior congressman from Texas could swing a deal in the back rooms for them. That man, even then, was a past master of deal making named Lyndon Johnston. Brown & Root went on to become major figures in military and corporate construction (receiving massive government contracts), oil, and Texas politics. They were bought by Haliburton in 1962 and were merged with Kellogg in the 1990s. Brown and Root of Texas and Haliburton are doing pretty much today what they did in 1936, comingling money, politics and bribery to create a world of profit and power for themselves and their people.

Which now brings me to the depressing part of my so-called holidays. I've just finished reading The Confessions of an Economic Hit Man which didn't do much for me except remind me of Antonia Juhasz' The Bush Agenda and Greg Grandin's Empire's Workshop: Latin America, the United States, and the Rise of the New Imperialism. And I'm almost finished Franken's book.

So, you see, my mindset was slipping away from the nostalgic Christmas warmth that Turner Classic Movies had spun for me. I had read myself away from the warmth of friends working for the benefit of other friends, where problems were solved with a wink and where families really did care about each other.

But I wasn't prepared for this morning. I wasn't prepared for an idea so massively obnoxious, so vile in its intentions that I actually shut off the computer, cracked open a (union-made) beer and put some music on rather than think about the consequences of it being true.

It can be found at the website called, Project Censor. Project Censor was launched in 1976 at Sonoma University as a communications project. According to its website it "is a media research group out of Sonoma State University which tracks the news published in independent journals and newsletters. From these, Project Censored compiles an annual list of 25 news stories of social significance that have been overlooked, under-reported or self-censored by the country's major national news media.". I've been reading it since 1996, usually as a cooling effect on my natural spirited joy.

Item #18 Physicist Challenges Official 9-11 Story. This is past the story of the hijacking of the Internet's Net neutrality by major corporations. Past the story of the US preparing to start manufactoring landmines (there's an international treaty that the US refuses to sign), past the story of the death of the ocean, past the story of proof of the dangers of genetically modified foods. Yes, keep going.

A conspiracy is defined by my Webster's as a secrect plan by a group of people to do something unlawful or harmful. It comes from the latin root meaning "to breath together". If my understanding of the law (derived from uncounted hours watching Law & Order) is correct, it is not legally necessary that all parties contributing to an illegal outcome be aware of all other parties, their plans or their contributions for them to be a party to the conspiracy. If Person A sells a gun that they know will be used in a crime (because they've erased its serial number and sold it to someone who wants a 'cold, untraceable' weapon) it doesn't matter that Person A didn't know in detail it was going to be used in the assasination of the President of the United States of America while he was in Dallas. Person A is effectively and legally part of that conspiracy.

So, read Item #18 and tell me whether or not you think this is more crazy talk from crazy people who don't know the world is actually unfolding as it should, just like God planned it, and that heaven is on its way (fucking physicists). If this story is true then everything is wrong.

And we are seriously fucked.

xoxo

M

The Fall of Advertising and the Rise of PR

2006-12-10T02:53:00.000-08:00

Al Ries' and Laura Ries' National Bestseller

On Friday I escaped from my workplace and headed downtown Vancouver to collect my cousin who arrived from her hometown of Sydney, Australia. She'd been in flight for seventeen hours and up for 48 hours at the time and I had had four hours of sleep (worked late and worked early). But neither of our conditions prevented us from grabbing a beer with BadMark at a local watering hole. Four pitchers of Sleeman's Honey Lager later we dropped off her bags at home and went dancing at The Plaza. By 5AM her 48 hours of sleeplessness had turned into 59 hours and I had turned into a drunk and tired 43 year-old zombie.

Luckily, I had a date to keep me from oversleeping this morning. After spending a couple of hours brunching with You Jane, I wandered into the local used-bookshop and bought Al Ries' and Laura Ries' The Fall of Advertising and the Rise of PR, which I had been eyeing since its paperback publication in 2004.

Al Ries is well-known for his work in the 1970s popularizing the concept of positioning. He is also the co-author (with Jack Trout or Laura Ries) of other books on marketing and branding, several of which I own (22 Immutable Laws of Branding, 22 Immutable Laws of Marketing, and 11 Immutable Laws of Internet Branding). The books are all very easy reading and proof of this is that I spent the remainder of the afternoon, tired and hungover, reading and finishing The Fall of Advertising.

The gist of the books' argument is that no one believes advertising, that advertising agencies focus on being clever and witting but rarely on actually selling products or services or getting bigger market share. The Got Milk? campaign is well-known, highly awarded, has a high recognition with the public, is endlessly spoofed but hasn't done anything to increase sales of milk, of which consumption keeps falling in the US. PR is more cost-effective for promoting brand awareness and gaining market share because it's more believed by the public. When Oprah Winfrey says a book is 'worth reading' it becomes a national bestseller; when a book is advertised in a magazine it rarely earns back the cost of the space. The more effective marketing solution for corporations is to focus on generating ideas that feature their products or services positively in the media. Focus on PR and publicity rather than on advertising, they say.

The book is example rich and the marketing suggestions are viable, at least at first glance. Some of the solutions are extremely provocative to be sure: change the name of Guatamala to Guatamaya to encourage tourism of its Mayan culture and sites, for instance. The name change would help establish the public perception that Guatamala was the centre of Mayan culture and would generate thousands of inches of publicity and articles in the press and media.

The Fall of Advertising fits in well with an essay I'm working on for this blog (and may never finish) about media and the role of newspapers in a community. A community is well served by a working press or news media; information is critical in making decisions and understanding issues.

But as a sometimes writer I am aware that news stories are not always written with critical integrity. A local film magazine that relies on advertising subscriptions to its services catalogue can't write articles critical of its subscribers; since everyone in the local film industry are either subscribers or potential subscribers its editorial content is often regurgitated press releases or puff pieces about local productions and their filmmakers. There are all kinds of wonky and newsworthy items in this industry that go unreported because no one wants to offend their advertisers.

Now as a manager of a pub, however, the suggestions in The Fall of Advertising have been duly noted, as they say. I've already started jotting down potential news stories, rumour-mongering ideas, and promotional ideas that will feature the pub in its community (it's a campus pub at a post-secondary technical school). So, by end of week, I should be able to come up with a half dozen or more of good 'word of mouth' campaigns and realize the difference between marketing directed towards the BOGs (Board of Governors) and the actual pub clientele, the students.

But first I may need some more sleep.

'I drink, therefore I am,' said Rene Descarte. 'Beer proves your existence is worthwhile,' said the Buddha.

O Lord, deliver us from evil - the petitionary prayer

2006-12-07T08:28:00.000-08:00

And while you're up - can you tidy up my house and build me some more book shelves?

I’m reading a couple of books with varying degrees of attentiveness: Andrew Linzey’s Animal Rites, Liturgies of Animal Care and Theodore Klauser’s A Short History of Western Liturgy. I will unlikely pass either of these excellent books on to friends - mostly because my friends tend to have genuinely interesting lives and are excited by subjects less arcane than the liturgies of the Christian Churches and the niceties of worship. BadMark, for instance, is gripping his beer stein a little more tightly as we approach the NFL play-offs. His team can be checked out here.

Andrew Linzey is an Anglican priest and a member of the faculty of Theology at the University of Oxford; he is the author of several books related to Christianity and animals, specifically examining the scriptures as they guide us to care for animals in our faith. His two most famous works are Animal Theology (1994) and Animal Gospel (1998).

A quick summary of Animal Rites can be read in this paragraph from the introduction (entitled When a Sparrow Falls: Reclaiming Animal-Friendly Spirituality). Linzey writes:

Our prayers - or lack of them - say something about ourselves: our hopes, our concerns, our dreams for a better world, and most obviously the things we really care about. Do Christians then not really care about animals? Have they not seen the world of God’s creation all around them teeming with millions of different forms of life?

We are not the first Christians to be concerned for animals and all of life's teeming millions. In Luke 12.6 Jesus says, "Are not five sparrows sold for two pennies? Yet not one of them is forgotten in God's sight". Many of our Saints (St. John Chrysostom, St Basil the Great, and, famously St. Francis of Assisi) wrote and preached compassion for animals as an integral part of the teaching of Jesus Christ. Andrew Linzey culls, from the hundreds of years of church writings, their prayers and forms from them elements of a liturgy that says something of our concerns for better world for all of God's creation. Or at least acknowledges our lack of compassion, our lack of repentance and the hardness of our hearts.

Klauser's Short History is one hundred fifty pages of tightly worded prose. Klauser quickly herds the elements of the current liturgy (which means 'form or formulary according to which public religious worship is conducted', or basically: 'first you say this and then you do that and then you pray here'), separates the different elements according to their origins, and takes a moment to reflect here and there on different meanings. The Christian Liturgy is far from being static but it is rooted in religious services that are several thousand years old. As the early Church grew different practices and prayers were codified and standardized and 'rogue' elements were eliminated from worship. Prayers were no longer extempore, freeing the Bishops and priests from having to be inventive while maintaining high standards and staying 'on message'.

Klauser's book is interesting in pulling apart the history of each element of worship and allowing the reader to understand more clearly why our Church worship is as it is and to read meaning into its form. It also frees us to think about adding and subtracting different elements, to find the form of worship in our daily lives outside of limited Church schedules.

And if the Seahawks do make it to the Superbowl this year it will certainly be because of BadMark's incessant petitions to Our Creator.

xoxo

M

Dead Whales, Over-heated Planet, and Panic Attacks

2006-11-28T05:44:00.000-08:00

When Fools lead the way, it's only Fools who follow

I think it was the idea that the biomass of ants on this planet was greater than that of humans (pg 16 Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things) that crystalized my full understanding of what it is I hate about my society; the authors write, 'ants have been incredibly industrious for millions of years. Yet their productivity nourishes plants, animals and soil. Human industry has been in full swing for a little over a century yet it has brought about a decline in almost every eco-system on the planet. Nature doesn't have a design problem. People do.'

A couple of years ago I argued with my friend, BadMark, against continuously increasing production, eating more, consuming more, against industrial expansion into every nook and cranny. I compared human beings with our brother, the virus; a virus hops into a system using devious means, expands its community with speed, aggressively consumes the most nutritious elements (blood, semen) and upsets the system's balance; leaving behind its waste material in such large amounts the host system is poisoned and destroyed thus destroying the viral community. Then, when Lucien Bouchard's leg needs to be amputated and thrown out as toxic waste, a few survivors of the community make their way through the air to colonize and destroy another unlucky system.

Badmark argued the neo-con position: that prosperity required expansion; that a system that wasn't expanding was therefore contracting and getting smaller, weaker, less able to sustain wealth for its citizens; that consumption required waste as a by-product.

I had a Metis teacher in high school who said her great-grandfather, wearied by fighting European colonization, concluded that all resistance was useless. Not because Whites were more clever or able to present their cause more convincingly but because, 'they breed like flies.' He could have easily called it The White Infection.

Since 1962 and the publication of Rachel Carson's Silent Spring our culture has been more and more aware that we are destroying the planet's eco-systems at a far greater rate than is sustainable. We are polluting, on a broad scale, faster than these systems can clean and filter our waste. Paul Erhlich's late 1960's warning about Earth's population bomb went unheeded and it exploded leaving 6 billion naked inhabitants tilling dead soil, eating pesticides and toxins, and living in their own waste with the promise of another 4 billion coming within 25 years.

Pretty depressing stuff for a Sunday morning. This pondering, and black frothy coffee, dovetailed nicely with a March 2004 article in the New Left Review called Planet of Slums, David Suzuki's Reader (which has been sitting at my bedside and ruining my sex life for a few months now) and the inconveniently depressing documentary film, An Inconvenient Truth (Al Gore putting an end to the 'argument' on the existence of global warming).

But McDonough's and Braungart's Cradle to Cradle isn't another jeremiad about the lack of sustainability in our current cultural and economic paradigms. It's written by an architect and a chemist. Not two professions one often joins together to enlighten a darkened brow and heart but that could be why they may have redefined the problem and suggested another way of thinking about things economic and environmental.

Braungart is a chemist, a co-founder of Germany's Green Action Party; he worked for Greenpeace as a science advisor and helped them protest more knowledgeably. McDonough is an American architect who studied the designs of the Bedouin and the Japanese, both cultures in which resources were (and are) scarce neccesitating simplicity and ingenuity.

The problem, say the authors, is that we are thinking about environmental issues from the the wrong angle. They argue we don't recycle as much as we downcycle (reuse things but in a weakened state). When we recycle plastic from bottles in our carpets we aren't doing much to resolve the problem of waste. 'The rug is still on its way to the landfill; it's just stopping in your house en route,' they write. Wrestling with the problem of reusing products, like plastic containers, and transforming them into other products, like rugs, often requires as much energy - and waste - as making a new carpet.

We need to think about reusing at the beginning of the design cycle and build recycling into the product itself; we need to question the use of toxins and pollutants at the design stage and ask, 'how will we take the useful elements from this product' once it is no longer useful as itself without releasing toxins and pollutants in the process.

If we use this paradigm in designing products, systems and processes we can become an inherent, and useful, part of the various eco-systems that surround us. In short, our waste becomes food for another component of the system. What if our designs were good?

'As long as human beings are considered bad, zero [waste, zero emissions, zero ecological footprint] is a good goal. But to be less bad is to accept things as they are, to believe that poorly designed, dishonorable, destructive systems are the best that humans can do. This is the ultimate failure of the 'be less bad' approach: a failure of the imagination. From our perspective, this is a depressing view of our species' role in the world.

What about an entirely different model? What would it mean to 100 percent good? (pg 67 Cradle to Cradle)

As it stands, beached whales are so polluted that we need to treat them with toxic hazard response teams and thus those whales are effectively removed from the cycle of the eco-system. As it stands we are losing topsoil at a mad rate, our rivers are being turned into toxic sludge, species are dying off at a daily rate. Who do we turn to for comfort, leadership, or for guidance?

Whose going to eat this society when we're done with it?

Let's reconsider being good?

Cradle to Cradle can be purchased at your local bookstore. Click here for the BCIT bookstore.

xoxo

M

Vancouver, BC

The First Thing is to Make Good Coffee in the Morning

2006-11-19T04:25:00.000-08:00

Then spend a moment with The Red Rooster; or, a Tale Told By an Idiot

The world really doesn't need more intellectual clutter passing itself off as vital information but that won't really stop me from providing a little garland here and there of a highly personal interpretation on the world around us or, my own 'Sound and fury, signifying nothing.'

Dave Soroka and I, when we passed time together two decades ago, came up with The Red Rooster, with its byword of 'a subtle blend of fact and fiction to create a new reality'. We figured that after a day's toil an evening spent in drinking and conversation seeking 'certainty through reasoning' we could untie this damned Gordian knot of human existence. The Red Rooster was designed to be a record of that journey.

We had a couple of ground rules: always maintain a sense of humour, never let a fact get in the way of the truth, untie knots rather than tie them, or make life more understandable rather than less; cause as much trouble towards authority as possible.

Maintaining a sense of humour requires, I think, a sense of humility which I once read defined as a 'willingness to always accept that you may be wrong' and I prefer that definition over a 'low sense of one's importance'. Humour also creates the perfect tone of a troublemaker towards authority. And laughter may lead to accepting a truth that is unacceptable otherwise; it leads to communication and communication is 'the universal solvent'.

My stepmother used to be a font of wisdom for me, gathering the gossamer strands of subtle clues, combining them into a profound insight to other people. I held her wool while she knit and I would come away with a clearer vision of the people around me. Dave Soroka also wrote a song around that time called Midnight Man in which the lyrics tell of how clear and certain a man can be in the calm of the night when he can organize his thoughts.

The Red Rooster is all of that and beer.

It's also the home of Caesar, The German Shepherd Dog; Gore, The Vegetarian; The MTFC and much more.

Check back! Postings will be up soon.

xoxo

M