Wednesday, February 14, 2007

A Little Eros For Valentine's Day


Alternet had this article about activism and love for Valentines day;
Why Love Is Our Most Powerful, Lasting Form of Activism

Which is very much what I said here;Socialism Is Love

And it got me thinking about the left wing Freudians like Norman O. Brown. One of the philosophers who was widely read in the Sixties and Seventies but who is forgotten now. Yet Brown only recently passed away, five years ago.

His attack on repression and embrace of Eros against Thantos (death) spoke to the crisis of rigidity, authoritarianism and the war culture in America and around the world in that period. Not unlike the situation of world crisis we find ourselves in now.

Like Marcuse's; Eros and Civilization,
and the various works of Paul Goodman and Eric Fromm, and those of Wilhelm Reich, reading Browns work was a liberatory experience.

For Valentines day I can think of no better suggestion than remember Norman. O. Brown.

Brown like Fromm and the radical theologian Harvey Cox a Dionysian Christian,embraced the idea of death and resurrection as liberation, and that the secret gnosis was to embrace life not death, in that Christos was life against death.

Like
Jane Ellen Harrison who in her work Themis described the revolutionary aspect of Dionysus as being the young god who embraces life even in death, against the sterility and rigidity of the old pantheon of dead stone faced Gods of Greece. By the time of the Bacchanae, the Greek pantheon stood as statues in the edifice of State. Appolianic culture was ridden with wars and patriarchy as it was the creator of high culture and civilization of the Greek State.

This dialectic is also reflected in the later works of Harold Bloom and Camille Paglia.

In his work Loves Body....

Brown here draws much more on ethnography and myth, in addition to psychoanalysis, and he strives for a fusion of the pagan/Dionysian with a radical Christian mysticism. (This latter is noteworthy, because it calls upon potentialities in Christianity that are far different either from the “liberal theology” of Brown’s day or from the heavy fundamentalism that is the main face of Christianity in America today. Brown’s emphasis on the joyousness of the Resurrection, on the “resurrection of the body,” is diametrically opposed to the sadomasochistic body hysteria/disgust of Mel Gibson’s Passion of the Christ). Brown also moves from the formidably learned and argumentative discourse of Life Against Death to a more poetic, more willfully fragmentary style of writing. Love’s Body is short on any concrete discussion of how we might get from here to there, from civilized repression to redemption in the body of Dionysus/Christ, but it’s ferociously visionary in a way that stands as a reproach to more timid social, cultural, and religious theorists.


Norman Brown, Playful Philosopher, 89, Is Dead

October 4, 2002
By DOUGLAS MARTIN


Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company

Norman O. Brown, an erudite and spectacularly playful
philosopher whose attempt to psychoanalyze nothing less
than history itself entranced intellectuals, beguiled New
Age seekers and sold many books, died on Wednesday in Santa
Cruz, Calif. He was 89.

His son Thomas N. Brown said he had Alzheimer's disease and
died at an assisted-living residence.

Dr. Brown was a master of philosophical speculation, mixing
Marx, Freud, Jesus and much else to raise and answer
immense questions. Alan Watts, the popular philosopher,
sang his praises. His works joined David Riesman's ``Lonely
Crowd'' and J.R.R. Tolkien's ``Lord of the Rings'' on the
reading lists of undergraduates aspiring to the
counterculture.

Scruffy pilgrims streamed to commune with him, only to
discover a short-haired man who lived in a split-level
house and avoided drugs. A meticulous student of ancient
Greek who was given to long, meditative walks with his
golden retriever, he was not a little perplexed when
magazine and newspaper articles linked him to the new left,
LSD and the sexual revolution.

``I have absolutely no use for the human-potential
movement,'' he said in an interview with Human Behavior
magazine in 1976.

His books were nonetheless gobbled up by scholars eager to
respond to hip-sounding ideas that combined erudition and a
poetical mysticism.

``Reading Brown was a little like taking drugs, only it was
more likely to lead to tenure,'' the sociologist Alan Wolfe
wrote in The New Republic in 1991.

In his ``Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning
of History'' (Wesleyan University Press, 1959), he said
individuals and society were imprisoned by an essentially
Freudian ill: repression. He argued that the only escape
was to face death head-on and affirm life.

Maurice Richardson wrote in The New Statesman: ```Life
Against Death' is a running dive off the Freudian
springboard into history's deep end. It is a fascinating
book, discursive, inconsequent, sometimes preposterous, but
full of interesting ideas, product of a learned man in a
tight place, one of those rare genuine stimulators.''

Dr. Brown's book ``Love's Body'' (Random House, 1966)
discussed the role of erotic love in human history,
describing a struggle between eroticism and civilization.
He voted against civilization, a stance that elicited
praise and criticism.

Among his critics was Brigid Brophy in The New York Times
Book Review, who called Dr. Brown's assertion that
schizophrenics might be saner than those without the
disease ``the most preposterous ever made in serious
print.''

His ``Closing Time'' (Random House, 1973), an interweaving
of quotations from James Joyce's ``Finnegans Wake'' with
excerpts from the works of the 18th-century philosopher
Giambattista Vico, was ``an extraordinary tour de force,''
Library Journal said.

Norman Oliver Brown was born in El Oro, Mexico, on Sept.
25, 1913. His father was an English mining engineer, and he
was mainly reared and educated in England, where his tutor
at Balliol College, at Oxford University, was the eclectic
historian Sir Isaiah Berlin. He earned his doctorate in
classics at the University of Wisconsin.

From 1943 to 1946 he served in the Office of Strategic
Services, the forerunner of the Central Intelligence
Agency. He became a friend of Herbert Marcuse, another
intelligence analyst and later analyst of society, and
those philosophers later engaged in spirited intellectual
debates for many years.

In 1938 he married Elizabeth Potter, who survives him. In
addition to her and his son Thomas, of Santa Cruz, he
leaves another son Stephen, who lives near Armstrong,
British Columbia; his daughters Rebecca Brown of Monte Rio,
Calif., and Susan Brown of Iowa City; and five
grandchildren.

Dr. Brown was a professor at Wesleyan University, the
University of Rochester and the University of California at
Santa Cruz.

He was a Marxist by sensibility and intellectual
inclination in the 1930's, and worked in the leftist
presidential campaign of the Progressive Party's Henry
Wallace in 1948. By the early 1950's, he decided that
politics did not answer the important questions, and became
enamored with Freud. He even learned to interpret his
dreams, which had the unwanted side effect of ruining his
sleep.

Sir Stuart Hampshire, an English philosopher who had known
Dr. Brown since they were students at Oxford, said
yesterday in a telephone interview that Dr. Brown was ``a
victim of theories,'' whether those of Marx or Freud. He
said Dr. Brown's idea that it was possible to abandon
Freudian morality in choosing an unrepressed life was ``not
really his life or anybody's life.''

But Sir Stuart praised many of Dr. Brown's intellectual
insights, mentioning in particular his recognition of
Jonathan Swift's hatred of the physical functions of the
body.

``Nobody had ever said that before,'' he said. ``It was
very, very intelligent.''

Jay Cantor, who teaches a mix of literature, philosophy and
psychoanalysis at Tufts University, said yesterday by phone
that Dr. Brown was brilliant at connecting seemingly
disparate subjects to form new insights. A typical example:
``If Freud is true it is because of connections with the
Gospel, and if the Gospel is true it is because of
connections with Marx, and if Marx is true it is because of
connections with James Joyce.''

Dr. Brown typically used memorized quotations to make the
connections, Dr. Cantor said. He added that Dr. Brown had a
modern poet's sensibility in his writings, allowing ``the
symbolism and the history of the words he used to lead his
thoughts.''

``Everything is only a metaphor,'' Dr. Brown wrote in
``Love's Body,'' ``there is only poetry.''

His favorite poetic sentiment was about how we all die with
unlived lives in our bodies. Dr. Cantor suggested that this
referred to ``the difficulty of breaking the mental chains
we carry within us.''




ZIZEK, NORMAN O. BROWN & THE PSYCHOLOGY OF CULTURE
by Richard Koenigsberg


According to Slavoj Zizek, the fundamental level of ideology is that of an
"(unconscious) fantasy structuring our social reality." Ideology is not a
"dreamlike illusion," rather is a "fantasy- construction which serves as a
support for our 'reality' itself." Matthew Sharpe notes that just as an
individual subject's discursive universe will "only ever be unified through
recourse to a fantasy," so too the public ideological frame wherein
political subjects take their bearings can only function through the vehicle
of what Zizek calls "ideological fantasies."

Norman O. Brown's writings in Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical
Meaning of History allow us to expand upon Zizek's views. In contemporary
theory, concepts such as culture, ideology, discourse and narrative usually
are taken as "givens." These concepts are used to "explain" the mind, but
are not themselves considered to be subject to explanation. However, one may
pose questions such as: Why do particular discourses become dominant within
a given society? Why do some narratives replicate whereas others do not? How
may we account for the structure and shape of particular ideologies, and the
passion with which they are embraced?

Whereas Lacanian theorists view the mind as a product of the symbolic order,
Norman O. Brown seeks to explain the nature of the symbolic order itself.
Brown states that culture represents a set of "projections of the repressed
unconscious." Symbolic objects in culture, according to Brown, exist to the
extent that they perform psychological functions for the subject. Culture,
Brown declares, exists in order to allow human beings to "project the
infantile complexes into concrete reality, where they can be seen and
mastered."


The Freudian Left

The body was also the nexus of repression for Brown, and his “eschatology of immanence” (to use Susan Sontag’s memorable phrase (262)) foreshadows the postmodernism of many from Dilleuze to Irigaray:

With the whole world still in the bourgeois stage of competitive development and war, the thing to remember about Marx is that he was able to look beyond this world to another possible world, of union, communion, communism…And after Freud, we have to add that there is also a sexual revolution; which is not to be found in the bourgeois cycle of repression and promiscuity, but in the transformation of the human body, and abolition of genital organization. (1968, 246)

Brown is at pains to point out that the most basic of Freud’s speculations demand not only a science of culture, but also a revolution:

In a neurosis, according to Freud, the ego accepts reality and its energy is directed against the id… In a psychosis, the ego is overwhelmed by the id, severs its connection with reality, and proceeds to create for itself a new outer and inner world. The healthy reaction, according to Freud, like a neurosis, does not ignore reality; like a psychosis it creates a new world, but, unlike psychosis, it creates a new world in the real world; that is, it changes reality. (1959, 154)

For Brown, who remains the most Freudian of our triumvirate, sublimation (the result of repression) is essentially desexualization wherein the ego, incapable of accepting its own negation in death, dilutes its life and connects its “higher sublimations” (socially accepted transferences of erosic energy such as work and industry) to lower regions of the body in what Brown terms a “dialectical affirmation-by-negation.” If the simplest example of such sublimation-as-desexualizing is infantile thumb sucking, the “most paradoxical” is anality, and Brown concludes his magnum opus, Life Against Death with a simply astonishing deconstruction of “the excremental vision” in western literature and philosophy. In a discussion ranging form Luther’s eschatology, to Berkeley’s tar-water and Kant’s “categories of repression” we find a conclusion of sorts: “It is by being the negation of excrement that money is excrement; and it is by being the negation of the body (the soul) that the body remains a body-ego” (1959, 161).


Norman O. Brown, 1913-2002

Norman O. Brown was born in New Mexico in 1913 and educated at Balliol College, Oxford, and at the University of Wisconsin. His tutor at Oxford was Isaiah Berlin. A product of the 1930s, Brown was active in left-wing politics - for example, in the 1948 Henry Wallace presidential campaign - and his work belongs within the history of Marxist, as well as psychoanalytic, thought. During World War II, he worked in the Office of Strategic Services, where his supervisor was Carl Schorske and his colleagues included Herbert Marcuse and Franz Neumann. Marcuse urged Brown to read Freud, leading, in 1959, to Brown’s most memorable work, Life Against Death. Brown taught Classics at Wesleyan University and was a member of the History of Consciousness Department at the University of California at Santa Cruz. Although Life Against Death made him an icon of the New Left, he successfully eschewed publicity, insisting to the end on his primary identity as teacher.

There is still no better introduction to Life Against Death than the one that Brown wrote in 1959. The book was inspired, he explained, by a felt ‘need to reappraise the nature and destiny of man’. The ‘deep study of Freud’ was the natural means for this undertaking. His motives, Brown continued, were political in the most profound sense of the term: ‘Inheriting from the Protestant tradition a conscience which insisted that intellectual work should be directed toward the relief of man’s estate, I, like many of my generation, lived through the superannuation of the political categories which informed liberal thought and action in the 1930s.’ ‘Those of us who are temperamentally incapable of embracing the politics of sin, cynicism and despair’, he added, were ‘compelled to re-examine the classic assumptions about the nature of politics and about the political character of human nature.’

How did it come about, at the dawn of the 1960s, that Freud appeared as the successor to a ‘superannuated’, but not yet surpassed, Marxist project? Life Against Death addressed this question. Until the 1960s, as Marx had well understood, the overwhelming fact of human life had been the struggle for material existence. The ‘affluence’, ‘cybernation’, and ‘conquest of space’ that were becoming apparent signalled that this struggle need no longer dominate. As John Maynard Keynes prophesied, even a glimpse at ‘solving the economic problem’ would provoke a society-wide ‘nervous breakdown’ or creative illness in which the ends of society would come in for re-examination. Marxism lacked the means for this re-examination but psychoanalysis did not. However, Freud in the 1950s was understood to be a conservative refuter of liberal and Marxist illusions of progress and not as their successor. As Norman Podhoretz - then a student who, along with Jason Epstein, discovered and promoted the book - noted, Brown disdained the ‘cheap relativism’ of Freud’s early critics such as Karen Horney and Erich Fromm and understood that ‘the only way around a giant like Freud was through him’.

Brown’s reading of Freud in Life Against Death had two main theses. first, Brown offered a riddle: ‘How can there be an animal that represses itself?’ Freud’s texts offered a solution. The determining element in human experience, in Brown’s reading, was the fear of separation, which later takes the form of the fear of death. What we call individuation is a defensive reaction to this primal fear and is ‘based on hostile trends directed against the mother’. Driven by anxiety, the ego is caught up in ‘a causa sui project of self-creation’; it is burdened with an ‘unreal independence’. The sexual history of the ego is the evidence of this unreality. Desexualization (the transformation of object-libido into narcissistic libido) is the primary method by which the ego is built up.

While Brown’s emphasis on the infant’s psychical vulnerability was true to Freud, his one-sided denigration of the ego was not. According to Brown, what psychoanalysis considered the goals of development - ‘personal autonomy, genital sexuality, sublimation’ - were all forms of repression. Above all Brown criticized psychoanalysis for endorsing dualism: the separation of the soul (or psyche) from the body. The true aim of psychoanalysis, he argued, should be to reunite the two. This can be achieved by returning men and women to the ‘polymorphous perversity’ of early infancy, a state that corresponds to transcendence of the self found in art and play and known to the great Christian mystics, such as William Blake and Jakob Boehme. The key was to give up the ego’s strivings for self-preservation; genital organization, Brown wrote, ‘is a formation of the ego not yet strong enough to die’. Brown called repression the ‘universal neurosis of mankind’, a neurosis that every individual suffered.

History, or the collective individual, he continued, went through an analogous process of trauma, repression and the return of the repressed. History, then, had the structure of a neurosis. In particular, Brown saw the birth of capitalism as the nucleus of the neurosis, a critical period, somewhat akin to the stage of the Oedipus complex in the evolution of the individual. Just as, in Freud’s original formulation, the infant moved from anality to genitality, so, Brown believed, in the transition from medieval to modern capitalist society, anality had been repressed, transformed and reborn as property. Capitalism at root, Brown argued, was socially organized anality: beneath the pseudo-individuated genitality of early modern society, its driving force was literally the love of shit. The Protestants, he held, had been the first to notice this. Luther, in particular, regularly called attention to the Satanic character of commerce, by which Brown meant both its daemonic, driven character and its excremental overtones of possession, miserliness and control. The papacy’s ultimate sin, according to Luther, was its accommodation to the world, meaning to commerce or the Devil. Once again, as for the individual, Brown viewed death as the portal to life. Max Weber, he argued, in linking Protestantism to capitalism, emphasized the calling but left out the crucifixion. According to Brown, ‘the Protestant surrenders himself to his calling as Christ surrendered himself to the cross’, meaning that a free, unrepressed merging with this world was the path to resurrection and to the transcendence of the soul/body divide.

Life Against Death will always be associated with Herbert Marcuse’s Eros and Civilization, which appeared four years earlier and which inevitably influenced Brown. Whereas Brown articulated his impossibly utopian vision of an unrepressed humanity in prophetic tones, Marcuse distinguished surplus repression - the repression imposed by alienated labour and class society - from necessary repression, the repression that was inevitably involved in separation from the mother, the struggle with the instincts, and death. Both books reflected the historic possibilities of automation, but Marcuse’s added a note of realism missing in Brown’s. Furthermore, in the ecumenical 1960s, the Christian substructure of Brown’s thought was barely noticed, although it became even more prominent in his 1965 Love’s Body. By contrast Eros and Civilization was unremittingly secular. In one sense, however, Brown’s book advanced beyond Marcuse’s. Whereas Marcuse still suggested that most psychic suffering originated in social demands imposed on the individual from the outside, Brown was closer to Freud in grasping the ‘mind-forg’d manacles’ rooted in the painful facts of dependence and separation.

Although published in the 1950s, Life Against Death found its main audience among the polycentric, globally dispersed, revolution-oriented student and youth groups known collectively as the New Left. Just as such ‘extremist’ sects of the Reformation as the Anabaptists, Diggers and Holy Rollers sought to experience salvation on earth, so the New Left rejected Freud’s insistence that repression was inevitable. In doing so, it served as a kind of shock troop, limning the horizon of a new society. Life Against Death spoke to its key preoccupations: the belief that the socio-political world was intrinsically mad, the rejection of the nuclear family, the desire to transcend distinctions and boundaries, to bring everything and everyone together, the rejection of sublimation and the achievement ethic in favour of authenticity, expressive freedom and play. Like Eros and Civilization it rested its claims on the ego’s original, ‘inseparable connection with the external world’. Giving voice to the communal ethos of the time, it provided an underpinning to the New Left’s critique of instrumental reason, its desire for a new connectedness with nature, and its attempt to liberate sexuality from its genital, heterosexual limits; indeed, to eroticize the entire body and the world.

What, finally, can we say about a work whose tone and vision seem almost infinitely alien to our own ‘post-utopian’ times? Brown’s perception of the liberating potential of the modern economy was not wrong, but it required cultural and political transformations that necessarily occurred only in partial and limited ways. If Brown missed the fact that the fantastic power of the modern economy can be and has been harnessed for life, he illuminated its dark and daemonic underside in ways that we have still not fathomed. It is also worth remembering that the dreams that arise in great periods of social upheaval do not disappear for ever. Rather, they go underground, as the 1960s went underground and were reborn in the women’s movement, in the upheavals of 1989, and in the anti-globalization struggles of today. Memorializing Brown’s death is one way to encourage what he believed in above all: rebirth.

Eli Zaretsky





Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Valentines Day Challenge


Valentines Day is the most overt expression of heterosexuality in our culture. The assumption made is that your sweetie is a member of the opposite sex. All of the commercial cultural products are aimed with this assumption in mind.

So as I picked up my obligatory card and gifts for my sweetie, from me and the cats and dogs, hmm, I wondered; what about gay and lesbian couples?

I saw no cards for Mary and Alice or Adam and Steve. No his and his flowers or her and her chocolates. And then I came across this posting at Alternet;

We in the gay and lesbian community understand coming out, but I've found that coming out isn't easy for some heterosexual folks to understand. They still think, but WHY do you NEED to come out?

To answer that, I have a challenge for you: This Valentine's Day, don't indicate to anyone all day what the gender of your sweetie is. Evade. When people ask, "What are you doing this evening?" Say, "I'm having dinner with a someone special," or, "My partner and I are seeing a movie." Some people will assume that the person you reference is of the opposite sex. Some people may think you are in a same-sex relationship. How do you feel about that? How do you think gay and lesbian people feel?




Since I regularly use the term 'my partner' rather than wife, I understand the phenomena. Though in the labour movement and in other progressive circles this term is used more often than the term husband or wife so I am used to it being sexual orientation neutral, and being an acceptable practice.


I used partner long before it was socially acceptable, being an anarchist and coming as it does from the anarchist tradition of Free Love referring to ones lover as companiero, companion,comrade, or close friend, showing that we are partners not property of each other.

Mollie Steimer and Senya Fleshine
Anarchist activists who were in their 80’s at the time of these interviews (both are now deceased). Steimer, defendant in the celebrated “Abrams Case” (one of the most important civil liberties cases in US legal history, it was the first important prosecution under the 1918 Espionage Act. The Supreme Court upheld the convictions of Steimer and her comrades, Jacob Abrams, Samuel Lipman, Hyman Lachovsky, and Jacob Schwartz, for giving out leaflets protesting American intervention in Soviet Russia.). She was deported from the United States to the Soviet Union in 1921.

There, she met Senya Fleshine, then secretary to Emma Goldman (also an immigrant to the United States, he had not been deported to the Soviet Union, but had hurried back when the revolution broke out. He participated in the historic attack on the Winter Palace, and was acquainted with the Ukrainian anarchist general, Makhno.) . Steimer and Fleschine became “companieros”, and lived together for the next 60 years, although several times separated by war, revolution, and imprisonment. In 1923, they were both deported from the Soviet Union for their anarchist activities and protests against authoritarian rule. They lived in various places in Europe (mostly in Paris), until Nazism forced them to flee to Mexico in 1940, and where they stayed until the ends of their lives. Senya became a nationally-known photographer, assisted in his photographic studio by Mollie, under the name of “Semo” (orSenya-Mollie).


The image “http://nihilpress.subvert.info/love2.jpg” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.



Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Income Trust Fraud

Dianne Urquhart speaking before the Commons Finance Committee investigating Income Trusts on Tuesday, January 30, 2007,in answer to a question from NDP member Judy Wasylycia-Leis said that indeed according to both Canadian Securities law as well as American securities law that there may have been unethical sales of Income Trusts to seniors based on false promises and could be investigated by the RCMP as fraud.

Judy Wasylycia-Leis was making the point that even with the change in taxation status the Trusts themselves operate in a fashion that current accounting practices would be considered illegal. A point neither the Liberals or Conservatives have bothered to deal with.

I support the income trust tax plan, with no increase in grandfathering beyond four years. I strongly urge that the income trust tax plan be enhanced by the addition of prescribed conditions to the Income Tax Act to stop income trusts from reporting deceptive, non-gap financial measures. Cash distribution must be defined as income distribution and return of capital distributions. The cash yield calculation should be restricted unless there is an equally prominent income yield calculation.

The federal government should not be giving tax incentives for an investment targeted to seniors where the product is an unsuitable investment based on the investment objective of secure retirement income and preservation of retirement capital. The high-risk design of income trusts and their deficient investor protection legal framework makes them unsuitable for seniors.

Making matters worse, the tax incentive is promoting the purchase of an investment where there is considerable malfeasance in the financial reporting and marketing material, which I'll speak about in a moment.

I have found that two out of three business income trusts pay distributions well in excess of their incomes. The average amount that the cash distributions are above income is 60%. The sources of the extra money are borrowed money, reserves from prior financing, and not retaining cash to replace plant, machinery, equipment, and software. This financial engineering, without proper transparency, is causing the return of capital to be capitalized as income. This is causing excessive pricing in the market.

In my research “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose”, I found that the business income trust market was trading at a premium of 55% relative to the TSX/S&P60, which comprises sixty of Canada's largest public corporations and a few income trusts. I also compared it to a sample of Canada's non-cyclical public corporations, which comprise the banks, the telcos, the utilities, and the power companies. On that basis, Canadian business income trusts were trading at a 55% premium. Even when I looked at the cashflow from operations, I found that income trusts were trading at a 40% premium. I believe the tax advantages in income trusts contributed 16% of the 55% premiums.

I conclude that the income trust tax plan with a four-year grandfathering period has a 10% negative impact on prices. My calculations differ from the calculations Mr. McKay asked about earlier with respect to what the investment losses have been since October 31 and the announcement of the plan. Business income trusts and energy income trusts, based on a roll-up of each of the individual trusts, are down 13%—up to about two to three days ago—for a loss of $23 billion.

On the basis of my detailed analysis of the tax advantages and the elimination of the premium associated with the tax advantages, it's my opinion that the income tax loss associated with the decision to introduce the income tax plan is $17 billion. This damage is a necessary consequence of a government closing a tax loophole that is not achieving benefits for the economy and is promoting the purchase of an investment by seniors for which this investment is unsuitable.

For a properly diversified portfolio with less than 20% invested in income trusts, the new tax damage is 2%. This is clearly capable of being absorbed by Canadians who invested in this security. Those who have higher losses than this have seen them occur as a result of improper diversification, or perhaps they have suffered the losses as a result of the malfeasance with respect to the improper marketing of income trusts to seniors.

I want to note that on May 3, 2006, the Canadian Accounting Standards Board said that the failure to distinguish clearly between returns on capital and returns of capital is inaccurate and potentially misleading, particularly when terms such as “yield” are used to describe the amount distributed.



Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis:
Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

I just wanted to say that I didn't hear Dianne Urquhart condoning Enron. What I heard Dianne Urquhart saying was that we need to be vigilant at all times, and whenever there is the possibility of unethical practice or even criminal undertakings, we should be ready to crack down on it.

I want to ask Dianne, since I'm just getting up to date on this Prudential Securities issue, are you saying that what is common practice in Canada would be considered criminal in the more tightly regulated U.S. environment?

Mrs. Dianne Urquhart:
I would say that the RCMP and provincial and municipal police forces have the tools within section 380 of the Criminal Code today to call the deceptive cash yields...as has been said by the chairman of the Canadian Accounting Standards Board and by Paul Hayward, OSC senior legal counsel, who said in a tax journal in 2002 that an investigation could be conducted and fraud could be found. I'm not making that allegation specifically, but the wording concerns the Canadian Accounting Standards Board and Paul Hayward, OSC senior legal counsel. The actual criminal charges in the United States suggest that the misconduct of the limited partnerships of the eighties and early nineties was similar to that which has occurred in the Canadian income trust market, and it could be considered criminal in Canada upon investigation.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis:
Thank you.

I have one more question for Dianne Urquhart and then one for Mr. Teasdale.

Dianne, as you and others know, I have publicly stated that I support measures to shut down income trusts used as a way to avoid paying taxes, and I accept the statistics we've now had from a number of jurisdictions and a number of years, which are consistent with what you and others are saying.

My question to you, Dianne, is given the fact that the ways and means motion is likely to go through, based on the previous vote in Parliament.... And I've been working on this issue you've raised about the undervaluing—or overvaluing, sorry.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis:
No, it's clearly overvaluing.

It's a serious issue to change the Income Tax Act to deal with this. Is it still worth my while to do this, given the fact that, hopefully, we'll see over the grandparenting period the end of income trusts? Is it still important for consumers that we do it?

Mrs. Dianne Urquhart:
Yes, there is still $200 billion of current income trusts in the market, and 288 of the trusts are, I believe, in non-bifurcated markets--full transparency. I don't want those who know that their income trusts are overvalued having the opportunity to sell them to unsophisticated players. I believe we should have immediate requirements; the sooner we can get this into the Income Tax Act the better. The sooner we get transparency on the return on capital and the distributions, then we can have a market that's honest and not one in which sophisticated players dump trusts onto those who do believe the return on capital is there for their household expenses. It's just not there, because there is a limit on access to the amount of cash that's on the balance sheets and on the financial markets paying it.

A further hit on income trusts came when Seniors, those folks whom everyone in the income trust business says they speak for, spoke for themselves.

''The federal government should not be giving tax incentives for seniors to purchase an investment that is risky and does not have a proper investor protection regime in place,'' the National Pensioners and Senior Citizens Federations said in its brief to the committee. President Art Field noted that even before Flaherty announced the tax on trusts, the federation had passed a motion expressing concern seniors were being urged to invest money in what it called ''unsuitable'' and ''questionable'' income trust investments.


The Liberals who continued to opportunistically defend Income Trusts, as does Ralph Klein speaking of strange bedfellows, stated they of course would NOT have taxed Income Trusts...now they should have made that an election promise.


McCallum, meanwhile, defended the former Liberal government, noting it had moved to level the playing field between trusts and corporations, but by reducing the tax on corporate dividends rather than putting a tax on trusts. ''It's difficult to say what else we would have done had we stayed in government,'' McCallum added.

Well now we know what they would have, should have, could have done.

They issued their press release on the last day of the hearings, yesterday after Judy had issued her own private members bill, a bill that got NO attention from the MSM.

Despite the fact that neither the government nor the Liberals have addressed the real problem with Income Trusts that they are a Ponzi Scheme. An attempt to separate seniors from their pensions, since pensions are a vast untapped source of capital.

That is the elephant in the room,that the NDP has addressed in their private members bill.

“This NDP bill will bypass government inaction,” says Wasylycia-Leis.“We have a Finance Minister who claims he wants better securities regulation but continues to ignore this urgent problem. Meanwhile, our self-regulating investment system acknowledges there is a serious problem but has failed to produce an enforceable solution, and the industry continues to sell its products to unsophisticated investors using fuzzy numbers. This is unacceptable.”
See

Income Trusts

Pensions

Ponzi




Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,,,,

Tuesday, February 13, 2007

Prey For A Miracle

Canada's evangelical TV network can no longer promise God will buy you a colour TV or Mercedes Benz if you donate to them. Miracle Channel told to repent, on pain of losing licence

The Miracle Channel, a religious television station that has come under fire for its on-air fundraising campaigns, could lose its broadcast licence in the future if it doesn't follow new rules on how donations are solicited.

The channel's revised fundraising policy sets out examples of appropriate statements that can be made on air. Hosts are allowed to make comments such as: "We ask you to consider the best gift that you are able to pledge at this time." They are not allowed to say: "If you don't give today, you are robbing God and could go bankrupt."

The document also states "fundraising appeals must not create unrealistic donor expectations of what a donor's gift will actually accomplish." Allowable phrases include: "We believe that as you give, God will bless you in your area of need." The new policy does not allow statements such as: "Because you gave a gift of this amount, God says you will see your income double this month."


Guess they will just have to play more Janis Joplin ads on air.


Oh lord, wont you buy me a mercedes benz ?
My friends all drive porsches, I must make amends.
Worked hard all my lifetime, no help from my friends,
So lord, wont you buy me a mercedes benz ?

Oh lord, wont you buy me a color tv ?
Dialing for dollars is trying to find me.
I wait for delivery each day until three,
So oh lord, wont you buy me a color tv ?

Oh lord, wont you buy me a night on the town ?
Im counting on you, lord, please dont let me down.
Prove that you love me and buy the next round,
Oh lord, wont you buy me a night on the town ?

Everybody!
Oh lord, wont you buy me a mercedes benz ?
My friends all drive porsches, I must make amends,
Worked hard all my lifetime, no help from my friends,
So oh lord, wont you buy me a mercedes benz ?


See:

TV

Media

Christian

CRTC


Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , , , ,

Homolka's Child

The announcement , or rumours, that S&M kink freak and serial killer Karla Homolka had given birth, reminded me of this....

The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
W.B. Yeats The Second Coming



And thinking of her victims, this....
I HAVE NO MOUTH, AND I MUST SCREAM


See

Karla Homolka


Serial Killer



Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , , , , ,

Condos The Problem


In Alberta rents are rising 400% in Calgary. Edmonton is just as bad. Rent controls are needed. But of course the Alberta Government opposes rent controls.

In an interview Friday, Service Alberta Minister Lloyd Snelgrove said rent controls are a no-go."It just discourages landlords from building any new (units)," Snelgrove said. "It might seem a good thing for the person in that apartment at the time, but for the 2,000 people that are moving to town next month, there will be no buildings.



What a lot of blather and bullshit, landlords have not built any new apartments in years, the developers are all building condo's or transforming existing apartments into condo's.

While big property companies buy up existing apartments and slap a coat of paint on them and up the rents. Forcing renters to now become homeless.

Calgary based Boardwalk bought up many independent rental properties across Canada, making itself one of the largest rental monopolies in the country and one the largest REIT Income Trusts.

   Commenting on the Trust's Q3 2006 results, Sam Kolias, President and
C.E.O., said

"We are pleased to report a strong third quarter for our Trust. Excellent
market fundamentals aligned to produce positive effects on the Alberta rental
market. After the strong summer we just enjoyed, our Trust is positioned to
end 2006 on a high note. We anticipate a solid winter and remain confident in
meeting or exceeding the majority of objectives detailed in our 2005 Annual
Report.
"The rental market remains robust in Alberta, as substantial net
provincial in-migration, high home prices, exceptional industry growth and
record low unemployment combine to generate solid demand. Our Alberta market,
which makes up in excess of 50% of our total portfolio, saw its already low
vacancy decrease still further through the third quarter."
"Current average monthly market rents in Alberta increased by
approximately $328 in the first nine months of 2006, from $817 as at
December 31, 2005, to $1,145 at September 30, 2006. Even as rents increase,
however, the gap between home and condominium ownership costs versus the cost
of renting continues to widen still further, pricing many would-be homeowners
out of the market. Given the 45% gains in house purchase prices seen across
Alberta in the past year, rental rate increases prove to be substantially more
affordable than home purchase. In fact, increasing home purchase prices make
renting the best value in accommodation available in Alberta today. These
market fundamentals continue to bode well for Boardwalk's future."


As this unplanned, unorganized, uncontrolled boom continues renters in Alberta suffer from housing flips and speculation. Proving once again as Proudhon said; property is theft; when landlords deny possession of property to renters.

Should the government adopt rent controls to level the playing field for the working class. Of course. Business always calls for the government to regulate in order to avoid a monopoly and to 'level the playing field', so why should rent controls be any different. They allow the government to cool down an overheated market that is exploiting an artificial lack of rental properties to gouge and screw renters.

Rent controls would be a solution, condo's and housing flipping are the problem.

A h/t to Werner Patels.

See:

Housing



Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Baird Misquoted Me Says Gore




Well I am glad to see Al Gore is clearing the air about being associated with Conservatives, even if it was only by being quoted by Harpers mouth that roars; John Baird.

Former U.S. vice-president Al Gore has denounced the federal Conservatives for twisting what he terms words of encouragement into an endorsement of the government's work on climate change.

"I understand that last week Canada's Minister of the Environment, Minister John Baird, mischaracterized comments I made last summer as praise for the Harper government's actions on global warming," Mr. Gore, who has become one of the world's best-known environmental activists, said in a statement yesterday.

"The comments I made were designed to encourage the Harper government not to abandon Canada's tradition of fighting above its weight class on the world stage as part of the Kyoto process."



See

Baird

Environment



Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , , , , , ,
,

Cuban Boom

Cuba booms thanks to Canada.

Speaking Friday at a congress of leftist economists, Rodriguez said Cuba had transformed its economy since the collapse of the Soviet Union, once its chief supporter and trade partner.

An economy whose exports were 90 percent goods and only 10 percent services in 1989 now leans toward services, he said. Services now account for 76 percent of Cuba’s overall economy while primary goods, such as crops, amount to only 4 percent.

Rodriguez said growth in Cuba’s GDP "should reach more than 10 percent this 2007" despite high prices for imported food and fuel. Cuba has been aided by steadily rising domestic oil production as well as by significant fuel aid from Venezuela.

He said that if social services and commerce were dropped from the count, Cuba still would have shown 9.5 percent growth last year.

Cuba was aided last year by high prices for nickel and cobalt and by a continuing flow of tourists.

Rodriguez put the number of tourists for 2006 at 2.22 million – a slight drop from the 2.3 million Cuba reported for 2005 to the Caribbean Tourism Organization.


And it is far safer as a tourist resort than Mexico.

Air Canada launches seasonal Cuba link

Cuba ranks among Canadians' top three holiday destinations, Smith noted, adding that Air Canada flies to the Caribbean island 27 times per week.


And Canada's economic and political relationship with Cuba not only includes the tourist industry, but Sherritt and its unique bilateral trade agreement with Cuba for production of coal, oil, nickel and cobalt. Despite American attempts to apply their laws against Sherritt and other Canadian companies doing business in Cuba.

The U.S. government also appears to be stepping up its enforcement of the best known of its extra-territorial measures - laws enforcing its 45-year-old Cuban embargo.

One law prevents foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies from having virtually any dealings with or in Cuba, while another allows U.S. entry to be refused to executives and directors of any company found to be "trafficking" assets confiscated by Cuba after the 1959 revolution.

Under the latter legislation, executives and directors of the Toronto resource company Sherritt International have been barred from the U.S. because the company has interests in a nickel mine and oil-and-gas ventures in Cuba.


And thankfully Canada continues to exert its sovereignty when dealing with Cuba.

Canada's silence on Washington's Cuba policy speaks volumes

Canadians continue to visit Cuba by the millions each year. Canadian businesses pursue mining, tourism and other interests on the island. And the Canadian government maintains normal diplomatic relations with Havana, normal being the operative word, says longtime Cuba observer John Kirk.

Both Kirk and Ritter, who visit the island regularly, emphasize that nothing is likely to shift in Cuba for many years, with or without Castro. They note that Cuba's economy has been getting progressively stronger over the past decade, with higher nickel prices, cheap oil from Venezuelan ally Hugo Chavez and more tourists - all developments that point away from civil unrest in the country.

That cheap oil from Chavez is payment for one of the service industry exchanges that Cuba is exporting; Docs-for-oil trade shows Cuba's flair

The OAS is now looking at its position on Cuba, and Canada as a member of the OAS is in the position of offsetting the United States, which opposes any rapprochement with Cuba.

And thanks to Canada you have a further extension of civil liberties in Cuba

US-based Episcopal Church names woman bishop in Cuba

Cuba was a diocese of the U.S. church until 1967, when it was forced to break away because hostility between the U.S. and Cuban governments made contacts difficult. Cuba's communist leaders were embracing official atheism at the time, a stance abandoned in the early 1990s.

It has operated under a Metropolitan Council now chaired by the archbishop of Canada, Andrew Hutchison. It also includes Jefferts Schori and the archbishop of the West Indies.

And Cuba's export Rum; Havana Club is number two in world sales, which included Canada and Europe but not the United States. Their loss.

I particularly like the Havana Club seven year old amber, which is has a smoky chocolate flavour and is so smooth you can drink straight or on the rocks, no mix. It is like a fine brandy or cognac.

The number one brand is Bacardi which continues to use its wealth to fund anti-Cuban Terrorists in Florida.


See

Cuba



Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , , , , ,

No Travel Warning For Mexico

Foreign Affairs still has not posted a travel warning for Mexico.

Despite a new poll that shows Canadians want a travel warning issued. Especially those in Ontario where all of the Canadian tourists killed in Mexico have come from.

The Canadian government issues travel advisories, which are warnings used to alert travelling Canadians to stay clear of certain countries and areas when their personal safety cannot be guaranteed. Do you think the government should issue a travel advisory for Mexico?


All

Ont.

Yes

40%

51%

No

36%

33%


The Conservative government yesterday brushed aside opposition calls for an emergency debate on the escalating violence in Mexico.

"I don't think that it's necessary to have an emergency debate on this because millions of Canadians have travelled to Mexico without incident," Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs Helena Guergis told the Toronto Star yesterday.

Yeah and millions of Canadians have traveled to Israel and Lebanon and live there but they are on the travel warning list. The difference is the Middle East is a war zone, while Mexico just suffers from drug wars and graft ridden police and justice bureaucracy.


As Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay arrived Wednesday in Mexico for high-level meetings on the deaths and mishaps that have befallen Canadian tourists there in the last year, Amnesty International released a scathing report on Mexico's justice system.

The report raises questions about the level of trust Canadians should have in the assurances they have received from Mexican authorities that they can investigate these cases, said Amnesty and Liberal opposition critic's. The human rights group and Grit MPs also argued the report should give MacKay ammunition to push Mexican authorities to allow greater intervention from Canada.

The report documents serious flaws in Mexico's judicial system, such as: arbitrary detention, torture, the flouting of the presumption of innocence, fabrication of evidence and the targeting of human rights defenders.

And what did Pete do? Ignore the Amnesty Report and blithely accept assurances from corrupt incompetent officials

Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay said yesterday he was assured by Mexican officials they will follow investigations into a string of violence involving Canadian tourists.
Meanwhile I wonder how he missed this; which is worthy of a Travel Warning

Acapulco's rising drug violence imperils Mexican tourist industry


See

Crime

Mexico

Peter MacKay


Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
,, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Statist Anti-Terrorism Act


The extension of the Anti-Terrorism Act being discussed in parliament hoists the Liberals on their own petard, for now they speak out in favour of 'liberalism' defending civil liberties as paramount, while the Conservatives speak in favour of totalitarianism; ie. law and order.

Once upon a time five years ago the Liberals too spoke in favour of totalitarianism, they embraced law and order and to hell with civil liberties.

Former Liberal justice minister Anne McLellan defended them this way: "And that's why preventive arrest is in this package. We have to look at stopping these people before they get on those planes and put them through the World Trade Centre."

Of course the Liberals have a history of defending statist totalitarianism squashing civil liberties in Canada with the War Measures Act. Today they find themselves opposing the extension of their own terrorism act only because they are Her Majesty's Official Opposition, and it is the Gnu Conservative Government that wants to extend the act.

The Liberal shift surprised national-security experts, who were expecting an extension to sail through Parliament. "I'm shocked," said Craig Forcese, an expert in national-security law at the University of Ottawa. "They were pretty enthused about it while in government."


Only the NDP has been principled and consistent on this issue since WWII, taking the unpopular stance of opposing the War as the CCF. Opposing the War Measures Act in 1970 and opposing the Liberals Anti-Terrorism Act. Because they are civil libertarians, and because they do not and have not held state power.

The State can never be truly liberal, for once it is threatened it reveals itself to be what it is armed force in defense of property and the propertied classes. Hence the Law and Order State which is what the Harpocrites are advocating.

Whether crime is really on the increase, it isn't, or whether there really is a terrorist threat in Canada, there isn't. But there is the appearance of crime being out of control, thanks to the government saying so. There is an appearance of a terrorist threat, thanks to the government saying so. That does NOT make it so.

The rule of law, which emanates from the state, has the right then to declare when to pass an “exception” violating the rights of a given number of individuals. And it is at this specific moment that politicians call “practical exception,” when the link and resemblance between totalitarianism and liberalism gets clearer as to develop into the same nature: liberalism becomes totalitarianism.

That the Liberals are hypocrites is a given, for they oppose the very act they introduced, and their actions resulted in the detention and torture of Canadians abroad, the building of the secret prison in Kingston which currently holds three detainees without right to habeas corpus. And when they invoked the War Measures Act in 1970, they claimed it was because 'of an apprehended insurrection', that is the State thought it was facing an insurrection. It wasn't.

Given the armed powers and nature of the State it becomes totalitarian when it feels threatened. Not because it is actually threatened. And it has nothing to do with defending our rights, our property or person, it has to do with the fact that the State itself feels threatened. It is the State which acts to curtail our rights for the good of the State, claiming that this also for the 'public' good for the good for its citizens. It isn't.



while the law wants to prevent and prescribe, security wants to intervene in ongoing processes to direct them. In a word, discipline wants to produce order, while security wants to guide disorder…security imposes itself as the basic principle of state activity. What used to be one among several decisive measures of public administration until the first half of the twentieth century, now becomes the sole criterion of political legitimation.

A state which has security as its only task and source of legitimacy is a fragile organism; it can always be provoked by terrorism to turn itself terroristic…the difference between state and terrorism threatens to disappear…In the end it may lead to security and terrorism forming a single deadly system in which they mutually justify and legitimate each others' actions

See

Arar


Crime


Terrorism



Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,