The latest conservative slogan is cheesy, and for their believers, the sheeple as I lovingly refer to them, it works. I'm talking about the new "talking point" which will be continuously rammed down your throat by every partisan hack in sight. Canada will be flooded with the "Conservative values are Canadian values" which would be okay if there were an atom of truth to the statement. This catchy little slogan will be picked up and repeated to people so often they will come to believe they actually believe it.
It's no different than phenomenons like urban myths, or using viral video hoaxes as a marketing tool. Anything perceived to be true, is true, until proven different, but only in the case of people who are open minded. There are many people out there who think it is some kind of shame to admit when they are wrong. People who will continue to cling to absolute proven lies because they see it as some kind of defeat to accept they've been mislead. It's because of the sheer numbers of these kind of people that society continually takes one step back for every one or two forward.
Almost all Canadians I've come in contact with are generally glad to be Canadians rather than Americans. Traditionally, there have been similarities, but also marked differences. Americans tend to be relatively boastful and highly jingoistic. They're known world wide as being rude, boorish, and overbearing. They have more braggadocio than the rest of the world's population combined. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of wonderful Americans, but the image of those people is never projected. Like the voice of moderates in Canada today, they are marginalized, however they've had to endure it far longer. American is known as a global bully, whether it is militarily or economically. The majority of Americans I interact with are shockingly inward looking, they believe, because they have been indoctrinated to believe since birth, the America is the greatest country in the world, which naturally means everything should go the way America wants it to go and if it doesn't, you take the chance of being bombed into the 12th century.
Americans are the first to criticize repressive countries who openly control their populations, you know, countries where the leader's name is preceded by the word "general" or places you see with gigantic murals of the leader for life and massive military parades which serve two great purposes: showing off your might to the world, and reminding your domestic population who's in charge.
The sole reason America can be such a vocal and sometimes violent critic, is because they have found a way to do the exact same thing without the bad optics. From birth, everything in America is about indoctrination. Waving an American flag commands a lot of attention, because even little children are taught to pledge their homage to the flag of their country, which, not incidentally, get the "G" word in at the end. From the time they are babies they are repeatedly told America is the greatest country in the world. As for the military parades, not required when you have made the military a viable religion. If you think I'm fooling, just watch any number of live events, sporting events, etc. The US Military is keenly aware of the value of having their "colour guard" appear on camera. No problem at all in arranging a fly past by some impressive aviation killing machines, or a display of military vehicles and weapons at your even or festival. They don't just have a single memorial for veterans, they have memorials spread far and wide because they are immensely personal and touch many lives. They remember veterans on several national holidays. No matter what the public event, you'll see two things. The flag, and men/women in uniform. This folks, is deep integration at its best. To the point where you are vilified if you even attempt to criticize even the most heinous actions of the military.
Unfortunately, in this country, many people are still deeply confused over the conservative party. They believe they know what conservative values are, after all, for many, their families have voted conservative for generations. This was the coup of all coups for Harper and his small circle of friends and advisors. Keeping the word conservative to identify their party, and a carefully thought out logo which is purpose built to make former progressive conservatives believe this is still their party.
Make absolutely no mistake about it. Stephen Harper is nothing like a progressive conservative. He sees them as weak, and soft on his agenda, however, in order to set his agenda in place he needs those people, or perhaps, past tense, he needed those people to get his majority. Why do you think he convinced his minions they "needed" a majority in order to have "stability" and get rid of the "shenanigans" going on in parliament. Nice line, people figured that's plausible, there have been plenty of badly run conservative governments in the past and we've survived them, what's so different about Harper's conservatives? Truth is, plenty.
Stephen Harper is a republican. He only began to somewhat hide that when the time was right to wrest control of a much-weakened progressive conservative party, not because he cared about the fate of that party, he needed the brand name. That's it. Prior to his initial run to become PM, Stephen Harper made no secret of what he thought of Canadian values, especially when his audience was full of American ears. This man was unabashedly apologetic for everything Canadians held (and I hope still do) dear. He called Canada a "Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the word". He attacked everything from medicare to bilingualism to being a nation more partial to peace than war. All his words, not mine. I've never believed Stephen Harper had or has a hidden agenda. Until he became an important figure in Canadian federal politics he never hid the fact he believed that not only should Canada be more like America, but Canada should reflect a far-right republican America. Canada should be a country where, if you can't or won't survive on your own, too bad, hopefully someone will help you out but it would probably be better if you were dead. We should ensure our good friends, the Americans, have access to all of our resources, on their terms, as long as his backers would benefit financially from it. Governments should not run the country, corporations should. He'd love nothing more than an injection of good old convenient Christianity into our society as well, ergo, the slashing of funding for women's groups, because women should be a lot more like women in other countries, at home, having kids, married and staying that way even if you need a beating to know your place once in a while. Of course he never would have dropped that one publicly, but their policies are geared toward encouraging women to be quiet and most certainly out of the boardrooms of the country. One only needs to examine the "income-splitting" proviso promised when they balance the budget by cutting funding and programs for anyone who openly opposes them. Who will benefit? Not the people who really need help. Not single parents, or anyone with a family income less than $42,500. How many people are immediately exempted by just those 2 conditions alone? Mostly, Stephen Harper is all about government for the few, by the few, and fuck you.
Because of the lack of foresight of the over 20% of Canadians who offered up Harper's coveted majority, I am going to take great delight from your anguish at what you've done. With 4 years of absolute power a lot of things can change, and they will. Too bad for you sheeple, you see, I'm interested enough in people and politics I've been preparing myself for this for a decade. I'll be fine. On the other hand, your family and friends are going to be hurt in ways you never bothered to think of because you see politics as some kind of sporting event, whereas I see politics as the jerks who run my life. I don't fear the Harper agenda because I know the Harper agenda. I generally don't wish anyone ill will, but I will say to the ignoramus' out there who didn't bother to understand what you were voting for, I hope the policies implemented over the next four years really put the screws to you personally, or at least to someone you care deeply about. It's what you deserve for your intransigence. It's the price you pay for ignorance. In four years the Canada you've lived in all your life, or the Canada you came to for a better life will not be recognizable. Stephen Harper promised that, many years ago. I have no reason to suspect he will not follow through. At the end, he'll still be rich and getting richer, you'll be screwed, and frankly, people like me will smile and say, it looks good on you.
Welcome to America Lite.
To Stephen Harper I say, conservative values are your values. You've openly expressed you hate the things that made us uniquely Canadian, now, for a time, you will get your way. By the time you're exposed to the willingly blind, you'll be gone, the damage will be done to a great extent, but you'll never be remembered as a great Prime Minister by anyone but yourself and your friends. Congratulations. You've proven Canadians are embarrassingly naive.
To my fellow 60%'ers: Stop thinking about today and start thinking of how we are going to restore a once great and respected country. We'll have a lot of work to do. There isn't a shred of doubt in my mind that the political party that will be tasked with bringing Canada back does not exist today. That's just my opinion.
Canadian values are Canadian values. They're not conservative values or liberal values or NDP values. No single party represents Canada or Canadians. I know the Prime Minister doesn't care, but I do. A majority of others do too, chances are we aren't going away.
Thought provoking ideas. Comments/arguments welcomed, abusive comments unceremoniously deleted.
Showing posts with label Harper Government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Harper Government. Show all posts
Saturday, 18 June 2011
Thursday, 16 June 2011
The Truth About Unions
It seems, during an unusual period of unrest, a good opportunity to discuss the subject of...gasp...unions!!
For the purposes of this dialogue, I'll feel free to assume those reading are not union members, however, if you do belong to a trade union or professional association I welcome your comments on my thoughts.
When thinking about unions, I began to ask what the average person (who wasn't an avid researcher) would know about them. What would be the source of knowledge of the union movement (and the people who make it up) available to an individual? Someone not totally oblivious to things that happen in the real world, the one outside of Farmville.
My opinion? Much of what we "know" (sic) is probably influenced by print, online, and broadcast media. Beyond that, what most people think they know about unions is secondarily influenced by other factors, such as: words and actions of Government, relatives, friends or others you know who belong to such an organization, or your own personal experiences (either in the context of you belonging or encounters with workers during a job action).
Starting from that framework seems to be fair, it seems to be setting the bar fairly low but I'm sure those with a little (or lot) more knowledge will bear with me. At this point, my advice to any reasonable person would be: forget your preconceived notions of whether unions are good or bad and read my story of personal experience. I would greatly appreciate anyone who would leave a comment and let me know if this post at least makes you think about your perception when you finish reading.
For the first two-thirds of my life, including just over half my working career, I never worked in a unionized workplace. I will freely admit I subscribed to a lot of stereotypical thoughts about unions and unionized workers. Words that would come to my mind were greed, dishonesty, laziness, nothing really very good but to this day, the majority of coverage of anything to do with unions or unionized workers continually portrays any worker(s) engaging in job action as the villain of the story. Think about the coverage of the current strike action being undertaken by members of CUPW, representing Canada's postal workers. Think about most coverage of work stoppages, whether they involve a strike action initiated by employees, or a lockout by the employer, and the first thing you will think about is the wage they make or out-of-the-ordinary benefits or pensions, etc. I think that's a true statement. I do not see or hear media coverage which discusses how profitable the corporation has been historically, I don't recall hearing many stories about how many people have been hurt in the name of those profits, or whether the employer has a history of treating workers poorly or tolerating intolerable behavior, etc. This is the first great sin of unions, greed, not real greed, but the appearance of greed because stories are always slanted that way, and to a great extent, anger and derision from those who have no ability to bargain with their employer to try to get fair compensation for what they do daily to help the company succeed. Corporate executives make huge salaries and topping it off by paying themselves hundreds of thousands, even millions in bonuses, none of them go without benefits and if they get fired they already have pre-arranged massive payouts to themselves and the other top execs on top of pensions you and I can only fantasize about, yet you can't get past the fact that union person makes 20 bucks an hour. Don't dismiss what I'm saying, just think about what people rant on about when someone does go on strike. I've certainly heard people say (numerous times) "Fire them all" but you never hear them suggest the management of the company be fired. How about "I'd work twice as hard for half the money" yet no one rants that if execs stopped collecting bonuses the company could improve pay and benefits and have money left to invest in equipment, training, and new employees. I seriously do not think I have ever heard anyone, in my entire life, lay the blame for angry workers on the management/owners of a company. Now that I've (hopefully) had a chance to let you see reality in the mirror, you may have more of an appetite for some real truth.
At one time, I was very much anti-union. I admit to buying all of the standard criticisms above and probably many more. If you aren't organized, or never have been, it is easy to blame it on the workers, after all, executives aren't marching with crudely lettered signs, asking for wage increases when they make twice what you do. Sometimes you know union people who brag about sleeping at work or having a co-worker punch in/out for them when they were playing golf or any one of a number of fairly deplorable things. We fail to relate this to other, non-union workplaces which also harbour all kinds of bad or lazy workers. Chances are, you've worked with some of them yourself. This was the kind of information I had about unions, I was vocal in my opposition, at one time mounted a successful campaign to deny a union in a workplace where a majority of employees had signed union cards. I just knew they were evil and I didn't want any part of them.
Anyone who has ever worked in media knows in order to advance in the profession, you have to haul up stakes and move on a fairly regular basis. When my wife died and I was left to raise my infant daughter, I decided it would not be in her best interests to be uprooted so I began to look outside of the industry and find something more stable, even though I knew it would mean I would earn substantially less starting out in a new field, it was something I felt I had to do. I eventually settled for a job in the transportation industry.
When I first started my new job, it was quite a culture shock. The pay was relatively crappy, the benefits weren't great but the pension plan was good. I was hired along with a couple of hundred others when the company decided to consolidate several offices across the country into a single centre operating out of Atlantic Canada. Our first surprise was our first pay, when we found out we were being paid 65 cents an hour less than they told us at the "job fair" they held. I'm the type that rarely has issues in the workplace as I have no problem standing up for myself and I'm not afraid to tell them where to stick their job if need be.
After a litany of problems with management and working conditions, a number of the girls at work were pursuing union certification. I was approached to become part of the organizing group but I was not in favour of unions so I declined. I also wouldn't sign a card, however, they managed to secure enough signatures to get certified and for the first time in my life I became a union employee. Once the certification was recognized, I thought about things long and hard and came to the conclusion if the union was going to run things I should get involved. Reluctantly I signed a union card and officially became a Teamster. I put my name forward as a shop steward and was elected by a wide margin. I initially did it for selfish reasons, if someone was going to be responsible for protecting my interests and negotiating remuneration and working conditions, I wanted to be part of it.
Over the last 16 years I have been constantly re-elected to my position as steward, labour relations representative and negotiator. I now have an almost totally different view of unions, where I once assumed they were some kind of curse (because that is the overwhelming preponderance of propaganda tells us) I now realize unions do far more good than bad, and their flaws are no worse than those of the companies we all work for. From dealing with grievance procedures to arbitration to negotiations and conciliation sessions, I've been there. I've negotiated several multi-year multi-million dollar contracts and have never once recommended a strike. I've gone head to head in some knock-down drag-out battles with corporate vice presidents and directors, I've won some important battles on behalf of co-workers and put up with hard feelings and surreptitious punishment from management for things that never would have involved or affected me in any way, it's part of the job. I routinely have people who love me one minute and take a samurai sword to my back the next. I've been called every name in the book, alternatively despised by managers at the same time I've been accused of being on the company's side. It's a thankless job, but I've learned a lot and I'm no shrinking violet and accept the concept of anger needing a scapegoat.
I'd like for a moment, before I go on, to stop for a bit of a reality check. This is where I want you to 100% honest with yourself. Put yourself into the frame of mind of what this blog post is all about. I'd ask you to consider my questions, answer them honestly, read the rest of the article and let me know in the comments section if you found this helpful.
Tell me honestly you neither want nor deserve more pay. I think it would be rare to find anyone who would tell me they are completely happy with their compensation and a raise never crosses their mind. I don't know many people with a benefit package that just can't be improved upon. Perhaps I'd be willing to make a large wager that you would not turn your employer down if they offered to pay for your benefits. Not going out on a limb here to say if a company wants to pay part or all of your contributions to a retirement plan most people wouldn't get angry and refuse.
Just considering those few factors above, I ask you, am I being reasonable in assuming (if you are being honest with yourself) you would agree with that paragraph? If you've been honest with yourself on those questions, here is another important one to think about, one I believe the honest answer will make you realize a re-think of your attitude toward unions is required.
My question at this point is: How many times have you been angry due to employees taking a job action? How often in a labour dispute do you blame the unions, employees, or both? Be honest. Do you think it's reasonable to think all disputes are the fault of the employees? Do they never do anything wrong in your workplace? Can you say you have never disagreed with management? That you and your co-workers have been treated fairly at all times? Do you seriously believe because someone gives you a few dollars that anything and everything they say is right? More than anything, people get pissed off because the first thing they hear is a bunch of lazy bums who make 20 bucks an hour and have extra vacation and sick time and benefits are on strike, You will also be immediately given the impression it is all about greed, that every strike is about more pay and more benefits. Unions don't only have to battle for their members, they also have to battle to get a grain of truth reported in the media, and they are constantly fighting against the stereotypes we have been indoctrinated with. Generally, the only people who tell the truth about unions, are the unions themselves, and most of us have been taught or encouraged to see them as something mysterious and evil.
Having spent half of my working life in non-unionized, mostly salaried positions, and the other half as an active member of a collective bargaining unit, I want to speak to you about the real truth. I'd like to think it is an unbiased truth as I have no difficulty taking care of myself when it comes to my choice of employment. Union or no union, I can be comfortable in either environment.
You rarely hear any positive press about unions. People will hate unions even though unions are the one reason you don't have working conditions like people in third world or repressive countries. If workers had not organized and stood together how could you possibly think our lot in life would be any better than that of Mexicans or many Central and South Americans, Africans, Chinese and the litany of other countries where it's routine to work 72 or more hours a week to earn your 20 dollars. It happens routinely, daily, and again being honest with yourself, that's the reason big companies are shipping jobs to those types of countries. I don't mind if you blame this one on unions, I'm glad I don't have to survive on 20 bucks a week. All of the major gains in wages, working conditions and especially health and safety can be directly traced to the union movement and the everyday people willing to fight to have a say in their working conditions and a more fair share of the wealth generated by their hard work.
The thing no one really seems to do a good job of explaining is the purpose of a union. Unions are about far more than money and goodies for all. When you negotiate a contract, money and benefits are the last thing you talk about. Most of your negotiating time is used dealing with the rules you live by. Once you have worked in a unionized environment, and especially if you participate in union affairs, you come to the realization it is a good thing for both parties when your workplace has an actual, enforceable rule book, just like pro athletes do! The advantage in my workplace is I know the rules I have to adhere to and I know what responsibilities the company has to me. If I don't know the rules, they are there, printed in a book where I can look them up or I can ask a steward for guidance.
Clear rules are important. No one can make them up as they go along, and the same rules apply to people the managers like as they do to those who are not among the favourites. Even among workers there are people you like, those you're indifferent to, and others you dislike. Why would you think your humanity is any different than that of your managers? They're people too, and we all have our own tastes, opinions, and biases. There is absolutely no truth to the story you can't be fired from a union job. It is absolutely true it is more difficult to fire someone from a union job. This is not because corrupt unions are trying to protect bad people and slackers of all sorts, au contraire mon ami, the reason it is harder to fire someone from a union job is because the company must have just cause and be able to prove it. I have, in my capacity as a shop steward, dealt with cases where employees have been fired. I am satisfied the company had good reason to act as they did. No one gets fired because they're unlikeable, or they pissed the boss off, or any one of the dozens of reasons I have heard from people I know who don't have the protection of a union. Yes, we all work under the labour laws of the land, however, most people are almost completely unaware of the minimal rights they do have, and even less of those will actually exercise their right to file a complaint when their employer breaks a law by not allowing them to take breaks or not allowing a lunch period or even making them work "off the clock". After all, even if you have a 100% valid complaint and win your case, you can bet the first time you make a mistake your ass will be fired, and if that doesn't happen, they'll eliminate the position you've held for 15 years and lay you off while keeping the 2 teenagers and the boss' cousin who has been sleeping there for 5 years.
The reason most companies do not want a union has nothing to do with excessive wages or benefits. Unions are just groups of workers who are just like any group of co-workers, the sole exception being they have a workplace where they don't operate under "every man for himself" rules. Companies do not want unions because it means they can't operate any way they feel like. When my friends share stories with me of things that happen where they work I can't imagine most of the crap that happens in all of the other autocracies on a daily basis.
I'm not saying the union environment is utopia. I do, however, believe the good things about unions far outweigh the bad. In any workplace with more than a couple of workers you will come across some who are overachievers, others who consistently do a good job, some who are content to just be competent, and a minority who are lazy or dishonest or just don't care about their job or their co-workers. That is a false label used to great effect, in that it happens in your workplace and you can ignore it for years but the minute a union goes on strike it's because they are lazy crooks, or they've been locked out by their company because they are greedy and unreasonable people. Untrue, but these stereotypes are hauled out every time there is a work stoppage and people tend to agree because these kinds of talking points are always used after they publish the union wage which people always think is too much, ignoring huge corporate profits, large executive salaries and massive bonuses. The people who make hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars a year somehow become the victims of people who make something more than minimum wage.
Do you finally see something wrong with the overall picture? I have a bit of a problem with corporations and the well-to-do having all the advantages in society. We cut their taxes and allow big corporations to salt away 83 billion dollars that the government insisted companies need to create jobs. Jobs for bankers? You will insult and put down ordinary people who would at least like a share of the profits they worked to produce. You are willing to spew hate at someone who wants an extra 2 bucks an hour spread over 4 years from a company that could easily afford to pay it and still enjoy multi-million or billion dollar profits. It is all a by-product of a decades-long propaganda war. Corporations v the little guy and for some reason, the corporations are made out to be the white knight and your next door neighbour is Atilla the Hun.
The majority of union bargaining units have never had a strike or lockout. Union workers know that job actions are serious and don't make those decisions lightly. It's not like you're getting a paycheque or EI during a strike or lockout. You still have the same bills, so a majority strike vote and actually going out means most of the workers feel strongly enough about something to risk losing everything they've worked for if the stoppage drags on. I think a lot of the anger directed at unions has been exaggerated because most public-sector workers are unionized, the number of public-sector unions is large and diverse and pretty much guarantees there is always a group of people who provide a service or services your tax dollars pay for in a position where their old contract has expired (in this case the old contract applies until a new one is negotiated) or their current contract is soon to expire and they are actively negotiating. This gives the appearance "those government workers" are always on strike. This is also untrue, but I appear to be the only one mentioning it. People on the best days have difficulty understanding which services are provided by municipal government, which are provincial responsibilities, or what the federal government does. That means at any given time at one or more levels of government, someone could end up withdrawing a service that not only inconveniences all of us, it fuels the false notion government workers go on strike every time their contract is up. It simply isn't true.
The next time you're about to go off on a worker because you are angry or envious of the compensation they receive, be honest with yourself and admit someone on the opposite side negotiated with those people and both sides have to agree and sign the contract to put the stamp on it to make it legal. I'd be willing to bet if your employer offered you the exact same rules and compensation as one of these unions you would not tell them it's too generous so you'd have to decline. You would take it. I'm positive you would. It seems odd you will forgive wealthy and famous people for almost anything yet be eternally angry at joe nobody because his job pays better than yours.
Hopefully you'll begin to understand your anger is horribly misplaced. If you, by chance, happen to gain employment in a unionized workplace, you too will come to understand you've spent your whole life eating the bullshit corporations and the media feed you every time there is a labour dispute...Or maybe you like that taste in your mouth. The people you are hating on are your friends, neighbours, even relatives.
The current government can vote itself all kinds of great raises and benefits and only work a couple of months a year. Owners and executives can take home millions of dollars every year and you bitch because someone makes a few dollars an hour more than you do. No unionized workers are getting rich, and if you think they should be the target of your nastiness, you should go take a look in the mirror because you will know what stupid looks like.
For the purposes of this dialogue, I'll feel free to assume those reading are not union members, however, if you do belong to a trade union or professional association I welcome your comments on my thoughts.
When thinking about unions, I began to ask what the average person (who wasn't an avid researcher) would know about them. What would be the source of knowledge of the union movement (and the people who make it up) available to an individual? Someone not totally oblivious to things that happen in the real world, the one outside of Farmville.
My opinion? Much of what we "know" (sic) is probably influenced by print, online, and broadcast media. Beyond that, what most people think they know about unions is secondarily influenced by other factors, such as: words and actions of Government, relatives, friends or others you know who belong to such an organization, or your own personal experiences (either in the context of you belonging or encounters with workers during a job action).
Starting from that framework seems to be fair, it seems to be setting the bar fairly low but I'm sure those with a little (or lot) more knowledge will bear with me. At this point, my advice to any reasonable person would be: forget your preconceived notions of whether unions are good or bad and read my story of personal experience. I would greatly appreciate anyone who would leave a comment and let me know if this post at least makes you think about your perception when you finish reading.
For the first two-thirds of my life, including just over half my working career, I never worked in a unionized workplace. I will freely admit I subscribed to a lot of stereotypical thoughts about unions and unionized workers. Words that would come to my mind were greed, dishonesty, laziness, nothing really very good but to this day, the majority of coverage of anything to do with unions or unionized workers continually portrays any worker(s) engaging in job action as the villain of the story. Think about the coverage of the current strike action being undertaken by members of CUPW, representing Canada's postal workers. Think about most coverage of work stoppages, whether they involve a strike action initiated by employees, or a lockout by the employer, and the first thing you will think about is the wage they make or out-of-the-ordinary benefits or pensions, etc. I think that's a true statement. I do not see or hear media coverage which discusses how profitable the corporation has been historically, I don't recall hearing many stories about how many people have been hurt in the name of those profits, or whether the employer has a history of treating workers poorly or tolerating intolerable behavior, etc. This is the first great sin of unions, greed, not real greed, but the appearance of greed because stories are always slanted that way, and to a great extent, anger and derision from those who have no ability to bargain with their employer to try to get fair compensation for what they do daily to help the company succeed. Corporate executives make huge salaries and topping it off by paying themselves hundreds of thousands, even millions in bonuses, none of them go without benefits and if they get fired they already have pre-arranged massive payouts to themselves and the other top execs on top of pensions you and I can only fantasize about, yet you can't get past the fact that union person makes 20 bucks an hour. Don't dismiss what I'm saying, just think about what people rant on about when someone does go on strike. I've certainly heard people say (numerous times) "Fire them all" but you never hear them suggest the management of the company be fired. How about "I'd work twice as hard for half the money" yet no one rants that if execs stopped collecting bonuses the company could improve pay and benefits and have money left to invest in equipment, training, and new employees. I seriously do not think I have ever heard anyone, in my entire life, lay the blame for angry workers on the management/owners of a company. Now that I've (hopefully) had a chance to let you see reality in the mirror, you may have more of an appetite for some real truth.
At one time, I was very much anti-union. I admit to buying all of the standard criticisms above and probably many more. If you aren't organized, or never have been, it is easy to blame it on the workers, after all, executives aren't marching with crudely lettered signs, asking for wage increases when they make twice what you do. Sometimes you know union people who brag about sleeping at work or having a co-worker punch in/out for them when they were playing golf or any one of a number of fairly deplorable things. We fail to relate this to other, non-union workplaces which also harbour all kinds of bad or lazy workers. Chances are, you've worked with some of them yourself. This was the kind of information I had about unions, I was vocal in my opposition, at one time mounted a successful campaign to deny a union in a workplace where a majority of employees had signed union cards. I just knew they were evil and I didn't want any part of them.
Anyone who has ever worked in media knows in order to advance in the profession, you have to haul up stakes and move on a fairly regular basis. When my wife died and I was left to raise my infant daughter, I decided it would not be in her best interests to be uprooted so I began to look outside of the industry and find something more stable, even though I knew it would mean I would earn substantially less starting out in a new field, it was something I felt I had to do. I eventually settled for a job in the transportation industry.
When I first started my new job, it was quite a culture shock. The pay was relatively crappy, the benefits weren't great but the pension plan was good. I was hired along with a couple of hundred others when the company decided to consolidate several offices across the country into a single centre operating out of Atlantic Canada. Our first surprise was our first pay, when we found out we were being paid 65 cents an hour less than they told us at the "job fair" they held. I'm the type that rarely has issues in the workplace as I have no problem standing up for myself and I'm not afraid to tell them where to stick their job if need be.
After a litany of problems with management and working conditions, a number of the girls at work were pursuing union certification. I was approached to become part of the organizing group but I was not in favour of unions so I declined. I also wouldn't sign a card, however, they managed to secure enough signatures to get certified and for the first time in my life I became a union employee. Once the certification was recognized, I thought about things long and hard and came to the conclusion if the union was going to run things I should get involved. Reluctantly I signed a union card and officially became a Teamster. I put my name forward as a shop steward and was elected by a wide margin. I initially did it for selfish reasons, if someone was going to be responsible for protecting my interests and negotiating remuneration and working conditions, I wanted to be part of it.
Over the last 16 years I have been constantly re-elected to my position as steward, labour relations representative and negotiator. I now have an almost totally different view of unions, where I once assumed they were some kind of curse (because that is the overwhelming preponderance of propaganda tells us) I now realize unions do far more good than bad, and their flaws are no worse than those of the companies we all work for. From dealing with grievance procedures to arbitration to negotiations and conciliation sessions, I've been there. I've negotiated several multi-year multi-million dollar contracts and have never once recommended a strike. I've gone head to head in some knock-down drag-out battles with corporate vice presidents and directors, I've won some important battles on behalf of co-workers and put up with hard feelings and surreptitious punishment from management for things that never would have involved or affected me in any way, it's part of the job. I routinely have people who love me one minute and take a samurai sword to my back the next. I've been called every name in the book, alternatively despised by managers at the same time I've been accused of being on the company's side. It's a thankless job, but I've learned a lot and I'm no shrinking violet and accept the concept of anger needing a scapegoat.
I'd like for a moment, before I go on, to stop for a bit of a reality check. This is where I want you to 100% honest with yourself. Put yourself into the frame of mind of what this blog post is all about. I'd ask you to consider my questions, answer them honestly, read the rest of the article and let me know in the comments section if you found this helpful.
Tell me honestly you neither want nor deserve more pay. I think it would be rare to find anyone who would tell me they are completely happy with their compensation and a raise never crosses their mind. I don't know many people with a benefit package that just can't be improved upon. Perhaps I'd be willing to make a large wager that you would not turn your employer down if they offered to pay for your benefits. Not going out on a limb here to say if a company wants to pay part or all of your contributions to a retirement plan most people wouldn't get angry and refuse.
Just considering those few factors above, I ask you, am I being reasonable in assuming (if you are being honest with yourself) you would agree with that paragraph? If you've been honest with yourself on those questions, here is another important one to think about, one I believe the honest answer will make you realize a re-think of your attitude toward unions is required.
My question at this point is: How many times have you been angry due to employees taking a job action? How often in a labour dispute do you blame the unions, employees, or both? Be honest. Do you think it's reasonable to think all disputes are the fault of the employees? Do they never do anything wrong in your workplace? Can you say you have never disagreed with management? That you and your co-workers have been treated fairly at all times? Do you seriously believe because someone gives you a few dollars that anything and everything they say is right? More than anything, people get pissed off because the first thing they hear is a bunch of lazy bums who make 20 bucks an hour and have extra vacation and sick time and benefits are on strike, You will also be immediately given the impression it is all about greed, that every strike is about more pay and more benefits. Unions don't only have to battle for their members, they also have to battle to get a grain of truth reported in the media, and they are constantly fighting against the stereotypes we have been indoctrinated with. Generally, the only people who tell the truth about unions, are the unions themselves, and most of us have been taught or encouraged to see them as something mysterious and evil.
Having spent half of my working life in non-unionized, mostly salaried positions, and the other half as an active member of a collective bargaining unit, I want to speak to you about the real truth. I'd like to think it is an unbiased truth as I have no difficulty taking care of myself when it comes to my choice of employment. Union or no union, I can be comfortable in either environment.
You rarely hear any positive press about unions. People will hate unions even though unions are the one reason you don't have working conditions like people in third world or repressive countries. If workers had not organized and stood together how could you possibly think our lot in life would be any better than that of Mexicans or many Central and South Americans, Africans, Chinese and the litany of other countries where it's routine to work 72 or more hours a week to earn your 20 dollars. It happens routinely, daily, and again being honest with yourself, that's the reason big companies are shipping jobs to those types of countries. I don't mind if you blame this one on unions, I'm glad I don't have to survive on 20 bucks a week. All of the major gains in wages, working conditions and especially health and safety can be directly traced to the union movement and the everyday people willing to fight to have a say in their working conditions and a more fair share of the wealth generated by their hard work.
The thing no one really seems to do a good job of explaining is the purpose of a union. Unions are about far more than money and goodies for all. When you negotiate a contract, money and benefits are the last thing you talk about. Most of your negotiating time is used dealing with the rules you live by. Once you have worked in a unionized environment, and especially if you participate in union affairs, you come to the realization it is a good thing for both parties when your workplace has an actual, enforceable rule book, just like pro athletes do! The advantage in my workplace is I know the rules I have to adhere to and I know what responsibilities the company has to me. If I don't know the rules, they are there, printed in a book where I can look them up or I can ask a steward for guidance.
Clear rules are important. No one can make them up as they go along, and the same rules apply to people the managers like as they do to those who are not among the favourites. Even among workers there are people you like, those you're indifferent to, and others you dislike. Why would you think your humanity is any different than that of your managers? They're people too, and we all have our own tastes, opinions, and biases. There is absolutely no truth to the story you can't be fired from a union job. It is absolutely true it is more difficult to fire someone from a union job. This is not because corrupt unions are trying to protect bad people and slackers of all sorts, au contraire mon ami, the reason it is harder to fire someone from a union job is because the company must have just cause and be able to prove it. I have, in my capacity as a shop steward, dealt with cases where employees have been fired. I am satisfied the company had good reason to act as they did. No one gets fired because they're unlikeable, or they pissed the boss off, or any one of the dozens of reasons I have heard from people I know who don't have the protection of a union. Yes, we all work under the labour laws of the land, however, most people are almost completely unaware of the minimal rights they do have, and even less of those will actually exercise their right to file a complaint when their employer breaks a law by not allowing them to take breaks or not allowing a lunch period or even making them work "off the clock". After all, even if you have a 100% valid complaint and win your case, you can bet the first time you make a mistake your ass will be fired, and if that doesn't happen, they'll eliminate the position you've held for 15 years and lay you off while keeping the 2 teenagers and the boss' cousin who has been sleeping there for 5 years.
The reason most companies do not want a union has nothing to do with excessive wages or benefits. Unions are just groups of workers who are just like any group of co-workers, the sole exception being they have a workplace where they don't operate under "every man for himself" rules. Companies do not want unions because it means they can't operate any way they feel like. When my friends share stories with me of things that happen where they work I can't imagine most of the crap that happens in all of the other autocracies on a daily basis.
I'm not saying the union environment is utopia. I do, however, believe the good things about unions far outweigh the bad. In any workplace with more than a couple of workers you will come across some who are overachievers, others who consistently do a good job, some who are content to just be competent, and a minority who are lazy or dishonest or just don't care about their job or their co-workers. That is a false label used to great effect, in that it happens in your workplace and you can ignore it for years but the minute a union goes on strike it's because they are lazy crooks, or they've been locked out by their company because they are greedy and unreasonable people. Untrue, but these stereotypes are hauled out every time there is a work stoppage and people tend to agree because these kinds of talking points are always used after they publish the union wage which people always think is too much, ignoring huge corporate profits, large executive salaries and massive bonuses. The people who make hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars a year somehow become the victims of people who make something more than minimum wage.
Do you finally see something wrong with the overall picture? I have a bit of a problem with corporations and the well-to-do having all the advantages in society. We cut their taxes and allow big corporations to salt away 83 billion dollars that the government insisted companies need to create jobs. Jobs for bankers? You will insult and put down ordinary people who would at least like a share of the profits they worked to produce. You are willing to spew hate at someone who wants an extra 2 bucks an hour spread over 4 years from a company that could easily afford to pay it and still enjoy multi-million or billion dollar profits. It is all a by-product of a decades-long propaganda war. Corporations v the little guy and for some reason, the corporations are made out to be the white knight and your next door neighbour is Atilla the Hun.
The majority of union bargaining units have never had a strike or lockout. Union workers know that job actions are serious and don't make those decisions lightly. It's not like you're getting a paycheque or EI during a strike or lockout. You still have the same bills, so a majority strike vote and actually going out means most of the workers feel strongly enough about something to risk losing everything they've worked for if the stoppage drags on. I think a lot of the anger directed at unions has been exaggerated because most public-sector workers are unionized, the number of public-sector unions is large and diverse and pretty much guarantees there is always a group of people who provide a service or services your tax dollars pay for in a position where their old contract has expired (in this case the old contract applies until a new one is negotiated) or their current contract is soon to expire and they are actively negotiating. This gives the appearance "those government workers" are always on strike. This is also untrue, but I appear to be the only one mentioning it. People on the best days have difficulty understanding which services are provided by municipal government, which are provincial responsibilities, or what the federal government does. That means at any given time at one or more levels of government, someone could end up withdrawing a service that not only inconveniences all of us, it fuels the false notion government workers go on strike every time their contract is up. It simply isn't true.
The next time you're about to go off on a worker because you are angry or envious of the compensation they receive, be honest with yourself and admit someone on the opposite side negotiated with those people and both sides have to agree and sign the contract to put the stamp on it to make it legal. I'd be willing to bet if your employer offered you the exact same rules and compensation as one of these unions you would not tell them it's too generous so you'd have to decline. You would take it. I'm positive you would. It seems odd you will forgive wealthy and famous people for almost anything yet be eternally angry at joe nobody because his job pays better than yours.
Hopefully you'll begin to understand your anger is horribly misplaced. If you, by chance, happen to gain employment in a unionized workplace, you too will come to understand you've spent your whole life eating the bullshit corporations and the media feed you every time there is a labour dispute...Or maybe you like that taste in your mouth. The people you are hating on are your friends, neighbours, even relatives.
The current government can vote itself all kinds of great raises and benefits and only work a couple of months a year. Owners and executives can take home millions of dollars every year and you bitch because someone makes a few dollars an hour more than you do. No unionized workers are getting rich, and if you think they should be the target of your nastiness, you should go take a look in the mirror because you will know what stupid looks like.
Wednesday, 1 June 2011
Foreign Policy or Moron Policy?
We have a new foreign minister, you are familiar with the partisan blowhard jerk. His name is John Baird, an inconsequential weiner if there ever was one. He's not foreign minister because he is capable and can articulate a global position for the government of Canada, he has his position because he is fiercely loyal to Kommandant Harper and spent years hollering loud talking points with no relation to any of the legitimate questions in the house. This is how the Harper Dictatorship works. People who are willing to blindly do whatever they're told, whether they actually have any principles they are compromising or not (although I suspect principles put you at the bottom of the food chain/back of the backest of backbenches), are the ones rewarded with important positions, without requiring the qualifications to do the job..
Since Harper paid a visit to Afghanistan and unfortunately was not introduced to a close up IED, let us start there. This is a mission that pisses me off. Not because we are there, but because we are still there. When it comes to military things, I could be described as pretty conservative, I am a big supporter of the military unlike most of our Prime Ministers, including Harper who is a big pretender who tries to make it look like he gives a damn when all it is for him is patriotic PR.
Let's have a bit of a critical look at this "mission". I will say, in the beginning, I was not opposed to this action. After all, Afghanistan was the base of Al-Quada, where they trained their "soldiers" for the war against everyone they decided not to like. As hosts, the Taliban were terrorizing an entire population and thumbing their noses at the west. Add to that the 9/11 attacks and striking at Afghanistan had become an inevitiblity. Agree or disagree, the US and UK are our strongest allies, and while I agreed we had no place in Iraq, this was different. If ever a military action was justified, it was the routing of the Taliban from the seat of government in Afghanistan and the destruction of the infrastructure of Al-Quada, possibly even the elimination of Osama Bin Laden & his key people. I don't for a second regret the decision to participate in this mission.
Beyond that, in the fine words of Clint Eastwood, they turned it from a specific mission to a "cluster-fuck". It went from a military action to a political action. It became yet another experiment in "exporting democracy" and when a military mission turns into that, we should have left and said, "great, wonderful, we'll be back to help with the rebuilding once you show us how you're going to turn a country that has operated for centuries under a feudal system into a western-style democracy". In a country where people can't read, without significant infrastructure, how the hell did you expect people to understand why all of a sudden their families were being bombed back from the 13th century to the 7th? Dropping leaflets they couldn't read to warn them of impending danger? You wonder why they're angry and want to kill your troops? You wonder why they fight back the only way they can, on the cheap? They're pissed because you've ruined their lives. All the good being done building roads and lining pockets has been undermind by years of military action in a fake hunt for Bin-Laden, who, if your intelligence services didn't know, had long since fled the country. In your lust to remake non-tradional countries into your likeness (nice God-complex there westerners), you took a backwards, uneducated population, slaughtered men, women, and children who had no idea why. Which led to them being easily convinced by the people you were after in the first place you were invading their country and would kill them all eventually. Now you're pissed off and killing even more of them for defending themselves agains a well armed bully. Congratulations.
These misadventures of some pompous asses who think because we live the way we do, the world would be better off if everyone did, are always a failure. Colonialism in all its faces is nothing more than one powerful entity wanting to run the affairs of others, and in the end, the people will rise against it, peacefully or not. We're now in a position that probably within a hour of the last soldier leaving that country whatever puppet is president will be dead and they'll revert to what they were before. All those lives over more than a decade for what?
Most Canadians would generally say, well I don't worry much about terrorist attacks, there's no real reason to attack Canada. Look up from your toenails folks. Afghanistan, and now Lybia, and Harper style middle east diplomacy (i.e. Israel can never be wrong I love you Bibi) are growing that target on a nation once-respected for being a nation of peace. Shame on You. Shame.
Don't expect our reputation to soar under Harper/Baird. I will be long dead by the time we redeem ourselves if we ever can. Next Foreign policy rant? Lybia. Comin atcha boys.
Since Harper paid a visit to Afghanistan and unfortunately was not introduced to a close up IED, let us start there. This is a mission that pisses me off. Not because we are there, but because we are still there. When it comes to military things, I could be described as pretty conservative, I am a big supporter of the military unlike most of our Prime Ministers, including Harper who is a big pretender who tries to make it look like he gives a damn when all it is for him is patriotic PR.
Let's have a bit of a critical look at this "mission". I will say, in the beginning, I was not opposed to this action. After all, Afghanistan was the base of Al-Quada, where they trained their "soldiers" for the war against everyone they decided not to like. As hosts, the Taliban were terrorizing an entire population and thumbing their noses at the west. Add to that the 9/11 attacks and striking at Afghanistan had become an inevitiblity. Agree or disagree, the US and UK are our strongest allies, and while I agreed we had no place in Iraq, this was different. If ever a military action was justified, it was the routing of the Taliban from the seat of government in Afghanistan and the destruction of the infrastructure of Al-Quada, possibly even the elimination of Osama Bin Laden & his key people. I don't for a second regret the decision to participate in this mission.
Beyond that, in the fine words of Clint Eastwood, they turned it from a specific mission to a "cluster-fuck". It went from a military action to a political action. It became yet another experiment in "exporting democracy" and when a military mission turns into that, we should have left and said, "great, wonderful, we'll be back to help with the rebuilding once you show us how you're going to turn a country that has operated for centuries under a feudal system into a western-style democracy". In a country where people can't read, without significant infrastructure, how the hell did you expect people to understand why all of a sudden their families were being bombed back from the 13th century to the 7th? Dropping leaflets they couldn't read to warn them of impending danger? You wonder why they're angry and want to kill your troops? You wonder why they fight back the only way they can, on the cheap? They're pissed because you've ruined their lives. All the good being done building roads and lining pockets has been undermind by years of military action in a fake hunt for Bin-Laden, who, if your intelligence services didn't know, had long since fled the country. In your lust to remake non-tradional countries into your likeness (nice God-complex there westerners), you took a backwards, uneducated population, slaughtered men, women, and children who had no idea why. Which led to them being easily convinced by the people you were after in the first place you were invading their country and would kill them all eventually. Now you're pissed off and killing even more of them for defending themselves agains a well armed bully. Congratulations.
These misadventures of some pompous asses who think because we live the way we do, the world would be better off if everyone did, are always a failure. Colonialism in all its faces is nothing more than one powerful entity wanting to run the affairs of others, and in the end, the people will rise against it, peacefully or not. We're now in a position that probably within a hour of the last soldier leaving that country whatever puppet is president will be dead and they'll revert to what they were before. All those lives over more than a decade for what?
Most Canadians would generally say, well I don't worry much about terrorist attacks, there's no real reason to attack Canada. Look up from your toenails folks. Afghanistan, and now Lybia, and Harper style middle east diplomacy (i.e. Israel can never be wrong I love you Bibi) are growing that target on a nation once-respected for being a nation of peace. Shame on You. Shame.
Don't expect our reputation to soar under Harper/Baird. I will be long dead by the time we redeem ourselves if we ever can. Next Foreign policy rant? Lybia. Comin atcha boys.
Sunday, 29 May 2011
Where did Canada Go?
For quite some time now, I've been searching for my country. This is getting serious, I'm about at the point I think I should report to authorities it is missing. I put the blame squarely on myself, while I was distracted Canada must have wandered off and recently I've been in a panicked search for it.
Of course that may seem like babble, but I have a particular affinity for babbling, eventually I get to the point.
I'm sure we all have our own ideas of what Canada is. Sure there are differences, but it's the similarities in our hearts and minds that define us as something different that people who live in other nations. If it weren't for these kinds of definitions there would be no need for countries or borders, if we all felt the need to run our affairs exactly the same as others do.
My Canada, the one I am searching for, had much sharper definitions from its neighbour to the south, and I liked that. My Canada was a country founded on cooperation of a small population spread over a massive geographic location, unlike the "every man for himself" attitude which turns my stomach in so many ways. My Canada was different because it cared about the disadvantaged, the disabled, to those whose voices would otherwise never be heard. My Canada welcomed immigrants and refugees and didn't expect them to become us, rather learn more about their cultures to enrich ourselves, a welcoming attitude that made them more determined to be good Canadians and adapt to our way of life without having to discard their own. My Canada had a stellar reputation globally, it was a honest broker, it wasn't a war monger or blind follower of the "great powers" in their military misadventures, it was often leading the charge for social and environmental change, friend to most, defender of the opressed, and it was a badge of honour to carry the Canadian Maple Leaf proudly displayed on one's attire.
In short, I'd say we were "lovable Americans" (sic). Hear me out, if you've travelled outside the country you will often hear what people think of Americans, and it ain't pretty. Years ago, many Americans would go so far as to sew Canadian flags on their gear to escape the shame a bad country can bring to good people. Conversely if people knew you were Canadian, while they knew little about the country itself, they were always welcoming and held a special affinity for Canadians.
That Canada has become mysteriously absent. I'm sure I am not the only one alarmed by this trend, and not the only one dedicated to rebuilding and repairing the mess we're faced with now. I'm not going to pick this apart in any great detail at the moment as I intend, over the next while to look at some of the politics and geopolitics on an issue by issue basis. We need to talk about these things, or we risk becoming a homogenous "American" society.
What would lead me to think that way? Just look where we are today. Canada has absolutely no national interest, other than being a source of commodities and toadying up to the US/UK agenda. Not only has an economy that should have been poised to lead developed nations started on a steady downward slope, by electing a Harper majority, Canadians have guaranteed themselves 4 years of people who don't have a clue how to handle the economy of a country. They might be great at a business, but running a country comes with considerations no business has to take into account and these guys don't get it at all. Add to that our absolutely abysmal record on the environment which has had the effect of turning a once respected nation into an international pariah, and our blind following of other countries into military adventures that are not well thought out, where we don't know what our goal is or how to end these things and the spiral went from gradual to cliff-like in a few short years.
If you want your Canada to be exactly like the train wreck south of us, you're probably over-the-moon happy right now. If you want your Canada to do a U-turn and try to redeem ourselves in the eyes of the world then join me in sharing this blog with your friends. Join me in speaking up about a better, kinder, Canada. There is a lot of work ahead, we're either up for it, or giving up.
I want my Canada back.
Of course that may seem like babble, but I have a particular affinity for babbling, eventually I get to the point.
I'm sure we all have our own ideas of what Canada is. Sure there are differences, but it's the similarities in our hearts and minds that define us as something different that people who live in other nations. If it weren't for these kinds of definitions there would be no need for countries or borders, if we all felt the need to run our affairs exactly the same as others do.
My Canada, the one I am searching for, had much sharper definitions from its neighbour to the south, and I liked that. My Canada was a country founded on cooperation of a small population spread over a massive geographic location, unlike the "every man for himself" attitude which turns my stomach in so many ways. My Canada was different because it cared about the disadvantaged, the disabled, to those whose voices would otherwise never be heard. My Canada welcomed immigrants and refugees and didn't expect them to become us, rather learn more about their cultures to enrich ourselves, a welcoming attitude that made them more determined to be good Canadians and adapt to our way of life without having to discard their own. My Canada had a stellar reputation globally, it was a honest broker, it wasn't a war monger or blind follower of the "great powers" in their military misadventures, it was often leading the charge for social and environmental change, friend to most, defender of the opressed, and it was a badge of honour to carry the Canadian Maple Leaf proudly displayed on one's attire.
In short, I'd say we were "lovable Americans" (sic). Hear me out, if you've travelled outside the country you will often hear what people think of Americans, and it ain't pretty. Years ago, many Americans would go so far as to sew Canadian flags on their gear to escape the shame a bad country can bring to good people. Conversely if people knew you were Canadian, while they knew little about the country itself, they were always welcoming and held a special affinity for Canadians.
That Canada has become mysteriously absent. I'm sure I am not the only one alarmed by this trend, and not the only one dedicated to rebuilding and repairing the mess we're faced with now. I'm not going to pick this apart in any great detail at the moment as I intend, over the next while to look at some of the politics and geopolitics on an issue by issue basis. We need to talk about these things, or we risk becoming a homogenous "American" society.
What would lead me to think that way? Just look where we are today. Canada has absolutely no national interest, other than being a source of commodities and toadying up to the US/UK agenda. Not only has an economy that should have been poised to lead developed nations started on a steady downward slope, by electing a Harper majority, Canadians have guaranteed themselves 4 years of people who don't have a clue how to handle the economy of a country. They might be great at a business, but running a country comes with considerations no business has to take into account and these guys don't get it at all. Add to that our absolutely abysmal record on the environment which has had the effect of turning a once respected nation into an international pariah, and our blind following of other countries into military adventures that are not well thought out, where we don't know what our goal is or how to end these things and the spiral went from gradual to cliff-like in a few short years.
If you want your Canada to be exactly like the train wreck south of us, you're probably over-the-moon happy right now. If you want your Canada to do a U-turn and try to redeem ourselves in the eyes of the world then join me in sharing this blog with your friends. Join me in speaking up about a better, kinder, Canada. There is a lot of work ahead, we're either up for it, or giving up.
I want my Canada back.
Wednesday, 25 May 2011
Conditioning (not at the gym dumbass)
Funny how many people think they are so smart. If I had a nickel for every time I heard someone say "Advertising doesn't affect me" I would be a billionaire and they would still be totally wrong.
Now my point is not about advertising, it's just an example of conditioning. It is merely planting a seed in your mind, which, depending upon your likes and dislikes, will either grow or flail, but once it's there, it's there. No different that what happens to you a zillion times a year with everything from news stories to speeches, to "scientific research", to partisan politics, conditioning of the human mind is a tried and true tactic, widely used to shape everything from consumer habits to societal thinking.
The major breakthrough in the understanding of conditioning, of course, is Pavlov's Dog. Many will remember this from high school science classes. A quick summary of Pavlov's experiment in his attempt to prove that conditioning could be taught. His experiment basically started with him ringing a bell before feeding the animal. Eventually he started to ring the bell but delay giving the food while observing what happened with the dog after the bell was rung. Pavlov's "eureka moment" came when he observed that by ringing the bell, the dog reacted emotionally and physiologically as if it were time to eat. This was proven due to the fact when the bell was rung and food withheld, the dog would begin to salivate, the natural reaction of the body preparing for food intake (this is true in humans as well). I'm sure Pavlov would shudder to see where the results of his experiments have gone and how conditioning invades every square inch of our life.
Let's talk about about conditioning. Lots of people own iPhones, for example. How many of them know why? How many could tell you how they even first because aware of the existince of something called an iPhone. Most of them will tell you they aren't affected by advertising. They'll never be able to tell you why they were among the first to try a new product, adopt a new style, get a popular haircut or always buy certain brands. But they will guarantee you they are not influenced by outside sources.
Advertising is bad enough, but as the science of conditioning advances, it is creeping into every facet of society. One of the most unfortunate areas conditioning has come into play is in science. Scientists are human, and humans can be greedy. Just like cops and judges and politicians have allowed themselves to be bought off over the years, so to have a number of scientists. Yes there are groups of corporate interests who will pay big money to fund research that presents "their" viewpoint. Sad but true. If you think I am slinging you a line of bullshit, please explain to me the many hundreds, nay, thousands of studies showing the safety and benefits of smoking. I'm pretty sure most of us realize smoking isn't the world's healthiest activity, yet you can still find recent studies extolling the virtues of tobacco. Along with people who will swear they are right.
Now we're seeing the same thing happening with climate change. The most legitimate research is being effectively challenged by funding of groups and individuals by large corporate and government interests who want you to think everything is normal, that humans aren't contributing to climate change and so on. There are people predisposed to believe them and just like it worked for decades with tobacco, it will sow enough of a seed in the minds of people who don't understand it to drag things on until we are forced to act when we've already reached a critical juncture, or worse, a precipice. I welcome those who would like to argue environment issues with me, I've been working on environmental issues for 30 years, I've held positions at the helm of groundbreaking citizen science organizations, I've spoken publicly in many forums to many people, I've taught children, I've run organizations to improve freshwater quality and I've sat on government panels. So if you want to talk environment, have at 'er.
The last election was an exercise in conditioning, thanks to the tea party of Stephen Harper. Say the same things over and over and over and never deviate from the standard message and once people hear it enough many will believe it to be fact, from the sheer number of times they've been told. This tactic goes way back to the likes of Stalin, Kruschev, Mao, and yes especially Adolf Hitler. It's continuing, but suddenly failing in many countries with "President for life" guys, with the exception of Kim Jong-Il and a few others doing a fine job at conditioning their populations. If you don't think this is true, explain with many serious scandals, parliamentary problems, an absolutely failed management of the economy from top to bottom, the G8/G20 fiasco with millions on things in Tony Clement's riding, needed things like highway signs and outdoor toilets and gazebos that not a single leader ever saw, how anyone could vote for these organized criminals and hold their head up. How many idiots in the face of incontrovertiable proof of economic mismanagement would look you in the eye and tell you "Stephen Harper has handled the economy well". Plenty, I meet them.
You have to be on your guard at all times. Fortunately we have available, at our fingertips a wealth of imformation, a deluge of knowledgable people we can contact through the internet, there are libraries and smartphones and so many ways to educate yourself before making up your mind on the surface of any single statement. Be skeptical and always remember that out there are a lot of special interests trying to make you their own Pavlov's Dog.
There's always a bigger picture, keep it mind and you'll have a chance at finding truth in a lying society.
Now my point is not about advertising, it's just an example of conditioning. It is merely planting a seed in your mind, which, depending upon your likes and dislikes, will either grow or flail, but once it's there, it's there. No different that what happens to you a zillion times a year with everything from news stories to speeches, to "scientific research", to partisan politics, conditioning of the human mind is a tried and true tactic, widely used to shape everything from consumer habits to societal thinking.
The major breakthrough in the understanding of conditioning, of course, is Pavlov's Dog. Many will remember this from high school science classes. A quick summary of Pavlov's experiment in his attempt to prove that conditioning could be taught. His experiment basically started with him ringing a bell before feeding the animal. Eventually he started to ring the bell but delay giving the food while observing what happened with the dog after the bell was rung. Pavlov's "eureka moment" came when he observed that by ringing the bell, the dog reacted emotionally and physiologically as if it were time to eat. This was proven due to the fact when the bell was rung and food withheld, the dog would begin to salivate, the natural reaction of the body preparing for food intake (this is true in humans as well). I'm sure Pavlov would shudder to see where the results of his experiments have gone and how conditioning invades every square inch of our life.
Let's talk about about conditioning. Lots of people own iPhones, for example. How many of them know why? How many could tell you how they even first because aware of the existince of something called an iPhone. Most of them will tell you they aren't affected by advertising. They'll never be able to tell you why they were among the first to try a new product, adopt a new style, get a popular haircut or always buy certain brands. But they will guarantee you they are not influenced by outside sources.
Advertising is bad enough, but as the science of conditioning advances, it is creeping into every facet of society. One of the most unfortunate areas conditioning has come into play is in science. Scientists are human, and humans can be greedy. Just like cops and judges and politicians have allowed themselves to be bought off over the years, so to have a number of scientists. Yes there are groups of corporate interests who will pay big money to fund research that presents "their" viewpoint. Sad but true. If you think I am slinging you a line of bullshit, please explain to me the many hundreds, nay, thousands of studies showing the safety and benefits of smoking. I'm pretty sure most of us realize smoking isn't the world's healthiest activity, yet you can still find recent studies extolling the virtues of tobacco. Along with people who will swear they are right.
Now we're seeing the same thing happening with climate change. The most legitimate research is being effectively challenged by funding of groups and individuals by large corporate and government interests who want you to think everything is normal, that humans aren't contributing to climate change and so on. There are people predisposed to believe them and just like it worked for decades with tobacco, it will sow enough of a seed in the minds of people who don't understand it to drag things on until we are forced to act when we've already reached a critical juncture, or worse, a precipice. I welcome those who would like to argue environment issues with me, I've been working on environmental issues for 30 years, I've held positions at the helm of groundbreaking citizen science organizations, I've spoken publicly in many forums to many people, I've taught children, I've run organizations to improve freshwater quality and I've sat on government panels. So if you want to talk environment, have at 'er.
The last election was an exercise in conditioning, thanks to the tea party of Stephen Harper. Say the same things over and over and over and never deviate from the standard message and once people hear it enough many will believe it to be fact, from the sheer number of times they've been told. This tactic goes way back to the likes of Stalin, Kruschev, Mao, and yes especially Adolf Hitler. It's continuing, but suddenly failing in many countries with "President for life" guys, with the exception of Kim Jong-Il and a few others doing a fine job at conditioning their populations. If you don't think this is true, explain with many serious scandals, parliamentary problems, an absolutely failed management of the economy from top to bottom, the G8/G20 fiasco with millions on things in Tony Clement's riding, needed things like highway signs and outdoor toilets and gazebos that not a single leader ever saw, how anyone could vote for these organized criminals and hold their head up. How many idiots in the face of incontrovertiable proof of economic mismanagement would look you in the eye and tell you "Stephen Harper has handled the economy well". Plenty, I meet them.
You have to be on your guard at all times. Fortunately we have available, at our fingertips a wealth of imformation, a deluge of knowledgable people we can contact through the internet, there are libraries and smartphones and so many ways to educate yourself before making up your mind on the surface of any single statement. Be skeptical and always remember that out there are a lot of special interests trying to make you their own Pavlov's Dog.
There's always a bigger picture, keep it mind and you'll have a chance at finding truth in a lying society.
Sunday, 8 May 2011
What many don't understand
I've taken a few days after the election to really pay attention to what Canadians are saying across a wide variety of media. Newspapers, radio, television, blogs, and social media can be a good source of the pulse of public opinion if you retain a vigilance when you follow public commentary. Not all public commentary is true public commentary, quite often political parties and interest groups will encourage like minded followers to dominate a topic to make it look like it has more support than it does. They're all guilty of it, so no one gets to feel superior here.
I deal in reality. Ugly, horrific reality. Face it, we all hate having to look at reality but I thrive on it as it's the only way to move forward. As much as I would like things to be a different way, they aren't, and the sooner I see it for what it is, the sooner I can move forward to do my part to effect change.
The world has changed. In our society, while we have the resources to be educated beyond what previous generations were, we use it for garbage, like tracking what celebrities do, or how our favorite "reality" show is doing, or some such drivel. I'm not dissing anyone's hobbies, but I encourage people to at least educate yourself about politics, our system, our history, and don't do what you've just done again. Even if you take a couple of hours a weekend to read a variety of news, to ask some questions, to use your search engine, library, reference library, any resources available to you to become involved in what is probably the next most important thing in your life next to your family.
Yes. Politics is that important. These are the people who make the rules you have to live by, and with. They decide your level of taxation. They decide how your money will be spent and how much of it and where. Over the 41st parliament it is concievable the majority government of Stephen Harper will spend in the vicinity of a quarter-trillion dollars, plenty of it borrowed from your children, and their children.
I will be very frank. I welcome comments. I welcome questions. I welcome discussion. This is my assessment. You can believe it or not, like it or not. This is my "reality show" for the very confused people I see making comments.
A majority government in Canada means you live under a dictatorship for the next 4 years minimum. Opposition means nothing. Like dogs barking in the distance, they can neither change any proposed legislation nor stop it. Canada has handed Stephen Harper carte blanche to proceed with his (and that of his inner circle) agenda. I've seen many naive comments about how he'll have to take other people's concerns into account now that he has such awesome responsiblility. Rainbows and puppies covered in a thick layer of fantasy. The Harper governement fell because of their contempt of a minority parliament and people think rewarding him with a majority will correct bad behaviour? This argument is about as good as one that says if the kids won't eat the healthy meal you made at home, you can teach them a lesson by taking them to McDonalds or Boston Pizza or wherever.
I've followed Stephen Harper since the early 90's. I recognized him as someone driven to remake the institutions of Canada in the image of the republic of the United States of America. I don't like the man, I don't like what he stands for, I believe most Canadians do not want a Canada that's America with oil. If you'd really like a glimpse of what the mindset of Stephen Harper et al is, and the agenda he has that some would argue is hidden, but I would argue has been very clear all along, read (and even bookmark to reread) the text of his Montreal speech, as President of the right-wing National Citizens Coalition lobby group. It's telling these are the right wing Americans he is addressing. It's full of disdain and vitriol for Canada, it's politics, it's parties and it's institutions. This is what Stephen Harper hates. Probably all of the things you've been proud of most of your life. All of the things that make us different than Americans. From this point forward, only ugly dirty politics will win elections in Canada. Everything will be played out to capture the lowest common denominator. Fear. Attack ads. Bogus media reports. Obfuscation of fact. Spin. In order to change it, we either have to engage in it or die, whether it goes against the grain of everything we may stand for or feel inside, the longer we try to be principled in a system skewed totally in the other direction we shall wander in the wilderness until it is virtually impossible to tell the difference between America and Canada. If this is what you want, feel free to remain blissfully ignorant of reality.
Here is what Stephen Harper thinks of Canada many thanks to the Tyee.ca for the reprint of the text. Gravol may be required.
For those of you unaware of what you've let yourself into. Stephen Harper, hated as he may be, seriously is your supreme ruler. What he says goes. Experienced Liberals have been left to 3rd party status leaving Jack Layton as opposition leader. He had more power prior to the election. He has nothing but a pulpit now, from which he can preach anything he wants knowing it doesn't make a lick of difference. He also is going to have serious internal problems to deal with. Much of his caucus is from Quebec, inexperience, idealisitic, and expected to carry the Quebec vs Canada message to Ottawa within a national party. This is a very unenviable position to be in and will consume much energy. Whether Jack Layton ran the same campaign across the country is debatable, but moot, as Quebeckers certainly are not, and I predict, will not be marching to the beat of the same drummer.
It's not the time for those of us who make up the centre of the spectrum to sit crying in our beer. There is work to do on many fronts. We need to make use of a century of experience, and listen to how Canadians define themselves domestically and internationally. Whether the Liberals take advantage of this opportunity or someone else does, I am of the opinion most Canadians are of the kinder, gentler persuasion and prefer not to get radical on either direction. The fact the next 4 years everything will go the way of the right wing is reality. Our job is to expose the coming, leaner, meaner Canada and educate everyone you can that things need to change. Not in a small way. This will not be easy. My best advice is to remove emotion from the equation. Emotion will cloud your judgement and force you to take a narrower view, foiling your attemps to appeal to a broader base. I'm not saying you can't have emotions, just that they can't apply to anything but the selling of the solutions.
I'm not happy. I'm disappointed in the lack of understanding of what just happend. I'm saddened by people who think it's a reason to give up when the exact opposite is true.
I will continue to speak out for a just Canada, where public service means serving the public rather than your political masters, and for change in democracy so it reflects the realities of the 21st century. Tradition is cute and all that but it's not working. If it's broke, fix it.
Let's git R dun.
I deal in reality. Ugly, horrific reality. Face it, we all hate having to look at reality but I thrive on it as it's the only way to move forward. As much as I would like things to be a different way, they aren't, and the sooner I see it for what it is, the sooner I can move forward to do my part to effect change.
The world has changed. In our society, while we have the resources to be educated beyond what previous generations were, we use it for garbage, like tracking what celebrities do, or how our favorite "reality" show is doing, or some such drivel. I'm not dissing anyone's hobbies, but I encourage people to at least educate yourself about politics, our system, our history, and don't do what you've just done again. Even if you take a couple of hours a weekend to read a variety of news, to ask some questions, to use your search engine, library, reference library, any resources available to you to become involved in what is probably the next most important thing in your life next to your family.
Yes. Politics is that important. These are the people who make the rules you have to live by, and with. They decide your level of taxation. They decide how your money will be spent and how much of it and where. Over the 41st parliament it is concievable the majority government of Stephen Harper will spend in the vicinity of a quarter-trillion dollars, plenty of it borrowed from your children, and their children.
I will be very frank. I welcome comments. I welcome questions. I welcome discussion. This is my assessment. You can believe it or not, like it or not. This is my "reality show" for the very confused people I see making comments.
A majority government in Canada means you live under a dictatorship for the next 4 years minimum. Opposition means nothing. Like dogs barking in the distance, they can neither change any proposed legislation nor stop it. Canada has handed Stephen Harper carte blanche to proceed with his (and that of his inner circle) agenda. I've seen many naive comments about how he'll have to take other people's concerns into account now that he has such awesome responsiblility. Rainbows and puppies covered in a thick layer of fantasy. The Harper governement fell because of their contempt of a minority parliament and people think rewarding him with a majority will correct bad behaviour? This argument is about as good as one that says if the kids won't eat the healthy meal you made at home, you can teach them a lesson by taking them to McDonalds or Boston Pizza or wherever.
I've followed Stephen Harper since the early 90's. I recognized him as someone driven to remake the institutions of Canada in the image of the republic of the United States of America. I don't like the man, I don't like what he stands for, I believe most Canadians do not want a Canada that's America with oil. If you'd really like a glimpse of what the mindset of Stephen Harper et al is, and the agenda he has that some would argue is hidden, but I would argue has been very clear all along, read (and even bookmark to reread) the text of his Montreal speech, as President of the right-wing National Citizens Coalition lobby group. It's telling these are the right wing Americans he is addressing. It's full of disdain and vitriol for Canada, it's politics, it's parties and it's institutions. This is what Stephen Harper hates. Probably all of the things you've been proud of most of your life. All of the things that make us different than Americans. From this point forward, only ugly dirty politics will win elections in Canada. Everything will be played out to capture the lowest common denominator. Fear. Attack ads. Bogus media reports. Obfuscation of fact. Spin. In order to change it, we either have to engage in it or die, whether it goes against the grain of everything we may stand for or feel inside, the longer we try to be principled in a system skewed totally in the other direction we shall wander in the wilderness until it is virtually impossible to tell the difference between America and Canada. If this is what you want, feel free to remain blissfully ignorant of reality.
Here is what Stephen Harper thinks of Canada many thanks to the Tyee.ca for the reprint of the text. Gravol may be required.
For those of you unaware of what you've let yourself into. Stephen Harper, hated as he may be, seriously is your supreme ruler. What he says goes. Experienced Liberals have been left to 3rd party status leaving Jack Layton as opposition leader. He had more power prior to the election. He has nothing but a pulpit now, from which he can preach anything he wants knowing it doesn't make a lick of difference. He also is going to have serious internal problems to deal with. Much of his caucus is from Quebec, inexperience, idealisitic, and expected to carry the Quebec vs Canada message to Ottawa within a national party. This is a very unenviable position to be in and will consume much energy. Whether Jack Layton ran the same campaign across the country is debatable, but moot, as Quebeckers certainly are not, and I predict, will not be marching to the beat of the same drummer.
It's not the time for those of us who make up the centre of the spectrum to sit crying in our beer. There is work to do on many fronts. We need to make use of a century of experience, and listen to how Canadians define themselves domestically and internationally. Whether the Liberals take advantage of this opportunity or someone else does, I am of the opinion most Canadians are of the kinder, gentler persuasion and prefer not to get radical on either direction. The fact the next 4 years everything will go the way of the right wing is reality. Our job is to expose the coming, leaner, meaner Canada and educate everyone you can that things need to change. Not in a small way. This will not be easy. My best advice is to remove emotion from the equation. Emotion will cloud your judgement and force you to take a narrower view, foiling your attemps to appeal to a broader base. I'm not saying you can't have emotions, just that they can't apply to anything but the selling of the solutions.
I'm not happy. I'm disappointed in the lack of understanding of what just happend. I'm saddened by people who think it's a reason to give up when the exact opposite is true.
I will continue to speak out for a just Canada, where public service means serving the public rather than your political masters, and for change in democracy so it reflects the realities of the 21st century. Tradition is cute and all that but it's not working. If it's broke, fix it.
Let's git R dun.
Friday, 22 April 2011
Stephen Harper asks us to examine his record
Well, Canada's 41st election is well underway, we've seen the ads, listened to the catch phrases, been inundated with polls, perhaps watched a debate or two, and you may even have tuned in to the CBC's series of Peter Mansbridge interviews one on one with each of the leaders, which inspired this particular blog post.
In today's interview, Stephen Harper said we need to examine his record. I thought, ok, why not give it a shot. Now, being an ordinary guy, I don't have a team of researchers to do my bidding, so I have to rely on search engines, memory, newspapers, magazines and the sort. By no means is this the definitive chronological be-all end-all examination of the Harper record, just what one man could come up with.
It's a fairly disjointed look at things, as I didn't attempt to get into details on dates, just some kind of look at what has been done, and I guess what we could expect a lot more of with a Stephen Harper majority government. I'm not going to add editorial comment, actions speak louder than words.
The Harper Record
Told Canadians in 2008 there was no threat of recession
Told Canadians Conservatives would never run a deficit
Racked up the biggest deficit in Canadian History, eclipsing the 38 Billion Mulroney Conservative deficit.
Claimed credit for Canada riding out a global economic mess even though the regulations that allowed for it were enacted by Paul Martin, a Liberal, who left Harper with a 14 billion dollar surplus in 2006
Guaranteed Canadians his government would never tax income trusts, then immediately placed a tax on income trusts.
Trumpets his party's support for our armed forces and veterans, but doesn't back it up with action. Canada's Veteran's Ombudsman went public with the shockingly poor treatment of Canada's veterans at the hand of the very organizations tasked with protecting and caring for them. The Harper Government does not believe in criticism, so they removed him from his post. Now veterans can be stripped of their dignity and no one has to know.
Probably very few people remember the story of Douglas Tipple. The Harper record is filled with plenty of questionable judgements, this is another example and this one cost us millions. I'd try to explain but it's easier to refer you to the link to one of many sordid stories.
We know Stephen Harper thinks the gun registry is some kind of evil Canada can't stand for. Unfortunately for the High Ranking RCMP official Chief Superintendent Marty Cheliak it didn't pay to endorse it. He was removed from his post because he wasn't french enough (or so was the excuse du jour).
Even though we've maintained a high quality census throughout our history, and that the manditory long form census had never resulted in anyone being charged or going to jail, Stephen Harper claimed there was a landslide of opposition to the "intrusive" form and against the advice of the world's top experts mounted an all out effort to rid us of this incredibly important tool. This resulted in the resignation of Munir Sheikh, head of Statistics Canada, widely regarded as among the world's top experts in the gathering and analysis of vital statistics. Maybe today this isn't a big deal to you, but 10 years from now, when a hospital is desperately needed in your riding, it will be built 40 miles away in the riding of a government member because the information that used to dictate how and where services were delivered depended crucially on the information that used to come from the long form census.
The list of firings, appointments not renewed, and positions phased out just goes on and on, with the central theme being, if you say anything critical of the government, you're gone. If you're lucky, you're gone, this government also has a particular penchant for trying to discredit anyone who disagrees. Either they do the worst job in history of hiring/appointing people to run our institutions, or they have a policy of stifiling dissent. Maybe both, but I don't think so.
Well, you say, perhaps it may all be a huge coincidence. At least we all have rights. The Harper government would prefer you keep your rights to yourself. Closure of Canadian Human Rights Commission offices will hurt Canadians. The three offices slated for closure; Vancouver, Toronto and Halifax received 70 per cent of all signed complaints to the CHRC in 2008.
Thank goodness we can trust them economically, right? Independent Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page had his budget slashed after revealing the true costs of the Afghan war and disputing the government's economic and fiscal projections. In September 2010 he announced he will not seek reappointment in 2013. An experiment in “transparency and accountability” that was doomed from the beginning. PBO Page most recently alerted Canadians the costs of F35 fighter jets as stated aren't even close to being right.
If you try to protect Canadians, and it ends up an embarrassment for the Harper government, you get what whistle-blower biologist/public employee, Luc Pomerleau got. Fired for leaking a government memo proposing to allow the meat industry to handle its own inspections. The head of the Food Inspection Agency, Carole Swan, fired Mr. Pomerleau, ignoring the fact that the proposed plan potentially threatened public safety. Shortly after food safety was hammered home when several Canadians died of listeriosis from tainted meat from a Canadian plant.
I couldn't possibly list all of the similar stories, all of which happened since Stephen Harper came to power. I'd invite you to use your search engine and spend some time looking into the myriad of incidents where someone has been critical and has been fired, muzzled, or worse.
I'm pretty sure if you read blogs you know a lot of the Harper record yourself.
When his government was about to fall on a confidence motion he convinced the Governer General to prorogue parliament, shutting down the house for nefarious purposes and killing all legislation in progress.
Harper's record shows he runs away at the slightest sign of trouble. When it became apparent the Afghan Detainee documents were going to be made public, they obviously were important enough for this man to, once again, avoid the scrutiny of the Canadian public by ordering up an unprecedented second proroguation of parliment.
Stephen Harper promised to reform the senate and put an end to partisan porkbarrelling in the upper chamber and at first opportuity he stacked it with ridiculous party fundraisers and hacks. He then used these appointed hacks to set a precident in Canadian history. Killing a bill passed in the elected house of commons.
When examining the record you have to ask exactly how it is Mr. Harper delivered on his solemn promise to clean up government. Did he do it by employing a 5 time convicted felon to work as his top advisor? Did he do it by make absolutely ridiculous allegations to RCMP about a cabinet minister in his own government, allowing her to be decimated until the truth came out it was all a lie and then refused to say her name let alone apoligize? Did he do it by employing, then appointing to the senate, men facing charges of fraud for a con game that resulted in over a million of your tax dollars being stolen in a scheme that, in day to day life, would be the same as you putting an empty envelope in the ATM and withdrawing a large sum of cash. The list just goes on and on and shockingly on.
I could add more, aside from the scandal-a-day we get now, but I'm sure you can find plenty, even if you just read the links in the blog you get the idea.
Whenever confronted, it is always a lie, someone else's fault, they refuse to talk about it, hide behind procedure, or turn it back to the same messages intended to somehow scare someone or everyone. One thing I will make very clear on the Harper record. The government did not fall because the majority of parliament rejected the conservative budget. The budget brought forward was never voted on. The reason we are having an election on May 2nd is due to a finding by speaker Peter Milliken that, for the first time in history, the Government of Canada was found to be in contempt of parliament, the most serious charge a government can face domestically. In light of the speaker's ruling, Opposition Leader Michael Ignatieff brought forward a motion of non-confidence in the Conservative Government of Stephen Harper, which was voted on by all members of the house, resulting in a loss for Mr. Harper and the opportunity to judge.
As Mr. Harper said. Judge them on their record. While by no means is this all of their record, look into it and ask yourself if these people are the ones you want to run your affairs and over the course of a mandate, potentially spend a quarter trillion of your tax dollars.
It's your choice. Get informed and get to the polls. Know the big picture.
In today's interview, Stephen Harper said we need to examine his record. I thought, ok, why not give it a shot. Now, being an ordinary guy, I don't have a team of researchers to do my bidding, so I have to rely on search engines, memory, newspapers, magazines and the sort. By no means is this the definitive chronological be-all end-all examination of the Harper record, just what one man could come up with.
It's a fairly disjointed look at things, as I didn't attempt to get into details on dates, just some kind of look at what has been done, and I guess what we could expect a lot more of with a Stephen Harper majority government. I'm not going to add editorial comment, actions speak louder than words.
The Harper Record
Told Canadians in 2008 there was no threat of recession
Told Canadians Conservatives would never run a deficit
Racked up the biggest deficit in Canadian History, eclipsing the 38 Billion Mulroney Conservative deficit.
Claimed credit for Canada riding out a global economic mess even though the regulations that allowed for it were enacted by Paul Martin, a Liberal, who left Harper with a 14 billion dollar surplus in 2006
Guaranteed Canadians his government would never tax income trusts, then immediately placed a tax on income trusts.
Trumpets his party's support for our armed forces and veterans, but doesn't back it up with action. Canada's Veteran's Ombudsman went public with the shockingly poor treatment of Canada's veterans at the hand of the very organizations tasked with protecting and caring for them. The Harper Government does not believe in criticism, so they removed him from his post. Now veterans can be stripped of their dignity and no one has to know.
Probably very few people remember the story of Douglas Tipple. The Harper record is filled with plenty of questionable judgements, this is another example and this one cost us millions. I'd try to explain but it's easier to refer you to the link to one of many sordid stories.
We know Stephen Harper thinks the gun registry is some kind of evil Canada can't stand for. Unfortunately for the High Ranking RCMP official Chief Superintendent Marty Cheliak it didn't pay to endorse it. He was removed from his post because he wasn't french enough (or so was the excuse du jour).
Even though we've maintained a high quality census throughout our history, and that the manditory long form census had never resulted in anyone being charged or going to jail, Stephen Harper claimed there was a landslide of opposition to the "intrusive" form and against the advice of the world's top experts mounted an all out effort to rid us of this incredibly important tool. This resulted in the resignation of Munir Sheikh, head of Statistics Canada, widely regarded as among the world's top experts in the gathering and analysis of vital statistics. Maybe today this isn't a big deal to you, but 10 years from now, when a hospital is desperately needed in your riding, it will be built 40 miles away in the riding of a government member because the information that used to dictate how and where services were delivered depended crucially on the information that used to come from the long form census.
The list of firings, appointments not renewed, and positions phased out just goes on and on, with the central theme being, if you say anything critical of the government, you're gone. If you're lucky, you're gone, this government also has a particular penchant for trying to discredit anyone who disagrees. Either they do the worst job in history of hiring/appointing people to run our institutions, or they have a policy of stifiling dissent. Maybe both, but I don't think so.
Well, you say, perhaps it may all be a huge coincidence. At least we all have rights. The Harper government would prefer you keep your rights to yourself. Closure of Canadian Human Rights Commission offices will hurt Canadians. The three offices slated for closure; Vancouver, Toronto and Halifax received 70 per cent of all signed complaints to the CHRC in 2008.
Thank goodness we can trust them economically, right? Independent Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page had his budget slashed after revealing the true costs of the Afghan war and disputing the government's economic and fiscal projections. In September 2010 he announced he will not seek reappointment in 2013. An experiment in “transparency and accountability” that was doomed from the beginning. PBO Page most recently alerted Canadians the costs of F35 fighter jets as stated aren't even close to being right.
If you try to protect Canadians, and it ends up an embarrassment for the Harper government, you get what whistle-blower biologist/public employee, Luc Pomerleau got. Fired for leaking a government memo proposing to allow the meat industry to handle its own inspections. The head of the Food Inspection Agency, Carole Swan, fired Mr. Pomerleau, ignoring the fact that the proposed plan potentially threatened public safety. Shortly after food safety was hammered home when several Canadians died of listeriosis from tainted meat from a Canadian plant.
I couldn't possibly list all of the similar stories, all of which happened since Stephen Harper came to power. I'd invite you to use your search engine and spend some time looking into the myriad of incidents where someone has been critical and has been fired, muzzled, or worse.
I'm pretty sure if you read blogs you know a lot of the Harper record yourself.
When his government was about to fall on a confidence motion he convinced the Governer General to prorogue parliament, shutting down the house for nefarious purposes and killing all legislation in progress.
Harper's record shows he runs away at the slightest sign of trouble. When it became apparent the Afghan Detainee documents were going to be made public, they obviously were important enough for this man to, once again, avoid the scrutiny of the Canadian public by ordering up an unprecedented second proroguation of parliment.
Stephen Harper promised to reform the senate and put an end to partisan porkbarrelling in the upper chamber and at first opportuity he stacked it with ridiculous party fundraisers and hacks. He then used these appointed hacks to set a precident in Canadian history. Killing a bill passed in the elected house of commons.
When examining the record you have to ask exactly how it is Mr. Harper delivered on his solemn promise to clean up government. Did he do it by employing a 5 time convicted felon to work as his top advisor? Did he do it by make absolutely ridiculous allegations to RCMP about a cabinet minister in his own government, allowing her to be decimated until the truth came out it was all a lie and then refused to say her name let alone apoligize? Did he do it by employing, then appointing to the senate, men facing charges of fraud for a con game that resulted in over a million of your tax dollars being stolen in a scheme that, in day to day life, would be the same as you putting an empty envelope in the ATM and withdrawing a large sum of cash. The list just goes on and on and shockingly on.
I could add more, aside from the scandal-a-day we get now, but I'm sure you can find plenty, even if you just read the links in the blog you get the idea.
Whenever confronted, it is always a lie, someone else's fault, they refuse to talk about it, hide behind procedure, or turn it back to the same messages intended to somehow scare someone or everyone. One thing I will make very clear on the Harper record. The government did not fall because the majority of parliament rejected the conservative budget. The budget brought forward was never voted on. The reason we are having an election on May 2nd is due to a finding by speaker Peter Milliken that, for the first time in history, the Government of Canada was found to be in contempt of parliament, the most serious charge a government can face domestically. In light of the speaker's ruling, Opposition Leader Michael Ignatieff brought forward a motion of non-confidence in the Conservative Government of Stephen Harper, which was voted on by all members of the house, resulting in a loss for Mr. Harper and the opportunity to judge.
As Mr. Harper said. Judge them on their record. While by no means is this all of their record, look into it and ask yourself if these people are the ones you want to run your affairs and over the course of a mandate, potentially spend a quarter trillion of your tax dollars.
It's your choice. Get informed and get to the polls. Know the big picture.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)