Monday, December 22, 2014

This Just In: harper Sent himself to the Closet!!!!

Some of you are finding out that the thwapster doesn't follow the daily news too closely. I don't get a lot out of watching television news and I don't have a newspaper subscription, so I wait for people I trust to respond to it. (Plus, as some of you know, I think we're doomed because we can't organize a break-out from a paper-bag. I don't follow anything that closely anymore.) 

So, when that gun-man stormed Parliament Hill, I first thought that harper had been in the House of Commons and that his security people first put him in a closet and then spirited him away after the gun-man was killed, leaving all the other MP's in lock-down for hours.

With that understanding, I wrote my first post on the subject of harper's cowardice during this incident:
For what it's worth, I had a gun pointed straight at my face (from perhaps 3-5 meters away), so I know they're scary. I might have wanted to hide when there had been shots fired in the hallways outside the Chamber. I'm also sure that there were security personnel who were obligated to protect the prime minister (even though that position is occupied by a usurper) and they would have been very insistent that he be taken to a safe place. I might have allowed myself to have been convinced by their insistence.

But then, if I was a guy who had bullied and brow-beaten my cabinet and caucus for a decade, and lied, cheated and stole to get where I am, I think I would have no problem telling those security people to forget about dragging me off to a broom closet.

Then I heard something about Mulcair praising a security dude who blocked the doors of the NDP's caucus room and I realized my impressions of the event were off the mark. I went back to the CBC and read that he'd been in a meeting in the harpercon caucus room.

But I still thought security personnel had instructed him to go and hide in a closet.

My friends, you really have to have gone a couple of months not knowing that, at the first hint of danger, harper decided, entirely on his own, to abandon his people (including Michelle Rempel, who depends on him to keep her safe), and ran to a closet, so quickly his fellow caucus members had no idea where he was. You have to have first thought that he had been surrounded by RCMP security insisting: "Sir! We have to get you to safety!" and then pictured harper meekly acquiescing to their instructions.

The thought of this towering tube of lard and shit hearing the gun-shots and dashing for the relative safety of the closet, before anyone else has a chance to ask then what they should do, .... it's too much.

It's comedy gold!

It's political manna from heaven my people!

This militarist with the uniform fetish is a thorough coward! So cowardly, he'd naturally play the role of the coward in a film from the 1940's!

You just know he'd have been a stereotypical chicken-hawk in the USA, where the military is a bigger part of the public life, but somehow war-mongers like Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, etc., use clumsy excuses to avoid the military life they find exhilarating when other people are doing the drudgery and the mental abuse and the terror of combat.

harper certainly knows how to nickel and dime wounded veterans like a good US chickenhawk.

Perhaps (if I may indulge in a little armchair psychoanalysis) it is their awareness and shame about their total, disgusting cowardice, and its conflict with their shit-headed desire to see the use of force as an answer to difficult questions, that turns people like harper into the tormented, hateful, sadistic torturers of veterans that they are. A soldier who was wounded in action fills someone like harper with visceral self-loathing. But since harper is a shallow narcissist, with inflated ideas of his own importance (witness his fleeing to the closet and leaving his MP's to their fate), his self-loathing is soon projected outwards, to the wounded troops who make him feel so awful. They must be made to pay for their lives being an indictment of his own. he makes sure that they suffer. They are denied benefits. They are lied to. They are ignored.

My friends, you know I have hated harper for years. I despise the man. But he has managed to sink even lower in my estimation in this than you can possibly imagine.

Sunday, December 21, 2014

Getting Radicalized

I write this entry still in the firm belief that "Islamicism" is not a genuine threat to the well-being of most Canadians, let alone to Canada's continued existence. It's far less of a problem than misogyny. 

I'll take it as a given that Michael Zehaf-Bibeau's murder of Corporal Nathan Cirillo and his attack on Parliament Hill with a hunting rifle, was the act of mentally-ill man who had been a heavy drug user and was not a "false flag" operation. In the same spirit, I'll accept that he really did convert to Islam and oppose US and Canadian foreign policy in the Middle East and support the Islamic militants fighting in Syria, the way the media reports many people saying of him.

I'll assume that Martin Rouleau really had converted to Islam and called himself Ahmad the Converted, and that he deliberately ran over those two soldiers, killing Patrice Vincent, as an act of "war" against the West.

I'll assume that Canadian men really are flocking to Syria to fight Assad, and/or the Shiite government of Iraq and/or US infidel imperialists and/or Canadian infidel-imperialists and/or the Kurds.

So what's up with all of this?

Well, the "Great War on Terror" has been a big deal since 2001. It's now nearing the close of 2014. World War II lasted less than half that time. The Japanese went from being non-entities to most US-Americans to becoming vile, racist creatures to be exterminated.

This conflict has been going on long enough to have started to make inroads into the broader culture. At the beginning, we had Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda. At the time of 2001, bin Laden was a guest of Afghanistan's Taliban. Both Al Qaeda and the Taliban were fall-out from or consequences of US support for the Mujaheddin against the Soviet Union. This produces the US invasion of Afghanistan and all the "clash of civilizations" inherent in that. This also produces the US invasion of Iraq, and gives Al Qaeda a new lease on life. More "clash of civilizations."

Surprisingly (given the supposed fact that the fight against terrorism is the great struggle of our times) the USA also allows the arming and funding of Islamic militants in Libya, against the secular dictatorship of Mommar Qaddafi. His government is brought down, Qaddafi is tortured and killed and Libya falls into chaos, with fanatical sectarians fighting against regional groups and fellow co-religionists and US stooges and others. Bloody chaos.

Surprisingly (not really by this point, nor to anyone who has been observing these abominations with a clear head from the beginning), the US provides an opportunity for militant Sunnis to attack the secular Baathist Assad dictatorship in Syria. Things get a little out-of-control (for the USA) as the Saudi-Arabia and Qatari-backed Sunni militants attack Shiite-dominated Iraq too.

And then there's been the whole horrible Israel-Palestine thing that has more monstrous and polarizing as the decades advanced.

So, this has been a long, drawn-out struggle. But what if one looks upon all of this, not as a "radicalized" tool of Western imperialism (who then signs up for the US, British, Canadian, etc., military to go and kill degenerate Ay-Rab Moozlums) but as something else?

For instance; What sort of person switches religions? I mean, ALL religion is complete bullshit, right? So, if you're indoctrinated in a certain religion from infancy, most people lazily conform to its basic premises until they die. Some people (e.g., drug addicts) get "saved" by embracing a more intensive version of their first religious delusion to give some meaning to their useless, wasted lives. But what sort of person decides to abandon the delusions of their parents for a new delusion?

That takes a special sort of person. (I'll say it takes more "thought" to do that, but I don't want to imply that it's sound thinking.)

So there's that.

What if you're already a Muslim and you see your people targeted and abused in this country by (mainly) adherents of an infidel delusion? What if, instead of going online and going to sites that cheer-on "the troops" in Iraq or Afghanistan, and which portray the enemy as the insane Taliban and the insane Al Qaeda and the insane ISIS, you go online and visit sites that praise the heroic Afghan resistance, and the heroic "freedom fighters" in Iraq, Libya and Syria? Sites that present the barbarism of the US/NATO occupations for what they are?

You'd end up as a Muslim-radical version of the spittle-flecked, rage-a-holic Terry Glavin. Except your "radicalization" would be frowned upon here, as opposed to being given a respectful national hearing.

Most sane, normal people, see all of this and just want the violence and tragedy to end. (Especially those who make the connections between the USA's cynical use of Islamic militants and the subsequent propaganda campaigns against them.) In the beginning, the "terrorist threat" in Canada was basically non-existent. ALL of the Canadian citizens CSIS (and/or the USA's intelligence services) had tortured abroad were found to have been innocent. It is my belief that ALL of the non-citizens imprisoned under "security-certificates" were found to have been innocent and the cases against them ludicrous.

The "Toronto 18" was a joke. Some Muslim-Canadian boys were blowing smoke on the internet and the RCMP sent a cocaine-addicted informant to entrap them with a ludicrous plot to attack Parliament Hill with swords and blow-up Bay Street with explosives (provided by the RCMP). Even the informant himself told the judge who ruled on the case that a number of the young men involved had no inkling about what was going on. Their appearance at his "terrorist training camp" had been presented to them as a fitness/religious retreat. To no avail. The judge said that they were "associated" with this enterprise and therefore guilty under the legislation.

After ten years of warfare on the side of the Americans, two men plotted to blow-up a train. Serious stuff. But nonetheless, a product of our foreign policy, not a reason for it (as the cretinous coward stephen harper would have it).

But now we DO have the sorts of Muslim radicals the right-wing and the intelligence complex have been shrieking about for over a decade. And now, because of this, we'll have more and more brain-dead pundits droning on about how these young men have become "radicalized."

If it isn't clear already, I believe that stephen harper is "radicalized." I believe that every slimy inhabitant of the right-wing internet community who spews out the wish that we drop nuclear missiles on Middle Eastern cities has been "radicalized." Young men (and women) who sign-up to fight the "War on Terror" have "radicalized." And now, after 13 years of war, we have a few men who have been "radicalized" by the other side.

And it's not black magic. You don't go to a web-site with a cheap graphic of some ISIS flags waving identically on its homepage and then "DOINK!" you're brainwashed. When you have repeated acts of gratuitous barbarism, year after year, and you have shit-head US generals saying "My God was bigger than his God" and mindless adherents of the Christian delusion (or atheists bigots like Sam Harris and Bill Maher) deriding your faith and cheering on these assaults, ... and you're a certain kind of young male, you'll get "radicalized."

What about the danger? If those two guys seriously planned to blow-up a VIA train, that was serious. But, as I said, it would have been a CONSEQUENCE of our foreign policy. The proponents of the imperialist project masquerading as the "War on Terror" would be partly to blame for it. But young men who burn their Canadian passports to fight in Syria? They burned their passports. They're a threat to Assad, not us. The "Toronto 18"? Not a threat. The Canadian men tortured by proxy by CSIS? Not a threat. The landed-immigrants/permanent residents oppressed by security certificates? Not a threat (from what i can recall of the reporting and analysis).

What we have here is an evil, idiotic conflict. Less people have been "radicalized" enough to support the other side, but they're just buying into the same evil that harper embraces and promotes.

Friday, December 19, 2014

stephen harper, the Laughable, Pathetic Coward, Part XXXIX

Is it CBC anchor Peter Mansbridge's job to suck all of the klingons off of the hairs around stephen harper's asshole until they're as clean as if they'd had a shampoo at the beauty salon?

I'm just asking a question here.

Reading Montreal Simon yesterday, I got to find out how the perpetually fearful (of everything) stephen harper has decided to rationalize his laughable, pathetic cowardice when a gunman entered the Parliament building last October.

The CBC has helpfully (because there's no way in Hell that I would ever listen to that jackass for even five minutes) provided a transcript of the recent Mansbridge-harper interview. Let's have a look, shall we?
The incidents that I mentioned, at the moment they were happening it would be hard to determine exactly what was happening, who was behind these, how involved ISIS or ISIL might be. (overlap)
Um when we've looked at them, the difference between the Canadian and the other incidents is as a leader, you were right there.
You were there when it happened.
Yeah. One of them anyway.
One of them. But we've never heard your story. What was it like in that room? There is a gunman on the other side of the door and there was a lot of shooting going on.
You know, Peter, as you know, I don't spend a lot of time talking about myself. At a time like that, my first responsibility and as you know, I've told you we've received some training to deal with these kinds of situations. My first responsibility is to extricate myself from such a situation so I can continue the normal functions of government and obviously extraordinary functions on a day like that.  ...
Since when is whimpering in a closet an "extraordinary function" that it's necessary the prime minister must do?

I don't need to tell you that for everybody in Parliament that day, not just our caucus, the other caucuses, the staff and employees, it was an experience no one wants to repeat. And obviously all our various police and security agencies on the Hill, off the Hill are going over the details of that to reach some conclusions on how they can ah better prevent and better respond to such incidents (overlap) in the future.
Notice how harper is quick to try to switch from his own sordid behaviour to the imagined reactions of others and the responses of security personnel?
Some of the people who were in that room and in the other caucus room thought that they were afraid for their lives at that moment when they heard what was going on outside that door.
Yeah, that's a fact. That's beyond a doubt.
So –
Absolutely beyond a doubt.
(IOW) "It's beyond a doubt that I was in fear for my pathetic existence. Me being a shallow narcissist and all."
What was going through your mind? I mean what were you hearing?
Um look as everybody knows, we were, you know, I told people we were – we were in a caucus room. You see, you see on the video you see security people having a fire fight chasing a gunman down the hall. You're in the caucus room there, all you hear is a whole lot of shooting coming towards you. And you don't know whether that's a fire fight or whether that's just a bunch of guys with automatic weapons wiping everybody out in their path. So you don't know what that is but obviously ah I think it's fair to say that ah for everybody in the room, we were pretty concerned. 
What drivel. The gunman (Michael Zehaf-Bibeau) had already expended most of his ammunition. A few shots were fired (one of them hitting the outer-door of the NDP caucus room across the hall from the Conservative caucus room) and then Zehaf-Bibeau ran past those rooms and around a corner to hide in an alcove near the entrance to the Parliamentary Library. It was there that he was incapacitated by a shot from Sergeant-at-Arms Vickers and then taken out in a hail of bullets from the rest of the security team. 

The thing is, harper was already crying in the closet by the time the gunman had run past his meeting room. Did he really have time to process whether those were police chasing a lone-gunman down the hall or a team of professional terrorist gunmen with body armour and automatic weapons intent on wreaking Islamic vengeance upon the infidel Parliamentarians? The answer, obviously, is "no." At the first sign of danger, harper scarpered. "When danger reared its ugly head, he bravely turned his tail and fled."
Perhaps you might think that I'm being unfair to harper, expecting him to be coolly evaluating the progress of the gun battle as it was happening. But harper is going to make much of his vaunted "training" and how it helped him deal with the situation. When your "training" only results in your immediately running for a closet, it's obvious that things happened exactly like this: 

Gunfire is heard. The RCMP tells harper to hide. He hides. End of story.

And, I had this to say the first time I heard about harper's cowering:
For what it's worth, I had a gun pointed straight at my face (from perhaps 3-5 meters away), so I know they're scary. I might have wanted to hide when there had been shots fired in the hallways outside the Chamber. I'm also sure that there were security personnel who were obligated to protect the prime minister (even though that position is occupied by a usurper) and they would have been very insistent that he be taken to a safe place. I might have allowed myself to have been convinced by their insistence.
But then, if I was a guy who had bullied and brow-beaten my cabinet and caucus for a decade, and lied, cheated and stole to get where I am, I think I would have no problem telling those security people to forget about dragging me off to a broom closet.

Justin Trudeau's "slut" of a father (to quote the doughy puss-ball Ezra Levant) ignored his security detail when angry rioters were tossing bottles (and god knows what else might happen sir!) at a St. Jean-Baptist Day parade. He stayed put while many others ran for cover and earned enormous political capital for it. Here was harper's chance to prove himself an equal in courage. And he blew it.

I know one thing for certain; if I had gone into a broom closet while my colleagues faced danger, I would NOT then say "We will not be intimidated." Because, harper, you most definitely WERE intimidated.

In other words, harper had a chance to act like a leader and he failed. Simple as that. Understandable, but also, extremely embarrassing for one who constantly poses as a warrior-leader, to the extent of playing dress-up in military attire.
Were you scared?
You know, I, I think I mentioned to you, I've been trained in incidences like that. Obviously you get keyed up. But um –
What does it mean you were trained, like –
Well the RCMP has run me through some drills to simulate these kinds of situations. So ah you know, as a prime minister you're in a little bit different position of other people, Peter. ...
It's already been well established that hiding at the first sign of danger hardly counts as "training." And it's the opposite of "leadership." When a sniper took shots at the crowd during the liberation of Paris, Charles de Gaulle did not cower. He stood there, all two meters of him. (He was insane, but that's what makes a man a warrior-leader. What harper has yet to figure out is that you can't pantomime being a warrior-leader if you're a gutless coward.) 

Here, harper begins to babble about imaginary plots and his own paranoia, acting as if his ravings have anything to do with the mentally-ill man whose attack sent him cowering in fear.
As prime minister I have access obviously to all the government's intelligence, all the security risks that are faced by the country and by me personally. 
This would be practically nothing. Although, as the government and the news media trumpet "Islamic Fundamentalism" as this super-grave threat to our nation's existence (thus making it seem awesome to a certain sort of insecure, unbalanced men), and as long as we continue to attack predominantly Muslim countries, and (insanely enough) SUPPORT jihadist groups (in Libya, Syria, etc.) a genuine threat might emerge.
... So, you're in a different head space than most other people who are suddenly facing this kind of situation for the first time.  ...
Ah-ha-ha-ha! Ignoring for the moment that YOU were facing that kind of situation for the first time too, are you saying that if they were "trained" like you were, they would have all stampeded for the closet at the same time that you did??? You fucking imbecile!
As I say it's a – it's a situation nobody wants to repeat. But the bigger question and obviously the questions we're looking at as we formulate additional legislation to deal with this terrorist threat is what do we have to do to protect the country writ large. That's really our main concern. 
Given that funding for mental health programs and programs for fighting drug addiction would have prevented this guy's rampage, it's pretty revealing that you've said NOTHING about reversing your cuts to such spending. The fact of the matter harper (you fucking scum-bag) is that you WANT there to be more shit like this. Just not around you. Because it scares you, and your fearful reaction cuts into your laughable attempts to present yourself as a "strong leader."
Just the last point. Were you, as has been reported, put in a closet?
Ah you know, I'm not going to comment on that. Um ah one of the ah – one of the things you try and do in a situation like that is conceal yourself if you can. But obviously the best situation is to exit, as I said, so that you can – so the prime minister can continue to run the government and that's what we were able to do within a few minutes fortunately. 
In other words: "In answer to your useless question (since I already felt ashamed enough about hiding in the closet that I apologized to my caucus), yes, I was hiding in a closet. Can we change the subject?"
Who was the first person you called when you got out of there?
I called my mom just to assure her I was okay and ah, and ah I could tell by her voice that she was concerned.
She'd probably been watching all this.
Yeah she was watching.
What a pathetic fucking coward. What a travesty of a human being. What a bullshit interview.

I'm not going to make any comments about harper's mother. She might have had something to do with her son turning out to be such a disgusting, loathsome creature, or she might have tried her best with the material she was given and he would have been a total scum-bag no matter what.

Thursday, December 18, 2014

Haven't Written About the USA's "Torture Report"

Other people are doing it, but I haven't been able to see the point really. Because we've known for a long time how the bush II regime openly practiced torture (and that this disgraceful practice has been adopted by Canadian institutions as well). We've known for a long time that Dick Cheney is a repulsively evil man. We also know that Barack (Wall Street shill/imperialist puppet) Obama is steadfast about "looking forwards, not backwards" and that there will be no accountability. This report was only released because the retiring US Senate has a  Democratic majority that will be gone this coming January. It's focused mainly on the argument that the information gleaned from torturing people was often useless and counter-productive to the "War on Terror." (Which is kinda weird because the whole "War on Terror" itself is almost complete bullshit.)

So, while there are some writers/bloggers who do an awesome job of chronicling the utter debasement of our society, writing the "first draft of history" as it were, I'm afraid that my efforts would be like nothing more than the morbid recounting of a car accident.

Because nothing is going to be done about bush II's and Cheney's war crimes. Obama isn't going to hold them accountable for the quite clearly criminal behaviour they engaged in. (He engages in it himself.) Just as he's not going to prosecute Wall Street leaders for their clearly criminal actions.

He'll just stand there and have the unmitigated gall to tell angry citizens protesting the abuse of process that let the murderers of Michael Brown and Eric Garner walk free and tell them to be peaceful (ie., ineffectual) because this country of torturers, super-corrupt banksters, and kkkiller kkkops is "a nation of laws."

Okay, okay. I'll talk about the torture report. Glenn Greenwald (who is literally hated by the shit-for-brains liberal "Driftglass" for criticizing the loathsome Barack Obama) has a great article about how the media is dredging-up all these torture-enablers and apologists to blather on about how necessary it was/is to slice at the penises of innocent men, in order to get information about terrorists armed and funded by US-ally Saudi Arabia, ... but they hardly ever (or never) manage to find air-time for the victims of these despicable practices, and allow the people to hear their views on the pros and cons of torture.

How about that piece of shit Jeffrey Folmer, who says that the fucked-up nut-case cop who murdered 12-year old Tamir Rice was "justified" in so doing? I think Folmer, besides being stupid, is also evil. I think somehow he has a sense that the words he was spewing were rancid and would cause hurt and anger among certain communities. That's why he said them. To enflame. Either that, or it was a sick exercise of unaccountable power.

How about Barack Obama, fresh off of telling outraged Americans to respect the law that he himself rapes with a broom handle on a daily basis, has decided to take Venezuela to task for their occasionally getting physical with the asshole, murdering, fascist scum-bags who were trying to bring down their government recently? (Meanwhile, the mass-murdering Colombian government, right next door to Venezuela gets gifts of free weapons so they can kill more peasants and trade-unionists. Go figure 'eh?)

Finally, ... people are literally starving in the Canadian north. People are actually foraging in garbage-dumps for food. Sure, we made hay for a few days about the lying psycopath harpercon Leona Aglukkaq (who probably "won" her seat in Parliament through fraud), but what are we doing about it? What CAN we do? (Maybe we should think about that last question.)

Tuesday, December 16, 2014

What Could Andrea Horwath Have Done?

The Ontario Liberal majority government has allowed them to show off all their worst attributes. The main thing that Ontario Liberals seem to like to do is to waste billions and billions of taxpayers' dollars on boondoggle gifts to their friends in the private sector. (Of course, if they didn't, those private-sector scum would enthusiastically pour all their resources into the Tea-Baggers in the Ontario PC Party.)

But that's no excuse. When corporate criminals are extorting you and trying to get you to destroy the living standards of hundreds of thousands of people, you should use the legislative process to break their power. Not cave-in to them.

Why didn't Andrea Horwath pull the plug on the corrupt, contempt of the legislature Liberals when she first had the chance? Because Horwath knows that the electorate HATES elections. The robotic corporate-servo-drone McGuinty had resigned in a fit of pique and Kathleen Wynne, not (directly) personally tainted by the gas-plant fiasco might very well have forced some people to be accountable for this criminal (whatever partisan hacks have to say about it) misuse  of the people's money. That alternative appeared better than forcing an election for what the voters (in their ignorance) would have thought was an unimportant scandal.

Surprisingly, the scandal had legs. People knew that three-quarters of a billion dollars is a lot to spend for purely partisan purposes. (Despite what shameless Liberal hacks might think.) And, no doubt, partisan hacks of the Progressive Conservative persuasion never hesitated to vent to Horwath about this disgusting Liberal arrogance, criminal waste and anti-democratic behaviour. (I can just hear them in their self-righteous, hackneyed fury.) Horwath started to believe that she should defeat the Liberals. They were in contempt of the legislature after all. But defeat them and give the just-as-contemptuous-of-the-legislature PC's power?

What to do? What to do?

In my mind, she played it all wrong. Wynne was able to put a lot of genuinely good proposals in that budget of hers. But it was accompanied (as we see now, and many should have at the time) with all sorts of privatization and other failed neo-liberal policies. Horwath came out against the budget without negotiations, and saw herself painted as "voting against the most progressive budget in years."

She should have negotiated.

She shouldn't have campaigned from the right. She could have talked about being a good steward of the people's taxes, but without antagonizing the public sector unions (which she did). She shouldn't have taken the concerns of small business to heart while once again leaving the working poor hanging out to dry. Small-business has its own parties.

She should have stuck to her guns about the Liberals privatization and PPP-swindles.

But first and foremost, she should not have defeated the budget based on anger about a scandal she had a chance to attack around half-a-year ago. She should have consulted with the party's base (including all those activists her advisors derided as self-interest, out-of-touch codgers).

But Horwath is, herself, mired in the stink of stupid party politics. The permanent staff of the NDP has got to be the most useless, clueless, hopeless, mediocre fuckwads ever assembled. Decade-after-decade, these contaminated doofuses preach moderation, middle-of-the-road-ism, and slavish devotion to whatever flotsam and jetsam gets washed ashore as the party's leadership. They dissipate the activist spirit and it was only the implosion of the federal Liberals that gave them a new lease on life. Horwath listened to them (and her own centrism) and lost touch with the people who voted NDP year after year. She then abused the party's democracy by foisting the nauseating Adam Giambrone on the Scarborough-Guildwood riding association in a dubious decision that the brass has refused to investigate and explained away with the most obvious bullshit excuses.

Thanks to the total ineptness of Tim Hudak, the Liberals stormed to the majority whereupon they proceeded to cover-up and lie their way through exposes of their treasury-busting corruption and incompetence.

Such is politics in Canada.

Sunday, December 14, 2014

Ontario Liberal Corruption and Arrogance

It is a sign of the debased level of capitalist democracy that we are constantly faced with a "choice" between idiot, retrograde racist asshole thieves (the "Conservatives") and slightly less-idiotic, socially progressive thieves (the Liberals). I pointedly left the insult "asshole" in there because that's how the Ontario Liberals have been behaving with their majority in the face of the Ontario Auditor General's damning report.

When the Auditor General says that Ontario wasted $8 billion on excess costs brought about by private=sector thieves via "Public-Private-Partnerships" the Wynne Liberals say that Ontario simply didn't have the public-sector capacity to build things without the private sector. As if the Office of the Auditor General came to its conclusions mindlessly believing the province had resources that it didn't have.

I mean, the fact of the matter is that the labour movement has demonstrated for years and years that PPP's end up costing more than having the public sector go it alone. The Ontario Liberals are shamelessly corrupt. They know this. All the time that they're cutting programs for the majority, they double-down on the revenue-busting tax-cuts and on the steady, multi-billion dollar gifts for their private-sector masters.

With the fiasco of the smart meters and the above-market energy prices costing Ontarians an extra $50 billion, the Liberal Energy Minister had the audacity to say that the AG had obviously been overwhelmed by the complexities of the issues (and therefore off by $50 billion!!!). The subject matter wasn't too complicated for the corrupt Liberals or their bureaucratic partners.

This is the sort of bullshit we have to deal with, just to hold-off the cromagnon abominations of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party and shit-head Tim Hudak's dreams of being the errand boy of the Walton's and the Koch Brothers north of the 49th Parallel.

Sickeningly, the ONDP and the federal NDP can only see themselves being a more "reasonable" set of corporate sell-outs than the Liberals. The whole thing makes me sick.

Friday, December 12, 2014

Mulcair/Trudeau would DESTROY this country!!!!!

Right-wingers are given to hyperbole because they're not good at putting things into perspective. Hypocrisy is second nature to them. So that's why you'll often hear one of them bellowing words to the effect of how either of the Liberals or the NDP would be a disaster for Canada.

To my knowledge though, it tends to be right-wingers who are in power when people die from drinking tap water. It's right-wing governments that cause us to die from eating tainted meat. It's right-wing governments that decimate our hospitals to the point where people die in ambulances driving around looking for an emergency room that can take them in.

What about AdScam? ADSCAM ADSCAM ADSCAM ADSCAM ADSCAM (!!!!!) ?????

The harpercons are guilty of AdScam on steroids! All that money for "security" since 2006, ... money that they can't account for,  or, in the case of Tony Clement, simply brazenly used to pork-barrel in his riding. All those outside lawyers they've been paying, only they won't tell us what they've been paying them for. All those contractors they've been hiring for reasons unknown, ... are we to imagine that the election fraudster harpercon party has been on the up-and-up, hiring people for necessary government work?

Look at the total disregard, the total contempt for our parliamentary system of government harper has displayed. What's left to be destroyed?

No. Anyone who supports the harpercons is either abysmally ignorant, a shameless hypocrite, or a cynical liar.