Karl K's blog

Happy 2012! Thanks for dropping by - here's the link to the petition to to keep Jasper National Park public and safe from harmful development by private companies. Talk tomorrow - let me know if you want more news links posted regularly by emailing me at oldpunk@cjlo.com.

On this morning's program I'm playing the interview that took place on William F. Buckley's program 'Firing Line.' Below is the embed from the Crooks and Liars sister website Newstalgia. It's remarkable, provocative and absolutely the kind of interview that would never take place in today's media environment. Enjoy and please feel free to comment and tell me what you thought of it. (For some reason the player doesn't work on firefox but it does work on IE - so if you don't like IE go to this link: http://newstalgia.crooksandliars.com/gordonskene/newstalgia-reference-ro... )

I'm back to post links for stories that I talk about on the show. Hope you enjoyed today's with the better part of the 1st hour devoted to Jack Layton, a man who will be missed and may be irreplacable so far as the NDP are concerned.

Here's the moving tribute and eulogy that Stephen Lewis gave for Mr. Layton on Saturday:

Here's the farewell letter that Jack Layton wrote and christie blatchford's reprehensible response to it. If you can explain why she would do this, other than a bizarre form of demented partisanship, I sure would like to hear your theory.

Stephen Harper has a sense of humour (really!) and actually used the words climate change in the same sentence while visiting Canada's north. Those are both good signs. Also, Environment Canada’s plans to shut down most of the federal water monitoring stations in the Northwest Territories have been reversed.

That's all for now. I'll be back later in the day to post links to the international stories I talked about.

A bunch of links from around the Canadian web all related to the upcoming democratic exercise that is so pissing Stephen Harper off!

 The Conservative Leader refuses to comment on reports of campaign rally attendees being kicked out or barred entry for 'suspect' partisan loyalties -- one young woman was apparently ordered to turn her T-shirt inside out because it had a slogan endorsing environmentally-friendly fuels. Mmmmm, that's some pretty tasty democracy! Apparently I'm not the only one who is noticing the similarities between the PM's campaign and the one run by Karl Rove on behalf of GWB jr..

 Ralph Surette of theChronicleHerald.ca talks about a flagrant violation of parliamentary process committed by the federal Conservatives and his experience in dealing with the Harper regime and why he feels a Harper majority would be frightening.

 A report on those extremely expensive jets that Stephen doesn't want to discuss, says the costs could double. My favourite line: A U.S. analyst says Ottawa’s estimate of $75 million per F-35 may not include engine. There were complaints that with only a single engine the F-35 was poorly suited for patrolling Canada's North. With no engines it is of course perfect for keeping track of what's going on in the hanger, and it'll cost less.

From over at Rabble.ca an interesting read entitled "Restoring democracy: in Canada and Eight good ideas for the election and beyond"

Michael Ignatieff weighs in once more on the wasteful spending that took place at the G8 and G20 summits.

 Michael is campaigning in Quebec today and has a controversy on his hands as one of his candidates has been accused of making ignorant comments about aboriginals calling them "featherheads." Ignatieff said he has an ordered an investigation into the comments by André Forbes, the party’s flag-bearer in Manicouagan and promised “decisive” action, perhaps by the end of Wednesday. Hopefully he keeps his word on this and takes a no-nonsense approach as well. This kind of crap has no place in Canada, let alone as part of our national discourse. I just read a post that says the candidate in question, Andre Forbes has already been dumped!

 Signs that Iggy is feeling feisty on the trail has him firing away at Harper while visiting a local hardware store in Compton Quebec. He was contrasting the Liberal approach of treating rural and urban Canadians equally, while Mr. Harper was going at it “wedge issue by wedge issue, divide and split, divide and rule.”

 The Globe and Mail provides a terrific primer on the different party platforms - compare, contrast and come away better informed.

NDP leader Jack Layton was busy today unveiling a $537 million dollar plan to help aging Canadians stay in their homes longer. "Seniors are the fastest-growing age group in this country and they are looking to be assured that quality and accessible health care will be available when they need it."

Layton vowed to make home care an insured service under the Canada Health Act and to introduce a "Quality Home Care Plan" to improve access for some 100,000 more families a year.

Jack Layton also said that Canada’s universal health care system is in jeopardy if the Conservatives form a majority in this election and that Stephen Harper can’t be trusted to protect it. hard to argue that when of all the monies that Harper talks about spending our health care system is never mentioned.

 Green Party Leader Elizabeth May announced she will unveil her platform tomorrow in Toronto and that she is once again renting a private train car and doing a whistle-stop tour from Toronto to Montreal. I'll be there to greet her and see if I can get some pics.

Not discussed in any detail yet on this campaign was the gutting of an important Canadian institution: Statistics Canada. For those with short memories here is a sample of the fear-mongering, that preceded their doing away with the mandatory long form census, that came from the mouth of Industry Minister Tony Clement: “I cannot support the opposition's belief that Canadians not wishing to answer these questions are criminals,” Mr. Clement said in a statement released Tuesday evening. “It is truly regrettable that the Liberals, NDP and Bloc Québécois will not take a reasonable approach to addressing personal privacy rights of Canadians in the pursuit of invasive data.”

 Mr. Clement decided to double down and deliberately misled the Commons Industry Committee (in the real world such acts are referred to as lies) about how the head of the agency felt about such changes to Stats Canada by telling the Globe he assumed Dr. Sheikh found the change acceptable. In response Munir Sheikh iterated that... No statistician would have made such a recommendation, said Dr. Sheikh, who struggled with his emotions as he addressed the committee. “It really cast doubt on the integrity of the agency,” he said. “And I, as the head of that agency, cannot survive in that job.” So to hold on to his integrity Mr. Sheikh felt he was left with no options other than to resign.

The importance of Stats Canada can't be overstated: Every kind of industry, labour, academic and charitable organization had sent petitions, letters and press releases saying the same thing, backed by a truckloads of statisticians and economists, said in effect that a voluntary survey would effectively gut the census. For a list of those that opposed the Tory move go here and see for yourself the wide array of diverse organizations who were dependent on the once reliable information Statistics Canada could provide.

Census surveys form the basis of much of Statistics Canada’s other analyses, including vital labour force measures such as the unemployment rate. It drives everything from corporate fundraising drives in Toronto to the deployment of B.C. lunch programs for school kids; and from the layout of suburban subdivisions to the prescriptions of think tanks of every ideological bent.

  Restaurants use information from the long form to help determine where to locate and how to target their marketing. Census information turns out to be an unexpectedly effective fundraising tool.

 Census data such as mother tongue and family income also allows provincial education officials to target resources for services such as B.C.'s breakfast programs for schoolchildren and English-as-a-second language instruction in Ontario cities with large numbers of newcomers. In Penticton, B.C., two elementary schools receive extra funds for a hot-lunch program thanks to census tract data that reveals which neighbourhoods have relatively high concentrations of poor families.

 I mention all this because there's a report in today's Globe and Mail about how Corporate tax cuts do not spur growth their analysis reveals. Guess where the information for this analysis came from?

...an analysis of Statistics Canada figures by The Globe and Mail reveals that the rate of investment in machinery and equipment has declined in lockstep with falling corporate tax rates over the past decade. At the same time, the analysis shows, businesses have added $83-billion to their cash reserves since the onset of the recession in 2008.

This is an important issue because the Conservatives are using this issue to claim that the Liberals are raising taxes and hindering job growth and recovery from the recession. The Liberals are pledging to roll corporate taxes back to 2010 levels to free up billions of dollars for their platform which includes spending on family-focused social programs, including day care and tuition. The Globe analysis puts the lie to the Harper regime's claims and supports the a plank central to Ignatieff's platform.

Getting rid of Statistics Canada was more than throwing a bone to the Conservative base it serves to get rid of information that's inconvenient to the narrative the Tories are trying to spin. It's a way to marginalize the poor and given a majority one wonders how many other inconvenient Canadian institutions would be got rid of?

This is rich! The Liberals have quickly put a very timely ad out there about Canadians being denied the right to attend Harper rallies if they're wearing the wrong t-shirts or have the wrong bumper stickers on their cars or have befriended sketchy liberal types on their facebook pages. The quick turnaround so far as this ad goes is very impressive. Have a good laugh and ask yourself if this reminds you of anything?

When writing about the 2011 Canadian election, it could be a pretty facile exercise to point to the Conservative candidate, proclaim he's just like his American counterpart (Bush) and then go further and declare that the tactics used as being the same as those used by the oft vilified Karl Rove, aka Bush's Brain. So let's get specific and take a hard look at exactly what is this playbook all about.

 First, go on the offensive and establish the public perception of their candidate, define what the major issues of the campaign are and do everything in your power to influence the public perception of the opponent. If you're Stephen Harper, you have spent the last two years two years doing exactly these things. In fact our Prime Minister likes to run vicious attack ads all the time — before, during and after elections. This is a no-brainer for the Tories in that these ads turn voters off depressing turnout at the polls and it delights and energizes his rabid base.

Next from the playbook, attack your opponents strengths. For example, if your opponent is a whip smart university professor who taught at some of the world's finest universities, Harvard, Cambridge, Oxford, the University of California, the University of London and the London School of Economics, then you have to make that sound like a bad thing. Seriously. You have to find a way to demonize that and the Tories certainly gave that a shot with ads that feature ominous tones and insinuate something dark is afoot with people who go to "other" countries to be professors.

Sticking with the playbook, you will want to accuse your opponent of whatever he/she is going to accuse you of (like lusting for power). Harper was, by all accounts, ready to form something quite like a coalition back in 2004, and so opens up this election run by accusing Ignatieff of plotting a "reckless" coalition. Now in all likelihood were Harper in Ignatieff's shoes he would be looking at a coalition if he could not win a majority or even a minority. Pay attention to whatever else they accuse Ignatieff of because it will point to their next move.

The next tactic has yet to be pulled out of the bag of tricks this election but bank on it coming to pass: go negative and then cry foul. Conservatives across North America love to dish out attacks but get kind of weepy when they are the subject of similar ads. At some point during this election Harper will decry all the negative ads the opposition parties are running against him even though he has spent his entire time as PM smearing his opponents whether it was election season or not.

Then there's the big lie, or a whole bunch of little ones so that there are too many to keep track of them all. As Harper talks about how this "unnecessary""election somehow threatens Canada's economic recovery, it would benefit one and all to remember that Harper promised not to call an early election last time out but then quickly turned his back on that promise and called an election more than a year earlier than promised just as the country was entering a recession and a deficit situation. Was that not risky? There are a litany of such reversals by the Harper Tories. Good examples are him swearing he would never tax income trusts, and his complaints about the unaccountability of the unelected Senate to which he  has appointed 36 Senators who, it's worth noting, scuttled a couple of private members bills in this last session of Parliament. Then there's ethics problems he said he'd fix, accountability and transparency he said his government would ensure and put a stop to the hiring of lobbyists. None of which came to pass.

There's the appeal to moral values which coincidentally Harper was speaking about to rural Canadians just yesterday, declaring that only the Conservatives understand and share their values. This is clearly meant to divide people along lines of not only urban and rural voters but also along lines of faith. There's the underlying suggestion that somehow all the homo lovers living in the cities are very "different" from them and could never understand what people of faith who live in the country believe.

There's the selling of the leaders persona and so Harper has been imbued with all kinds of characteristics that belie how he has governed. He's been cast as a great leader whose strengths are wisdom, compassion,  and his personal warmth (that's why he sings and plays the piano every chance he gets).

The combination of exploiting and demonizing the media is a tried and true tactic. The Harper message is crafted with no details left to chance and if the media wants access to the PM from time to time they had better not complain too loudly about all of his rules like no press scrums, only answering a handful of questions, and being caged. Anytime the media is serving up a Harper or Tory scandal, the Conservatives simply declare that the media is biased and you can't believe what they say in the first place... unless it's good news about the Conservatives of course (the hue and cry over the so-called liberal media continues to this day in the US in spite of all the proof to the contrary).

The last thing I'm going to mention, in this long list that could be subtitled 'how to politically divide and conquer your own country,' is strawmen. You'll recall that during the Bush years there was the constant drumbeat about terrorists around every corner and if they weren't sure to destroy America then gay marriage would. When discussing these strawmen it was also important to misrepresent your opponent's position on whatever issues you're dredging up. You can do this by quoting your opponent out of context or presenting their beliefs in a form that people will reject. As for the strawmen Harper has given us, why there's the coalition with its' socialists and separatists and liberals, oh my!

If all of this sounds familiar that's because it played on our TV sets for the eight years Bush was in office, and is currently in reruns in the US and here in our own backyard. There's nothing new here but don't discount the effectiveness of such tactics. Without a fourth estate willing to be skeptical and do its' job the public can be sold anything as history teaches us.

As the parties enter their second full week Harper's strategy of attacks based on a fictional premise, taking credit for the recovery, avoiding answering inconvenient questions and pretending he has nothing to do with the sketchy cast of characters surrounding him is working... at least according to the latest NANOS poll. Their lead over the Liberals has increased in the last week in spite of numerous missteps by the PM and his party in the opening week of the campaign.

 Today there was more of the kind of news that would rattle some parties and their followers but not this party, not now. The Canadian Press reported Sunday that Bruce Carson, one of Mr. Harper's closest advisers, was convicted on five counts of fraud – three more than previously known – and received court-ordered psychiatric treatment.

 Harper says he wouldn’t have installed former adviser Bruce Carson in his Prime Minister’s Office if he had been aware of his past. The Conservative leader claims he was never told of Mr. Carson’s full criminal record. This seems unlikely and Carson's lawyer told the CP that Mr. Carson disclosed his entire criminal record during a security check as was required to become a senior staffer in the PMO.

The latest revelations should raise questions about Mr. Harper's judgment in hiring Mr. Carson as his chief policy analyst and troubleshooter. Mr. Carson would have been privy to top secret government files in his job as a senior adviser to the prime minister up until leaving the PMO in 2008. The PM's claims of "I didn't know until you just told me," ring false as someone in Mr. Carson's position would have been subject to a thorough review by both the RCMP and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

So he had a five times convicted fraudster as his top advisor. What's the big deal?

Today on the trail Harper was doing what he could to further divide Canadians resurrecting the long-gun registry as an issue. To put extra emphasis on the divisiveness he seeks to create he said “We are the party that stands with rural Canada and understands your values and your way of life,” during a stop in Wainfleet, Ont.. Does that mean they don't understand urban Canadians or stand with them? Please, can someone call them out on this patent idiocy?

Jack Layton gave it a shot accusing Harper of "driving a wedge" between Canadians through the long-gun registry issue. "He goes into Welland for the second election in a row and doesn't even acknowledge the fact that hundreds of workers are losing their jobs and that the middle class is being wiped out in Welland!"

Jack had a campaign stop in Toronto where he talked about doubling public pension payouts. It's not a new pledge but it is one he hopes will appeal to Canadians who are approaching retirement. The NDP were also reaching out to workers who have lost their company pension plans when their employers have gone bankrupt. Pensioners and workers on long-term disability would be the first creditors to collect when a company goes under, according to the NDP proposal.

Michael Igantieff meanwhile was in the Maritimes today where according to a Canadian Press story, the Liberals are setting their campaign sights on military veterans with a $120-million “Vets, not jets” promise. Ignatieff told supporters in Halifax today that a Liberal government would pay the full costs of tuition, books, accommodations and living expenses for up to four years of post-secondary education or technical training for veterans.

The 94-page Liberal document that outlines and costs the Liberal platform which was released on Sunday was given faint praise in today's Globe and Mail. They called it prudent and pragmatic which is okay but then there was insult as it was likened to a document that could have come from Harper. There was some good news for Ignatieff as the Canadian Press Harris-Decima poll has him within seven points with the Conservatives at 35 per cent support, ahead of the Liberals at 28 per cent. The NDP was at 17 per cent, while the Bloc Quebecois stood at 10 per cent and the Greens at eight. (spoiler alert: there's excerpted video of an Ignatieff campaign speech at the link, his best line being "How can you trust a man who doesn't respect you?")

Amongst the promises are calls for a permanent home-energy retrofit program, assistance to family caregivers, a community “Heroes Fund” for fallen firefighters and peace officers, and a new Canada Service Corps. There is also a plan to reform Parliament as well by placing new restrictions on Prime Ministerial power to prevent arbitrarily proroguing Parliament for political reasons, and instituting a “People’s Question Period” which will attempt to engage Canadians online. The idea is to have cabinet ministers and the PM to “respond directly to unscripted, user-generated questions.”

A majority of Canadians believe that the Green Party Leader Elizabeth May should have a seat at the federal party leaders debate, a recent poll suggests. Elizabeth May also made news today with a campaign pledge of $450 million for the CBC on the day before party takes broadcasters to court.

 Here's Ignatieff's campaign video response to the question, "Who are you?"

Wresting the narrative away from the spinners and media is an auspicious way to open a campaign and Michael Ignatieff and the Liberal Party deserve a lot of credit for taking this beast by its' antlers and waging a far better than anticipated opening to their campaign.

 The Ignatieff platform delivered Sunday, is what he is calling his 'Family Pack' of measures that will deliver relief to the Canadian middle-class. There are details about the costing of some of the already announced initiatives, including $1 billion to be spent on the Family Care Plan,  $1 billion the cost for aid to post-secondary students, 700-million annual boost to the Guaranteed Income Supplement to help reduce poverty among seniors, especially women and seniors with disabilities. The simplicity of making your spending priorities families, students and the elderly reminds me of the Clinton '92 campaign which had a nifty slogan, "It's the economy, stupid'' to go along with some good and simple ideas they had to get the economy humming and it worked. By the way, that included taxing the rich!

Now the Conservatives predictably shout 'tax and spend' as if spending weren't something governments are supposed to do with tax revenues, and holding the corporate tax rates at eighteen percent instead of lowering them one-and-a-half percent this year and again in 2012 spells doom for corporations and jobs in Canada.  Seems unlikely especially in a year when there were record profits for corporations across the board. The common weal, after all, is why we pay taxes. I hope Mr. Ignatieff embraces their spin. He indeed will be taxing the wealthy corporations and spending on as well as investing in the Canadian middle class -- there are worse things you could spend your money on like for example (according to the Tories) the arts!

The Liberals are in a good position here to defend what they want to spend money on, because as long as Mr. Ignatieff is not gonna' spend thirty billion on jets, five billion on prisons and six billion on corporate tax breaks, he's left himself some walking around money that he can use to invest elsewhere. Good for you Michael!

To separate themselves further from the Conservatives, the Liberal position is now to reduce the environmental cost of the Alberta tar-sands. Ignatieff said the past five years have seen the Harper government "walk away" from regulating the oilsands at a critical time when the world is watching whether the resource is being responsibly developed. The federal government must "walk back in" for the sake of protecting wild species, improving water conservation and reducing carbon dioxide emissions. He also promises to have a more proactive climate change policy, one that will not necessarily march in lockstep with the Obama administration. Which is clearly a good idea.

The thing about taking control of the spin away from the media is once you start you can never let up because the media will fight you for that purview and the right will be there to attack your perceived strengthsif you falter for a moment -- this all comes from the Lee Atwater/Karl Rove playbook and is now a part of how Canadian Tories conduct themselves in the political arena.

There is an article over at the Toronto Star about how the Iggy game plan is to be 'prudent and cautious' all the way. Now this is belied by the first nine days of this campaign. I can't speak to this in a meaningful way other than to note the sources quoted are not named. As for Ignatieff's prudence, maybe caution will be a watchword on this campaign as it moves forward -- who knows?

So far, however, Mr. Ignatieff has proved himself willing to take far more risks in this campaign than his Conservative opponent, Mr. 'five questions' Harper, even going so far as to accept an invitation to a political street-fight that Harper quickly backed out of. Those are some good optics even if such an offer is unfair in the first place. So Harper, who when not on the defensive has been repeating tired old lines about the opposition parties that don't have the same sting anymore (you can only say "tax and spend liberals," so many times before it becomes meaningless). I'm pretty sure this is not the start Harper was looking for. Whether he pays a price at the polls to Ignatieff's benefit is anyone's guess.

As for Michael, well has his identity, his platform and his own ideas of how he wants this campaign to go. Now all he has to do is defend every last scrap of political turf with every last ounce of his energy and he might just stand a chance. People will rally to someone who fights for what they believe, and based on the early campaigning he looks ready to do just that. It's the kind of action that fleshes out his campaign promises and makes them more than just words on a position paper. It's also a lot easier said and written than done.

In the previous post about media coverage of the NDP, my desire was to illustrate one of the many ways in which the media can help to marginalize ideas and even an entire political party. It all depends on what aspect of a story they choose to emphasize.

 This can work both ways of course. You can help make a party look good by omitting mention of important parts of their tacit platform. This past week, so far as the Tories are concerned, the platform they wanted to discuss had little to do with the reality of the policy they're supposed to be defending. That, after all, is the essential question here, right? Do we want more of the same Conservative policies that we've been witness to these last five years, or not?

 As the media reports on the roll-out of the Harper platform they've mentioned his bizarre, 'money I'll spend if we balance the budget' promises. There's also been his obvious attempts at bribery of Newfoundland and Quebec for votes. All well and good but these are not the tenets of this government that the opposition parties are running against.

 They are running against the Conservatives spending $30 billion on sole-sourced jets that poorly suit Canada's needs, spending billions to incarcerate more Canadians at a time when crime rates are on the decline in Canada, imposing American style mandatory minimums for certain non-violent crimes, spending billions in tax breaks for already wealthy corporations, taking away the per-vote subsidy thus making our electoral system yet more advantageous for themselves. They have also tied our environmental policies to those of the Americans at a time when their Congress is in full meltdown over the issues of global climate disruption and the continuing degradation of the environment, as they are clearly more moved by wealthy corporate citizens and their lobbyists than by scientific reason and consensus.

 And that's just domestic policies! Canada's foreign policy as it stands now has  lost us standing as a world leader in pressing for human rights, in part by taking a one-sided view on Middle East rights issues, according to  Amnesty International. These are likely reasons that prevented Canada from winning a United Nations Security Council seat. 

 That's the platform you're voting for when you cast your vote for the Conservatives. That's what needs to be debated in this election. Do these policies reflect Canada, and Canadian sentiment and values on these issues? Whether or not that will happen is largely up to Canadian voters. If they demand a substantive discussion they may well get it. If they remain complacent then they can continue to read stories about how the Harper campaign has the momentum of a runaway train and how it definitely hasn't fallen flat.