I recently wrote here about Link Byfield's outrageous historical revisionism
Well not to be out done by hubby, his wife Joanne Byfield is no stranger to the over the top rhetoric of the right wing. Joanne is active in the anti-choice movement and Real Women. No mere foot soldier, she is in fact a leader in the anti-choice, anti-feminist, anti gay movement on the Right in Canada.
See my article Right To Life = Right To Work
Like the whole clan, Father and Mother in Law, Ted and Virgina Byfield, and brother in law Michael Byfield, whose personal publishing empire was the Alberta Report, they are prone to hysterical rhetoric and over generalizations. Their comments border on what some would call hate speech at worst , and racist, mysoginist and homophobic at best.
In Alberta such speech is 'protected' by the right wing who loudly denounce anyone who challenges them as being opponents of 'Free Speech'. It is promoted in the Sun and Hollinger newspapers, usually disguised as comment columns. Lorne Gunter who used to work at Albewrta Report has a regular column in the Edmonton Journal. Ted and Link have columns in the Edmonton and Calgary Sun. These right wing whiners, still have a forum for their hateful speech.
Here is one of Joannes stupid hateful comments from the now defunct Alberta Report Magazine.
"Public opinion is far less influential in shaping public policy than special interest groups, especially groups favoured and funded by the federal government. These are many and diverse: feminists, homosexuals, criminals, environmentalists, multiculturalists and minority-language groups."
Joanne Byfield, March 2003
Deconstructing Joanne:
By criminals she means that the Elizabeth Fry and John Howard Societies get federal funding, but criminals sounds so much better doesn't it. Multiculturalists does not mean Germans or Ukrainians (Ukraiaians were the major group who pused the Trudeau Liberals to fund multiculturalism back in the early seventies). It means coloured folks of East Indian, East Asian origin.
Minority Language groups means of course those folks who speak French, one of the two founding nations in Canada.
Lump them altogether with each other throw in the term criminal and this sounds well horrorfying, eh. Except once you do lump all these groups together the only 'public' Joanne can be refering to is WASPS, and the occasional Catholic, who are not a majority in Canada anymore, which is what really gets her and the rest of the Byfield clan's goat.
And by the by the Alberta Report was taken to the Alberta Human Rights Commisision over anti-semitic statements made in an article by Michael Link her brother in law. They ruled that the Alberta Report and the article were in violation of the Provincial and Federal Human Rights act. Surpirze, Surprize.
This raises the old debate of nature or nurture. Is right wing idiocy the Byfield clan collectively suffers from genetic or environmental. Hmm? Or perhaps it's just a case of birds of a feather flock together.
The Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission
Commission Panel Decisions 2002
Finding
The Panel finds that beyond the words of the Article, the message contains a very powerful image or caricature that amounts to a negative stereotype of Jewish people, more specifically of Jewish businessmen. Simply put, the Article is a report of a failed business deal. However, the message contained in it goes far beyond the purpose.
This Panel finds that the Article published or caused to be published by the respondents, The Alberta Report, Michael Byfield and Link Byfield is in contravention of Section 2(1)(a) of the Act. The caricature contained in the Article indicates discrimination against Jewish people.
The Panel has carefully balanced the interests of freedom from discrimination and that of the freedom of expression in its consideration of Section 2. The Panel concludes that the Act, and in particular Section 2(1), is directed towards achieving such pressing and sufficiently important objectives that it warrants limiting freedom of expression in this case.
In this case, the limitation on expression required involves not including the last quotation in this report on the failed business deal. The Panel is satisfied that this is such a minimal interference with the freedom of expression that it is justified in these circumstances. The only thing the anonymous quote adds to the Article is the discriminatory message. The removal of the quote in no way detracts from the business purpose.
IN THE MATTER OF THE
HUMAN RIGHTS, CITIZENSHIP AND MULTICULTURALISM ACT
R.S.A. 1980, C. H-11.7 (AS AMENDED)
AND IN THE MATTER of a Complaint before
The Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission
Complaint No. S9805008
BETWEEN:
HARVEY KANE and
THE JEWISH DEFENCE LEAGUE OF CANADA
COMPLAINANT
AND
ALBERTA REPORT, LINK BYFIELD
MICHAEL BYFIELD and TED BYFIELD
RESPONDENT
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
Tuesday, July 26, 2005
This is Class War
The Only Labour Relations between Workers and Bosses is Class War!
"The employing class and the working class have nothing in common."
Preamble to the IWW Constitution
It is time for the Labour Movement in
In
A disputes inquiry is being held into the
For a dozen years, Ralph says his government won't pick winners and losers in the marketplace. Then, late Tuesday, the Klein Tories pick a winner and a loser.
They use the heavy hammer of Big Government and call off a legal strike at Lakeside Packers in Brooks, a walkout slated to commence early yesterday morning.
Winner. Lakeside Packers, a slaughterhouse owned by the world's biggest meat merchant, Tyson Foods of the U.S. of A.
Losers. The employees at Lakeside Packers.
Tyson is happy. Their plant is operating. Reports surface of supervisors telling employees the union is powerless.
Doug is left to calm down his members, more than half are new Canadians and most are from Sudan, fleeing from a full-scale human slaughter by a dictatorship bent on genocide.
They don't understand what is happening. Why is the government in this democratic land not protecting them? They are also angry with the union for not fighting, not realizing the union has no choice with the province playing favourites.
Doug advises them to obey the law and go to work. The union asks Cardinal to address the rank and file. He passes.
Then O'Halloran speaks words no one with any sense of fair play wants to hear.
"I think they screwed us," he says, of the province.
Ralph Screws Workers Calgary Sun Cries Foul
"Where is the government all this time?" Ringe Lual, a trimmer of the plant, said of the lengthy negotiations that led to Wednesday's strike deadline. "Why they step in at [the] last minute? Where are they all this time?"
What a Friend Tysons has in Ralph
Mason urges arbitration to resolve Lakeside dispute
Says appointment of a Disputes Inquiry Board favours Tyson over workers
NDP Opposition Leader Brian Mason today sent a letter to Human Resources and Employment Minister Mike Cardinal condemning the government’s deliberate use of labour legislation to favour Tyson Foods over unionized workers at its Lakeside plant near Brooks.
Government 'dirty tricks' in Lakeside dispute? Would 'impartial umpire' choose sides? Asks AFL
While unions have representatives on the LRB so do the bosses and the government picks who it wants as chair.
In this case the chair is a management lawyer representing the anti-union Construction Industry Merit Shops who have sweetheart contracts with CLAC. He was appointed by the Klein Government after they fired the pro-labour Chair when they didn't like one of his rulings in favour of the union.
There is no fair or level playing field for workers in
The Faces of Labour Relations in Alberta
AUPE President Dan MacLennan and Alberta Premier Ralph Klein chat during the premier’s Klondike Day’s breakfast July 26 on the Legislature grounds in Edmonton. The annual event was attended by thousands of AUPE members. ( they are golf pals too. ep)
AUPE President Dan MacLennan and Alberta Premier Ralph Klein chat during the premier’s Klondike Day’s breakfast July 26 on the Legislature grounds in Edmonton. The annual event was attended by thousands of AUPE members. ( they are golf pals too. ep)
And now we have Telus getting support from the Canadian Industrial Labour Relations Board and the Supreme Court of B.C. If this isn't enough to ring the clarion bell of class war I don't know what will.
Telus wins injunction against striking workers
Phone company Telus has won an injunction barring striking union members from blocking access to company premises in
The B.C. Supreme Court granted the injunction Friday, a day after the Telecommunications Workers Union (TWU) went on strike."This is a very broad and positive ruling that gives Telus the ability we need to ensure our team members can safely come to work and serve our customers," Audrey Ho, the company's vice-president of legal services, said in a statement Saturday. The decision also bars the TWU from picketing at or near customers' premises, the company said.
New contract implemented by Telus
Labour board doesn't stop unilateral move
A major work stoppage at Telus Corp. entered its second day yesterday as the company went ahead and unilaterally implemented a contract offer that its main union has spurned.
Vancouver-based Telus essentially got the green light to proceed on Thursday evening. That's when the Canada Industrial Relations Board issued a key decision that didn't order the removal of lockout measures introduced in April. This has allowed Telus to continue with plans announced last week to implement the contract yesterday. “It's an endorsement of what we've been going through,” Telus vice-president of corporate affairs Drew McArthur said yesterday. “The CIRB has found that we're well within our rights to take the approach that we have.”
Unions in
A hostile legal and regulatory climate explains much of the disjuncture between provincial macroeconomic success, and the ho-hum economic condition of Alberta' workforce. Rules regarding union organising, certification, strikes, and picketing are the toughest in Canada. This is at least as important as the much-vaunted "free enterprise" culture of the province in explaining the low level of unionisation. Alberta's low provincial minimum wage also helps keep wages from getting out of hand.
In this context, economic progress for working people will not descend upon their hands like manna from the free-market heavens. Workers will get what they demand and what they fight for. All of which brings us to the Herald strike.
It's no accident that this bitter strike is occurring in Alberta. The issues being confronted by the strikers will rear their heads across the country, as the Southam chain is restructured and reoriented. Indeed, if the strikers lose, the employees of newspapers elsewhere in Canada can expect to face demands for the elimination of seniority protection and other concessions. Calgary is a great place for Southam's management to test-drive its new policies.
In this sense, then, Alberta's anti-union institutions clearly promote the sorts of bitter conflicts that they are purportedly designed to prevent. A tilted playing field does not stop workers from fighting for their rights; it only makes those struggles more difficult and violent than they need to be. The determination of the Herald strikers is simply more evidence of that historical finding.
But playing on the reformist ideals of the trade union movement, that it is a partner in capitalism, the state and the bosses created Labour Relations Boards and the Labour Relations Industry. A whole new profession for left leaning progressive lawyers and members of the NDP.
It is the Management’s Rights clause, the recognition that Capital dominates the workplace and is the owner of the means of production that solidified the AFL/CIO industrial unions, as the handmaidens of capitalist production in the post war era. Workers Power was now not a revolutionary power to overthrow the capitalist system, but a form of fixed capital to be bargained with for the crumbs of an expanding capitalist system.
The strength of the IWW was its refusal to give up the right to wobble the job, no contract was signed that ever gave up the right to walk off the job over grievances. This development of the Management’s rights clause is key to the development of a whole legal, labour industry of paid reps, service or insurance model unions, labour and employer lawyers, mediators, arbitrators, all the functionaries of the state. The growth of the labour law industry and labour relations boards, etc necessitates the unions and management being part of the capitalist state. On the shop floor the post WWIi unions bargained away their members rights for a guaranty of increasing wages and benefits, while at the same time the unions recognized the State as arbitrator of the social contract, one which created a tripartite relationship between the state, capital and labour. This social contract was the realization of the dreams of the second international, social peace replaced class war.
Unions, the State and Capital
Unpublished Paper by Eugene Plawiuk, 2003
By giving up the right to take direct action on the job, that is to 'wobble' the job over grievances, leads unions into the morass of labour relations games.
The idea of eliminating the management rights clause in collective agreements was raised not by radical syndicalists, but by the outgoing chair of the Industrial Relations Society in the
A learned judge he saw management's rights as the clause which not only limits union’s abilities to represent their members but restricts union members from getting immediate satisfaction over their grievances. There is no level playing field for workers with collective agreements that allow for management rights and for a grievance arbitration procedure.
There is no justice in the courts or the labour relations tribunals. They are there to enforce LAW AND ORDER. To make sure production is not disrupted by strikes. Even short two hour strikes that would resolve an immediate grievance on the shop floor.
They exist to limit, restrict and make illegal direct action by workers. And to have our unions sit on these boards, and play tripartite footsie with the bosses is what drives workers mad, as in angry. Cause we always lose.
Alberta Workers Angry at Government and Union
The process of grievance arbitration is long and drawn out, and can take years to resolve. And if it is a case of being unjustly fired from a job, the cash you get will be far less than the non-union worker who can take the issue to court under common law as constructive dismissal and get a settlement for more money faster.
Business Unions act on behalf of the company, not on behalf of their members. They promise to make their workers tow the line; they act as agents of Law and Order on the shop floor. What’s good for GM is good for CAW.
It is only when workers strike and run their own strike committees, can workers take power over their lives and away from the union hacks.
Canfor workers back on the job in Prince George after wildcat strike
A case in point is the
Doug is a deal maker, he wants a contract, he wants a deal, he's looking after his and UFCW's best interests. Yep but both he and UFCW don't care about their members interests. Because whatever happens they have a pool of dues paying members who fatten their bank accounts.
To what end? Well to buy a million dollar house as a retirement gift to their outgoing International President as they did in the 1990's.
You'd think with all their money and lawyers, UFCW and O'Halloran would have the guts to challenge an unfair anti-worker ruling on behalf of the folks who pay his lucrative salary. Nope, not a chance.
You would think that the labour movement, that so called house of labour would organize their members to join mass pickets during strikes. Instead they make a toke show on the picket line.
'Good turnout' includes support from B.C. and local unions
To really shut down Telus, right now would take thousands of workers marching the picket line in solidarity with TWU workers.
And is this likely to happen? Nope. Most unions are lucky to mobilize two or three well paid reps to attend the picket line. And they always have excuses. After all its summer time and the union reps are off on paid vacation leave.
UFCW INC. BUSINESS UNIONISM AS USUAL
The other excuse is that the strike is strictly the union’s affair. This is the biggest crock of BS ever. The strike is the weapon of the class; it is the fundamental tool of class war. Even the bosses know this. For a strike can be the match that lights the prairie fire of the General Strike. When a union wins a strike it is a victory for all working people when they lose it is a defeat for all working people. As Jim Stanford points out in the quote above, the Herald strike which was lost, was not just a loss for workers at the Calgary Herald, but for newspaper workers across the country.
A case in point is when UFCW struck Safeway’s in the early part of the 1990's they accepted a roll back in wages in particular for first time employees . UFCW is no small union, they are one of the largest private sector unions in Alberta and their acceptance of a roll back contract impacted the whole labour movement in the province.
Loblaws, a Canadian grocery and retail chain, opened Real Canadian Super Stores (RCSS) in Canada several years ago. RCSS combines food and discount retail under one roof, paying wages that are typical of the discount retail industry, as do Supercenters in the United States. RCSS entered the market in Alberta in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Safeway has been the primary unionized supermarket in Alberta for years, and Safeway wages in Alberta were considerably higher than RCSS. By the early 1990s, competition with the lower labor-cost RCSS began to have a dramatically negative impact on Safeway profits.
Safeway executives estimated that the wage gap between their employees and RCSS workers was between $8.00 and $12.00 per hour in Canadian dollars.10 In 1993, Safeway concluded it could no longer compete without drastically cutting pay and benefits. Management presented employees with two choices – either Safeway would cut its losses and leave the Alberta market, or cut pay and benefits by the equivalent of $5.00 per hour (Canadian). Eventually, the unionized employees agreed to the pay and benefit cuts. Safeway implemented the pay cuts both by reducing pay and benefits and by buying out the contracts of 4,000 experienced employees and replacing those workers with persons earning approximately $6.00 per hour with no benefits.11 In 1997, Safeway employees went on strike in an effort to restore wage and benefit concessions that were part of the 1993 agreement. The strike ended without the union regaining the wage and benefit concessions that were part of the 1993 agreement.
The Impact of Big Box Grocers on Southern California: Jobs, Wages, and Municipal Finances
Examples Of The Labor Market Impact Of Wage Differentials – Cases From Canada
This allowed the Klein government to use this as an excuse to bring in wage roll backs for public sector workers. Klein cleverly pitted private sector workers against public sector workers, saying that what was happening at Safeways should apply across the province. He also had the NDP government in Ontario to use as an example of another provincial government trying to get public sector unions to accept roll backs.
Another case is when UFCW led their worker’s out on strike at Gainers, instead of occupying the plant, and demanding the plant be put under workers and farmer control. Since it was originally owned by the Alberta government. But it had been sold off to Burns, owned by Tory bagman Arthur E. Childes, at a fire sale price. Burns then sold it to Maple Leaf foods. Even the leadership of the
All this was done under the leadership of Doug O'Halloran who speaks not in the interests of the workers but in the interests of UFCW Inc. And he cries crocodile tears when the government halts the
THE FALL OF THE HOUSE OF LABOUR
If the local labour councils and the Federations of Labour as well as the CLC is the so called house of labour, then it is a dilapidated slum. The leadership is terrified of losing their jobs. They suffer bureaucratic senility. They will always prefer the backroom deal with the bosses or the government to the idea that this is class war and that the purpose of unions is to overthrow capitalism. They oppose plant occupations because well they are illegal; they oppose the wildcat strike because it's illegal too. But isn't that why we have high priced labour lawyers, to get the leadership out of jail. Nope that can't be the real reason either. The reason is that these actions are taken by the rank and file 'out of the control' of the paid reps and leadership. And if such ideas spread, it might lead to, horror of horrors, a General Strike.
Even the most militant leader or leadership in the labour movement accepts their role in upholding Law, Order and Good Government. And once they do, it will always be the workers who get screwed.
The reason is simple workers who do take strike action realize they have given up all to win the fight. Including the fight over the day to day grievances that have usually piled up until the strike. Not so their leadership who see it as just another moment in collective bargaining. This is why workers on the line are always more militant than their union leadership.
Professional union reps and paid hacks are not capable of challenging the bosses or their government cause well they are paid not to. They can't organize the workers who pay their salaries; because they are out of touch with the rank and file. Or worse yet they are opposed to rank and file control because it threatens their job security.
They promote local union executives to political positions in their unions, offering them careers and lucrative jobs as reps, as long as they tow the line. They often take the best and brightest, activists who really care about workers interests and put them into the union machinery to become another cog in the wheel.
If workers organize themselves, the first to attempt to squash them aren't the politicians, or cops, or lawyers, it’s their own union leadership, fearful for their 'jobs'.
IT'S TIME TO TAKE BACK OUR UNIONS
The only way this can change is if members of a union mobilize to take back their unions for themselves. To eliminate paid full time representatives who earn $100,000 salaries off the backs of part time workers who get $8.50 an hour.
Replace these reps and union business agents with elected rank and file reps who serve two year terms and are up for staggered election, with their pay and benefits being no more than the highest paid worker on the job.
Rank and File strike committees shall be directly elected by the members. These delegate committees during strikes are the only ones allowed to negotiate with the bosses, not the paid reps or union executive and leadership.
Union locals will have democratically elected executives and committees of members, and any regional, national, or international reps will answer to the local membership.
All union locals must be politically and economically autonomous from their national union.
Locals will not give up the right to strike in collective agreements, and in fact will further enforce this basic right with a further clause that states that members of the local will not cross other workers picket lines.
Unions will not participate in Labour Relations Boards, arbitration or Industrial Relations. Any action taken by the state whether it is an injunction, or attempts at arrest will be met with mass action not only by the union affected but by all unions in the region.
Fines against the union will NOT be paid to the state. If such fines occur it will abrogate the Rand Formula and the union will implement a direct dues collection off the shop floor.
Union locals will be autonomous and form not for profit societies to hold their funds in escrow in order to protect their autonomy.
Union locals will affiliate with whom they please in the labour movement. If their International or National organization fails to adapt to direct member democracy the local has the right to federate with whom it pleases according to a democratic vote of the members.
Union locals will form flying picket squads of all members, to make sure that all strikes or lock outs are kept short and effective. Based on the principle of An Injury to One is and Injury to All, and The Longer the Picket Line, the Shorter the Strike.
All grievances will be solved as quickly as possible on the shop floor, or in the institution where they occur by a meeting of the union steward and management. Should management not resolve the issue, workers have the right to walk off the job until there is a resolution to their satisfaction.
The union has the right to use any and all tactics to solve their grievances, these include the sit down strike, rotating strike, wildcat strike, and plant occupation the use of the standard strike tactic will be reserved as a weapon of last resort. If it is applied the union will mobilize for sympathy strikes, hot cargoing and building a call for a general strike.
These are just a few suggestions on how we can take back our unions from the labour hacks and well heeled, well paid bureaucrats. Who see the labour movement not as a class struggle but as their career opportunity, economically and politically.
A career they make off our backs.
Monday, July 25, 2005
The Revolving door at the National Pest
Les Pyette leaves the National Post after eight months at the helm
By GORDON PITTS
Saturday, July 23, 2005
Globe and Mail
The constantly swinging door out of the publisher's office at the National Post newspaper was in motion again yesterday, with the sudden departure of Les Pyette for what the paper described as “personal reasons.”
With Mr. Pyette's exit after just eight months as publisher, Gordon Fisher immediately becomes the Post's interim publisher, marking the eighth installation of a new top executive in the newspaper's 6½ year history.
Mr. Fisher, who has served in a number of executive capacities for the paper's owner, CanWest Global Communications Corp. of Winnipeg, is actually the seventh person in the job because this is his second time around in that position.
CanWest said in a statement that a search will be conducted for a successor to Mr. Pyette.
Ah the National Pest a money losing operation from day one. The only reason it was created was to give voice to the Right Wing in Canada. Remember them, the ones who dominate most of the columns in the private sector newspaper chains, folks who got their start in the infamous Byfield family business; The Alberta Report.
Today Lord Black's flagship of the right, is now David Asper.s flagship of the right of centre. And it is still flagging. Alberta Report collapsed in 2003, it is only a matter of time for the Pest to go the same way.
Black is facing criminal charges in the US and Canada for looting his companies for him and his wife Barbara Amiel ( a former right wing columnist for MacLeans and the Sun newspaper chain) to live like the aristocrats they always wanted to be.
The National Pest is the voice of the Conservative Party of Canada, formerly the Alliance, and Reform Parties. Like the Alberta Report whose ties were also with the Reform/Alliance parties, and with the Canadian Taxpayers Association. These media voices of the right, seem to suffer a problem, that they cannot make a go of it in the capitalist system. Alberta Report gave away more subscriptions than it ever sold, in order to cook the books for advertisers.
Lord Black dominated his editorial boards, introduced right wing columnists into the editorial mix some like Loren Gunter at the Edmonton Journal were former AR reporters. He launched the National Pest as much as a voice for the Fraser Institute, where his wife is a director, as he did it for the Reform/Allicance. But he could'nt make a financial go of it without gutting local newspapers in his Hollinger Chain.
But he set the agenda that Izzy Asper followed when he bought out Black, one of editorial interference by the publisher. To that end Lord Black got his way, but we may get the last laugh as his empire crumbles, he goes to jail, and the National Pest with its tired old right wing ideas finally sinks into the financial morass it came from.
" POINT OF VIEW
BY GILLIAN STEWARD
Revisioning Conrad
The once-mighty newspaper baron craved attention.
Now he's receiving it — but for all the wrong reasons
THE CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF JOURNALISTS FALL 2004 • VOLUME 10, NUMBER 4
As well, reporters were often instructed to write for the earlier Post deadlines so it could break the story. Thus, once-proud, and independent, local newspapers became little more than outlying bureaus for the National Post. This mattered little in downtown Toronto,
which was always the main battleground of this brief, but dirty, war. But what did it really
accomplish in the end? Are Canadian newspapers and (journalism in general) better off because of it? Or have they all been weakened by Black's self-indulgent spending spree? Will they be cutting back on budgets for years to come in order to recover from the binge? And what about the rest of the newspapers in the Southam/Hollinger/CanWest chain? Profits from newspapers such as the Edmonton Journal and the Calgary Herald were poured into the Post instead of into their own operations.
And what about the Post itself? It may have been a dream newspaper for some journalists but
it has never attracted enough readers or, more importantly, advertisers, to make it financially
viable.And while there is obviously a segment of the population that likes the hard-right editorials, columns and story angles that are the Post's trademark, is that segment large enough to keep the paper going?
In fact, Black has made a mockery of much of what the Post did in its early days. It appeared to
be the official organ of the "unite-the-right movement" but Black told Cobb that he was never
that keen on using the newspaper to promote a new political party.He also regretted that the Post came to be perceived as pro-American and anti- Canadian. Trouble is, now that we know more about Black's alleged devious, self-serving ways, it's difficult to believe anything he says.
Clark Davey, former publisher of the Ottawa Citizen, and a fan of the Post in its early days,
thinks it is positioning itself outside the mainstream market. "It's right-wing edge has
gotten even harder," he says. "It's just full of outright support for (George) Bush and the
Republicans." Indeed, the Saturday after the Republicans' national convention in New York, the Post's main editorial page featured a hymn of praise to George Bush by columnist Andrew Coyne; Elizabeth Nickson's breathless paean to Fox News' coverage of the convention, especially when compared to the (sneering) CBC coverage; and a rant against all anti-Americans by Robert Fulford.
The rest of the newspaper doesn't offer much to leaven the hard-edged ideological rigidity. "It used to be an odd mix of the serious and the quirky," says Davey. "They used to actively recruit young, out-of-the-box writers, but I don't see that happening now." And with so many of the Post's stars — Christie Blatchford and Roy MacGregor to name but two — now writing for The Globe, The Star orMaclean's, the newspaper just doesn't have the draw it once had.
I can't help but think of Alberta Report, the notorious newsmagazine that tilted far right and
eventually went under. Like Conrad Black, Ted Byfield, the founder and hands-on editor of
Alberta Report, is a legendary, iconic figure. He didn't have the money Black has (or had), but he
stuck with the publication through years of tough sledding. And yet,Alberta Report could never rally enough subscribers and advertisers to make a go of it. Even in Alberta.
Since Black is so tied to the Post, even though he has nothing to do with it anymore, his legacy
may indeed be darker than originally envisioned. Will it ever be known as anything else but
Conrad's vanity project? Will it ever be able to shake the association with Black? Clark Davey says it probably doesn't much matter to the average newspaper reader. But a friend of mine — a news junkie, but not a journalist — says most people she knows still think Black owns the National Post. To them, it's Black's newspaper.
I can't help but think that in the long run we will look back on the great newspaper war as a
skirmish that did great damage to newspapers and journalism in Canada. Whether or not the
Post survives is the least of our worries.Whether Black's successors, the Asper family, can
reinvigorate the newspapers they bought from him also remains to be seen.But there's no question that Black's duplicitous ways will haunt the newspaper industry for some time to come.
By GORDON PITTS
Saturday, July 23, 2005
Globe and Mail
The constantly swinging door out of the publisher's office at the National Post newspaper was in motion again yesterday, with the sudden departure of Les Pyette for what the paper described as “personal reasons.”
With Mr. Pyette's exit after just eight months as publisher, Gordon Fisher immediately becomes the Post's interim publisher, marking the eighth installation of a new top executive in the newspaper's 6½ year history.
Mr. Fisher, who has served in a number of executive capacities for the paper's owner, CanWest Global Communications Corp. of Winnipeg, is actually the seventh person in the job because this is his second time around in that position.
CanWest said in a statement that a search will be conducted for a successor to Mr. Pyette.
Ah the National Pest a money losing operation from day one. The only reason it was created was to give voice to the Right Wing in Canada. Remember them, the ones who dominate most of the columns in the private sector newspaper chains, folks who got their start in the infamous Byfield family business; The Alberta Report.
Today Lord Black's flagship of the right, is now David Asper.s flagship of the right of centre. And it is still flagging. Alberta Report collapsed in 2003, it is only a matter of time for the Pest to go the same way.
Black is facing criminal charges in the US and Canada for looting his companies for him and his wife Barbara Amiel ( a former right wing columnist for MacLeans and the Sun newspaper chain) to live like the aristocrats they always wanted to be.
The National Pest is the voice of the Conservative Party of Canada, formerly the Alliance, and Reform Parties. Like the Alberta Report whose ties were also with the Reform/Alliance parties, and with the Canadian Taxpayers Association. These media voices of the right, seem to suffer a problem, that they cannot make a go of it in the capitalist system. Alberta Report gave away more subscriptions than it ever sold, in order to cook the books for advertisers.
Lord Black dominated his editorial boards, introduced right wing columnists into the editorial mix some like Loren Gunter at the Edmonton Journal were former AR reporters. He launched the National Pest as much as a voice for the Fraser Institute, where his wife is a director, as he did it for the Reform/Allicance. But he could'nt make a financial go of it without gutting local newspapers in his Hollinger Chain.
But he set the agenda that Izzy Asper followed when he bought out Black, one of editorial interference by the publisher. To that end Lord Black got his way, but we may get the last laugh as his empire crumbles, he goes to jail, and the National Pest with its tired old right wing ideas finally sinks into the financial morass it came from.
" POINT OF VIEW
BY GILLIAN STEWARD
Revisioning Conrad
The once-mighty newspaper baron craved attention.
Now he's receiving it — but for all the wrong reasons
THE CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF JOURNALISTS FALL 2004 • VOLUME 10, NUMBER 4
As well, reporters were often instructed to write for the earlier Post deadlines so it could break the story. Thus, once-proud, and independent, local newspapers became little more than outlying bureaus for the National Post. This mattered little in downtown Toronto,
which was always the main battleground of this brief, but dirty, war. But what did it really
accomplish in the end? Are Canadian newspapers and (journalism in general) better off because of it? Or have they all been weakened by Black's self-indulgent spending spree? Will they be cutting back on budgets for years to come in order to recover from the binge? And what about the rest of the newspapers in the Southam/Hollinger/CanWest chain? Profits from newspapers such as the Edmonton Journal and the Calgary Herald were poured into the Post instead of into their own operations.
And what about the Post itself? It may have been a dream newspaper for some journalists but
it has never attracted enough readers or, more importantly, advertisers, to make it financially
viable.And while there is obviously a segment of the population that likes the hard-right editorials, columns and story angles that are the Post's trademark, is that segment large enough to keep the paper going?
In fact, Black has made a mockery of much of what the Post did in its early days. It appeared to
be the official organ of the "unite-the-right movement" but Black told Cobb that he was never
that keen on using the newspaper to promote a new political party.He also regretted that the Post came to be perceived as pro-American and anti- Canadian. Trouble is, now that we know more about Black's alleged devious, self-serving ways, it's difficult to believe anything he says.
Clark Davey, former publisher of the Ottawa Citizen, and a fan of the Post in its early days,
thinks it is positioning itself outside the mainstream market. "It's right-wing edge has
gotten even harder," he says. "It's just full of outright support for (George) Bush and the
Republicans." Indeed, the Saturday after the Republicans' national convention in New York, the Post's main editorial page featured a hymn of praise to George Bush by columnist Andrew Coyne; Elizabeth Nickson's breathless paean to Fox News' coverage of the convention, especially when compared to the (sneering) CBC coverage; and a rant against all anti-Americans by Robert Fulford.
The rest of the newspaper doesn't offer much to leaven the hard-edged ideological rigidity. "It used to be an odd mix of the serious and the quirky," says Davey. "They used to actively recruit young, out-of-the-box writers, but I don't see that happening now." And with so many of the Post's stars — Christie Blatchford and Roy MacGregor to name but two — now writing for The Globe, The Star orMaclean's, the newspaper just doesn't have the draw it once had.
I can't help but think of Alberta Report, the notorious newsmagazine that tilted far right and
eventually went under. Like Conrad Black, Ted Byfield, the founder and hands-on editor of
Alberta Report, is a legendary, iconic figure. He didn't have the money Black has (or had), but he
stuck with the publication through years of tough sledding. And yet,Alberta Report could never rally enough subscribers and advertisers to make a go of it. Even in Alberta.
Since Black is so tied to the Post, even though he has nothing to do with it anymore, his legacy
may indeed be darker than originally envisioned. Will it ever be known as anything else but
Conrad's vanity project? Will it ever be able to shake the association with Black? Clark Davey says it probably doesn't much matter to the average newspaper reader. But a friend of mine — a news junkie, but not a journalist — says most people she knows still think Black owns the National Post. To them, it's Black's newspaper.
I can't help but think that in the long run we will look back on the great newspaper war as a
skirmish that did great damage to newspapers and journalism in Canada. Whether or not the
Post survives is the least of our worries.Whether Black's successors, the Asper family, can
reinvigorate the newspapers they bought from him also remains to be seen.But there's no question that Black's duplicitous ways will haunt the newspaper industry for some time to come.
Sunday, July 24, 2005
Lies of Our Times
Ezra LeRant and the Big Lie
Colour of conflict-Rule of law separates Israel from Palestinians-By Ezra Levant -- Calgary Sun, Mon, July 18, 2005
How did I miss this hmm, must have been overwhelmed with the historical revisionism being spouted off in the Calgary Sun by that other right wing columnist; Dink Byfield.
And low and behold here is another case of historical revisionism, the big lie of Zionism being blathered about by LeRant. It's the lie we all grew up with after the 1948 annexation and occupation of Palestine. That the Arab section was a desert and the Zionists brought agriculture, irrigation and productivity to the land.
What they did was actually take over olive groves and orange groves that has been the source of Palistines wealth for hundreds of years. Agriculture in Palestine 1948
Learning their lessons from Goebbels the Zionists created the 'big lie' to justify their 'Anschluss' of Palestine from the British protectorate because they needed 'Lebensraum'. And this 'big lie' is repeated again in LeRant's cloumn.
'Most of Israel is a desert. But half of Israel is lush green. It wasn't always this way. When Zionists a century ago set about building modern Israel, they had to build irrigation projects. Millions of trees were planted. Now Israel is a large agricultural exporter; in the words of its former prime minister, David Ben Gurion, the desert was made to bloom. But the land is only green in the Jewish areas of the country; Arab villages, especially those areas under control of the Palestinian Authority, are brown and dead. It is possible to spot the border between Israel and Lebanon or Syria by looking to see where the green ends and the brown begins. It's the reason why the pre-1967 border between Israel and Jordan was known as the Green Line. Why is this? Many explanations, no doubt -- the Zionist ideology was rooted in the land. The Jews invested in developing irrigation and other agricultural technology. But the real reason is the same reason why Israel is a success and Arab nations -- and the would-be nation of Arab Palestine -- are failures. '
Gee, LeRant what could that be?
"The Arab world doesn't have rule of law, while the Jewish state does.".
Gee Ezra would that be Talamudic law? Since Isreal is a religious state. And gee Ezra thats a broad brush stroke to paint all Arabs with, including peoples of the Middle East who are not Jews but are also not Arabs.
Some are Muslims so they adhere to Muslim Shira law. Some are Christians and they abide by the Old and New Testament laws, some rooted in Judaism. Some are communists, and they follow the Labour Theory of Value, a law of economics. Some have gone to Oxford and Harvard and follow common law of English origin. Some follow Napoleanic Law. Some are Druze and have their own community laws they have followed for centuries.
Nope not to racist zionist Ezra, the "Arabs" are all primitive lawless peoples, despite many of them being of the same semitic root cultures as the Jews.
Some of the Palestinians are not even Arabs, just as Kurds are not Arabs, but with the broad racist brush of the Zionist apologists like LeRant, they all get lumped together.
There is a simple reason, to deny the real history of the Zionist State in Isreal.
That it was founded by Zionist terrorists who so terrified the British and the UN that they succumbed to them, allowing them territory in Palestine.
The Zionist state and its military machine then spent twenty years pushing the Palestinian and Isreali Arab community out. As they are doing today destroying Palestinatian villages, olive groves and orange groves, in order to build their new Berlin Wall, err security wall.
Irrigation was not a Zionist invention, contrary to LeRant, it was adapted by them for use in Palestine. Until then irrigation was based on artisian wells and troughing used by the Palistinians. The introduction of large scale irrigation coincided with the development of capitalist agribusiness, that is large scale farming for export. While the Palestinians were farming on a village basis.
The types of agriculture which take place in Palestine are annual and seasonal agricultures such as grains and vegetables, or lasting agricultures such as fruitful trees. Grain plantation was flourished in Marj ben Amer, Gaza Plain, Bier Sheba and some of the inside plains; and vegetable plantation was flourished in the coastal plain around Java and Ramlah and in the Jordan Valley. The most important kind of fruitful trees is the citrus trees which were planted by modern manner of plantation. At the beginning, only the Arabs planted this kind of trees which increased in the period between 1895 and 1915; the Planted area increased from (6.600) donums to (30.000) donums, and the production increased from (18.199) tons to (64.000) tons. Citrus trees concentrated in the coastal plain between Haifa and Gaza and in the Jordan River. The Java orange is one of the best kinds of the Palestinian orange due to the thickness of its peal, its nice aroma and to its relative freedom from seeds. This kind of orange was being exported to Damascus, East of Jordan, Saudi Arabia, England and France. The exported orange in the years 1913/1914 reached about (1.553.861) boxes. Agriculture in Palestine during the British Mandate
Until the Isreali invasion of 1967 both Palestinian and Isreali agriculture were on par. It was the direct result of the annexation and occupation of the Gaza Strip and West Bank by the Zionist State that destroyed their economic competitors. The destruction continues today with occupation troops, settlers , and Sharon's Berlin Wall being built through the agricultural lands of the Palestinians.
So congratulations for repeating the 'Big Lie' of Zionism and embellishing it with a racist generaliztion of the non-Zionist people of the middle east. You win the Goebbels award for journalism.
Impacts of Water and Export Market Restrictions on Palestinian Agriculture
Agriculture remains a dominant sector of the Palestinian economy. It represents a major component of the economy’s GDP, and employs a large fraction of the population. Furthermore, the agricultural sector is a major earner of foreign exchange and supplies the basic needs of the majority of the local population. In times of difficulty, the agricultural sector has acted as a buffer that absorbs large scores of unemployed people who lost their jobs in Israel or other local sectors of the economy. Palestinian agriculture is constrained by available land and water, as well as access to markets. These constraints have been the object of political conflict, as Israeli authorities have limited available land, water and markets.
In 1967, Palestinian agricultural production was almost identical to Israel's: tomatoes, cucumbers and melons were roughly half of Israel's crop; plums and grape production were equal to Israel's; and Palestinian production of olives, dates and almonds was higher. At that time, the West Bank exported 80% of the entire vegetable crop it produced, and 45% of total fruit production (Hazboun, S., 1986).
The agricultural sector was hit hard after Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Thereafter the sector’s contribution to Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in the Palestinian Occupied Territories declined. Between 1968/1970 and 1983/1985 the percentage of agricultural contribution to the overall GDP in the West Bank fell from 37.4-53.5% to 18.5-25.4% (UNCTAD, 1990). The labour force employed in this sector has also declined. Between 1969 and 1985, the agricultural labour force, as a percentage of the total labour force, fell from 46 to 27.4% (Kahan, D., 1987).
Colour of conflict-Rule of law separates Israel from Palestinians-By Ezra Levant -- Calgary Sun, Mon, July 18, 2005
How did I miss this hmm, must have been overwhelmed with the historical revisionism being spouted off in the Calgary Sun by that other right wing columnist; Dink Byfield.
And low and behold here is another case of historical revisionism, the big lie of Zionism being blathered about by LeRant. It's the lie we all grew up with after the 1948 annexation and occupation of Palestine. That the Arab section was a desert and the Zionists brought agriculture, irrigation and productivity to the land.
What they did was actually take over olive groves and orange groves that has been the source of Palistines wealth for hundreds of years. Agriculture in Palestine 1948
Learning their lessons from Goebbels the Zionists created the 'big lie' to justify their 'Anschluss' of Palestine from the British protectorate because they needed 'Lebensraum'. And this 'big lie' is repeated again in LeRant's cloumn.
'Most of Israel is a desert. But half of Israel is lush green. It wasn't always this way. When Zionists a century ago set about building modern Israel, they had to build irrigation projects. Millions of trees were planted. Now Israel is a large agricultural exporter; in the words of its former prime minister, David Ben Gurion, the desert was made to bloom. But the land is only green in the Jewish areas of the country; Arab villages, especially those areas under control of the Palestinian Authority, are brown and dead. It is possible to spot the border between Israel and Lebanon or Syria by looking to see where the green ends and the brown begins. It's the reason why the pre-1967 border between Israel and Jordan was known as the Green Line. Why is this? Many explanations, no doubt -- the Zionist ideology was rooted in the land. The Jews invested in developing irrigation and other agricultural technology. But the real reason is the same reason why Israel is a success and Arab nations -- and the would-be nation of Arab Palestine -- are failures. '
Gee, LeRant what could that be?
"The Arab world doesn't have rule of law, while the Jewish state does.".
Gee Ezra would that be Talamudic law? Since Isreal is a religious state. And gee Ezra thats a broad brush stroke to paint all Arabs with, including peoples of the Middle East who are not Jews but are also not Arabs.
Some are Muslims so they adhere to Muslim Shira law. Some are Christians and they abide by the Old and New Testament laws, some rooted in Judaism. Some are communists, and they follow the Labour Theory of Value, a law of economics. Some have gone to Oxford and Harvard and follow common law of English origin. Some follow Napoleanic Law. Some are Druze and have their own community laws they have followed for centuries.
Nope not to racist zionist Ezra, the "Arabs" are all primitive lawless peoples, despite many of them being of the same semitic root cultures as the Jews.
Some of the Palestinians are not even Arabs, just as Kurds are not Arabs, but with the broad racist brush of the Zionist apologists like LeRant, they all get lumped together.
There is a simple reason, to deny the real history of the Zionist State in Isreal.
That it was founded by Zionist terrorists who so terrified the British and the UN that they succumbed to them, allowing them territory in Palestine.
The Zionist state and its military machine then spent twenty years pushing the Palestinian and Isreali Arab community out. As they are doing today destroying Palestinatian villages, olive groves and orange groves, in order to build their new Berlin Wall, err security wall.
Irrigation was not a Zionist invention, contrary to LeRant, it was adapted by them for use in Palestine. Until then irrigation was based on artisian wells and troughing used by the Palistinians. The introduction of large scale irrigation coincided with the development of capitalist agribusiness, that is large scale farming for export. While the Palestinians were farming on a village basis.
The types of agriculture which take place in Palestine are annual and seasonal agricultures such as grains and vegetables, or lasting agricultures such as fruitful trees. Grain plantation was flourished in Marj ben Amer, Gaza Plain, Bier Sheba and some of the inside plains; and vegetable plantation was flourished in the coastal plain around Java and Ramlah and in the Jordan Valley. The most important kind of fruitful trees is the citrus trees which were planted by modern manner of plantation. At the beginning, only the Arabs planted this kind of trees which increased in the period between 1895 and 1915; the Planted area increased from (6.600) donums to (30.000) donums, and the production increased from (18.199) tons to (64.000) tons. Citrus trees concentrated in the coastal plain between Haifa and Gaza and in the Jordan River. The Java orange is one of the best kinds of the Palestinian orange due to the thickness of its peal, its nice aroma and to its relative freedom from seeds. This kind of orange was being exported to Damascus, East of Jordan, Saudi Arabia, England and France. The exported orange in the years 1913/1914 reached about (1.553.861) boxes. Agriculture in Palestine during the British Mandate
Until the Isreali invasion of 1967 both Palestinian and Isreali agriculture were on par. It was the direct result of the annexation and occupation of the Gaza Strip and West Bank by the Zionist State that destroyed their economic competitors. The destruction continues today with occupation troops, settlers , and Sharon's Berlin Wall being built through the agricultural lands of the Palestinians.
So congratulations for repeating the 'Big Lie' of Zionism and embellishing it with a racist generaliztion of the non-Zionist people of the middle east. You win the Goebbels award for journalism.
Impacts of Water and Export Market Restrictions on Palestinian Agriculture
Agriculture remains a dominant sector of the Palestinian economy. It represents a major component of the economy’s GDP, and employs a large fraction of the population. Furthermore, the agricultural sector is a major earner of foreign exchange and supplies the basic needs of the majority of the local population. In times of difficulty, the agricultural sector has acted as a buffer that absorbs large scores of unemployed people who lost their jobs in Israel or other local sectors of the economy. Palestinian agriculture is constrained by available land and water, as well as access to markets. These constraints have been the object of political conflict, as Israeli authorities have limited available land, water and markets.
In 1967, Palestinian agricultural production was almost identical to Israel's: tomatoes, cucumbers and melons were roughly half of Israel's crop; plums and grape production were equal to Israel's; and Palestinian production of olives, dates and almonds was higher. At that time, the West Bank exported 80% of the entire vegetable crop it produced, and 45% of total fruit production (Hazboun, S., 1986).
The agricultural sector was hit hard after Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Thereafter the sector’s contribution to Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in the Palestinian Occupied Territories declined. Between 1968/1970 and 1983/1985 the percentage of agricultural contribution to the overall GDP in the West Bank fell from 37.4-53.5% to 18.5-25.4% (UNCTAD, 1990). The labour force employed in this sector has also declined. Between 1969 and 1985, the agricultural labour force, as a percentage of the total labour force, fell from 46 to 27.4% (Kahan, D., 1987).
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Harper
Stephen Harper defends his cowboy get-up, saying he can't please everyone
To see the funny picture of Harper go to: Harpers Tarnished Image
Sure he defends looking stupid, and as quick as he does his media flacks try instant makeover. They do this photo op and dress him up like a construction worker this weekend on the BBQ circuit in Ontario. But when it came to the walk about Reaction to the conservative leader Saturday appeared muted. Few people recognized him as he walked around the festivities in a blue dress shirt and dark grey slacks.
Opps maybe he should have worn his funny Stampede outfit.
Since we have a shortage of construction workers in Alberta and B.C. whats the subtext to this do ya think?
"Wot me Worry?
If they boot me out as party leader....
.... I can always get work up in Fort McMurray....
.....or maybe as a spokesman for Rona"
And still this hasn't helped the Harper or his party.
This poll has been on Canoe News for the past three days. And it shows what legitimate polls showed over the past two weeks, Harper is the albatross around the neck of the Conservative Party at best. Or a cartoon politcal characture;Wiley E. Harper, at worst.
What can the Tories do to close the popularity gap with the Liberals?
Elect a new leader. 47%
Alter political stances. 19%
Extreme makeover: Harper edition. 9%
Form a new party. 4%
Absolutely nothing. 21%
Total Votes for this Question: 10132
This is a non scientific poll.
I love the 21% who say do nothing, they must be from Calgary.
Like the nice Calgary folks now living in Ontario that want the Klein revolution for the rest of Canada and see the Harper as the Calgarian who can deliver it.
Harper is talking himself out of electoral success says Ottawa Sun columnist.
Ike Awgu Friday July 22, 2005
This man and his party desperately need a wake-up call -- someone needs to remind them that this is the 21st century and legislating like we still use horse-drawn chariots will not endear them to voters. I don't want to be overly critical, but I'm angry only because I care. How many nights however, have you spent awake at night wondering if you'll be able to pay your mortgage? Or your next month's rent? How about tuition for your kids? What on Earth ever happened to the Conservative Party talking about a serious decrease in taxes?
Gee, funny that, I just said the same thing here the other day.
In a book review of William Johnson's new political bio of Harper, Stephen Harper and the Future of Canada,William Watson a conservative reviews the book for the right wing Financial Post.
While Johnson tries to make Harper into PET2 in his bio, Watson points out the difference between the Old Harper and the New Harper, is classic Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.
Is Harper our next Trudeau? William Watson, Financial Post
Friday, July 22, 2005
Johnson argues the old Stephen Harper still exists. But does he? The old Stephen Harper once voted with just 13% of Reformers who didn't want the party to take a position on the definition of marriage, arguing that such decisions should be personal, not partisan. But now the big plank in his platform seems to be same-sex marriage. (As explained by Johnson, Harper's current position is more subtle than he's usually given credit for: Although the courts knocked down a definition of marriage that had in fact been judge-created, they might show greater deference to a definition Parliament had provided.) The old Stephen Harper opposed business subsidies and wanted all provinces treated equally. But in our Gomery spring, as the Liberals pandered shamelessly, there seemed no pander the Harper conservatives wouldn't cover. They condemned the practice of bribing citizens with their own money but committed to carrying through on all the Liberal promises."
Oh and speaking of bribery how's this for justifying the unjustifiable?
Harper says bribery OK, Anne Dawson - Windsor Star - June 21, 2005
Conservative Leader Stephen Harper continued on Monday to defend the actions of his MP Gurmant Grewal in the tape scandal, saying it is OK if someone attempts bribery but it is wrong for someone to take a bribe.
Not very Trudeau like, he would have just flipped them the bird and told them Fuddle Duddle.
Instead Harper construes that offering a bribe is less of an offense than accepting it. Hmmm that's NOT what the Criminal Code says:
119. (1) Every one who
(a) being the holder of a judicial office, or being a member of Parliament or of the legislature of a province, corruptly
(i) accepts or obtains,
(ii) agrees to accept, or
(iii) attempts to obtain,
any money, valuable consideration, office, place or employment for himself or another person in respect of anything done or omitted or to be done or omitted by him in his official capacity, or
(b) gives or offers, corruptly, to a person mentioned in paragraph (a) any money, valuable consideration, office, place or employment in respect of anything done or omitted or to be done or omitted by him in his official capacity for himself or another person,
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.
Consent of Attorney General
(2) No proceedings against a person who holds a judicial office shall be instituted under this section without the consent in writing of the Attorney General of Canada.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 108.
Another Harper foot in mouth opps. While it may be common practice or accepted political practice in Grewal's former country of residence; Liberia, in Canada bribery is still against the law. And Harper, being Mr. Law and Order, should not have countenanced this no matter what. But that's the difference between the old Harper, Dr. Jekyl, and the new Mr. Harper.
Mr. Harper who defends breaking the law by his rogue MP then turns around and attacks Canadians of unnamed 'ethnic backgrounds' as terrorists. He does this in the U.S. to announce that he wants to create a joint Homealnd Security program with the Americans. A FireWall North America like he once proposed for Alberta.
The Grewal affair occured in an ethnic community, and while it's a criminal affair of bribery, well thats excusable to Mr.Harper and he doesn't say that all Indo Canadians are criminals because of the Grewal affair.
But in the U.S. away from home he announces that some generic 'ethnic' community is full of terrorists and thats bad.
In Canada our experince of terrorist actions recently has been around Air India bombings, And this occured because of political conflicts in India that imapacted on a specific ethnic community in Vancouver, the same one that is now embroiled in the Grewal affair.
So what the hell is Harper really saying? That he wants security checks and ethnic profiling of Indo Canadians? No of course not, in his own inimical racist way he was refering to Muslim Canadians, aw shucks lets be clear he means anyone who isn't white. The term 'ethnic copmmunities' is right wing talk for communities of poeple of colour. Or as the right has always called them, coloured people.
Except he forgets that their are white muslims, and when he says 'ethnic communities' I don't think he is refering to Boznians.
Harper wants to be PM. William Johnson thinks he is the second coming of P. E. Trudeau, I think not.
Even his biographer admits Mr. Harper, is well a bit of a cold fish.
"Canadians," writes Montreal journalist William Johnson in in an otherwise flattering biography released this month, Stephen Harper and the Future of Canada, "sense in him the absence of a common touch, of humanity, and for that reason they have not warmed to him or developed trust, despite all his impressive qualities. He is someone you can admire without really liking."
Yeah if you are a conservative from Calgary. The once policy wonk Harper is a fish out of water, when it comes to populist politics he has become the hardliner Mr. Harper.
Poor Mr. Harper like Mr. Hyde is currently the bull in the china shop of Canadian politics and no makeover will help him out of this dellima. Mr. Harper suffers from being a born again social conservative,with a proclivity for putting his foot in his mouth a meglomaniac need to control the party, and poor photo ops.
To see the funny picture of Harper go to: Harpers Tarnished Image
Sure he defends looking stupid, and as quick as he does his media flacks try instant makeover. They do this photo op and dress him up like a construction worker this weekend on the BBQ circuit in Ontario. But when it came to the walk about Reaction to the conservative leader Saturday appeared muted. Few people recognized him as he walked around the festivities in a blue dress shirt and dark grey slacks.
Opps maybe he should have worn his funny Stampede outfit.
Since we have a shortage of construction workers in Alberta and B.C. whats the subtext to this do ya think?
"Wot me Worry?
If they boot me out as party leader....
.... I can always get work up in Fort McMurray....
.....or maybe as a spokesman for Rona"
And still this hasn't helped the Harper or his party.
This poll has been on Canoe News for the past three days. And it shows what legitimate polls showed over the past two weeks, Harper is the albatross around the neck of the Conservative Party at best. Or a cartoon politcal characture;Wiley E. Harper, at worst.
What can the Tories do to close the popularity gap with the Liberals?
Elect a new leader. 47%
Alter political stances. 19%
Extreme makeover: Harper edition. 9%
Form a new party. 4%
Absolutely nothing. 21%
Total Votes for this Question: 10132
This is a non scientific poll.
I love the 21% who say do nothing, they must be from Calgary.
Like the nice Calgary folks now living in Ontario that want the Klein revolution for the rest of Canada and see the Harper as the Calgarian who can deliver it.
Kathie and Allan Anderson, who lived in Calgary for seven years, are rhyming off the glories of Alberta: charter schools, private liquor stores, private kiosks to dispense driver's licences. Mr. Harper, dressed in a golf shirt and dress slacks, approaches.
"I have to tell this story," Mr. Harper says.
"When I was 17, I worked at the Liquor Control Board of Ontario at Yonge and Eglinton. A woman walked up with a bottle of Baby Duck and asked: 'Sir, is there anything in this price range that tastes a bit better?' 'Yes, Ma'am,' the manager replied. 'Turpentine.'"
The guests laugh. Mr. Harper chuckles and adds: "Customer service."
This anecdote neatly packs in everything the leader of the Opposition wants to get across about himself while zipping around southern Ontario in a bright blue Chevy van emblazoned with "Stephen Harper Summer Tour 2005": (a) He's an Ontario boy, born and bred; (b) he's an ordinary guy who worked at the liquor store as a kid; (c) he likes to kick back and tell funny stories; and (d) having moved to Alberta in 1978, he wants to export that province's model, where government is minimal and private enterprise, that prerequisite for good customer service, is king.
To know him is to love him, his fans insist
But to other Canadians, those who live outside of Calgary, Mr. Harpers make over as social conservative has missed the boat.
"But among those who did, ( recognize Mr. Harper [ep] ) the response was as polarized as views on same-sex marriage. "He walked right past me and that's just fine,'' said Lori Mallory with a laugh. Another man, who would only identify himself as Daniel, shook his head and glared at Harper as the politician passed. He called Harper's same-sex marriage stance "offensive and divisive.His stance on the whole same-sex thing is problematic and not representative of a truly democratic society where you support all minorities,'' he said.
But to other Canadians, those who live outside of Calgary, Mr. Harpers make over as social conservative has missed the boat.
"But among those who did, ( recognize Mr. Harper [ep] ) the response was as polarized as views on same-sex marriage. "He walked right past me and that's just fine,'' said Lori Mallory with a laugh. Another man, who would only identify himself as Daniel, shook his head and glared at Harper as the politician passed. He called Harper's same-sex marriage stance "offensive and divisive.His stance on the whole same-sex thing is problematic and not representative of a truly democratic society where you support all minorities,'' he said.
Harper is talking himself out of electoral success says Ottawa Sun columnist.
Ike Awgu Friday July 22, 2005
This man and his party desperately need a wake-up call -- someone needs to remind them that this is the 21st century and legislating like we still use horse-drawn chariots will not endear them to voters. I don't want to be overly critical, but I'm angry only because I care. How many nights however, have you spent awake at night wondering if you'll be able to pay your mortgage? Or your next month's rent? How about tuition for your kids? What on Earth ever happened to the Conservative Party talking about a serious decrease in taxes?
Gee, funny that, I just said the same thing here the other day.
In a book review of William Johnson's new political bio of Harper, Stephen Harper and the Future of Canada,William Watson a conservative reviews the book for the right wing Financial Post.
While Johnson tries to make Harper into PET2 in his bio, Watson points out the difference between the Old Harper and the New Harper, is classic Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.
Is Harper our next Trudeau? William Watson, Financial Post
Friday, July 22, 2005
Johnson argues the old Stephen Harper still exists. But does he? The old Stephen Harper once voted with just 13% of Reformers who didn't want the party to take a position on the definition of marriage, arguing that such decisions should be personal, not partisan. But now the big plank in his platform seems to be same-sex marriage. (As explained by Johnson, Harper's current position is more subtle than he's usually given credit for: Although the courts knocked down a definition of marriage that had in fact been judge-created, they might show greater deference to a definition Parliament had provided.) The old Stephen Harper opposed business subsidies and wanted all provinces treated equally. But in our Gomery spring, as the Liberals pandered shamelessly, there seemed no pander the Harper conservatives wouldn't cover. They condemned the practice of bribing citizens with their own money but committed to carrying through on all the Liberal promises."
Oh and speaking of bribery how's this for justifying the unjustifiable?
Harper says bribery OK, Anne Dawson - Windsor Star - June 21, 2005
Conservative Leader Stephen Harper continued on Monday to defend the actions of his MP Gurmant Grewal in the tape scandal, saying it is OK if someone attempts bribery but it is wrong for someone to take a bribe.
Not very Trudeau like, he would have just flipped them the bird and told them Fuddle Duddle.
Instead Harper construes that offering a bribe is less of an offense than accepting it. Hmmm that's NOT what the Criminal Code says:
119. (1) Every one who
(a) being the holder of a judicial office, or being a member of Parliament or of the legislature of a province, corruptly
(i) accepts or obtains,
(ii) agrees to accept, or
(iii) attempts to obtain,
any money, valuable consideration, office, place or employment for himself or another person in respect of anything done or omitted or to be done or omitted by him in his official capacity, or
(b) gives or offers, corruptly, to a person mentioned in paragraph (a) any money, valuable consideration, office, place or employment in respect of anything done or omitted or to be done or omitted by him in his official capacity for himself or another person,
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.
Consent of Attorney General
(2) No proceedings against a person who holds a judicial office shall be instituted under this section without the consent in writing of the Attorney General of Canada.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 108.
Another Harper foot in mouth opps. While it may be common practice or accepted political practice in Grewal's former country of residence; Liberia, in Canada bribery is still against the law. And Harper, being Mr. Law and Order, should not have countenanced this no matter what. But that's the difference between the old Harper, Dr. Jekyl, and the new Mr. Harper.
Mr. Harper who defends breaking the law by his rogue MP then turns around and attacks Canadians of unnamed 'ethnic backgrounds' as terrorists. He does this in the U.S. to announce that he wants to create a joint Homealnd Security program with the Americans. A FireWall North America like he once proposed for Alberta.
The Grewal affair occured in an ethnic community, and while it's a criminal affair of bribery, well thats excusable to Mr.Harper and he doesn't say that all Indo Canadians are criminals because of the Grewal affair.
But in the U.S. away from home he announces that some generic 'ethnic' community is full of terrorists and thats bad.
In Canada our experince of terrorist actions recently has been around Air India bombings, And this occured because of political conflicts in India that imapacted on a specific ethnic community in Vancouver, the same one that is now embroiled in the Grewal affair.
So what the hell is Harper really saying? That he wants security checks and ethnic profiling of Indo Canadians? No of course not, in his own inimical racist way he was refering to Muslim Canadians, aw shucks lets be clear he means anyone who isn't white. The term 'ethnic copmmunities' is right wing talk for communities of poeple of colour. Or as the right has always called them, coloured people.
Except he forgets that their are white muslims, and when he says 'ethnic communities' I don't think he is refering to Boznians.
Harper wants to be PM. William Johnson thinks he is the second coming of P. E. Trudeau, I think not.
Even his biographer admits Mr. Harper, is well a bit of a cold fish.
"Canadians," writes Montreal journalist William Johnson in in an otherwise flattering biography released this month, Stephen Harper and the Future of Canada, "sense in him the absence of a common touch, of humanity, and for that reason they have not warmed to him or developed trust, despite all his impressive qualities. He is someone you can admire without really liking."
Yeah if you are a conservative from Calgary. The once policy wonk Harper is a fish out of water, when it comes to populist politics he has become the hardliner Mr. Harper.
Poor Mr. Harper like Mr. Hyde is currently the bull in the china shop of Canadian politics and no makeover will help him out of this dellima. Mr. Harper suffers from being a born again social conservative,with a proclivity for putting his foot in his mouth a meglomaniac need to control the party, and poor photo ops.
Saturday, July 23, 2005
Let US Prey
Pray: Canada's social conservatives are anxious to have their voices heard where it really counts in a democracy A Vancouver Sun Exclusive, July 23, 2005
Actually they should have spelled it 'Prey'.
And they aren't Canadian they are an American Religious Corporation.
Vancouver Sun -- The gay marriage debate is helping Canada's social conservative movement expand its reach and influence, although the so-called "sleeping giant" of Canadian politics has internal conflicts and is still at the toddler stage compared to the powerful U.S. religious right movement.
Good let's put them in public day care where they belong and teach them about the important values of pluralistic civil society that allows them their religious rights. A society that they hate and are attempting to return to a Medieval theocracy,or a mythical Puritan American society.
Welcome to the national headquarters of Focus on the Family Canada, an affiliate of the Colorado-based Focus on the Family, perhaps the most powerful social conservative group in the U.S. The office of Focus Canada is far more modest than the American headquarters presided over by Dr. James Dobson, who since he began his folksy flagship radio show in 1977 has built a $150-million-a-year family values empire so influential that he has been called the religious right's new kingmaker and the pope of evangelical America.
That's because in the U.S. anyone can form a 'church" or religious organisation under their income tax act. Its the greatest single source of shysters and rip off artists pretending to be charities, when they are political lobbies. Remember the Jim and Tammy Faye Baker scandal, and all the other evangelical scandals of the late eighties.
Not that Focus Canada officials here mind: While the group is increasingly active in Canadian public policy debate -- it helped head the campaign against same-sex marriage legislation and is setting up an Ottawa-based family values policy think -ank -- Focus Canada prefers a low profile.
Low profile indeed, they are a secretive underground organization that threatens Canadian values. Sounds suspicous to me, wonder if CSIS is looking into them yet?
Focus Canada is wary of being depicted as the branch plant of a powerful American Christian right-wing group out to shape Canadian public policy. "We get a little discouraged when we see Focus Canada being portrayed as if Americans are attempting to bring their agenda into Canada," said Anna Marie White, the group's family policy director. "There is no agenda here. We have a group of very well-meaning Canadians here who have been working for over 20 years to bring good resources to Canadian parents and families."
That's because they are a branch plant of the extreme right in the U.S. (including people who kill doctors who perform abortions and condone gay bashing) and yes they have an agenda and it is to change Canadian pulbic policy.
Boy what hypocrites, let's see we are forming a public policy institute but we don't want to influence public policy. Do they think we are stupid or just American.
After all they are from the US home of right wing media that never challenge the right or its assumptions and PR.
And they are of course the kind of people that Monte Solberg, Conservative MP loves and defends. Being the 'America Good'/ 'Canada Bad' kinda guy he is.
Oh yes and the money to do all this political lobbying comes from where? From being a church that collects funds for charitable purposes. Much of this money is coming from their U.S. HQ of course. Supplemented by 'prayer offerings' from Canadian TV watchers. This is another of those TV/Radio evangelical churches that has no real estate, except that which it buys to sell for a profit.
As I have said before its time to tax the churches when they want to play in the area of politics and public policy. It's an idea whose time has come.
But what about free speech you ask.
This isn't free speech this is speech where money talks, cause its income tax free - speech. It's paid for by you and me cause our government allows them to exist tax free. It means they can dominate the discussion beyond the economic means of those they oppose. Nothing free about it.
Money Talks and this movement of the right walks, all over the rights of those they oppose by dominating the media.
They are of course 'shy' about actually talking to a reporter, cause they don't care about the media perse. They buy their media time to promote the message of their theology of intolerance.
Actually they should have spelled it 'Prey'.
And they aren't Canadian they are an American Religious Corporation.
Vancouver Sun -- The gay marriage debate is helping Canada's social conservative movement expand its reach and influence, although the so-called "sleeping giant" of Canadian politics has internal conflicts and is still at the toddler stage compared to the powerful U.S. religious right movement.
Good let's put them in public day care where they belong and teach them about the important values of pluralistic civil society that allows them their religious rights. A society that they hate and are attempting to return to a Medieval theocracy,or a mythical Puritan American society.
Welcome to the national headquarters of Focus on the Family Canada, an affiliate of the Colorado-based Focus on the Family, perhaps the most powerful social conservative group in the U.S. The office of Focus Canada is far more modest than the American headquarters presided over by Dr. James Dobson, who since he began his folksy flagship radio show in 1977 has built a $150-million-a-year family values empire so influential that he has been called the religious right's new kingmaker and the pope of evangelical America.
That's because in the U.S. anyone can form a 'church" or religious organisation under their income tax act. Its the greatest single source of shysters and rip off artists pretending to be charities, when they are political lobbies. Remember the Jim and Tammy Faye Baker scandal, and all the other evangelical scandals of the late eighties.
Not that Focus Canada officials here mind: While the group is increasingly active in Canadian public policy debate -- it helped head the campaign against same-sex marriage legislation and is setting up an Ottawa-based family values policy think -ank -- Focus Canada prefers a low profile.
Low profile indeed, they are a secretive underground organization that threatens Canadian values. Sounds suspicous to me, wonder if CSIS is looking into them yet?
Focus Canada is wary of being depicted as the branch plant of a powerful American Christian right-wing group out to shape Canadian public policy. "We get a little discouraged when we see Focus Canada being portrayed as if Americans are attempting to bring their agenda into Canada," said Anna Marie White, the group's family policy director. "There is no agenda here. We have a group of very well-meaning Canadians here who have been working for over 20 years to bring good resources to Canadian parents and families."
That's because they are a branch plant of the extreme right in the U.S. (including people who kill doctors who perform abortions and condone gay bashing) and yes they have an agenda and it is to change Canadian pulbic policy.
Boy what hypocrites, let's see we are forming a public policy institute but we don't want to influence public policy. Do they think we are stupid or just American.
After all they are from the US home of right wing media that never challenge the right or its assumptions and PR.
And they are of course the kind of people that Monte Solberg, Conservative MP loves and defends. Being the 'America Good'/ 'Canada Bad' kinda guy he is.
Oh yes and the money to do all this political lobbying comes from where? From being a church that collects funds for charitable purposes. Much of this money is coming from their U.S. HQ of course. Supplemented by 'prayer offerings' from Canadian TV watchers. This is another of those TV/Radio evangelical churches that has no real estate, except that which it buys to sell for a profit.
As I have said before its time to tax the churches when they want to play in the area of politics and public policy. It's an idea whose time has come.
But what about free speech you ask.
This isn't free speech this is speech where money talks, cause its income tax free - speech. It's paid for by you and me cause our government allows them to exist tax free. It means they can dominate the discussion beyond the economic means of those they oppose. Nothing free about it.
Money Talks and this movement of the right walks, all over the rights of those they oppose by dominating the media.
They are of course 'shy' about actually talking to a reporter, cause they don't care about the media perse. They buy their media time to promote the message of their theology of intolerance.
Friday, July 22, 2005
Link Byfield Historical Revisionist
Link Byfield, son of Ted and Virgina Byfield, former Editor Publisher of the now bankrupt (fiscally as well as politically) Alberta Report, scion of the Right in Canada has a column in todays Sun, Calgary, blasting the Sun, Toronto, for belittiling Harpers Tarnished Image.
No problem with that. Let the right wing regionalists fight amongst themselves about Wiley E. Harper, who is also a White Wascist like the missing-Link.
What I have a problem with is his historical revisionism where he blames the victim and extolls the virtues of colonial expansion into Western Canada.
Link says: "The historical fact is that after Ottawa stood by and let the Natives wipe out the last remaining Canadian buffalo in the Cypress Hills in 1879, the empty western plains soon filled up with unfenced cattle ranches bigger than present-day Toronto. These were owned and operated by newcomers from Britain, Canada and the U.S. -- the Waldron, the Cochrane, the Oxley, the Northwest Cattle Co., the Beresford, the Bar U. "
Excuse me, Natives wiped out the last remaining buffalo? Sure the Natives hunted buffalo, but they were not responsible for wiping them out, that was already done by the Western Expansion of American and Canadian railway barons, mercantilists and settlers.
Tell that to Poundmaker, Old Crow, and the rest who testified to the destruction of the buffalo with the coming of the white man. And Ottawa didn't stand by it encouraged the destruction of the plains buffalo in order to expand the CPR which opened the west to the Big Ranchers.
"After the whites came, the buffalo became fewer and fewer. We all know that. We began to hate the white persons. They were robbing us of our birthright. We became very poor. We wandered to the south. The buffalo were not coming back. We were told, "the land is not yours anymore. We were to stay only on our small patches of land that were leftover (iskonikana). Our grandfathers travelled on these great plains and called it their own." Poundmaker's last speech.
See my Rebel Yell for the history of the Northwest Rebellion. Yep Link is being a deliberately provacative Dink, so typical of the historical revisionism of the Byfield clan. Well read a book you twit. And not one your dad wrote and you edited. And get your facts straight.
Actually you know your facts you just like to twist them to justify the white mans colonialization of the so called 'empty western plains".
Like we argued on Medicine Hat radio during the Federal Election, yours are the politics of Alberta First, mine are the politics of Alberta in Canada. You still have to anwser my point I made then that since most of the Oil in Alberta is on Native land then following your provincial rights arguement, it is logical to cede control of resources back to those who were here first.
Clever now to argue that the plains were empty.
No problem with that. Let the right wing regionalists fight amongst themselves about Wiley E. Harper, who is also a White Wascist like the missing-Link.
What I have a problem with is his historical revisionism where he blames the victim and extolls the virtues of colonial expansion into Western Canada.
Link says: "The historical fact is that after Ottawa stood by and let the Natives wipe out the last remaining Canadian buffalo in the Cypress Hills in 1879, the empty western plains soon filled up with unfenced cattle ranches bigger than present-day Toronto. These were owned and operated by newcomers from Britain, Canada and the U.S. -- the Waldron, the Cochrane, the Oxley, the Northwest Cattle Co., the Beresford, the Bar U. "
Excuse me, Natives wiped out the last remaining buffalo? Sure the Natives hunted buffalo, but they were not responsible for wiping them out, that was already done by the Western Expansion of American and Canadian railway barons, mercantilists and settlers.
Tell that to Poundmaker, Old Crow, and the rest who testified to the destruction of the buffalo with the coming of the white man. And Ottawa didn't stand by it encouraged the destruction of the plains buffalo in order to expand the CPR which opened the west to the Big Ranchers.
"After the whites came, the buffalo became fewer and fewer. We all know that. We began to hate the white persons. They were robbing us of our birthright. We became very poor. We wandered to the south. The buffalo were not coming back. We were told, "the land is not yours anymore. We were to stay only on our small patches of land that were leftover (iskonikana). Our grandfathers travelled on these great plains and called it their own." Poundmaker's last speech.
See my Rebel Yell for the history of the Northwest Rebellion. Yep Link is being a deliberately provacative Dink, so typical of the historical revisionism of the Byfield clan. Well read a book you twit. And not one your dad wrote and you edited. And get your facts straight.
Actually you know your facts you just like to twist them to justify the white mans colonialization of the so called 'empty western plains".
Like we argued on Medicine Hat radio during the Federal Election, yours are the politics of Alberta First, mine are the politics of Alberta in Canada. You still have to anwser my point I made then that since most of the Oil in Alberta is on Native land then following your provincial rights arguement, it is logical to cede control of resources back to those who were here first.
Clever now to argue that the plains were empty.
More Praise For My Blogs
Grandinite has created a list of 12 blogs that readers should check for daily news. And in no particluar order he has listed my daily blog #10.
He says that Red Between the Lines is "The best daily dose of left-wingery in Canada. It is the moonbat-free zone that Rabble.ca isn’t." Aw Shucks.
He says that Red Between the Lines is "The best daily dose of left-wingery in Canada. It is the moonbat-free zone that Rabble.ca isn’t." Aw Shucks.
Thursday, July 21, 2005
Capitalism’s vampires
I thought this post from the Vancouver weekly The Republic made an excellent point about the Vampire motif in popular culture that made up for it's abscence from my article Gothic Capitalism. So I thought I would post an excerpt here.
The Vampire who preyed on peasants such as the historical Elizabeth Bathory and Vlad Tepes, the impaler, gave rise to these legends among the peasants and rising bourgoise of Europe. The subtext was always the same, and of course had some truth in it. The aristocracy were living off the peasants, some became literal bloodsuckers in the declining period of fudealism and the rise of capitalism.
But the aristocracy was always bloodsuckers which is why fudealism declined. Now capital itself has become the bloodsucker of our time and labour, and it lives on eternally in the commodification of our lives.
In the transition from complex societies to modern states, the taste for exploitation was retained
by Michael Nenonen
I used to be one of Anne Rice's most committed fans. Interview With A Vampire (1976) hooked me, and for years thereafter I let Rice's imagination mould my own. By the time I finished reading Lasher (1993), though, I'd had my fill. Her cuisine remained the same, but my palate hadn't. After reading Eli Sagan's At the Dawn of Tyranny: The Origin of Individualism, Political Oppression, and the State (Knopf, 1985), I understand why.
Before discussing Sagan's work, I should offer some idea of what Rice's novels are about—or at least the thirteen I've read. Until 1993, at any rate, Rice was writing about beautiful vampires even when she was supposedly writing about witches and mummies, upper-class nymphettes and sadomasochistic aristocrats. Vampirism isn't restricted to literal bloodsucking; it occurs whenever we steal another person's vitality, regardless of how the theft is carried out. This theft was the centerpiece of Rice's fiction.
Her protagonists were typically talented and gorgeous, wealthy and amoral. Some were superhuman. By the early 90s the vampire Lestat could fly and lift many tonnes; he might as well have been from Krypton. Whether they were drinking blood or enjoying fine art, her characters' tastes were invariably expensive. The plight of the characters forced to feed those tastes was paid little heed; the poor and ugly were regularly exploited, humiliated, and literally devoured. Her protagonists' virtue was highlighted by the material, intellectual, aesthetic, and psychological poverty of the people beneath their feet.
Rice's influence upon the S&M and Goth subcultures has been remarkable. Much like Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek, her fiction inspires a way of life, though few of her fans seem to understand the classism underlying that fiction. Though she certainly celebrates the power of beauty, Rice also promotes the beauty of power.
Let's turn to Sagan's work, which explores the psychosocial transformations that accompanied the rise of complex societies. These are transitional societies, existing between early tribal societies on the one side and literate state societies on the other. Complex societies are marked by kingship and aristocracy, phenomena unknown in previous stages of social development. Whereas tribal societies maintain order through the informal pressures of kinship networks, in complex societies the nobility escapes the bonds of collective existence.
The most vicious feature of complex societies, and one that's particularly relevant for Anne Rice's work, is their nearly universal practice of human sacrifice, a practice that's rare in tribal societies and that dies out as complex societies give way to literate states.
Ritually sacrificing the powerless reinforces the class structure of complex societies and makes it easier for the nobility to psychologically dissociate itself from kinship ties. Nobles must, after all, believe they have qualities that set them apart from base commoners. To be "noble" is to be superhuman, with all the privileges due to such an elevated condition and without any of the moral fetters binding the inferior classes. Nobles define themselves in contrast to commoners. Commoners are ugly, while nobles are beautiful; commoners are stupid, while nobles are wise; commoners are poor, while nobles are rich; commoners are weak, while nobles are mighty. Human sacrifice enshrines this division between the lordly and the contemptible. Vampires like Lestat are perfect embodiments of noble fantasy.
The Vampire who preyed on peasants such as the historical Elizabeth Bathory and Vlad Tepes, the impaler, gave rise to these legends among the peasants and rising bourgoise of Europe. The subtext was always the same, and of course had some truth in it. The aristocracy were living off the peasants, some became literal bloodsuckers in the declining period of fudealism and the rise of capitalism.
But the aristocracy was always bloodsuckers which is why fudealism declined. Now capital itself has become the bloodsucker of our time and labour, and it lives on eternally in the commodification of our lives.
 |  | |
Nobles are confronted by ample evidence of their fundamental identity with the people they oppress. Try though they might, they can't escape the human condition, a condition marked by suffering, decay, and death. | ||
| | |
In the transition from complex societies to modern states, the taste for exploitation was retained
by Michael Nenonen
Before discussing Sagan's work, I should offer some idea of what Rice's novels are about—or at least the thirteen I've read. Until 1993, at any rate, Rice was writing about beautiful vampires even when she was supposedly writing about witches and mummies, upper-class nymphettes and sadomasochistic aristocrats. Vampirism isn't restricted to literal bloodsucking; it occurs whenever we steal another person's vitality, regardless of how the theft is carried out. This theft was the centerpiece of Rice's fiction.
Her protagonists were typically talented and gorgeous, wealthy and amoral. Some were superhuman. By the early 90s the vampire Lestat could fly and lift many tonnes; he might as well have been from Krypton. Whether they were drinking blood or enjoying fine art, her characters' tastes were invariably expensive. The plight of the characters forced to feed those tastes was paid little heed; the poor and ugly were regularly exploited, humiliated, and literally devoured. Her protagonists' virtue was highlighted by the material, intellectual, aesthetic, and psychological poverty of the people beneath their feet.
Rice's influence upon the S&M and Goth subcultures has been remarkable. Much like Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek, her fiction inspires a way of life, though few of her fans seem to understand the classism underlying that fiction. Though she certainly celebrates the power of beauty, Rice also promotes the beauty of power.
Let's turn to Sagan's work, which explores the psychosocial transformations that accompanied the rise of complex societies. These are transitional societies, existing between early tribal societies on the one side and literate state societies on the other. Complex societies are marked by kingship and aristocracy, phenomena unknown in previous stages of social development. Whereas tribal societies maintain order through the informal pressures of kinship networks, in complex societies the nobility escapes the bonds of collective existence.
The most vicious feature of complex societies, and one that's particularly relevant for Anne Rice's work, is their nearly universal practice of human sacrifice, a practice that's rare in tribal societies and that dies out as complex societies give way to literate states.
Ritually sacrificing the powerless reinforces the class structure of complex societies and makes it easier for the nobility to psychologically dissociate itself from kinship ties. Nobles must, after all, believe they have qualities that set them apart from base commoners. To be "noble" is to be superhuman, with all the privileges due to such an elevated condition and without any of the moral fetters binding the inferior classes. Nobles define themselves in contrast to commoners. Commoners are ugly, while nobles are beautiful; commoners are stupid, while nobles are wise; commoners are poor, while nobles are rich; commoners are weak, while nobles are mighty. Human sacrifice enshrines this division between the lordly and the contemptible. Vampires like Lestat are perfect embodiments of noble fantasy.
Corruption, nationalism and capitalism
I found this interesting article by a comrade in Quebec that I thought I would share excerpts from
Corruption, nationalism and capitalism
by Steve Tremblay
Nothing new under the sun
Canadian history is in its entirety branded by affairs of political corruption. To underline the hypocrisy of the comments about the Liberal’s particular corruption made by the leader of the Conservative Party, Stephen Harper, we have only used examples of when the Conservatives were in power. But we just as well could have referred to as many incidents from the history of Liberal governments or even from the NDP (do you remember the bingo scandal in British Columbia?).
Capitalism itself is corrupt
All the fuss raised by the Conservative profiteers, the Bloc nationalistic demagogues and the NDP bureaucrats aims to make us believe that the sponsorship scandal and the Liberal’s moral turpitude constitute a hijacking of parliamentarianism, a debasement of bourgeois democracy. However, as we have seen, not only has corruption been an important factor through the whole history of Québec and Canadian governments, but our analysis is that our country is no exception. It would be too easy here to list a multitude of examples of corruption in the countries of the periphery of capitalism. It would be also quite easy to bring up all kinds of cases from China or Russia. But we think it is more useful to remind our readers how governmental corruption reigns within the historical heart of capitalism itself, inside the great centres of capital.
The importance of this crisis and what it’s all about
This new scandal and the political crisis it has created is the product of many factors. It feeds on the general disgust of a huge part of the population and the working class in particular, for political practices that appear more-and-more unacceptable in an economic context where the state increasingly uses arguments of austerity and rigor against us. It also feeds on the constitutional crisis that divides the majority of the Québec bourgeoisie from the majority of the Canadian ruling class, over the issue of a new division of responsibilities between the different levels of government. It is for this reason but under other pretexts (nation, language and distinct society) that they will soon have us marching again, either under the folds of the blue and white of the fleurdelisé or the red and white of the maple leaf. As long as we stand divided, the reign of exploitation, corruption and oppression shall remain secure. One must also not forget the role played by the important fracture existing inside the Liberal Party itself, the main historical party of capital’s domination in Canada.
The Internationalist Workers Group, Canadian section of the International Bureau for the Revolutionary Party, Montreal, May 20th 2005. Contact: R.S., P.O. Box 173, Station “C”, Montreal, Canada, H2L 4K1 or canada@ibrp.org
Corruption, nationalism and capitalism
by Steve Tremblay
Nothing new under the sun
Canadian history is in its entirety branded by affairs of political corruption. To underline the hypocrisy of the comments about the Liberal’s particular corruption made by the leader of the Conservative Party, Stephen Harper, we have only used examples of when the Conservatives were in power. But we just as well could have referred to as many incidents from the history of Liberal governments or even from the NDP (do you remember the bingo scandal in British Columbia?).
Capitalism itself is corrupt
All the fuss raised by the Conservative profiteers, the Bloc nationalistic demagogues and the NDP bureaucrats aims to make us believe that the sponsorship scandal and the Liberal’s moral turpitude constitute a hijacking of parliamentarianism, a debasement of bourgeois democracy. However, as we have seen, not only has corruption been an important factor through the whole history of Québec and Canadian governments, but our analysis is that our country is no exception. It would be too easy here to list a multitude of examples of corruption in the countries of the periphery of capitalism. It would be also quite easy to bring up all kinds of cases from China or Russia. But we think it is more useful to remind our readers how governmental corruption reigns within the historical heart of capitalism itself, inside the great centres of capital.
The importance of this crisis and what it’s all about
This new scandal and the political crisis it has created is the product of many factors. It feeds on the general disgust of a huge part of the population and the working class in particular, for political practices that appear more-and-more unacceptable in an economic context where the state increasingly uses arguments of austerity and rigor against us. It also feeds on the constitutional crisis that divides the majority of the Québec bourgeoisie from the majority of the Canadian ruling class, over the issue of a new division of responsibilities between the different levels of government. It is for this reason but under other pretexts (nation, language and distinct society) that they will soon have us marching again, either under the folds of the blue and white of the fleurdelisé or the red and white of the maple leaf. As long as we stand divided, the reign of exploitation, corruption and oppression shall remain secure. One must also not forget the role played by the important fracture existing inside the Liberal Party itself, the main historical party of capital’s domination in Canada.
The Internationalist Workers Group, Canadian section of the International Bureau for the Revolutionary Party, Montreal, May 20th 2005. Contact: R.S., P.O. Box 173, Station “C”, Montreal, Canada, H2L 4K1 or canada@ibrp.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)