WTF???

Via Dawg's Blawg, we find a curious last-minute ploy by Elections Canada with regards to Ted Opitz's desperate attempts to retain his stolen election in Etobicoke-Centre:

Elections Canada has filed a chart with the Supreme Court, showing that 44 of the 52 people whose ballots were discarded due to missing registration certificates are on the National Register of Electors, which means they are Canadian citizens and qualified to vote.
It's possible, therefore, that those 44 people should have been allowed to have their votes counted, which would put a serious dent into Wrzesnewskyj's case to nullify the election.
But there is a problem.
Although the names and addresses of those 44 voters are redacted in the court document, a code shows that almost half of them did not live in Etobicoke Centre in the month before the election.
It is possible that these voters could have moved into the riding during the election period, but since their registration certificates are missing, there's no proof that they were residents of Etobicoke Centre when they voted.
In its motion, Elections Canada says it is a neutral party and takes no position on whether the evidence should be added to the appeal.
But the motion raises a question about why Elections Canada didn't do this research when Wrzesnewskyj first raised the issue of missing registration certificates

As Dawg says, it's curious how this "Hail Mary" pass happened under the watch of his new, allegedly very pliant, appointee, Yves Côté. Remember too, that the original judge only looked at the results from 10 polling stations. Conceivably, there could have been many more irregularities elsewhere. Do you suppose Côté has some hidden knowledge of any other examples of extreme incompetence? Elections Canada is looking more like a collection of Keystone Cops with each passing day.

Discouraged Workers, Deficits and the Whole Damned Thing

The Progressive Economics Forum summarizes the latest StatsCan labour report. 17,000 workers dropped out of a job market that has only produced 7,000 jobs for a labour force that grew by 30,000 in June.

Here's a good (old) article about how the real source of stephen harper's deficits have been in budget-busting tax-cuts, including completely unproductive corporate tax-cuts. This article is a little too deluded about the benefits of balanced budgets for my liking but it clearly details how harper's deficits since the start of the Great Recession in 2008 add up to over $140 billion.

I must point out that I don't begrudge harper for that entire amount. The Great Recession is a worldwide phenomenon. But harper is a devoted enthusiast for the clearly failed economic model that has produced most of that massive number. harper (and, obviously, the imbecilic Jim Flaherty) are shitty economic managers and the deficits would no doubt have been tens of billions of dollars smaller than they have been under almost anyone else.

But in the end, harper and Flaherty are just stupid errand boys. The real problem is capitalism. And the sickness is the neo-liberal variant of financialized capitalism that is going to bring human civilization to collapse unless it is stopped and eliminated.

I just thought I'd type a quick post reminding my dozen or so readers about the complete intellectual and moral failure of the system held up for us as the only viable option.

"Find one voter who didn't vote because of our fraud!"

There were an UNPRECEDENTED number of complaints about electoral irregularities arising out of the 2011 federal election. Call centres, in the pay of the Conservative Party of Canada, were (among other things) giving voters deliberately false information about polling stations moving to new locations. As part of their ridiculous, intelligence-insulting defence of themselves, Conservatives and their revolting supporters, are actually demanding that we produce evidence of anyone having not voted as a result of their fraud.

In the first place, these actions were CRIMES, the penalty for each of which is $5,000 and/or 5 years in prison. We don't have to prove that the criminal acts succeeded in their goals to make them illegal. Dumb-fucks.

In the second place, while it's interesting that so far nobody has come forward to say that they didn't vote due to the Conservatives' criminal behaviour, and while someone should definitely do a poll to establish whether or not anyone was discouraged by the Conservatives' crimes, let's consider this question: Do political parties ask people specifically whether they voted because of their campaign commercials or their phone calls? Or do they consult statistics and make inferences based on the correlation of poll results to campaign ads and such? If they do do that, are they being witless dupes, throwing money down the toilet?

Anyway, the Conservative Party's methods are no way to conduct democracy in a mature society. And we are obligated to target such behaviour with extreme prejudice.

Mexico Shoots Itself in the Head

And by "Mexico" I mean the whole gamut of people, institutions, laws (including those who uphold them and who choose to not uphold them), culture, etc. In the same way that "Canada" is tolerating stephen harper's stolen majority.

Anyhow, Mexico's PRI candidate, the 45-year old airhead Peña Nieto, has, either by hook or crook, won the presidential election. He is promising an end to the violent "war on drugs" and the "liberalization" of Mexican labour laws.

The PRI ruled Mexico from 1912 to 2000 using violence, fraud and populism. The PRI collapsed after having succumbed to the austerity policies that were a result of the "Third World Debt Crisis" at the beginning of the 1980s and the subsequent total economic failure that was the result of NAFTA. (NAFTA had been signed in the hopes of getting renewed access to US-American capital markets following the "lost decade" of the 1980s.) Not even the PRI could have gotten away with yet another stolen election after two decades of massive economic dislocation like that. There would have to be some opportunity for Mexicans to vent their frustration while at the same time keeping things safely in the hands of the comprador ruling class and its US-American masters. In 1988, in what would have been a referendum against the savage austerity policies of that decade, the social-democratic PRD was set to win the elections until a "computer failure" at the Electoral Commission supposedly caused a crash. When the computers were back up and running, the PRI had mysteriously surged ahead. For what it's worth, the PRD was again robbed of a rightful victory in 2006. Considering that "conservatives" become violently enraged when people protest when they STEAL elections, the peaceful resignation of Mexican leftists appears almost saintly! But, going back to the year 2000, there needed to be a change of government to mollify the enraged populace. Right on cue, the former Coca-Cola executive Vicente Fox with a permissible political alternative, the even more right-wing, pro-business PAN. Of course, right-wing, pro-business policies are what put Mexico's economy in the toilet in the first place, which is why the PRD won the aforementioned 2006 election (which was subsequently stolen for the PAN).

Under the new PAN president, Felipe Calderon, the state launched a "war on drugs." As was stated above, this war has turned incredibly violent and is widely regarded as having been a massive failure. Peña Nieto has vowed to bring peace to the country but it's not clear that this will be possible. Mexican drug cartels had long made fortunes smuggling Mexican and South American drugs across the US-Mexican border. Participation in the drug trade tracked the demise of the rural economy that resulted from NAFTA. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the absence of legitimate economic survival caused by NAFTA and the subsequent militarization of the US border against the refugees it created, will cause people to find work in the only industry that is expanding in any big way, the drug trade. Calderon signed on to the US-Americans' drug war both to placate them and to obtain access to massive loans and military equipment to fight both the drug cartels and the growing numbers of dissidents against elite corruption and mass deprivation. (Obviously, a series of US-American governments recognized the dual benefits of these "anti-drug" programs.) Nieto might try to negotiate a truce with the cartels (despite his promises to the contrary) but the renewed flow of drugs over the US-American border will make Washington demand that he do something about this. He won't be able to do anything because the underlying causes of the cartel wars will not have changed.

Nieto's other promise, to "liberalize" Mexican labour is a sick, sick joke. Mexicans aren't unemployed because of strong unions and coddling labour laws. They're unemployed because peasant agriculture has been devastated and because Chinese factories produce things more cheaply than even Mexican factories. Full stop. While I believe that stupid clods like Nieto, Jim Flaherty and Mike Harris, genuinely believe this bullshit, the fact of the matter is that destroying working conditions doesn't produce national prosperity.

The PRD's leader, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador vows to challenge this election. The result of that will be the same as 2006. Mexico's institutions are corrupt and the fix is in. As well, the US media have all received their talking points and, as they did in 2006, they'll mock Obrador as a "sore loser." Barack "Hope & Change" Obama will probably have him assasinated if he doesn't shut the fuck up.

In the end, as with Europe, as with North America, our rulers are not dedicated to national prosperity. They're dedicated to self-enrichment. They got rich during the financial fraud days of 2001-2008 and now they're scrambling to preserve their wealth as things fall apart. That's why they plan on putting their working classes through the wringer even though such thinking is counter-productive. Things are going to get worse it seems, before there's even a chance that they'll get better.

My Most Gracious Enquirie to the Esteemed Shit-for-Brains, Peter1

Sometimes I think Dr. Dawg is completely wasting his time by allowing trolls and/or absolute idiots to comment repeatedly on his site. I especially can't see the point of allowing the vile lunatic ksarroafh-skdf to pollute the environs on a regular basis. But sometimes, through the quality of trolls that he attracts, you'll get the odd clever attempt at an argument from some of them and you can whet your blade against them. Even still, that utility pales in comparison to their overall lowering of the tone of the culture of the blog and, in their own little way, of Canada's democratic health.

The commentator Peter1 is someone I've written about before. He's reasonably bright and fairly articulate and often gives the impression (to others) that there's more to his typing than there is. Ponder his offerings for but a minute though, and it becomes clear that he's either a shameless lying hack or he's a complete shit for brains. Among the many gems he's farted out:

• The Left in North America is just as boorish and violent as the Right. 
• The Theory of Evolution (or Evolution via Natural Selection, since when he gets excited he forgets what he's trying to say) is just a theory and can't explain everything and therefore should be replaced by he knows not what.
• Evolution (by any means) is a totalitarian endeavour that cannot bear the light of true scientific scrutiny 
• Science itself is apparently nothing more than a religious clique whose priests jealously guard their baseless authority in order to continue to bamboozle us
• He feels special (the center of his own universe next to God) and therefore he's not bound by any silly so-called scientific laws, but he, in fact, possesses a completely Free Will. So there.

Another of his irritating habits is that any reference to one of the myriad crimes against humanity (literally) or crimes against democracy and human rights of the harpercons is met with some obvious attempt at false equivalence through Peter1's mentioning some barely connected action of the NDP's. (Even if the absurdity of his efforts here are recognized, you can tell he gains gratification if he has successfully changed the subject.) 

It is the latter trick of his that makes me question whether he's a shameless hack, rather than the tiresome mediocrity-imbecile that the earlier beliefs would lead you to think he is, or whether he's a deliberately lying hack. I was rude to Peter1 (because I think he's both contemptible and a moron) and it sent Dawg reeling to the fainting couch. I thought I'd take apart Peter1's asinine outpourings, both to demonstrate his ridiculousness and to take another whack at those of his revolting fellow travellers who still attempt to bluster their way through harper's electoral fraud, war crimes and overall contempt for democracy.

It is in this spirit then, that I reply to Peter1's idiotic and anti-democratic efforts in this post. In a response to a post where, ironically, Dawg is celebrating Canadian constitutional scholar Peter Russell coming right out and calling the harpercons "A lot of disgusting people" for their revolting, hypocritical attempt to stir up the anger of the ignorant among the populace during his first controversial prorogation in 2008, and which in the comments was used to extend condemnation for later examples of harpercon perfidy, Peter1 trolls thusly:

You can keep talking about rigged elections all you want if it makes you feel better, but as no one has yet produced one testimony from a voter whose vote was affected or who didn't vote when he/she intended to, it's all pretty hollow.

The question I would put to Russel is what should be the sanctity of a parliamentary convention when public opinion is strongly in favour of breaking or bending it. ... In the King/Byng affair, King ignored longstanding convention to the howls of the purists and then was vindicated at the polls. History books now teach it was an important step on the road to Canadian nationhood and independance.

Trudeau threw a nuclear bomb at what had until then been seen as the most sacred of Canadian consitutional conventions--the feds wouldn't change provincial powers without the support of most of the provinces--, but today most of the public remembers him as a Moses descending with the Tablets.  

I think there is a pretty good argument to the effect that breaking a convention with public support is not an outrageous anti-democratic abuse of power, it's the whole point of basing so much of the system on convention, not law. If you break or bend a convention and then are vindicated at the polls, the convention evolves or changes, again the whole point. As Harper won the election despite Dr. Dawg's new math, it's Harper 1, the Others 0.

With regards to the stupid argument that the criminal behaviour might not have helped them to obtain any of their intended prize, we must first point out the obvious fact that massive, nation-wide, deliberate election fraud is ILLEGAL. The ACT is illegal. It doesn't matter if you pull a gun on somebody and they tell you to fuck off and you run before they hit you without getting any of their money. The crime began when you pulled the gun and threatened them.

Even IF it's true that their fraud had zero impact, do we REALLY want to be seen as acquiescing to such behaviour in our country's political climate? Do we REALLY want to have our elections go the way of elections in the United States? Evidently, Peter1 does. Because he's sure that only his team will practice the disgusting behaviour that he secretly applauds.

Have we EVER (in the postwar period) had an election with thousands upon thousands of complaints of electoral irregularities as the 2011 election produced? My god, just writing these words makes me shake with rage at Peter1's moral imbecility. This is not how you conduct democracy!!!

Peter1's attempt to conflate the controversial 2008 prorogation with the King-Byng Affair is laughable. The King-Byng Affair went thusly: In 1926, as a result of a scandal which would result in a vote of non-confidence in his minority government, Liberal PM Mackenzie-King as the British-appointed Governor General Byng to dissolve Parliament and call an election, rather than see if the Conservative Party could form a government with the third-place Progressive Party. Mackenzie-King's actions the whole time were hypocritical in the extreme. Byng apparently wanted Canada's Parliament to sort things out but Mackenzie-King, in desperation, asked him to call London (England) for advice. When Byng refused King's call for an immediate election, King called Byng's actions an affront to Canada's sovereignty that a Canadian PM was being overruled by a British appointee and used all sorts of jingoist appeals to convince the Progressives to vote with the Liberals to defeat the Conservative government and force an election.

Notice however, that although King's behaviour was that of a buffoon, a liar and a hypocrite, at least he was asking to go to the people. His government was going to be defeated and he wanted the Governor General to bring his government to an end and call an election. He didn't want Meighen's Conservatives to form the government, whereas harper wanted to cling to power even in the face of having lost the confidence of the legislature. This is how far we have sunk, that Mackenzie-King's behaviour in the King-Byng affair is almost virtuous in comparison to harper's and moral dunces like Peter1 cheer for harper!

Peter1's next turd is his attempt to equate Pierre Trudeau's bare-knuckle treatment of the government of Quebec in his desire to patriate Canada's Constitution in the face of the Quebec government's disagreement. Very simply, Confederation in 1867 involved a number of British North American colonies ("Canada" which included "Canada West" [Ontario] and "Canada East" [Quebec], New Brunswick and Nova Scotia) within the confines of the British Empire. (Other BNA colonies would join, willingly or not, up into the 20th Century.) The British North America Act 1867 was signed into law as an Act of the British Parliament. It mainly focused on the distribution of powers between the federal government and the provinces. Britain has no written constitution outlining the limits of government power and the rights and freedoms of British subjects. It did not include any formula for amending it. It was assumed that if Canadians ever did want to change their system of government, they'd get together and come to an agreement and then propose it to the British Parliament. 

Eventually though, Canadians began to feel embarrassed that national issues were being appealed to British law makers. At the same time though the government of Quebec was always leery about re-opening Confederation in the face of increasingly activist-minded federal governments. They resisted each and every attempt to amend the Constitution up until Trudeau. Trudeau himself had always held Quebec nationalism in contempt. In his youth, it was represented by the stultifying, oppressive, insecure and downright provincialism of the Quebec Catholic Church. When he became a national politician himself, he felt that the Quebec nationalism of the post-"Quiet Revolution" period was based on the same insecurity, insularity of the old version, with terrorist bombs thrown in. Anglo-French Canadian nationalism was represented by Quebec politicians among the Liberal Party of Canada.  In his view, neither provincial nor national Quebec politicians could lay claim to a monopoly interest in representing the views of Quebec voters. 

When it came time for Trudeau to feel the need to patriate the Constitution, he asked the Supreme Court of Canada if he was legally obligated to get the unanimous consent of all the provinces (meaning the consent of Quebec) to amend the BNA. Since there was no amending formula, or anything remotely dealing with the topic, the Supreme Court said no, he wasn't, but custom and convention meant that he should pay serious attention to the government of Quebec's views. Trudeau happily accepted the first part of their ruling and disregarded the latter, enraging the Quebec government and Quebec nationalists from moderates to independistes. 

Trudeau upset convention to patriate the Constitution. Violated the convention that all provinces must agree before the constitution is reformed. A PM from Quebec, with significant Quebec support, overruled the objections of another party from Quebec (the PQ at the time forming the government) and brought home the Constitution and created the Charter of Rights and Freedoms with the support of nine provinces out of 10. One can argue about this in good faith, but one CANNOT argue that it is at all the same thing as utterly negating the principle of responsible government, or violating the right of Parliament to know the costs of the government's policies, or using prorogation to avoid investigation for war crimes, or lying routinely to Parliament or committing massive election fraud. There is simply no comparison. 

Read what Peter1 says here:

I think there is a pretty good argument to the effect that breaking a convention with public support is not an outrageous anti-democratic abuse of power, it's the whole point of basing so much of the system on convention, not law.

So, demanding that the people's representatives vote for budgets without giving them the actual costs of what you want to do isn't an outrageous anti-democratic abuse of power?

So, proroguing Parliament to specifically avoid a vote of no-confidence from the people's representatives isn't an outrageous anti-democratic abuse of power?

So, lying to the people's representatives while you're asking them to trust your verbal assurances of your budget's costs isn't an outrageous anti-democratic abuse of power?

So, putting an entire legislative season's policies into one bill and ramming it through because you have a majority isn't an outrageous anti-democratic abuse of power?

So winning a majority through fraud and avoiding calls for an inquiry into your crimes isn't an outrageous anti-democratic abuse of power?

So torturing people and then using your power to avoid investigations into your crimes against humanity (including proroguing Parliament) isn't an outrageous anti-democratic abuse of power?

Peter1 stands as a hopeless goddamned shit-for-brains scumbag. And Dawg reveals himself as a deluded sap for harbouring this piece of shit and protecting him against the abuse he so richly deserves.

Now You're Talking!

This rabble.ca essay has been up for a couple of days. But I just want to acknowledge it. We're finally talking about the people standing up to an illegitimate, anti-Canadian, undemocratic regime. This is vital to preserve the health of Canadian democracy (such as it was).

Good to see the federal public sector is onside. (How could they not be?) harper decided to declare war on democracy. he (and his blinkered supporters) are in the wrong.

Obamacare

I'm trying to avoid blogging about US politics because Canada's crisis of democracy is so much more important to me But I have to admit to being completely surprised that the SCOTUS didn't find the "individual mandate" (wherein: "people who have no employer-provided health plan, and no other kind of coverage, fail to buy a policy for themselves and their families .... will be socked with a bill by the IRS, and while the Obama administration and supporters of the act in Congress were at pains to say that the payment such people would be hit with would be a fine, the Justices in the majority were adamant that it would be a tax.") unconstitutional.

After a few minutes though I decided that both Repug and Dem politicians are errand boys for US capitalism. John Roberts decided that the massive revenue increase that the individual mandate means for the health insurance industry is more important than the concept of government regulation of industry. (And, obviously, the independence and freedom of US citizens has counted for shit, especially for the last two [p]residents of the White House.)

It's also a testimony to how innocuous the regulatory apparatus of Obamacare is that the SCOTUS passed it.

Please note: The illustration is meant to be a hoot, ... a mockery of the right-wing shit-for-brains.