Sunday, October 21, 2007

Daily Digest October 21, 2007



ST.JOHN'S TELEGRAM - If the mud fits wear it


MONTREAL GAZETTE - Crime bill does not reflect reality

TORONTO STAR - Rules should apply to all

WINNIPEG FREE PRESS - The future of social networking

CALGARY HERALD - Wait times still too long

CALGARY SUN - Alberta's agent of change

EDMONTON SUN - Judgment Day for Stelmach

VANCOUVER PROVINCE - We must stop being so accommodating to visiting criminals

        Let us pray for a stable government in Pakistan

VICTORIA TIMES-COLONIST -  War of words shames ex-PMs
Rhetorical excess and sleazy cheap shots stain Mulroney, Chrétien biographies


NATO to battle Taliban on YouTube
Afghan mission finally ready to pull plug on Cold War caution and Stone Age methods

Canadians 'doss down' in Taliban heartland

Afghans lend reality to mock war
Immigrant role players at CFB Wainwright give soldiers a chance to learn from mistakes

Bargain-hunters blocked in U.S.

Dodge says market forces preferable to regulation

'Who owns the wind over land, and at what height?'
Solar resources, renewable energy technology create ownership quandry

Talk of income gap is a political ploy
All Canadians are doing better financially these days

Bombings greet Bhutto

Ottawa ponders technology deal

Bush humiliates China and Harper sticks it to Burma. Good work
Honouring the Dalai Lama and Suu Kyi upsets a couple of oppressive regimes

China irked by Myanmar sanctions

Who's really calling the shots in China?
Communist party meeting highlights president's fading influence

Antarctic land claim sounds alarm in Canada
U.K. plan to claim seabed and Canada's official indifference worries polar politics experts

Canada lags in enforcing its claims to Arctic

Canada lax in pursuing offenders abroad

Decision time looms on Alta.'s energy royalties

Chance for Big Oil to show premier Stelmach how royalties review would cripple industry tanked

As royalty decision day nears for Ed, let's hear from a globetrotting oil and gas expert who's seen all this fear-mongering and monkey math before

Stay cool: Stick with facts

This is no time to be grabby

Labour group worried Stelmach will scrap panel's royalties plan

All eyes turn to tight-lipped premier
Much at stake as powerful oil industry squares off against voting public

Bigotry on public display

Angus Reid Global Monitor : Polls & Research
Tories Lead, But Few Canadians Want an Election

Baird Kyoto statement 'dishonest'
Tories playing politics by not abandoning deal they claim is unattainable, activist says

Throne speech does little to court female voters, garnering much higher approval among men

Stéphane: Just say no to Harper

Smirk from a jerk
Facial expressions tell the tale of loyalty as Ignatieff silently critiques his leader

Stephane Dion may be the new John Turner

Fight or flight for Dion, Grits

Tongues wag after Geoff lunches with Bill

Crime bill a no-brainer

Dion talks tough on environment

Budget freeze endangers wildlife agency, scientists say

Mystery solved: Why the car companies are gouging us

Furor over a five-letter word
A translator of the Qur'an doesn't believe Muhammad could have condoned spousal abuse

Casey predicament recalls another nomination dispute

Hijabs, turbans aren't a threat

Poverty still a blight on society

Do Tasers kill?
Two deaths in a week put the spotlight on stun guns

Why atheists aren't such a bad lot after all

Stephen Harper's Second Speech from the Throne

Ignatieff laughs behind Dion's back


Sondage: Duceppe se dit optimiste

Le Journal en Afghanistan · Vivre collés sur l'ennemi

Le Journal en Afghanistan · Pris, perdu puis repris

Formation de deux nouvelles entités politiques
Des souverainistes délaissent le PQ



        John's post offered the opportunity to pose a question that is in many minds.  There are undoubtedly a number of differing answers. I hope these will be expressed
        so that those as yet undecided can weigh their merits.

        From: John Kruithof
        Subject: Response to Ernest Raymond


        Ernest Raymond and I hold differing opinions on Stephen Harper's direction, in that Ernest bemoans the passing of some former Alliance traits, which I actually applaud.  During        my 35 years of traveling the world with Foreign Affairs, I've had to constantly evaluate my convictions in light of firsthand observations elsewhere.  Politicians are no different,    as they crisscross Canada and the world.  I hope they learn from their experience, and adjust accordingly.  Adopting positive values for the future entails shedding negative   values of the past.
        John Kruithof
        Ottawa South

        . . . your statement " Adopting positive values for the future entails shedding negative values of the past." is accurate. Two maxims, established principles or        propositions; condensed propositions of important practical truth; are relevant to this: a leopard doesn't change its spots; wolves at times wear sheep's

        Has Stephen Harper shed his values of the past?  This is the question those who consider policy statements he has made destructive of Canada as a nation.

        Has he or not changed his spots such that with a majority he would take off the moderated positions that would have pulled the wool over enough eyes
        for the power flowing from such a majority to be obtained?

              Pardon the run on sentence in raising the question that must be addressed.



From: Ron Thornton

Subject: Re: Daily Digest October 21, 2007

*Hi Joe:

Here I thought I was just going to quickly flip through the Below 30 and continue on to my next email.  But, nooooo.  I'm not all that thrilled that the Conservatives might be stockpiling my info, but as long as they don't sell it off to other interests, then I can live with it.  You see, the only time the party bothers to call me, it is not to inquire about my thoughts or advice, but to try to dip their fingers into my wallet. 
I just hang up.  I can't stand peddlers, including political ones, whose only interest is my money and have the audacity to call me up and bother me at home.  Now, if they would only put that in their data base, maybe I wouldn't have to hang up on their ears.

Ernest Raymond points out that Stephen Harper's actions regarding immigration are based on tactics, not core values.  Sounds like the Liberal philosophy for years, and not just on immigration.  As I've mentioned before, I once followed a party that promised to do things differently, but Reform proved that what they were preaching was, well, based more on tactics than any core values.  Is the Stephen Harper vision of Canada MY vision of Canada?  Not really, but I find it more palatable than the crap offered by Stephane Dion or Jack Layton.  Maybe that is not saying much, but there it is.

I see we continue to rehash how the Progressive Conservatives became the Conservatives.  Well, if any of you were watching the Reform Party undergo the leadership driven United Alternative debate (and its lessons on how to achieve manipulated consent) , which morphed into the Canadian Alliance, you would have had an idea as to what was coming.  You just were not paying attention.

Wayne Smith figures MMP somehow gives voters a greater say in elections.  He is wrong.  Kim Campbell and Don Getty, for example, lost personal election under first-past-the-post.  They would never have lost under MMP and its party lists.  Never.  MMP is not progress, it is the opposite.

I hope you all are enjoying your weekend.


. . . sorry to have you delay your next email.

Pleased as punch you did however.


From: "Grenville Rogers"
Subject: Freedom of Press - OR -  "FREEDOM of EXPRESSION FOR ALL"

"Press Must Remain Proud and Free"- The Toronto Star 
"FREEDOM of EXPRESSION FOR ALL" is a bedrock essential to democracy.
The importance of 'Freedom of the Press' pales into utter insignificance in comparisn to "FREEDOM of EXPRESSION FOR ALL".
Control of the media and of the "entertainment" industry, in all their various forms, into a very few hands, is extremely dangerous and odious in the extreme. Such control exists in Canada and the US, as in other so-called 'Free and Democratic' societies.
"FREEDOM of EXPRESSION FOR ALL" is greatly feared by those who wish to control. It is feared by all dictators. Thus, it is feared by Harper. It is feared by Bush and by his puppeteer Cheney. It was feared by Stalin and his disciple Sharon.
True "FREEDOM of EXPRESSION FOR ALL" would result in the exposure of the Money Masters, the Cheneys, the Bushes, the media moguls, the Enrons,the Haliburtons, and by the warmongering Pentagon and military-industrial people.  It would also expose those who control The Toronto Star, and other media in Canada.
Grenville Rogers
PO Box 1630, 225 Fifth Avenue
Lively, ON.   P3Y 1N3

. . . well and truly said.

We gots ta watch they don't start to control this means


From: "Claudia Hudson"

Subject:  Bilderbergers and their plan for Canada

This is my message to most Canadians.Please pass this on 

Coincidence or not, on Friday, I was reading 'The Bilderberg Group' by Daniel Estulin when the Alex Jones Patriot Radio Program got underway with Daniel Estulin speaking from Toronto. There I was hearing the same realities from the author as I was reading them­eerie!

First, I will point out that I had ordered my copy of Daniel's book from Amazon com. I cannot  purchase the book at Chapters because Heather Reisman does not want me reading about the truth. She, who must be obeyed, is the neice of Simon Reisman who encumbered Canadians with FTA in 1987 at the behest of Brian Mulroney

Daniel, who has been studying the efforts of these rulers of the New World Order for 15 years was made privy to the intrigue of the break up of Canada in 1996 when the Bilderberg meeting, attended by Prime Minister Chretien and his then finance Minister Paul Martin was hosted by Conrad Black at King City, outside of Toronto, Ontario. Due to certain leaks the plan was interrupted

Interrupted­not stopped, as Daniel holding a Canadian passport found out. When he returned to Canada 2007 for his book signing he was given permission to enter his country by US military. Canada, a country in name only, says Daniel

Among many other things he told Alex Jones was that the top echelons of the top Federal parties are heavily funded by David Rockefeller, the mover and shaker of the Bilderbergers. I have been warning that we should be choosing other dance cards and not voting for any Cons or Libs. Read Daniel's book for the nasty taste of reality

Some of you now reading this know far more than I do about the precarious place in which we as a sovereign people find ourselves As for the rest of you lot, you think I have been eating strange mushrooms, when I tell you what has happened to our nation stae. You think that the Mainstream Media reports the truth and that your world is just fine without your doing a bit of research or raising your voice in defence of Canada At least you could read Jim Travers, Saturday 20, 2007 Toronto Star
* who tells you just how irrelevant Harper is making the House of Commons with Dion going along according to the plan.The plan is, of course, for the North American Union which will make you less than irrelevant.

If you do not bother to know your rights, you have none and your lack of interest in your country denies me the right to hold onto this fragile but grand concept of Canada and its parliamentary system, which is a gift earned by my ancestors and all those who have gone before me..

Claudia Hudson, a Canadian

Brantford, Ont

October 21, 2007
*PM's grip on power makes Parliament irrelevant,
Oct 20, 2007 04:30 AM
James Travers


What most Canadians see happening here is a strong Stephen Harper taking advantage of a weak Stéphane Dion to impose the will of the minority on the majority. What the country's leading expert on the machinery of power sees is a Parliament acting as a palace court and a Prime Minister behaving much like an absolute monarch.

Before dismissing the observation as hyperbole or hysterics, consider the source. Donald Savoie's list of honours and publications is long and imposing. A celebrated international scholar and Order of Canada member, the Université de Moncton political economist is best known in Ottawa for one of three-dozen books. Governing from the Centre, an unflinching examination of the concentration of Canadian political power, made him a pariah in Jean Chrétien's capital and is a now a workshop manual for Conservatives who in opposition saw it as proof of the devil's undemocratic work.

So take Savoie seriously when he says, as he did in an interview this week, that the events of the past few days measure the rapid acceleration of a decades-old trend. In forcefully imposing a notably personal agenda on a Parliament with life-and-death powers over his administration, Harper is taking advantage of a specific political circumstance – disorganized Liberals fear a campaign – and the generalized truth that between elections modern prime ministers are perilously close to omnipotent.

"There's no question," Savoie says, "that the Prime Minister has all the power he could possibly want."

Harper is not the first to yank those levers, nor is he alone among recent prime ministers in recognizing that the most effective, and certainly most comfortable way to manage complex issues is by controlling them at the epicentre. In practice that means two offices that serve the Prime Minister rule while backbenchers, cabinet ministers and ultimately Parliament watch.

Harper's "fish or cut bait" ultimatum is one test of Parliament's growing irrelevance. Those no-name representatives of the people are essentially being told to stand-down from their elected task. Under threat of an imminent campaign, public policies tightly scripted by an inner circle that only occasionally intersects with ministers or the civil service are to be approved without amendment or improvement.

Another revealing illustration of concentrated power is the appointment of a panel to steer Canada's post-2009 Afghanistan course. Rather than trust an all-party committee reporting to Parliament, Harper is delegating that politically charged responsibility to a handpicked elite beholden only to him.

Led by former Liberal deputy prime minister John Manley and including Derek Burney, a former chief of staff and ambassador to the U.S. under Brian Mulroney, and the head of Harper's transition team, the panellists are among what Savoie calls the new courtiers. In return for access, prestige and handsome per diems, they whisper advice the king can accept, dismiss or ignore depending on his wants, needs or whims.

Understanding this circular evolution in its full Magna Carta historical context requires waiting for spring and the latest of Savoie's seminal exposés of the practical application of power. But before then, this Parliament, labouring on life-support while the immediate families bicker, is likely to die. When it does, Canadians will have to decide if they can comfortably give this Prime Minister the added power he wants to operate a system he now so fully controls.