Let me get this straight. This past week we learned that the Harper Regime spent $53.8 million in 2009-10 spinning their "Economic" Action Plan to a gullible populace - a budget that is more than the annual advertising budget for the entire federal government before 2006, the year the Regime took power. That's bad enough, right? But the Regime's spending on spin in general has also tripled since that year, going from $41. 3 million in 2005-06 to $136.3 million in 2009-10. I wish I could say I'm surprised, but, unfortunately, such bad behaviour from the Harperites has become the norm, to be expected. No one - least of all the media - is shocked any more since it's become so commonplace.
We also learned this past week that Our Glorious Leader (John Doyle's term, which alternates for him with Hair-in-the-Fridge) ran up the PS by 33,000 employees and wages by $5 billion since 2006. And, now, demonstrable hypocrite that he is, he's instructed one of his bulldogs, Tony the Pork-Barreller, to slash and burn the PS in the interests of the festishized deficit, a strategy which of course is a smoke screen for introducing "efficiencies" - a common neoliberal tactic in the private sector - a euphemism for firing people.
Oh, yeah, and we also learned on the occasion of yet another completely unnecessary corporate tax cut - even several neoclassical economists said it was not called for in these recessionary times - that Canadian businesses are sitting on more than $583 billion in Canadian currency and deposits and more than $276 billion in foreign currency. That's not to mention what is stashed away in tax havens like the Bahamas. Thanks, Steve, for the New Year's present. See you at the Fords or at our place offshore soon.
And of course before all these revelations this past week, let's not forget who slashed the GST by 2% to keep the red meat hounds from yapping more and who blew a substantial Liberal surplus recklessly. These indulgences were such sound economic policies, yah?
We're sinking, as I've suggested several times in this blog, and still we have no job initiating strategies. Why? Because neoliberal captialism thrives on a financial crisis. It's always a marvellous opportunity to introduce measures that will benefit the financial class and their neoliberal buddies - a sort of variation on Naoimi Klein's shock doctrine - in the name of emergency measures while the populace is in a condition of alarm and extremely receptive to spin.
We must find a way to begin educating the mainstream media about how deeply they themselves are inscribed in neoliberal ideology, as the three stories defending CEO salaries this past week clearly indicate, and we may have to begin moving from protest to reveolution of some sort, I'm beginiing to think, before this Regime becomes a full-fledged neoliberal fascist one. What emerges from the occupy movement in the spring is the key.
Showing posts with label Harperites. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Harperites. Show all posts
Sunday, January 8, 2012
Friday, October 7, 2011
Propagandistic Opportunism: The War of 1812
Great column from Jeffrey Simpson this morning on the propagandistic opportunism of the Harper Regime: Let's Not Exalt the Folly of 1812. PBS is also broadcasting a documentary on October 10 on the so-called war.
Nationalist propaganda generated through symbols is of course a classic strategy that assumes a gullible and - shall we say - less than well-educated electorate: the U.S., Russia, Nazi Germany in the 30s and 40's of course, and many aggressively militarized countries come immediately to mind. Who can ever forget the Triumph of the Will with Hitler symbolically descending from the clouds, the heavens, onto the earth, blessing us with his presence in doing so, just like another saviour with whom we are familiar in our culture?
The association with military rituals and sporting events is also very common and not just in overt fascist regimes - because group psychology can so readily and easily kick in with the right triggers. Witness Monday Night Football. We see telling overtures in this direction in this country with such manifestations as the increasing presence of the military at Canadian sporting events and Harper's well-publicized embrace of our "national" sport and his frequent attendance at games, where that receptive electorate gather. So celebrating a war, faux or not, is not surprising in that sense even if it distorts the accepted historical record, rewriting history and overt mythologizing being common techniques.
In this particular case, the mock celebration of 1812 is really alarming because it's part of a larger all too obvious fascistic tendency on the part of the Harperites that is rapidly becoming an entrenched policy. There may be unforeseen payback for the Harperites, however. Within four years, I predict aggressive resistance from the progressive elements in this country. It's only week two and we've been gagging every day.
Nationalist propaganda generated through symbols is of course a classic strategy that assumes a gullible and - shall we say - less than well-educated electorate: the U.S., Russia, Nazi Germany in the 30s and 40's of course, and many aggressively militarized countries come immediately to mind. Who can ever forget the Triumph of the Will with Hitler symbolically descending from the clouds, the heavens, onto the earth, blessing us with his presence in doing so, just like another saviour with whom we are familiar in our culture?
The association with military rituals and sporting events is also very common and not just in overt fascist regimes - because group psychology can so readily and easily kick in with the right triggers. Witness Monday Night Football. We see telling overtures in this direction in this country with such manifestations as the increasing presence of the military at Canadian sporting events and Harper's well-publicized embrace of our "national" sport and his frequent attendance at games, where that receptive electorate gather. So celebrating a war, faux or not, is not surprising in that sense even if it distorts the accepted historical record, rewriting history and overt mythologizing being common techniques.
In this particular case, the mock celebration of 1812 is really alarming because it's part of a larger all too obvious fascistic tendency on the part of the Harperites that is rapidly becoming an entrenched policy. There may be unforeseen payback for the Harperites, however. Within four years, I predict aggressive resistance from the progressive elements in this country. It's only week two and we've been gagging every day.
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Harperites Tax Policies Aggravate Gap Between rich and Poor
Toronto Star The full story
In addition to the weaknesses noted below in Les Whittington piece, one could also ask how effective is an accelerated reduction of the federal debt in creating jobs for Canadians? Since the Harperites are already shrinking tax revenues through the measures outlined below, wouldn't a focus on job creation combined with a modest pace in reducing the federal deficit be more prudent? People who work pay taxes and businesses who employ them also pay taxes. Many Harperite candidates in the recent election claimed publicly that jobs in and of themselves and the economy as it relates to jobs were the big issues at the door. If that is so, where indeed IS the focus on jobs, the heart of any economy?
"According to Toronto research agency Investor Economics, the richest 3.8 per cent of Canadian households controlled 66.6 per cent of all financial wealth (not counting real estate) by 2009, up from 60.6 per cent in 2005, just before Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government came to power. Looking ahead, the agency predicts the portion of financial wealth controlled by this richest group of Canadians is headed for 70 per cent by 2018.
And some analysts say the economic strategies being pursued by a re-elected Harper will only make matters worse, leading to a further expansion of the income gap between the very rich and others in Canada.
The crux of the issue concerns the Conservatives’ plan to continue implementing corporate income tax cuts and to eventually bring in other tax breaks, such as expanding deposits in Tax-Free Savings Accounts and allowing two-income couples with children younger than 18 to split their income for federal tax purposes.
While these measures have been promoted as ways of creating jobs or helping average Canadians, some economists say the benefits to the rich from these tax breaks will far outweigh anything seen by other members of society."
In addition to the weaknesses noted below in Les Whittington piece, one could also ask how effective is an accelerated reduction of the federal debt in creating jobs for Canadians? Since the Harperites are already shrinking tax revenues through the measures outlined below, wouldn't a focus on job creation combined with a modest pace in reducing the federal deficit be more prudent? People who work pay taxes and businesses who employ them also pay taxes. Many Harperite candidates in the recent election claimed publicly that jobs in and of themselves and the economy as it relates to jobs were the big issues at the door. If that is so, where indeed IS the focus on jobs, the heart of any economy?
"According to Toronto research agency Investor Economics, the richest 3.8 per cent of Canadian households controlled 66.6 per cent of all financial wealth (not counting real estate) by 2009, up from 60.6 per cent in 2005, just before Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government came to power. Looking ahead, the agency predicts the portion of financial wealth controlled by this richest group of Canadians is headed for 70 per cent by 2018.
And some analysts say the economic strategies being pursued by a re-elected Harper will only make matters worse, leading to a further expansion of the income gap between the very rich and others in Canada.
The crux of the issue concerns the Conservatives’ plan to continue implementing corporate income tax cuts and to eventually bring in other tax breaks, such as expanding deposits in Tax-Free Savings Accounts and allowing two-income couples with children younger than 18 to split their income for federal tax purposes.
While these measures have been promoted as ways of creating jobs or helping average Canadians, some economists say the benefits to the rich from these tax breaks will far outweigh anything seen by other members of society."
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Our So-called Concern for Democracy
This election was driven, as so many have been, by excessive media concentration and financial resources on the leaders of the parties, not by broad reporting on constituencies, selective or otherwise, across the country or by even significant discussions, with very few exceptions, of party policies. Most stories began with “what are the leaders up to today” leads. Both the contempt issue and the environment disappeared off the radar quickly, for example, except when Iggy brought up the former, and not even Elizabeth May, focused as she was on winning her riding, brought up the latter except incidentally. And it isn't just the media who should be blamed: the parties themselves are responsible for this distortion in our public discourse, for they have all concentrated both air and ground resources on their leaders, and those leaders have incrementally over forty years or so undermined democracy both subtlely and overtly both inside Parliament, as Peter Miliken has implied, and structurally in their Party organizations by creating power hierarchies whereby you do what the leader's brain trust says or you're out. Add to that the well-established illusion that the grassroots has real input power, for most policy conventions are like carnival day for the workers in the field: give them a day of fun and games and they'll go back to work content. And, apparently, even ordinary MPs have little input. An ordinary MP, according to Liberal MP Jim Karygiannis, can't just walk in and have a chat with his or her leader; an appointment has to be made, and of course backbenchers have really never had any significant power.
There is much transformational work that needs to happen for genuine parliamentary democracy to be reinstated and even more to shift the public discourse to broad-based constituency considerations across the county. How likely is change? Given Harper's majority, and the powerlessness all opposition parties in Parliament, not much, and the media, of necessity, will still concentrate coverage on the leaders with the odd side-road story now and them. Enjoy the next four years.
There is much transformational work that needs to happen for genuine parliamentary democracy to be reinstated and even more to shift the public discourse to broad-based constituency considerations across the county. How likely is change? Given Harper's majority, and the powerlessness all opposition parties in Parliament, not much, and the media, of necessity, will still concentrate coverage on the leaders with the odd side-road story now and them. Enjoy the next four years.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Stable Majority Goverments and Electoral Reform | rabble.ca
Since day one of the campaign, Harper and his gang have been consistently spining the message that a majority goverment for his party is good for us because it will provide stability. Let’s take a closer look at that highly dubious proposition.
First off, is a majority government in and of itself, no matter what party, necessarily a good thing? Despite our parliamentary traditions, I think not. Under our first past the post system, it obviously concentrates power undemocratically in the hands of one party which may or may not necessarily represent the full spectrum of Canadian citizenship. Discounting those who did not vote at all in the last election, for whatever reason, and given that three out of four people who did vote in the last election did not do so for the Harperites, Harper’s goverment, it would seem clear, did not represent the majority of Canadian citizens or necessarily their value when it assumed power in 2008. That’s a very significant exclusion of direct representation for a large number of people -- and that’s not taking into consideration how many who did not vote might not have been supportive of the Harperites, a perspective about which we can only speculate. So in and of itself a majority isn’t axiomatically a better form of goverment or a better form of democratic representation.
A similar question can be asked about stability. Does a stable government in and of itself automatically yield “better” goverment - whatever that might be - or a more democratically responsive goverment? One could argue that a stable goverment provides the ground of power to get things done, to move legislation and implement policy. But what if, say, two-thirds to three-quarters of Canadians disapprove of those policies and their legislative forms? Other than grass roots protests and political activism outside the system and perhaps, in limited ways, through the proxy of opposition parties can any sort of poltical objection be mounted. The problem is, however, that these forms of democratic action, as self-satisfying and sometimes effective as they might be, lack the efficacy that a voice in parliament would yield.
Democracy is, as many have said, a very messy business. We should rejoice in that fact, not bemoan it, as so many in the main line parties seem to do. Real democracy involves real participatory work that needs to be embraced by us all. From what I can see, the only formal remedy to speed up that full embrace is electoral reform based on proportional representation -- a form of broadbased democratic goverment well established around the world, the only exceptions in the western world being -- surprise, surprise -- the U.S., Canada, and Britain, this last, however, gearing up for a move towards real proportioal representation soon. Isn’t it about time that we begin gearing up too?
Take a look at what Fair Vote Canada is trying to do: Fair vote Canada.
-----------------------------------------------
Here are some suggestions for gearing up:
1) Establish a network of all the grassroots organizations across the country who have or would support proportional representation -- a sort of ACTION NETWORK focused on democratic reform.
2) Seek resources and - judiciously - support internationally.
3) Work the media assiduously in an effort to create a wide public discourse about the issue.
4) Begin serious lobbying of the main line parties that might benefit from proportional representation. (After this election, that may number two, not one.)
5) Lobby provincial parties that would benefit from proportional representation in their jurisdiction to bring them on board the NETWORK.
5) Consider legal options if necessary and possible.
We should all probably have a good conversation about mandatory voting and the notion of a preferential ballot first. The latter is very attractive as a fall-back position to proportional representation. When one votes, one chooses a preferential order of candidates. Political parties use this system, but it too has its problems. Proportional still seems the fairest, most democratic method even if the results are messy and involve agreements and negotiations. That's what democracy is all about, one could argue
via Stable Majority Goverments and Electoral Reform | rabble.ca.
Postscript May 8, 2011 3:09 PM : Of course, AV was overwhelming defeated on May 5 in the U.K. I'm not reading much into this since there was such massive propaganda from everyone apparently during the referendum campaign, not to mention that AV is very problematic. But a question remains: was the vote a rejection of AV or an endorsement of FPTP?
I should add India to the list of countries still on FPTP.
First off, is a majority government in and of itself, no matter what party, necessarily a good thing? Despite our parliamentary traditions, I think not. Under our first past the post system, it obviously concentrates power undemocratically in the hands of one party which may or may not necessarily represent the full spectrum of Canadian citizenship. Discounting those who did not vote at all in the last election, for whatever reason, and given that three out of four people who did vote in the last election did not do so for the Harperites, Harper’s goverment, it would seem clear, did not represent the majority of Canadian citizens or necessarily their value when it assumed power in 2008. That’s a very significant exclusion of direct representation for a large number of people -- and that’s not taking into consideration how many who did not vote might not have been supportive of the Harperites, a perspective about which we can only speculate. So in and of itself a majority isn’t axiomatically a better form of goverment or a better form of democratic representation.
A similar question can be asked about stability. Does a stable government in and of itself automatically yield “better” goverment - whatever that might be - or a more democratically responsive goverment? One could argue that a stable goverment provides the ground of power to get things done, to move legislation and implement policy. But what if, say, two-thirds to three-quarters of Canadians disapprove of those policies and their legislative forms? Other than grass roots protests and political activism outside the system and perhaps, in limited ways, through the proxy of opposition parties can any sort of poltical objection be mounted. The problem is, however, that these forms of democratic action, as self-satisfying and sometimes effective as they might be, lack the efficacy that a voice in parliament would yield.
Democracy is, as many have said, a very messy business. We should rejoice in that fact, not bemoan it, as so many in the main line parties seem to do. Real democracy involves real participatory work that needs to be embraced by us all. From what I can see, the only formal remedy to speed up that full embrace is electoral reform based on proportional representation -- a form of broadbased democratic goverment well established around the world, the only exceptions in the western world being -- surprise, surprise -- the U.S., Canada, and Britain, this last, however, gearing up for a move towards real proportioal representation soon. Isn’t it about time that we begin gearing up too?
Take a look at what Fair Vote Canada is trying to do: Fair vote Canada.
-----------------------------------------------
Here are some suggestions for gearing up:
1) Establish a network of all the grassroots organizations across the country who have or would support proportional representation -- a sort of ACTION NETWORK focused on democratic reform.
2) Seek resources and - judiciously - support internationally.
3) Work the media assiduously in an effort to create a wide public discourse about the issue.
4) Begin serious lobbying of the main line parties that might benefit from proportional representation. (After this election, that may number two, not one.)
5) Lobby provincial parties that would benefit from proportional representation in their jurisdiction to bring them on board the NETWORK.
5) Consider legal options if necessary and possible.
We should all probably have a good conversation about mandatory voting and the notion of a preferential ballot first. The latter is very attractive as a fall-back position to proportional representation. When one votes, one chooses a preferential order of candidates. Political parties use this system, but it too has its problems. Proportional still seems the fairest, most democratic method even if the results are messy and involve agreements and negotiations. That's what democracy is all about, one could argue
via Stable Majority Goverments and Electoral Reform | rabble.ca.
Postscript May 8, 2011 3:09 PM : Of course, AV was overwhelming defeated on May 5 in the U.K. I'm not reading much into this since there was such massive propaganda from everyone apparently during the referendum campaign, not to mention that AV is very problematic. But a question remains: was the vote a rejection of AV or an endorsement of FPTP?
I should add India to the list of countries still on FPTP.
Monday, April 25, 2011
Suburban Voters and Voter Suppression | rabble.ca
I hate to admit this but John Ivison in his piece in The Post on Saturday could have a point: “There is anger in the herbivore community about Stephen Harper’s failings — some of it is even justified. But the evidence on the doorsteps suggests it does not extend beyond the politically engaged into the suburbs, where people have to get up in the morning.” Two questions: does the apparently large turnout on Friday at the advance polls suggest a newly engaged voter constituency or was that the already committed who showed up? Will the votemob constituency have any real voting power now that the University year is coming to an end?
The answer to the first question is we simply don’t know whether these are newly engaged voters or what their voter preference might be, but if they are they could potentially make a difference for any of the parties. As for university students. there are 3 million elegible votes under 25, and pollling suggests that their voting preferences would probalby favour the Liberals, NDP, or Greens over the Harperites. But did they vote on Friday in their campus ridings, and if not, will they vote today? If they do vote over this holiday weekend on campus, what percentage of support would there be for each of the three favoured parties, and how split would that vote be? And will their votes make a difference?
There does not appear to be much room for optimism. Now that through the not so subtle voter-supression tatics of the Harperites to shut down special voting polls on university campuses has occurred, students would have had to remain on campus this holiday weekend to vote in their university riding in the advance polls, but most univerisites are in the process of wrapping up the semester, and preliminary estimates of students who did remain are that one-third of the student body have remained on campus. How many of those plan on voting, and even if all did so, how much of a difference is there in effect between one-third and a full student body? For those who did not remain on campus and still wished to vote, their only option is to vote in their home riding today or on May 2 where their vote, because unconcentrated and spread as it would be across many ridings, would count for much less.
It remains to seen how all this plays out. but one thing is certain: the shutting down of the special voting stations on campus by elections Canada in complicity with the Harperites might turn out to be far more significan than first thought.
via Suburban Voters and Voter Suppression | rabble.ca.
The answer to the first question is we simply don’t know whether these are newly engaged voters or what their voter preference might be, but if they are they could potentially make a difference for any of the parties. As for university students. there are 3 million elegible votes under 25, and pollling suggests that their voting preferences would probalby favour the Liberals, NDP, or Greens over the Harperites. But did they vote on Friday in their campus ridings, and if not, will they vote today? If they do vote over this holiday weekend on campus, what percentage of support would there be for each of the three favoured parties, and how split would that vote be? And will their votes make a difference?
There does not appear to be much room for optimism. Now that through the not so subtle voter-supression tatics of the Harperites to shut down special voting polls on university campuses has occurred, students would have had to remain on campus this holiday weekend to vote in their university riding in the advance polls, but most univerisites are in the process of wrapping up the semester, and preliminary estimates of students who did remain are that one-third of the student body have remained on campus. How many of those plan on voting, and even if all did so, how much of a difference is there in effect between one-third and a full student body? For those who did not remain on campus and still wished to vote, their only option is to vote in their home riding today or on May 2 where their vote, because unconcentrated and spread as it would be across many ridings, would count for much less.
It remains to seen how all this plays out. but one thing is certain: the shutting down of the special voting stations on campus by elections Canada in complicity with the Harperites might turn out to be far more significan than first thought.
via Suburban Voters and Voter Suppression | rabble.ca.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Why The Title Politics and Entertainment
Politics and entertainment here in the title of the blog shouldn’t necessarily be read as a set of binary terms that needs to be, a la Derrida, deconstructed by a third term; in fact, they are more often than not -- if you keep an eye on Canadian and American politics -- seldom mutually exclusive. I refer of course to the habitually nasty but cynically amusing behaviour of Harperites and Teabaggers.
But having taught film studies, film production, and screenwriting in a university, and having worked in both film and television, I want to write occasionally about film or television projects that might deserve a bit more interest than they currently receive since they’re not in the centre of the media promotional stream in the hope that others might see the value of these efforts. Except for Executive Producers, everyone with whom I ever worked in a given production did so with utmost responsibility and extremely hard work. It isn't just about talent.
While I taught, I was also very politically active, both within my institution, trying to hollow it out from within, and in the city in which I lived at the time --especially with respect to environmental issues. And so the political scene -- federal, provincial, municipal -- continue to intrigue me and might call forth the occasional rant and other kinds of commentary.
Of course politics and entertainment come forcefully together in entertainers like Bill Maher, and the extraordinary political activism of actors like George Clooney, Leo DeCapprio, Ellen Paige, and Don Cheadle -- not to mention Bono and the gang. This practical use of celebrity status for political purposes also interests me, and so, I’ll probably have some specific response to a particular action or project. Don't worry -- no Charlie stuff.
We begin in earnest soon.
But having taught film studies, film production, and screenwriting in a university, and having worked in both film and television, I want to write occasionally about film or television projects that might deserve a bit more interest than they currently receive since they’re not in the centre of the media promotional stream in the hope that others might see the value of these efforts. Except for Executive Producers, everyone with whom I ever worked in a given production did so with utmost responsibility and extremely hard work. It isn't just about talent.
While I taught, I was also very politically active, both within my institution, trying to hollow it out from within, and in the city in which I lived at the time --especially with respect to environmental issues. And so the political scene -- federal, provincial, municipal -- continue to intrigue me and might call forth the occasional rant and other kinds of commentary.
Of course politics and entertainment come forcefully together in entertainers like Bill Maher, and the extraordinary political activism of actors like George Clooney, Leo DeCapprio, Ellen Paige, and Don Cheadle -- not to mention Bono and the gang. This practical use of celebrity status for political purposes also interests me, and so, I’ll probably have some specific response to a particular action or project. Don't worry -- no Charlie stuff.
We begin in earnest soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)