mr_trudo

I have recently been angered by the NDP fight to make property tax based on purchase price instead of a more market assessed value. Recently, Ontario announced that it would reassess inner-city neighbourhood that will make many wealthy homeowners pay a similar percentage of property values to suburban residents. NDP MP Paul Dewar came in on this provincial and municipal affair, claiming injustice on behalf of wealthy inner-city homeowners, land speculator, landlords, developers, inheritors and their ilk, claiming they deserve thousands in tax breaks because they were Greenier. Greener for what, their drafty early 20th century homes, European station wagons and the global travels to purchase ugly artwork. That is a lot of tons of wasted CO2.

If the NDP gets it 's way, most of the working people they claim to stand for that live in the suburbs because it is the only place they can afford housing, another big issue for the NDP, will be stuck with either thousands more in property taxes or few services as wealthy developers, landowners and inheritors get off with paying thousands less in taxes per year. I guess the NDP is just doing the rich more favours, especially after they brought down Liberals before their smoke in mirrors budget deal was fully implemented to get Steven Harper's "more war, less tax, jail 18 year olds for having sex with 15 years olds" agenda implemented and accomplishing not a single concrete result for working people since... medicare?

DON'T BUY COORS

Here's why:

1. COORS SUPPORTS TERRORISM IN NICARAGUA

Each sale of Coors beer helps the contra terrorists in Nicaragua, who have been ambushing and killing civilians, murdering teachers and medical workers, and destroying rural schools and medical centers. The contras, a band of mercenaries established by the CIA, are attempting to overthrow the elected government of Nicaragua. Joseph Coors has contributed to and helped to raise millions of dollars for the contras. (Washington Post, May 3, 1985). The Heritage Foundation, funded and established by Coors, provided a report in 1984 to the Reagan Administration on how to destabilize Nicaragua.

2. COORS IS ANTI-LABOR

Coors has a long history of violating federal labor laws and union-busting - breaking 19 unions in the last 20 years. Coors has blocked the efforts of federal safety inspectors to investigate workplace hazards, which have led to the death of Coors employees (San Francisco Examiner, July 5, 1984).

3. COORS IS RACIST, ANTI-WOMEN'S RIGHTS, AND ANTI-GAY

William E. Coors fought against passage of the U.S. Civil Rights Act, and in 1984 told an audience of black businessmen that blacks don't succeed because they "lack intellectual capacity". (Rocky Mountain News, February 24, 1984). The Coors Company, cited for unlawful employment discrimination in 1970, settled out of court IN 1977 and paid thousands of dollars in back pay and rehired minority and female workers. Joseph Coors supported the campaign against the Equal Rights Amendment and is a major contributor to the Moral Majority, which has called for the imprisonment of gay persons diagnosed as having AIDS.

4. COORS SUPPORTS NAZI SYMPATHIZERS

When Joseph Coors established the Heritage Foundation in 1974, he chose Roger Pearson, an outspoken anti-semite and pro-nazi, as co- editor of the Heritage Foundation publication Policy Review. Pearson is the author of a book on Aryan supremacy called "Race and Civilization", and has been the editor or co-editor of several racist and neo-nazi magazines. (National Guardian, May 1, 1985). The Heritage Foundation is a right-wing think tank which seeks to abolish civil rights laws, minimum wage laws, affirmative action, rights for the handicapped, and arms control.

5. COORS POLLUTES

In contrast to the advertised association of Coors beer with "pure mountain spring water", Coors is one of the largest dumpers of hazardous waste in Colorado. (National Catholic Reporter, March 25,1983).

THE NATIONWIDE COORS BOYCOTT has been extremely effective. Begun in 1977 by brewery workers at the Coors plant in Colorado, the boycott has been endorsed by the AFL-CIO, the NEA (National Education Association) and NOW (National Organization for Women). As a result, Coors has steadily lost sales every year since 1977. Coors is now looking for sales in eastern markets (such as Boston) but here too the boycott has affected sales. At the University of Massachusetts at Amherst and at Brandeis University, for example, sales of Coors beer were recently halted.

DON'T DRINK COORS

We urge you not to buy Coors products (Coors Beer, Killian's Irish Red Ale, Masters Beer). Tell your friends about the boycott, and encourage the liquor stores you frequent to stop selling Coors products.

(This leaflet is published by the Pledge of Resistance, whose objective is to stop U.S. intervention in Central America - both by the U.S. government and by private sources, such as Coors.)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v5/content/subscribe?user_URL=http://www.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2Fstory%2FRTGAM.20070327.wxnatives27%2FBNStory%2FNational%2F&ord=647590&brand=theglobeandmail&force_login=true

You maybe asking what do I mean by this? To quote wikipedia:

"Students were required to stay in residences on school premises, which were often walled or fortified in some manner, and were often forcibly removed from their homes, parents, and communities. Most students had no contact with their families for up to 10 months at a time due to the distance between their home communities and schools. Often, they did not have contact with their families for years at a time...

In 1909, Dr. Peter Bryce, general medical superintendent for the Department of Indian Affairs reported to the department that between 1894 and 1908 mortality rates at residential schools in Western Canada ranged from 35% to 60% over five years (that is, five years after entry, 35% to 60% of students had died). These statistics did not become public until 1922, when Bryce, who was no longer working for the government, published The Story of a National Crime: Being a Record of the Health Conditions of the Indians of Canada from 1904 to 1921. In particular, he alleged that the high mortality rates were frequently deliberate, with healthy children being exposed to children with tuberculosis.

Until the late 1950s, residential schools were severely underfunded, and relied on the forced labour of their students to maintain their facilities. The work was arduous, and severely compromised the academic and social development of the students. Literary education, or any serious efforts to inspire literacy in English or French, were almost non-existent. School books and textbooks, if they were present at all, were drawn mainly from the curricula of the provincially funded public schools for non-Aboriginal students, and teachers at the residential schools were notoriously under-trained.

In the 1990s, it was revealed that many students at residential schools were subjected to severe physical, psychological, and sexual abuse by teachers and school officials. Several prominent court cases led to large monetary payments from the federal government and churches to former students of residential schools.

The last residential school closed in 1996. Although a settlement has been offered to former students, the federal government has decided not to apologize for the system or any damage caused. "

A mortality rate of 30 to 60% across the whole system over a 5 year period is quite shocking. Under Stalin, the worst winter in the concentration camps or "gulag" had a 20% mortality rate, which included my great grandfather, and that was at a time when the Soviet Union began a successful push to stop the Nazis plan of enslaving and extermining Central and Eastern Europe, a burden British North America has been nowhere close to having. Had had the situation been worse, and the same tragity repeated 5 years in a row, that create a 5 year mortality rate of 68%. As well, the gulag has no assimilation or genocidial intension, rather it was for economic in nature and faciliated social control of dissidents, criminals and captures of war.

I know from my father's Polish background that Polish society still suffers from the scares and backwardness of the brutality of the 20th Century. One can say the same thing about many cultures and Canada's First Nations is one of them.

The Sierra Club has posted Steven Harper's phone number on their website so you can bitch at him about overheating the wasteful Alberta economy with oil money leading quite possibly to the apocolypse.

http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/getinvolved/item.shtml?x=983

I am sure you have all heard it before; voting for the centrist Liberals instead of your favourite but third place party so they win the most number of seats, form the government and get the second best versions of policies you want in. But when it comes to making policy, often the amount of seats are meaningless. Instead, the opposition’s popular opinion and where it could be heading, even if from a second or third place party, can be the ones influencing policies the most. The governing party will react policy wise to win votes of the most successful opposition.

There are so many examples in Canadian politics. In the 60s, the NDP formed and was said to have the potential to dominate Canadian politics like the labour/social democrat movement did in all of Northern Europe. It never happened because the Liberals implemented NDP policies at the time, like higher social spending, universal healthcare and pensions, old age security, partial oil nationalization and more generous unemployment insurance, all within a few years. Once it appeared the NDP wasn’t taking off nationally to the public as the Liberal took all their policies, the Liberals then returned to the status quo until it moved left again in the late 80s/early 90s when the NDP was pulling ahead and the Tories behind in the polls. In 1995 while in power, the Liberals saw another new party, the Reform Party, take off. Like they did with the NDP, the Liberals didn’t want Reform to win an election and be established as a major political force so they started taking their policies of cuts to spending and taxation. After a major drop in the public opinion for the Alliance followed by the NDP doubling their support in 2003 from 8-9 to 16-18%, Paul Martin stopped talking about high taxes and spending cuts and instead campaigned on gay rights and universal childcare. This is a shinning example that the Liberals are really the moderated representation of the most successful opposition party present. Look at the growth of the Green Party and how most of the Liberal leadership candidates have windmills and the word “environment” front and centre of their campaigns websites. So wouldn’t it make sense to vote for the opposition party you want in order for them to be successful rather than the Liberals who pick up the policies of the most successful opposition party of recent. 

BC is another more extreme and more obvious example on a two party level. With the right wing Socred governments in the late 70s and 80s, many claimed it ran a policy to run just as left wing as possible in order to steal enough potential NDP votes to get safely reelected. Around 2000 and nearly a decade in power, the NDP was clearly losing to the Liberals so the NDP takes some of the Liberal tax cut policies. The Liberals still won a landslide election and made large tax and spending cuts only to have the NDP surge in polls afterwards. As a result, the BC Liberals increased some taxes and spending in order steal enough potential NDP votes to get safely re-elected.

In Nova Scotia, Tories cut taxes resulting to a reduction to a minority government next election from NDP support. The NDP continues to gain strength so the Tories made a large progressive tax increases to keep up with spending in order to narrowly get reelected again into government. 

In Ontario in the 70s and early 80s, Premier Bill Davis was seen as quite the Red Tory, often left of the Liberals. It was because he was smart enough to stay in power for that whole time by striking enough appeal to the left to keep the NDP and Liberals just barely out of reach of power.

It’s a shame too people don’t get it when politicians break promises because otherwise some politicians would be getting more credit than they deserve.

All I know is it is from Hamberg Germany. Pretty cool huh. Good for the 95.(link)

Liberal for Life
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberals_for_Life

Tom Wappel Liberal MP (1988-present)
"As a social conservative, Wappel was a frequent critic of his own government's social legislation. He was a vocal opponent of the Chrétien government's plan to extend anti-discrimination protection to homosexuals in 1994, and was quoted as describing homosexuality as "statistically abnormal, [...] physically abnormal and [...] morally immoral".^[23] Some politicians and journalists called for Chrétien to expel Wappel from caucus after this remark, but no disciplinary action was taken.^[24] Later in the same year, Wappel described homosexuality as "not genetic, but a choice", while arguing that religious identity is "virtually genetic, since it is passed from generation to generation".^{[25]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Wappel}

Quite the contradiction, nevermind the hypocracy if you look at the main parts of Liberal platform. It's like a Conservative wanting a higher taxing, higher spending government, a Bloc MP drapped in a Canadian flag or a New Democrat advocating service delisting for medicare. Or maybe not. I guess it is no different than the few years between Liberal multiculturalism policy and Liberal "No Jew is too many" policy, to quote PM MacKenzie King in 1945. Left, Right, the Liberals go where the votes are. That's why I won't vote for them, they don't stick to a set of principles.

According to Greg Palast, American-raised UK journalist who was editted for Harper's and wrote for the Observer in the UK, as well has done get foreign correspondent pieces for the BBC. I particularly remember him from the 2000 election exposé that first ignited my hatred towards Bush. I am sure you can easily torrent his BBC stories and google his articles.

He now claims for the same reasons as last time (very high levels of spoiled ballots in leftist minority communities under the supervision of Republicians and/or Republican supporters) but elsewhere and that the Democrats should have won their fourth straight term. And no wonder he runs the place like a third world dictatorship.

His article

Him on wikipedia

Other good BBC stuff I have torrented lately: last week's Panorama which exposes evidence that the Bush dictatorship doctored government data on climate change to make it look not so bad. (visit the stories website which includes the episode streaming on-demand at the link above)

Why? Well, why I am I making $18/hr 7-3 Mon to Fri at 22? I was born in Canada. If I was born and still living in Northern Ethopia during drought, well, it wouldn't matter how hard or how smart I was, I wouldn't be anywhere as well off as right now. Nevermind if I was a Jew living in Nazi Germany. My parents being educated and my father lucking out to work at two upstart high tech companies also helped me as well enjoy many of the life's pleasures and go to university. But it had nothing to do with me.

My point: circumstance is the biggest effect in one's success. Even being gifted at performing medicine and following a dream performing medicine around the world is being of good circumstance considering many others might work their asses off and might only just get a certificate to work as a nurses aid and ends up working the night shift.

At first, I was torn. The Taliban defend an extreme ideology against basic human rights, particularly against women. Yet, at the same time, if you actually pay attention to Osama's videos, his cause is to expell American Imperialism from the Middle East, meaning to end US military base or propped up governments in the region, much like Ché was fighting for in Latin America 40-50 years ago. Ché also represented a failed ideology, in his case Maoism, and used voilent tactics to achieve his political means, much like Osama. Ché, on the other hand, still gets some respect even today.

America may represent a world with more, but not total, respect for human rights, they are the one who have and still kill more people in a week than Islamic rebels, or in today language, terrorist can ever dream of achieving. So who has the moral high ground? I say neither. I am more of a fan of the non-voilent democratic anti-imperialist resistence of Hugo Chavez or Gandhi.

The War on Terror is merely an imperialistic war, with Osama Bin Laden and Islamic extremists fighting with terrorist tactics of bombings and flying planes into buildings, against American Imperialist policies of terrorizing the oil rich Islamic world threaten and acting on invasion after invasion, war after war, in their selfish quest for the loating global resources. Canada in Afganistan is basically  using my tax dollars to support another country's imperialism which I am against and thus I think Canada should leave Afganistan. Osama once said roughly Why don't I ever attack Sweden with the respond that Sweden doesn't have troops in the Middle East. We don't need to be a victim of this war Bush called endless.

This is cool. (link)

Good for the next debate on equalization. Albertans earn 56% more than the average Canadian and 55% more than the average Ontarian or Saskatchewian. I seriously think that come next year, EVERY province but Alberta should be receiving equalization payments.

Numbers have been adjusted from a Washington Post article where the numbers are written as US dollars with a Canadian dollar worth 90 cents US.

Harper's Cuts:
$4 Billion on Aboriginals
$3.6 Billion on the Environment
Billions on creating quality regulated childcare spaces
$200 Million for studying Climate Change in 2006 alone (link)

Now I can see how he can afford these tax cuts. Cuts that by the way also were paid for by an increase in the lowest income tax bracket.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/02/AR2006050201774.html

What's most laughable is the Conservative advoacy group that has a lie as a name. "Friends of Science" which is against the general scientific conscienous that climate change is real and caused by humans.

Well, I guess Harper doesn't care about the increasing number of Natives too poor to be sent to school living in overcrowded housing being flooded by global warming, sorta like already in Kastechewan.

Harper is being counterproductive with his tax cuts by cuting environmental spending that gives money to cities to buy new buses so I don't have to be on an overpacked bus. Cuts to childcare funding meaning I have to wait in line and pay a shitload for a regulated quality childcare space when I have kids. Not trying to stopping climate change that greatly reduces my ability to get quality skiing in the winter and staying cool in the summer.

""These are dramatic cutbacks," said Jack Layton, head of the opposition New Democratic Party. "Every Canadian out there has become more and more aware of the crisis of climate change, but our government is going in the other direction.""

"In December, Morgan linked rising gang violence in Canada to immigrants from Jamaica and Indo-China. Those cultures are "dominated by violence and lawlessness," he said."

""He said that refugees tended to be less qualified than economic immigrants. He questioned the role of multiculturalism," said New Democratic Party MP Peggy Nash, who introduced the motion to reject Morgan."

Agreed as did 6 of the 11 members of the committee. (link)

Under the dictator Saddam Hussein, only 2% of Iraqis met a voilent death. Under the US backed government, 51% now die a voilent death. Considering healthcare has also decreased because probably either American policies of privatization or literal distruction of healthcare, the number of Iraqis metting a voilent death in Iraq has gone up 5800%. (BBC article)

One has to wonder what the situation is Afganistan? I can't find any data if in fact the Libservatives are bringing more death to Afganistan with our taxdollars.

I just checkout the three sites of the one's I think have a real chance of winnig: Dryden, Rae, and Ignatieff and oh Kennedy.

I tend to look at policies first but their appearance and attitude also makes big difference.

Dryden talks about the environment first, then the need for a universial childcare program, keeping up with the Liberal history of tax cuts and debt reduction, and more money for education. Beard or No Beard, he looks like Goran Perrson, the Swedish PM, who I saw. If only he were a bit more of a social democrat.

Rae talks about the 3 Ks: Kyoto, Kelowna, and Kids. He claims he left the NDP not out of a change of beliefs but to my understand, he wanted to become Prime Minister and it's way more realistic to do it with the Liberals than NDP. haha.

Ignatieff still creeps me out. I am torn by his overly naive and idealistic rhetotic of parentisitc imperialism inorder to avoid genocides and other human rights abuses. I do like his strong position of a strong central government which essentially means increases in social spending.

Rae comes out as the New Labour social democrat with plenty of free markets and social spending increases, with a more centrist pro-education Dryden and Ignatieff as Canada's Tony Blair. Kennedy is just... there. I am rooting for Rae. I also like him personally.

In the end, I don't think the Liberal Party has changed ideologically nor will it depending on it's leader. They are focusing on issues people are unhappy about, the Conservatives are ignoring or making worse, or both.

As for Kennedy, I like this comment the best:

"The Tories proposition is lazy. They ask, “What do you want today? I’ll give you some of your money back and I’ll give you someone to blame. And you don’t have to worry about your neighbours.” That’s not a vision for a country like Canada."

"If the United States attacks Iran... oil could reach $100 (£52) a barrel or more," he said.

"Moreover, Iran has said it would attack Israel, and I know they have the wherewithal to do so.

"This would be a terrible escalation and I do not know where it would end and I do not know who would get out the first nuclear bomb or how many people would die. No-one would be safe from this madness."

Mr Chavez said the US "doesn't know what to do" in Iraq, which he called "the Vietnam of the 21st Century".

"If they (the US) attack Iran I think it's going to be far worse than what is currently happening in Iraq."
Hugo Chavez (link)

I was looking at google scholar, being the intellectual I am, seeing if there is a corelation between development aid and actual development on the continent. The answer is, no. Actually, aid seems to dictate economic interest of the donors and not the country itself, even on the African continent. It's just an extension, murdurous political groups are overthrown and attacked by western funding near large deposit of oil but if it were in Africa, the west wouldn't show even if there was a widescale genocide. Remember, Sir Bob Geldof is knight of the British Empire for a reason though I am sure he would tell me to fuck off as he claims his heart is in the right place. But there is no evidence that development has really helped as African countries just can't seem to get developed as their government and economic institutions are too weak and unstable thus requiring routine volience and corruption for survival the poor that just spread to the rich. The reason I give is hunger from overpopulation and desertification in my opinion, which the problems it creates is quite contagous throughout the continent. Nevermind AIDS orphans. The whole arguement it's Europe's fault to making countries with many different random ethnic groups is nonsense. Europe divided up much of South Asia too and they are doing much better. Even the Middle East is doing a little better. Look at any other country in the world, most have groups you can differentiate from and have and are developing? Has African countries routinely separated more than other parts of the world? No.

Oh, Inquiry on French Army participation in the Rwanda Genocide
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1959137,00.html

http://thetyee.ca/Views/2006/05/09/DefendingMichaelIgnatieff/

Good article written about him. One new development, he did oppose the "Bush-led" war in Iraq as of a March 2004 article after being pro-war as intervene in areas of human rights abuses which he strongly supports.

I looked at the polls yesterday on decima.com. Harper has an approval/support rating in the low 40s, just above the oh-so-hated Bush while most Canadians still "disapprove" him, contray to the Canadian media/Conservative Party Communications Department says. As contray to what the papers say, Quebecers still hate Harper the most, particularly the French, particularly supporters his government partners the Bloc who I guess have appeared to have decided on folding next election and just holding their seats as long as possible. Also, Harper has the majority of Canadians not thinking he is doing a good job on all 12 issues asked, though he is technically in a statisically tie on foreign relations, human rights and relations with the US. There are 5 issues Canadians clearly disagree on Harper with: 1)Health care 2) Environment 3) Childcare 4) Taxes 5) Intergrety. Funny, those sound like the most important issues and education wasn't mentioned but I am sure it would be there.

On a side note, most seniors support Harper while most non-senors oppose him. I guess when you are senile, a million election signs can convince you of anything. Besides, old people like judging and punishing people, which I guess is a similarity of the Conservatives.

As for the next Liberal leader, Dryden seems most popular with Rae close behind and Ignatieff and Kennedy. That's the real competition of the 11 or some people running.