Tag Archives: election 2011

MayDay 2011: Greens to Waste Money on the Consortium

Posted on by 1 comment

The Green Party of Canada is doing everything it can to make sure that Elizabeth May is part of the election debate.

Ironically, they are spending bags of money on the very media and broadcast consortium that is blocking them out of the debate.

They plan on raising tens of thousands of extra dollars from their supporters so that they can blow it on a full page ad in the Globe and Mail.

Did no one remind them that (a) people don’t read the newspaper any more and (b) the Globe is owned by Bell Canada, the same company that owns CTV which happens to be the same company that’s blocking them out?

Why are they wasting their money on this crusade?

Why not take the money that you’re raising and use it to win a riding or two?  Find a couple of areas where you actually have a chance, get people on the streets, fly people in to solicit from door to door and stop enriching the machine that’s pushing you down?

I tell you, this is really frustrating to watch.  I really hope that there’s a big cleansing after everyone gets their asses handed to them on a plate by the Cons because the game just isn’t played the traditional way any more.  The Cons own the media that you’re trying to use to get visibility and they’ll do everything they can to ensure that ‘your big call out to the nation’ gets lost somewhere on page S12 of the Sports section.

When drug addicts push themselves to the point of ruin, do you keep giving them crack so they can get high again?  No.  You cut them off.  Canadians should be telling fringe parties like the Greens and the NDP to do the same thing because they’re just throwing their money away.

And don’t think your choices won’t be noticed.  A big F-you to the media conglomerates in this country would get you a hell of a lot more attention that killing another tree for BCE Inc’s sake.

MayDay 2011: Addressing Steve’s Bad Math

Posted on by 0 comment

Stephen Harper keeps declaring that we as Canadians have two options and two options only:

  1. A majority for Steve
  2. A coalition of rif-raff losers, socialists, separatists, blah, blah, blah

Unfortunately, Steve can’t add and no one in the media has called him on it.

Statistically speaking, there are lots of options:

  1. A Liberal Majority
  2. An NDP Majority
  3. A Green Party Majority
  4. A Liberal minority
  5. An NDP minority
  6. A Green Party Minority
  7. A Bloc Minority (yes … if the Bloc won every seat in Quebec, and the rest of the seats were split evenly between the Cons, the Libs, the Dippers and the Greens, we’d have a Bloc Minority)
  8. A Conservative Majority
  9. A Conservative Minority

Nearly 10 options Steve.  As you can see, Steve has been leader of a minority after 3 elections and this will be his last chance at bat.  If he fails in this election, the Conservative Party of Canada will be out for blood.

Surprisingly, black and white Harper can’t see it that way, nor can the media that the Conservatives own and manipulate for their benefit.

Stop the lying.  Stop telling Canadians that there are only two options.

And when someone like Stephen Harper can’t add with simple examples like this, it’s no wonder that we now have the biggest deficit in Canadian history.

MayDay 2011: Conservatives vs Women

Posted on by 0 comment

So far, the Canadian election is turning into a rally cry around the ‘family’.

The Conservative Party of Canada announced it’s plan to allow income splitting (although we already know it’s an empty promise because aliens have to colonize the planet first).

In most circles, this concept has been tossed out by tax experts and feminists because it’s generally an insult to women.

Picture the proposal in the context of single people or those who choose not to have children:

  • You must have children
  • The children must be 18 or under
  • You must be in a relationship with a higher income earner

A lot of people in Canada simply don’t qualify so it’s a targeted policy as opposed to a universal one.

Here’s what Queen’s University Law Professor Kathleen Lahey has to say about this:

Queen’s University  law professor Kathleen Lahey says the proposal will only benefit  couples with one reasonably high income, which is statistically a man with a  stay-at-home wife and children. She says such programs always give couples incentives for women to stay out of the workforce –  and then create huge tax barriers to any future decision to return to  work. In an email sent to journalists, she added:

When the Reform Party became the official opposition back in the  late 1990s, it immediately demanded that special hearings be held on the  merits of income splitting. A special committee struck to investigate this  scheme recommended against it because it would be costly ($4 billion for  1998), discriminatory, unfair, and economically counter-productive – it would  use government revenues to induce educated and experienced workers to  withdraw from paid work instead of remaining engaged in the labour  market.

Other critics suggest that the conclusion to be had from all of this is that income-splitting only benefits wealthy families that typically have a spouse (almost always the wife) staying at home to take care of the kids.  Erin Weir of Progressive Economics has this to say about income splitting:

A 1999 report of the standing committee on finance unanimously concluded that “a dual-earner couple with the same total income as a single-earner couple is not as well off as the latter. Not only are there additional employment-related expenses that must be incurred regarding the second worker, the value of unpaid work in the home, or leisure, must also be taken into account.” The Ontario Fair Tax Commission noted, “it has been shown that single-earner couples may have greater ability to pay than two-earner couples with the same income.” The current system of taxing individual income, with credits for dependent spouses and children, is more equitable than income splitting. Parents should have the option of caring for young children at home. However, giving $5 billion to couples in high-tax brackets is not a fair or effective way of providing this choice.

REAL Ways to Support All Parents

Instead of pursuing income-splitting, all parties should reinforce legislation related to pay equity and make examples of those organizations that do not pay people equally for equal contribution.

Also, a truly ‘family friendly’ AND ‘female friendly’ campaign platform would offer support for women (married, common-law, with a partner or single) with national day-care programs and other child-support infrastructure.  This would address ALL women that take on the role of managing their lives as well as those of their children.

Finally, longer maternity leaves, better EI benefits and stronger enforcement of rules for part-time employees would go a much longer way to securing stability for one-parent families, particularly those lead by women.

Stephen Harper’s Hidden Message

Stephen Harper’s proposal is a well-designed and coded meme structured to appeal to the ‘stay at home’ and ‘traditional family’ models that limit the opportunities – and voice – of female voters.  It’s also an attempt to appeal to their fundamentalist and religious base without having to talk about more sensitive issues like abortion and national day care.

I can’t imagine why any woman in their right mind would vote to support this.

MayDay 2011: Shut up. Democracy Belongs to the ‘Media Consortium’

Posted on by 0 comment

In the early days of May Day 2011 (Canada’s 2011 Election), Canada’s media is doing a massive disservice to Canadian voters by asking the following questions with moronic levels of reptition:

  • Do we really need an election, especially when it costs so much?
  • What if we don’t get a majority?
  • Will it just be endless coalition talk amongst the opposition parties?

For the record, these are stupid questions and it’s essential that we all remind the media just what an insult they are.

Here are some sample responses:

  • Why does the election cost $300 million?  Who’s making $300 million to tally Canadian votes and why are they getting so damn rich off our democratic right to vote?
  • How come we can’t have more elections?  If we cancel the jet order ($30 billion and counting), we can have 100 elections and break even.  I’m all for that idea.
  • I’d much rather have a minority of parties that I can trust – including the Bloc – instead of the crooks that were in charge as of last Friday.  If Ignatieff didn’t pull the plug on Harper, he’d still be destroying the fundamental building blocks of this country.  Diplomacy wins out over dictatorship.

And now, to kick sand in the collective eyes of Canadians, Elizabeth May is being blocked from all public debate by the ‘Media Consortium’.  George Orwell couldn’t have created a better term to describe the control that the 5-6 media conglomerates have over our lives.

With all of this in mind, Canada desperately needs media reform before we need democratic reform.  Preferably by May 2, but I’ll take it after that date as well.

Yes, you’ve read correctly.

The media in Canada is controlled and it is loaded with people that are incapable of asking tough questions, particularly to the crooks and cheats that run the Conservative Party of Canada.

We need an unMedia consortium that would allow all leaders to post responses to specific questions generated by the public.  If you need to explore the question ‘why’ in a little more detail, please read this post by Global Research that speaks to the issues surrounding media and message control.

Here are a couple of tidbits from this article:

Two of the most “esteemed” sources of news in the U.S. are the New York Times (referred to as “the paper of record”) and the Washington Post. The New York Times has on its board people who are past or presently affiliated with: Schering-Plough International (pharmaceuticals), the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, Chevron Corporation, Wesco Financial Corporation, Kohlberg & Company, The Charles Schwab Corporation, eBay Inc., Xerox, IBM, Ford Motor Company, Eli Lilly & Company, among others. Hardly a bastion of impartiality.

And the same could be said for the Washington Post, which has on its board: Lee Bollinger, the President of Columbia University and Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York; Warren Buffett, billionaire financial investor, Chairman and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway; and individuals associated with (past or presently): the Coca-Cola Company, New York University, Conservation International, the Council on Foreign Relations, Xerox, Catalyst, Johnson & Johnson, Target Corporation, RAND Corporation, General Motors, and the Business Council, among others.

Voters don’t have a hope in hell of standing up with a collective voice against these kind of forces because we’re fragmented and they want us to remain that way. They’re consolidated and THEY want to remain that way.

It’s not in the best interest of the corporations that run our lives to do anything but shift discussions away from relevant issues like ‘corruption’ and ‘contempt’ and into areas like ‘coalition’ and ‘need for an election’.

As you try to make up your mind about voting, Independent Media has a comprehensive list of publishers and sites that will bring objective reporting to the Canadian election.

Also, AdBusters and its readers have compiled a list of alternative media publications that might be of interest.

Please post your thoughts below on other alternative publications that we should all be paying attention, not just during the election, but afterwards as well.

MayDay 2011: Conservatives vs Seniors

Posted on by 0 comment

Hot on the heels of announcing a ‘family friendly’ platform, Shelly Glover of the Conservative Party of Canada (MP, Saint Boniface, interactive map) declared that at least one senior citizen was past her due date.

What exactly does that mean?

Are seniors no longer productive members of society once they retire?  While Shelly Glover claims the comment was meant to reflect the person’s effectiveness as an MP, there’s a lot of potential for the statement to be misunderstood as ageist.

That said, is this why the Conservative Party of Canada has declared ‘family friendly’ policies (that will perhaps one day take place when they finish destroying the budget) in lieu of needs for seniors?

Looking at the last election, Shelly Glover had about 9% of votes (less than 5,000 in total) over her closest competitor, Raymond Simard.

In this situation, the NDP collected 5,500 votes and the Greens got 2,100 votes.  If you’re Green or NDP in this riding, shifting your vote to the Liberal challenger would send a nice message to Ms. Glover.

(NOTE:  Again, I repeat that I have no affiliation with the Liberal Party or any other registered political party.  I just want to see the Conservatives lose).