Torontoist with a nice party comparison
http://torontoist.com/2007/08/announcing_poli.php
Even though the 2007 Ontario election campaign hasn’t officially begun, politicians of all stripes are using the end of the summer as a time to announce one new policy after another. The end-of-summer announcement period is a time for all parties to make blatant campaign promises under the guise of regular policy announcements. We’re in the thick of it, people.
Liberals
The standing government is usually the worst offender in pre-campaign policy announcements. Eco-cred has been the name of the game for McGuinty and the rest. Since McGuinty ended the last session of the Legislative Assembly early in June, the Liberals have been promising funding to several green causes. This week alone, the Liberals have announced millions in funding for a tree-a-palooza, $30 million to turn Kipling Station into a suburban transit hub, and another $30 million to clean up Hamilton’s incredibly polluted Randal Reef.
The Liberals are buying into their own eco-hype, consistently issuing press releases about how environmentally friendly their promises are. They even have the UN on board to back them up.
The government’s other spending babies include $12 million for families with autistic children in response to those pesky parents and $28.5 million for youth employment. They also, for some reason, have only announced recently that there’s a budget surplus—something that will presumably help pay for all of these spending announcements. With all of that extra money, you’d think they’d be able to help us out a little with our current budget shortfall.
The Liberals have the power of the Government of Ontario website, which is currently acting as a public-relations mega-site, heaping nothing but praise upon Dalton. The unfortunate thing about all of these announcements is their simplistic focus. The Liberals want you to know that they are spending x amount of dollars to pay for x green initiative, yet aren’t quite as vocal about the fact that it will take thirteen years to do so. Most announcements lack a firm plan beyond spending—a symptom of election season. McGuinty wants you to know that he’s doing a good job and that he’s Getting ResultsTM.
Progressive Conservatives
John Tory and his buddies have been a little more restrained. His announcements are a little bit better-planned and policy-oriented rather than declaring rampant spending. The PC’s big pre-election announcement has been their plan to fund faith-based schools. He also wants to re-jig the province’s funding formula so that the gas tax goes purely to improving roads and transit. One of Tory’s more uninspiring and uncreative announcements is a promise of more police on the streets. Yawn. We hear that every election.
That being said, not all of Tory’s announcements have made sense. Tory has been more vocal about helping out Toronto’s budget crisis, but won’t say how. We think he might use magic. The PCs claim they are waiting to review the situation before determining any solutions. That means they wouldn’t have any sort of solid plan until December at the earliest. The only thing we do know is that their solution to the city’s budget crisis won’t involve the proposed two new taxes—those are dirty, dirty McGuinty taxes.
The Progressive Conservatives’ announcements are almost the exact opposite in style to the Liberals’. Rather than issuing headstrong funding announcements, Tory has been vowing to study problems before taking any sort of immediate action. This is admirable, but voters like to see things getting done rather than being researched. The party’s news page has been quieter than the Liberals’.
New Democrats
The Ontario NDPs have been responding to other announcements more than producing their own policies. The party has, however, laid out the most solid plan to help our own fair city out of our current woes—by uploading numerous services back to the Province. More than the leading two parties, the NDP have been making policy-based announcements rather than throwing cash at issues. Some of these are pretty good ideas—freezing transit fares and taking back the province’s responsibility for paying for 50% of municipalities’ transit budgets.
However, the NDP’s status as permanent opposition party shines through in their pre-campaign announcements. Too many press releases are simply criticisms of McGuinty’s own announcements and not enough are bona fide promises. Hampton knows that he won’t be elected in October, even if he won’t admit it.
Greens
Unlike its federal cousin, the Ontario Green Party hasn’t been receiving much media attention or respect. The party has been the least active in releasing pre-campaign announcements, and what has been released is decidedly less partisan than those of the other parties. Green Party leader Frank de Jong has gone so far as to do the political unthinkable—praise other political parties for going small-g green. It’s also a little curious that the party is publishing press releases regarding their leader’s messages to Australia when an election is looming. The Greens, like the NDP, know that they have little chance of winning any substantial power and are trying to do good where they can.
De Jong’s few announcements actually have some pretty comprehensive policy layouts. Unlike the Tories, the Green Party actually has a plan for addressing Toronto’s budget crisis—give the city a portion of provincial land transfer taxes. In order to afford this blow to provincial revenue, the Greens would need to institute a “green tax shift” and create a whack of new pollution and carbon taxes.
Of course, all four parties’ announcements are just that. We don’t know if these promises will actually be implemented or not. We’ll just have to keep paying attention to them in the coming weeks and decipher the gobbledygook in the weeks leading up to the October election.
Sometimes the rightwing nutjobs are off-the-charts crazy
Granted this is the US, but this is just really out there…and no this is not something satirical written for The Onion, but it is meant as a serious paper.
After posting it, they tried to take it down, but luvky for us Google has it cached:
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:cnnnSRimWmcJ:www.familysecuritymatters.org/index.php%3Fid%3D1208571+%22president+for+life+bush%22+site:familysecuritymatters.org&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us&client=firefox-a
While democratic government is better than dictatorships and theocracies, it has its pitfalls. FSM Contributing Editor Philip Atkinson describes some of the difficulties facing President Bush today.
Conquering the Drawbacks of Democracy
By Philip Atkinson
President George W. Bush is the 43rd President of the United States. He was sworn in for a second term on January 20, 2005 after being chosen by the majority of citizens in America to be president.
Yet in 2007 he is generally despised, with many citizens of Western civilization expressing contempt for his person and his policies, sentiments which now abound on the Internet. This rage at President Bush is an inevitable result of the system of government demanded by the people, which is Democracy.
The inadequacy of Democracy, rule by the majority, is undeniable – for it demands adopting ideas because they are popular, rather than because they are wise. This means that any man chosen to act as an agent of the people is placed in an invidious position: if he commits folly because it is popular, then he will be held responsible for the inevitable result. If he refuses to commit folly, then he will be detested by most citizens because he is frustrating their demands.
When faced with the possible threat that the Iraqis might be amassing terrible weapons that could be used to slay millions of citizens of Western Civilization, President Bush took the only action prudence demanded and the electorate allowed: he conquered Iraq with an army.
This dangerous and expensive act did destroy the Iraqi regime, but left an American army without any clear purpose in a hostile country and subject to attack. If the Army merely returns to its home, then the threat it ended would simply return.
The wisest course would have been for President Bush to use his nuclear weapons to slaughter Iraqis until they complied with his demands, or until they were all dead. Then there would be little risk or expense and no American army would be left exposed. But if he did this, his cowardly electorate would have instantly ended his term of office, if not his freedom or his life.
The simple truth that modern weapons now mean a nation must practice genocide or commit suicide. Israel provides the perfect example. If the Israelis do not raze Iran, the Iranians will fulfill their boast and wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Yet Israel is not popular, and so is denied permission to defend itself. In the same vein, President Bush cannot do what is necessary for the survival of Americans. He cannot use the nation’s powerful weapons. All he can do is try and discover a result that will be popular with Americans.
As there appears to be no sensible result of the invasion of Iraq that will be popular with his countrymen other than retreat, President Bush is reviled; he has become another victim of Democracy.
By elevating popular fancy over truth, Democracy is clearly an enemy of not just truth, but duty and justice, which makes it the worst form of government. President Bush must overcome not just the situation in Iraq, but democratic government.
However, President Bush has a valuable historical example that he could choose to follow.
When the ancient Roman general Julius Caesar was struggling to conquer ancient Gaul, he not only had to defeat the Gauls, but he also had to defeat his political enemies in Rome who would destroy him the moment his tenure as consul (president) ended.
Caesar pacified Gaul by mass slaughter; he then used his successful army to crush all political opposition at home and establish himself as permanent ruler of ancient Rome. This brilliant action not only ended the personal threat to Caesar, but ended the civil chaos that was threatening anarchy in ancient Rome – thus marking the start of the ancient Roman Empire that gave peace and prosperity to the known world.
If President Bush copied Julius Caesar by ordering his army to empty Iraq of Arabs and repopulate the country with Americans, he would achieve immediate results: popularity with his military; enrichment of America by converting an Arabian Iraq into an American Iraq (therefore turning it from a liability to an asset); and boost American prestiege while terrifying American enemies.
He could then follow Caesar’s example and use his newfound popularity with the military to wield military power to become the first permanent president of America, and end the civil chaos caused by the continually squabbling Congress and the out-of-control Supreme Court.
President Bush can fail in his duty to himself, his country, and his God, by becoming “ex-president” Bush or he can become “President-for-Life” Bush: the conqueror of Iraq, who brings sense to the Congress and sanity to the Supreme Court. Then who would be able to stop Bush from emulating Augustus Caesar and becoming ruler of the world? For only an America united under one ruler has the power to save humanity from the threat of a new Dark Age wrought by terrorists armed with nuclear weapons.
More info on the SPP…some truly scary stuff
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6572
Montebello SPP Summit: Canada’s Sovereignty in Jeopardy: the Militarization of North America
Canadian jurisdiction over its Northern territories was redefined, following an April 2002 military agreement between Ottawa and Washington. This agreement allows for the deployment of US troops anywhere in Canada, as well as the stationing of US warships in Canada’s territorial waters.
Following the creation of US Northern Command in April 2002, Washington announced unilaterally that NORTHCOM’s territorial jurisdiction (land, sea, air) extended from the Caribbean basin to the Canadian arctic territories.
“The new command was given responsibility for the continental United States, Canada, Mexico, portions of the Caribbean and the contiguous waters in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans up to 500 miles off the North American coastline. NorthCom’s mandate is to “provide a necessary focus for [continental] aerospace, land and sea defenses, and critical support for [the] nation’s civil authorities in times of national need.”
(Canada-US Relations – Defense Partnership – July 2003, Canadian American Strategic Review (CASR), http://www.sfu.ca/casr/ft-lagasse1.htm
NORTHCOM’s stated mandate was to “provide a necessary focus for [continental] aerospace, land and sea defenses, and critical support for [the] nation’s [US] civil authorities in times of national need.”
(Canada-US Relations – Defense Partnership – July 2003, Canadian American Strategic Review (CASR),
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/ft-lagasse1.htm)
Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld boasted that “the NORTHCOM – with all of North America as its geographic command – ‘is part of the greatest transformation of the Unified Command Plan [UCP] since its inception in 1947.’” (Ibid)
Canada and US Northern Command
In December 2002, following the refusal of (former) Prime Minister Jean Chrétien to join US Northern Command (NORTHCOM), an interim bi-national military authority entitled the Binational Planning Group (BPG) was established.
Canadian membership in NORTHCOM would have implied the integration of Canada’s military command structures with those of the US. That option had been temporarily deferred by the Chrétien government, through the creation of the Binational Planning Group (BPG).
The BPG’s formal mandate in 2002 was to extend the jurisdiction of the US-Canada North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) to cover sea, land and “civil forces”,
“to improve current Canada–United States arrangements to defend against primarily maritime threats to the continent and respond to land-based attacks, should they occur.”
Although never acknowledged in official documents, the BPG was in fact established to prepare for the merger of NORAD and NORTHCOM, thereby creating de facto conditions for Canada to join US Northern Command.
The “Group” described as an “independent” military authority was integrated from the outset in December 2002 into the command structures of NORAD and NORTHCOM, both operating out the same headquarters at the Paterson Air Force base in Colorado. In practice, the “Group” functioned under the jurisdiction of US Northern Command, which is controlled by the US Department of Defense.
In December 2004, in the context of President Bush’s visit to Ottawa, it was agreed that the mandate of the BPG would be extended to May 2006. It was understood that this extension was intended to set the stage for Canada’s membership in NORTHCOM.
In March 2006, two months before the end of its mandate, the BPG published a task force document on North American security issues:
“‘A continental approach’ to defense and security could facilitate binational maritime domain awareness and a combined response to potential threats, ‘which transcends Canadian and U.S. borders, domains, defense and security departments and agencies,’ (quoted in Homeland Defense watch, 20 July 2006)
The BPG task force report called for the establishment of a “maritime mission” for NORAD including a maritime warning system. The report acted as a blueprint for the renegotiation of NORAD, which was implemented immediately following the release of the report.
On April 28, 2006, an agreement negotiated behind closed doors was signed between the US and Canada.
The renewed NORAD agreement was signed in Ottawa by the US ambassador and the Canadian Minister of Defense Gordon O’Connor, without prior debate in the Canadian Parliament. The House of Commons was allowed to rubberstamp a fait accompli, an agreement which had already been signed by the two governments.
“‘A continental approach to defense and security could facilitate binational maritime domain awareness and a combined response to potential threats, “which transcends Canadian and U.S. borders, domains, defense and security departments and agencies,’ the report says.” (Homeland Defense Watch, May 8, 2006)
While NORAD still exists in name, its organizational structure coincides with that of NORTHCOM. Following the April 28, 2006 agreement, in practical terms, NORAD has been merged into USNORTHCOM.
NORTHCOM Commander Gen. Gene Renuart, USAF happens to be Commander of NORAD, Maj. Gen. Paul J. Sullivan who is NORTHCOM Chief of Staff, is Chief of Staff of NORAD.
With a exception of a token Canadian General, who occupies the position of Deputy Commander of NORAD, the leadership of NORAD coincides with that of NORTHCOM. (See photo gallery below).
These two military authorities are identical in structure, they occupy the same facilities at the Peterson Air Force base in Colorado.
There was no official announcement of the renewed NORAD agreement, which hands over control of Canada’s territorial waters to the US, nor was there media coverage of this far-reaching decision.
The Deployment of US Troops on Canadian Soil
At the outset of US Northern Command in April 2002, Canada accepted the right of the US to deploy US troops on Canadian soil.
“U.S. troops could be deployed to Canada and Canadian troops could cross the border into the United States if the continent was attacked by terrorists who do not respect borders, according to an agreement announced by U.S. and Canadian officials.” (Edmunton Sun, 11 September 2002)
With the creation of the BPG in December 2002, a binational “Civil Assistance Plan” was established. The latter described the precise “conditions for deploying U.S. troops in Canada, or vice versa, in the aftermath of a terrorist attack or natural disaster.” (quoted in Inside the Army, 5 September 2005).
Canadian Sovereignty
In August 2006, the US State Department confirmed that a new NORAD Agreement had entered into force, while emphasizing that “the maritime domain awareness component was of ‘indefinite duration,’ albeit subject to periodic review.” (US Federal News, 1 August 2006). In March 2007, the US Senate Armed Services Committee confirmed that the NORAD Agreement had been formally renewed, to include a maritime warning system. In Canada, in contrast, there has been a deafening silence.
In Canada, the renewed NORAD agreement went virtually unnoticed. There was no official pronouncement by the Canadian government of Stephen Harper. There was no analysis or commentary of its significance and implications for Canadian territorial sovereignty. The agreement was barely reported by the Canadian media.
Operating under a “North American” emblem (i.e. a North American Command), the US military would have jurisdiction over Canadian territory from coast to coast; extending from the St Laurence Valley to the Queen Elizabeth archipelago in the Canadian Arctic. The agreement would allow for the establishment of “North American” military bases on Canadian territory. From an economic standpoint, it would also integrate the Canadian North, with its vast resources in energy and raw materials, with Alaska.
Ottawa’s Military Facility in Resolute Bay
Ottawa’s July 2007 decision to establish a military facility in Resolute Bay in the Northwest Passage was not intended to reassert “Canadian sovereignty. In fact quite the opposite. It was established in consultation with Washington. A deep-water port at Nanisivik, on the northern tip of Baffin Island is also envisaged.
The US administration is firmly behind the Canadian government’s decision. The latter does not “reassert Canadian sovereignty”. Quite the opposite. It is a means to eventually establish US territorial control over Canada’s entire Arctic region including its waterways. This territory would eventually fall under the jurisdiction of US Northern Command (NORTHCOM).
The Security and Prosperity Partnership Agreement (SPP)
The Security and Prosperity Partnership Agreement (SPP) signed between the US, Canada and Mexico contemplates the formation of a North American Union (NAU), a territorial dominion, extending from the Caribbean to the Canadian arctic territories.
The SPP is closely related to the Binational Planning Group initiative. An Independent Task Force sponsored by The Council on Foreign Relations calls for the transformation of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) into a “multiservice Defense Command”. The CFR document entitled “North American Community” drafted on behalf of the SPP endorses the BPG March 2006 recommendations:
“As recommended in a report of the Canadian-U.S. Joint Planning Group [BPG], NORAD should evolve into a multiservice Defense Command that would expand the principle of Canadian-U.S. joint command to land and naval as well as air forces engaged in defending the approaches to North America. In addition, Canada and the United States should reinforce other bilateral defense institutions, including the Permanent Joint Board on Defense and Joint Planning Group, and invite Mexico to send observers.
(North American Community, Task Force documented sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) together with the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and the Consejo Mexicano de Asuntos Internacionales)
The accession of Canada to this Multiservice Defense Command, as recommended by the CFR, has already been established, signed and sealed, approved by the Canadian Parliament in May 2006, in the context of the renewal of the NORAD agreement.
In all likelihood, the formal merging of “the renewed NORAD” and US NORTHCOM will be on the agenda at the August Security and Prosperity Partnership Agreement (SPP) Summit meeting of President Bush, Prime Minister Harper and President Calderon at Montebello, Quebec. This decision would lead to the formation of a US-Canada NORTHCOM, with a new name, but with substantially the same NORTHCOM rhetorical mandate of “defending the Northern American Homeland” against terrorist attacks. The military of both the US and Canada would also be called to play an increasing role in civilian law enforcement activities.
The real objective underlying the SPP is to militarize civilian institutions and repeal democratic government.
“Integration” or the “Annexation” of Canada?
Canada is contiguous to “the center of the empire”. Territorial control over Canada is part of the US geopolitical and military agenda. It is worth recalling in this regard, that throughout history, the “conquering nation” has expanded on its immediate borders, acquiring control over contiguous territories.
Military integration is intimately related to the ongoing process of integration in the spheres of trade, finance and investment. Needless to say, a large part of the Canadian economy is already in the hands of US corporate interests. In turn, the interests of big business in Canada tend to coincide with those of the US.
Canada is already a de facto economic protectorate of the USA. NAFTA has not only opened up new avenues for US corporate expansion, it has laid the groundwork under the existing North American umbrella for the post 9/11 integration of military command structures, public security, intelligence and law enforcement.
No doubt, Canada’s entry into US Northern Command will be presented to public opinion as part of Canada-US “cooperation”, as something which is “in the national interest”, which “will create jobs for Canadians”, and “will make Canada more secure”.
Ultimately what is at stake is that beneath the rhetoric, Canada will cease to function as a Nation:
-Its borders will be controlled by US officials and confidential information on Canadians will be shared with Homeland Security.
-US troops and Special Forces will be able to enter Canada as a result of a binational arrangement.
-Canadian citizens can be arrested by US officials, acting on behalf of their Canadian counterparts and vice versa.
But there is something perhaps even more fundamental in defining and understanding where Canada and Canadians stand as nation.
By endorsing a Canada-US “integration” in the spheres of defense, homeland security, police and intelligence, Canada not remains a full fledged member of George W. Bush’s “Coalition of the Willing”, it will directly participate, through integrated military command structures, in the US war agenda in Central Asia and the Middle East, including the massacre of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, the torture of POWs, the establishment of concentration camps, etc.
Canada would no longer have an independent foreign policy. Under an integrated North American Command, a North American national security doctrine would be formulated. Canada would be obliged to embrace Washington’s pre-emptive military doctrine, its bogus “war on terrorism which is used as a pretext for waging war in the Middle East. .
The Canadian judicial system would be affected. Moreover, binational integration in the areas of Homeland security, immigration, policing of the US-Canada border, not to mention the anti-terrorist legislation, would imply pari passu acceptance of the US sponsored police State, its racist policies, its “ethnic profiling” directed against Muslims, the arbitrary arrest of anti-war activists.
Came across this on Alternet…click on the clink to read the full article
http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/59714/
The Toxic Chemistry of Everyday Products
American industry would have you believe that taking potentially hazardous and toxic chemicals out of everyday consumer products — removing phthalates from children’s toys and cancer-causing coal tar from hair dye — would damage our economy and result in a loss of American jobs. In his latest book, Exposed: The Toxic Chemistry of Everyday Products, Mark Schapiro busts this myth and reveals the grim fact that some companies, whether American or international, often have two production lines: one that manufactures hazard-free products for the European Union and another that produces toxin-filled versions of the same items for America and developing countries.
Schapiro examines how America, once a leader in environmental protection, came to allow potentially toxic and mutagenic chemicals, banned by the EU, into everyday products. He also looks at how the EU’s economy — almost identical to that of America — continued to thrive even after these chemicals were banned, essentially “calling the bluff” of the American industry.
Things are looking good. GPO at 8%
McGuinty support slips to minority status, poll finds
KAREN HOWLETT Globe and Mail August 20, 2007
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070820.wontario20/BNStory/National/home
TORONTO – The Ontario Liberals are losing support to both the New Democrats
and the Green Party, according to a new poll that shows Premier Dalton
McGuinty forming a minority government with less than 60 days to go before
the election.
The survey, conducted for The Globe and Mail, shows the Liberals with the
backing of 40 per cent of the electorate, giving them a modest five-point
lead over the Progressive Conservatives. The gap between the two parties has
narrowed considerably since the 2003 election, when the Liberals swept to
power with 47 per cent of the votes.
“Clearly, some of its support has bled to the left,” said Tim Woolstencroft
of the Strategic Counsel, which conducted the survey.
The Liberal Party has lost ground in all regions of the province, with its
biggest decline outside the Greater Toronto Area, according to the survey.
The numbers are most dramatic in northern and eastern Ontario, where support
for the Liberals has dropped 10 percentage points to 38 per cent, leaving
them trailing the Tories in these regions.
Overall support for the Tories has remained unchanged at 35 per cent since
the last election, revealing that the party under leader John Tory has yet
to catch on fire with voters, the survey says. In the 905 region – former
Conservative premier Mike Harris’s political stronghold – support for the
party dipped two percentage points to 41 per cent.
However, Mr. Tory, a former business executive who became leader in 2004,
has successfully wooed one-time Liberal supporters in northern and eastern
Ontario. Support for the Conservatives has climbed to 40 per cent from 34
per cent in 2003.
Ontario’s Liberals can blame their waning fortunes on a notable shift to the
second-tier parties. Support for the NDP has risen to 18 per cent from 15
per cent in 2003, the survey shows. The NDP under Howard Hampton is making
its biggest gains in the Toronto area, where its support has climbed to 25
per cent from 18 per cent.
The Green Party is also emerging as a player for the first time in the
province as Ontarians become increasingly concerned about global warming and
climate change. The party enjoys support from 8 per cent of the voters, up
from just 3 per cent in the last election. Support for the party is
particularly strong in southwest Ontario, where it has jumped to 11 per cent
from 3 per cent. However, Mr. Woolstencroft cautioned that about half of the
support for the Green Party could vanish by election day because many
undecided Ontarians tend to initially “park” their votes with the party.
The poll of 750 Ontarians was conducted from Aug. 9 to Aug. 14 and is
considered accurate to within 3.6 percentage points, 95 per cent of the
time.
Mark Winfield, assistant professor of environmental studies at York
University, said the Liberals are vulnerable to losing support to both the
Greens and the NDP over their handling of the province’s electricity system.
Mr. McGuinty promised in 2003 to close the province’s pollution-spewing,
coal-fired electricity plants by 2007, but he has backtracked twice on that
pledge and pushed the date back to 2014. He has also said the province will
spend billions of dollars building new nuclear plants, which both the NDP
and Green Party oppose.
“The environmental file is a real area of vulnerability for the government,”
Prof. Winfield said. “There is the question of coal phase-out and the
question of the overall direction, including nuclear.”
The campaign for the Oct. 10 election does not officially kick off until the
writ is dropped on Sept. 10. But it is already under way, with Mr. Tory and
Mr. Hampton both attacking the Liberals’ track record of broken promises.
The Liberals swept into office in 2003 on a pledge of no new taxes, only to
have Mr. McGuinty go back on his word by imposing a $2.4-billion health tax.
For his part, Mr. McGuinty is campaigning on his record. His website boasts
about the fact that his government has reduced class sizes, created more
jobs, improved benefits for children living in poverty and put more police
on the streets.
The SPP and how this kind of thinking got us here.
This was forwarded to me by a colleague at the Green Party. It definitely has some great points.
The Ten Lane NAFTA/NAU Highway
Jim Kirwan
8-15-7
All part of this wonderful new economy that has been so carefully planned for us by the North American Union (our very own division of the New World Order).
In fact this marvelous new economy is so fantastic that it has been kept SECRET from most Americans. The Money for the new trilateral state has just been unveiled, yet there has not been a whisper of resistance.Not even any interest at all in this several trillion dollar takeover of what was the United States.
How did this all get started? Well the public got its first glimpse immediately after Katrina hit – when FEMA basically refuse to rebuild the City of New Orleans.
This had more to do with taking the land that had belonged to the poor, and giving it to the rich, a lot of people thought.But outside the spotlight something much more sinister was taking place. New Orleans with it’s trade union work force entrenched in that international port – was quietly being replaced by a new and slave friendly port in Mexico. From that port much lower fees and charges could enable the vast empire of Wal-Mart and the other giant stores to receive goods, far more cheaply: load them on sub-standard Mexican trucks, and then, as soon as the new 10 lane private highways are completed , (with US taxpayers picking yup the tab).
There will soon be this very guarded private channel for both trucking and rail, to rip right up through the middle of this country – to deliver the crap that China continues to sell to every American through all the discount stores that have become so cherished in this cheap, cheap, cheap new world order: where rock bottom prices are favored over quality or function – always. This is the new American Standard in almost every area of life at least in the USA.
The recent explosion over the lead-paint in toys, was at least publicized – because otherwise the brain-dead American families would not have even noticed any of the toxic flaws in the myriad of toys they continue to bury their precious children with. American men for their part don’t seem to care that virtually every tool, every plumbing fixture, appliance and or trinket in Wal-Mart, Home Depot, and the like comes from CHINA. The goods are cheap knock-offs many of which simply are dysfunctional from the date they’re purchased. Nothing ‘Chinese works right, standards of measurement and codes are routinely ”off” or ignored, which leads to a hell of a mess when one is trying to remodel anything. When there is an American version of something available the price can be as much as four or five times what the version from China sells for, But if you need to have something that works, like a plumbing valve that will actually shut off the water flow, or a wrench that doesn’t shatter under pressure – or a hammer that remains usable beyond a few months – well then you need to buy the American brand, if you can still find one!
The major missing consideration in everything about this problem is the population increase (encouraged by the extreme right – to provide cheaper and cheaper labor)- everywhere)…This increase created new paradigms, more food, more clean water, more fuel is always needed because the planetary population is exploding. Hence, the costs of every thing must rise.
Instead of major corporations actually paying their workers a reality based salary – one that would allow them to buy and use the things they either make or control – they have opted to keep the lion’s share of everything and treat their workers like their own private plantation slaves. This works especially well when government assists the corporations in flooding virtually every profession now with the poor from other places – driving down the prices they must pay, to get the work accomplished.
“American Standards” were always high, but that assured the buyer much more, by way of getting their money’s worth. The price was higher because businesses were monitored and products were checked for both quality and safety: in the factories and in the stores. All that changed with OUTSOURCING. This is a one-way street: The jobs and profits are exported, all the regulations were dumped and the former employees were left to whatever could use them.
The wonders of the NAU will put an end to all these contractions – because it will mark the founding of the new Fortress Amerika, which shall be fascist-friendly and dictatorial in nature. Collectively we shall have so many SECURITY agencies, prisons, slave labor camps and all that goes with that – there will hardly be any need for anything like a real society anymore.
And this is the major flaw – What’s the point in enslavement of this or any other population if there is no one left to buy anything among all the areas where they have worked so hard simply to obtain and maintain TOTAL CONTROL?
This is a comic-book fantasy, created by people who have never had to work for anything, people who have never risked their lives doing anything that they actually believed in, because they have no compassion – and their only inner drives seem to amount to only MORE, MORE AND YET STILL MORE.
- kirwan
It’s ok….your baby will only get lead poisoning if he tries to bite the bib…I mean what are the chances that your baby will try to bite something? Stop being so paranoid.
I came across this on CNN.com just now http://us.cnn.com/2007/US/08/17/tainted.bibs.ap/index.html
What is truly shocking is in the last paragraph…
Toys ‘R’ Us pulls vinyl bibs as precaution against lead problems
NEWARK, New Jersey (AP) – Toys “R” Us Inc. on Friday said it was removing all vinyl baby bibs from its Toys “R” Us and Babies “R” Us stores as a precaution after two bibs made in China for one supplier showed lead levels that exceeded Toys “R” Us standards.
Toys “R” Us, which operates over 1,500 stores, said the result came in testing this month of bibs supplied by Hamco Inc. and marketed under the Koala Baby, Especially for Baby and Disney Baby labels.
Tests of Hamco bibs in May were within standards, Toys “R” Us said.
Vinyl bibs made by other companies have been temporarily removed to avoid any confusion among customers and allow further testing, Wayne-based Toys “R” Us said.
A message seeking comment from Hamco, based in Gonzales, Louisiana, was not immediately returned.
Childhood exposure to lead can cause learning problems, reduced intelligence, hyperactivity and attention deficit disorder, studies have shown.
Toys “R” Us, the nation’s second-largest toy seller after Wal-Mart Stores Inc., said customers can return any vinyl bib purchased from a Toys “R” Us or Babies “R” Us store for a full refund.
Information is available at 1-800-869-7787.
The bib removal is the latest in a series of recent problems involving imports from China. Products including tires, toys, toothpaste, seafood and pet food have been recalled.
The Toys “R” Us move involves about 160,000 vinyl bibs, including some in its warehouses. Almost 90 percent of the bibs are from Hamco, and all of them were made in China, Toys “R” Us spokeswoman Kathleen Waugh said.
The action by Toys “R” Us came two days after a California environmental group said that some vinyl bibs made in China and sold at Toys “R” Us stores contained lead levels well above federal safety limits for lead in paint.
Toys “R” Us has said its May tests were prompted by Wal-Mart’s decision that month to recall lead-tainted vinyl bibs from its stores nationwide. Wal-Mart’s recall came after a lawsuit brought by the Center for Environmental Health, the California group.
Both the bibs sold by Wal-Mart and Toys “R” Us were manufactured in China for Hamco.
A statement issued by Hamco at the time of the Wal-Mart recall did not address whether their bibs contained lead but quoted an industry trade group statement suggesting that the risk of babies ingesting lead even if the bibs were tainted was slight.
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission issued a statement in May saying that the lead-contaminated bibs were safe if in good condition. But if a bib “deteriorates to the point that a baby could pull or bite off and swallow a piece of vinyl containing lead, then the amounts of lead consumed could approach levels of concern,” the agency said.
Buzz Hargrove is Insane
Honestly sometimes I feel like I am in the Twilight Zone, when I read ridiculousness like this.
Hargrove calls for ouster of Flaherty over fuel efficiency rebate program
ST. JOHN’S, N.L. (CP) – The head of Canada’s largest private-sector union says Finance Minister Jim Flaherty should be voted out in the next federal election over a contentious program that offers rebates for fuel-efficient vehicles.
Canadian Auto Workers president Buzz Hargrove said Friday the so-called “feebate” program, which also penalizes customers who buy gas guzzlers, encourages Canadians to purchase foreign vehicles and would further decimate the domestic auto industry.
“It uses Canadian taxpayers’ money to destroy Canadian taxpayers’ jobs,” Hargrove said.
“(Flaherty) knows it’s wrong, but he doesn’t have the political guts to back down. If he doesn’t have the guts to back down, then he should be defeated in the next election.”
Hargrove told a gathering of nearly 1,000 CAW delegates in St. John’s, N.L., that the union would put resources into a campaign to ensure that Flaherty is not re-elected.
Flaherty represents the Ontario riding of Whitby-Oshawa, home to General Motors’ biggest manufacturing operation.
A spokesperson for the minister said the program aims to encourage people to purchase fuel-efficient vehicles regardless of where they are made.
“Every car manufacturer manufactures a car that qualifies under that rebate program, including 11 that are from North American manufacturers,” said Chisholm Pothier.
The “feebate” program in the budget allows for a rebate up to $2,000 on purchases of fuel-efficient cars and a tax on sales of the worst gas guzzlers that tops out at $4,000.
This was written immediately following the Jan. 2006 Federal Election
Thoughts on the Election
I ended up with 2192 votes, and although I was hoping for a better result, I think circumstances such as a broken electoral system, a failure of leadership from within the Green Party, continued exclusion from the media, and even something like having Rondo Thomas run in this riding, all contributed to the modest, as opposed to significant, increase from the 2004 election.
Unfortunately, we are conditioned to believe that there are only two alternatives, Big Red or Big Blue, and it always comes down to who you hate more. Ask most people who voted Liberal why, and they will tell you everything that’s wrong with the Conservatives. As a Conservative voter the same question and they will tell you everything wrong with the Liberals. Our electoral system (seemingly) forces people to vote against something instead of for something, and then people don’t understand why they don’t have the government they really want. How is that possible if you never vote for what you believe in?
Of course, the blame cannot all be on the media, although having Jim Harris included in the televised leaders’ debate surely would have propelled us over 10%. Even so, the only way this kind of manipulation can work in on a willing audience, much like hypnosis. A big part of the problem is that there are far too many, what I like to call, Sheeple. Because ultimately, it is very easy to break the manipulation, and that is by simply thinking for yourself and not allowing the media to dictate what your choices are. If everyone did that I have no doubt that the Green Party would already be in Parliament, if not the ruling party. I had so many people tell me, “I love what you are doing, I admire what the Green Party stands for and I really think you have the best ideas. But I can’t vote for you.” My response to that is, if people feel that they cannot vote for the party with the best ideas, then our democracy is in serious trouble, not to mention any sense of independent or critical thinking.
In this riding of course, with Rondo running, there were a significant number of people who were genuinely concerned about him winning, and so as much as they would liked to vote for either myself or Kevin Modeste, they had to ensure that Rondo didn’t win, and thus were forced to vote for Mark Holland. As much as I hate to admit it – and in yet another knock against our electoral system – but had some of these people not voted for Holland, then Rondo might have won, seeing as how he got almost 17,000 votes. An astoundingly high number which is again indicative of the sheeple principle, because I refuse to believe that there are 17,000 people willing to vote for a religious zealot like Rondo Thomas (although undoubtedly there are some, and I respect them for voting for what they believe in). This means that most of them simply didn’t bother to inform themselves of what each candidate stood for.
We desperately need some form of proportional representation, so that firstly people will feel that their votes are not wasted, which would by itself seriously address the issue of voter apathy. As well, it would eliminate some of the major discrepancies between the percentage of the national vote that a party gets and the percentage of seats it holds in Parliament.
The Green Party got 665,000 votes or 4.5%. Based on 308 seats in Parliament that should equal almost 14 seats, but we got none. Even more striking, the Bloc Quebecois got 10.5% of the vote and won 51 seats, while the NDP, with 17.5% of the vote, only got 29 seats. How does that make any sense? It just doesn’t. We need a fairer system, and one that gives more people a voice in Parliament.
I also think that Jim Harris and the Green Party in general needs to stay more focused on getting our message out, and staying in the public eye between elections. We had an incredible amount of momentum after the 2004 election, in which we more than tripled our vote from the 2000 election, and I feel like most of that momentum was squandered by being invisible in the 18 months between elections. This has certainly been acknowledged and everyone within the Green Party is going to make a concerted effort to ensure that people don’t forget about us, especially since I can see a no-confidence vote or at least a budget clash, which will bring on another election, possibly before the end of the year.
Whether you voted for me or not, I know that every day, more and more people are realizing that the Green Party must be taken more seriously, if we are to have any sort of future.
I really believe that old-line political parties just don’t get it. They think more of the same “unlimited economic growth and consumerism” will bring prosperity and happiness to all. But the reality is unavoidable: the Earth can only yield so many trees, fish, minerals and other “resources” before we destroy the very life support systems we all depend on. With the economies of China and India booming, their billions of people want the lifestyles we model for them. That they cannot ever reach our level of consumption, because the Earth simply doesn’t have enough raw materials, is never talked about by other parties. This economy, with its emphasis on endless production and consumption, says David Suzuki, has become one of the most destructive forces ever unleashed on the planet.
The Green Party of Canada is the only party that recognizes there are limits to growth on a finite planet. We’re the only party that challenges the taken-for-granted economic model of global free trade and the unending consumption of Nature. We’re saying we need to stop consuming the world, stop forcing other species into extinction, and see expanding economic growth for what it is – a cruel delusion.
Plundering the planet in the last century was made easy by the availability of cheap fossil fuel. But those days are over. The only fossil fuel left on the planet is expensive to extract, and with increased global demand for more food and consumer goods, prices have nowhere to go up. If we don’t start planning for this eventuality now, our children will face a world of social upheaval. Every aspect of our global society – all food production, all communication, all transportation, all manufacturing etc. – is completely dependent on fossil fuel. What’s going to happen when we run out, especially if we’re not prepared?
The Green Party says it time to look at another way. We have a vision for a different kind of world, one based on living in harmony with nature, where we all have access to what we need; not what corporate advertising tells us we should want. We will create local economies where food and goods are produced and consumed regionally using alternative sources of energy like wind and sun. Our food production system would be organic, grown and processed locally. We will support entrepreneurs, small-scale farmers, small business, and training for jobs in a different kind of economy based on reduced consumption and energy conservation.
It is only within the Green Party that a certain kind of agonizing debate is taking place, about the fundamental shift in consciousness needed in how we humans have to relate to the Earth. We support deep ecology, which provides the philosophical basis to oppose ‘resourcism’, the dominant human-centered worldview of industrial capitalist society, in which the Natural world exists primarily as raw material for the human purpose.
We all understand that having more doesn’t necessarily equate with being happier and that most Canadians want a return to a simpler society with more time to enjoy life. Hopefully the Green Party will help this country get there.
This was originally written prior to the Jan. 2006 Federal Election
My name is Russell Korus, and on January 23, I’m going to ask for your vote. I am running as a member of the Green Party in Ajax-Pickering.
As a husband and a father, I care deeply about the quality of life that we are passing on to future generations. I spend a long time thinking about the kind of life my children will live in 30 years when they are my age, and I am greatly concerned that there are short-sighted decisions being made today which are going to have a significant impact on the quality of live of my children down the road.
Why should you vote for me? Because I am a different kind of politician, and I think most people are ready for a different kind of politics.
For starters, how about a government run by individuals who are not primarily motivated by political survival and personal ambition, and instead have politicians motivated by a true desire to improve the state of their communities? After all, if all you’re worried about is getting re-elected, how can you ever see past the next election?
Ultimately, you should always vote for what you believe in. The real wasted vote is the strategic one made against your own principles and against what you stand for. If you never vote for what you believe in, how will you ever get the government you really want?
I am not a career politician, and I have little interest in engaging in politics as it has come to be known in present day Canada.
The steady stream of bad news from the government, for years on end, has deeply embedded feelings of cynicism, disillusionment and distrust within the general public. A profound sense of apathy regarding the entire political process has never seemed more deeply ingrained within our society. For the last few decades, the Liberals, Conservatives and NDP have taken turns leading, but fundamentally, all that is wrong with politics never changes, and in fact only seems to get worse and worse.
Politics is no longer synonymous with democracy, strong moral leadership, or anything even remotely resembling ‘in the best interests of the people’. Instead, the concept of government in this country is now defined by scandal, corruption, abuse of power, and fiscal irresponsibility bordering on the absurd. The discovery of yet another government official acting for the benefit of special interests at best, or outright illegally at worst, has become an almost daily occurrence.
The result of this degradation of democracy is that we end up with a society that suffers. Although Canada is still the greatest country in the world in which to live, that is simply not good enough. We should strive to be better.
We are taxed at some of the highest levels in the world, and yet we have a health care system in shambles, social services are woefully inadequate, violent crime has dangerously elevated, our environment is being systematically corrupted, and overwhelmingly, elected officials utterly fail to serve in the best interests of the very people that elected them.
This must stop.
When I first came upon the Green Party, and I read the Party’s stance on the issues that mattered to me I was initially stunned at how obvious these concepts seemed. It was amazing. As I was reading, I just remember thinking the whole time, ‘well of course, it’s just common sense, no one can argue with these concepts.’ Obviously accountability, transparency, and elimination of special interests should be fundamental to government. Every politician in this country will agree with that. And yet, accountability, transparency and elimination of special interests is the exact polar opposite of what our government has come to represent.
I previously ran in the last federal election, and the experience was truly enlightening. So many people offered positive encouragement and endorsement of what the Green Party stands for. As I’ve said many times, I challenge ANYONE to read through the Green Party platform and say that it is not more logical than what we see in government today.
Amazingly enough, the objection that I here most often is that the Green Party is simply idealistic, and that good government is in fact impossible. I must say, when you see just how deeply ingrained the cynicism is regarding politics and government within our collective thoughts, it really is striking. One of my biggest challenges is to just getting people to believe that good government is even possible.
Think about it; a political movement emerges stating that, within government, you CAN have accountability, so that elected representatives are answerable for the decisions and the promises that they make. You CAN have transparency, so that the decision-making process is accessible to the public, as well as financial records and expense reports. And you CAN fundamentally act in the best interests of your entire constituency, by absolutely refusing to accommodate corporate special interests. And the biggest objection to this is, “It seems great, but it’ll never work. The powers that be will never let it happen. I think we’ll just stick with the financially irresponsible, special-interest-pandering, morally corrupt system that we have now.”
Thankfully, hundreds of thousands of Canadians recognized that it is the voters that are, in fact, the powers that be, and the only way to ever get a government that you really want is to vote for what you believe in. We garnered 4.3% of the vote, or almost 600,000 votes. Exceptionally encouraging when you consider that in 1988, the Reform Party won 2.1% of the vote or 276,535 votes and no seats. The following election in 1993 the Reform Party won 52 seats.
This is the election that we finally break though. Be a part of history.
