Thursday, August 9, 2012
Friday, August 3, 2012
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Doing the Math on Peter Penashue’s stolen election.
Peter Penashue spent about $88,000 ($4000 too much) on this election to the riding of Newfoundland and Labrador in 2011 meaning he spent about $21 for each vote he received. In theory that additional $4000 at $21 per vote could have generated an additional 190 votes which was 3x his margin of victory. Would it not be reasonable to think that the illegal $4000 in spending bought Penashue’s victory?
Not scientific I agree, but still it leaves you wondering how this extra money changed the vote in such a close race. This margin is far lower than many of the elections currently being challenged in the Supreme Court of Canada over robo call allegations.
It also has me questioning the lax penalties of $1000 and/or 3 months in gaol. I would suggest that both the party, the EDA and the Candidate should be fined 10x the amount of overspending. This would force the Candidate to ensure his books were right, ensure the EDA reigned in the campaign team and maintained oversight, and it would make the Party pay closer attention to what the EDAs were doing.
As it is $1000 and/or 3 months in gaol are simply the costs of doing business and will defer few zealots from breaking the rules considering the prize.
Also an issue in Penashue’s campaign was the apparent borrowing of money from a First Nations community fund to run his election after they started bouncing cheques. It starts sounding really shady when you find out this fund was run by his brother-in-law and is supposed to be used to boost economic activity not be used as a family savings and loan.
Another ethically challenged Conservative MP with a questionable claim to his seat, must be Tuesday... er.. or Wednesday, maybe Friday. When will it stop?
Recommend this Post
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
Tuesday, June 5, 2012
Canada’s Road to Interventionism
At no time during the 2011 election did I notice a promise from the Conservative party to base more troops abroad and interfere in other Nation’s business and yet today I see Canada is looking for 7 additional foreign bases/staging areas. While they claim this is for humanitarian relief and “just in case”, I believe this signals our graduation from occasional lackey to full time minion of the U.S. war machine.
You see this is all starting to make sense now; the F35 with its stealth ability can be based out of Singapore integrated with U.S. air power including the AWACS and in air refuelling needed to make these planes function properly. We would support the U.S. on a number of missions including the containment of China.
If Israel doesn't snap and do the job itself we could eventually base Canadian F35s in Kuwait to threaten Iran.
5 more bases, 5 more areas of possible foreign entanglement.
It seems obvious now that his plane with its stealth strike ability, short range and slow speed was never intended to defend our north but to bolster our strike capability abroad. The F35 cannot properly fulfill its domestic role therefore the government is either incompetent (quite possible) or lying about the plane’s true purpose.
My bet; a couple years into the F35 deliveries, long after it’s too late to kill the first contract, we will suddenly learn we need a second plane for the far north. Of course the Americans who are pushing our new agenda in the first place will magnanimously offer up their delivery slots for the second plane which can begin deliveries immediately.
Ok, so maybe I'm getting a tad paranoid about this government but when you start buying planes with no practical domestic mission and then start looking for foreign bases you have to stop and wonder what’s really going on.
.Recommend this Post
Monday, June 4, 2012
BlackOutSpeakOut
In reality I've been blacked out for some time simply because I find it hard to write about our political situation without it turning into a hateful expletive filled rant. I did however attend my local c-38 protest this last weekend and will endeavour to raise my voice in every way I can to save Canadian democracy.Recommend this Post
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Labelling radicals or creating them?
When the NDP members went to Washington to lobby against Tar Sands their actions were labeled treacherous by our Environment Minster Peter Kent. Funny that, protecting the environment is supposed to be his job, not defending industry.
This week Joe Oliver, Minister of Natural resources accuses everyone opposed to the Northern Gateway pipeline of belonging to “environmental and other radical groups”
In both cases government members dismiss the democratic right of opposition, in the first instance MPs were basically told they should stay at home and STFU about important issues and in the second case that the public should be considered radical if they disagree with government or care more about the world we live in than the profits of oil companies.
Sure we have procedures to voice our concerns and ask questions about these mega projects but Oliver sweeps these aside as fraught with loopholes and illegitimate “stacked” hearings that actually allow citizens to speak on the issues. Have no doubt that just like the debate in the HOC last fall the Northern Gateway hearings will be cut short limiting public input, data, and circumventing the proper procedures. Rather than have hearings “stacked” with real people with legitimate concerns the majority of voices heard will be those supporting dirty oil and the pipeline project.
The "Harper" government is continuing its old trick of demonizing anyone who speaks against it. No longer however are they content to prey on senior diplomats, appointees and bureaucrats, now it is forbidden for any Canadian citizen or group to have an opposing view to the ruling Junta. Those that speak out are quickly labeled as treacherous radical enemies of the state not worthy of a voice at the table.
Take a group of people, almost any group will do and belittle their beliefs, tell them their voices don’t matter and destroy those things they care about with no recourse and you’ve got a great recipe for creating REAL radicals. This is essentially what the Conservatives are doing to the environmental movement.
Now I will never believe that putting long term human survival and proper stewardship of the environment before profit is radical but blowing stuff up to achieve these ends IS.
I WOULD NEVER endorse such actions but it would not surprise me if the Conservative methodology (even more so than their agenda) will create new versions of the Earth Liberation Front, more Wiebo Ludwigs, or some devotee of Derrick Jensen will take this quote and reinterpret it. "Every morning when I awake I ask myself whether I should write or blow up a dam. I tell myself I should keep writing, though I'm not sure that's right".
Harper wants to label and silence “environmental radicals” but in hindsight I think we’ll agree he did more to create them than silence them.
I hope Canadians will rise up politically before someone takes this path
.Recommend this Post
