Thursday, May 28, 2009

Daily Digest May 28, 2009



Cheap tricks

Another little piece of my heart now, baby

Jean serves a media morsel

PC platform: Everybody's budget

Maybe all this stimulus isn't such a good idea

G-G eats her way into our hearts

Doing the math
Profiling in action
Criminal pandering

Bees can fly, and worker co-ops can succeed
 You can't stop them all
Detainees should have rights

Are Flaherty's critics justified?: No

Are Flaherty's critics justified?: Yes

Wanted: adult talk on deficits

You gotta have heart

Falling short on diversity

Bush and Clinton in it for the money

Personal bailout: Homes no longer a shelter?

Beyond privacy

After war, war measures

Good intentions, very bad approach

Election hubris

A worrying choice

Predators upon the flock

The real issue about GG's role

Cap-and-trade is just a charade

Jean's seal heart snack respectful, not political

The battle for Rome

Many innocents have faced suspicion

Mercredi focuses on slackers

Her lips are sealed

Fear-mongers, political gamers and the deficit

How to save local television

Questions that should be on driver's tests

1,500 rally to save local CTV news

Reason to cheer

Heart and seal
Killer deficit
No evidence on danger of cellphones and driving
Occult and superstition rule in Myanmar

 Don't miss chance to have your say on nuclear power

Secret release wrong for Li

Sowing seeds of hate

Getting away with murder

Independent MLA's tough, lonely road
Should Tori's killers be allowed to live?
Truth in political campaigns


Canada offers assistance in Afghanistan reconciliation

Pipelineistan goes Iran-Pak

Farmers face poppy dilemma

Military funding 'locked-in,' MaCkay tells defence industry trade show

Ford says Canadian operations are at risk without more CAW concessions

Police can share records even if charge dropped: court

'Bury' new tax, McGuinty told

Ontario emissions plan faces 2-year delay

Embattled health agency aims for more transparency

PM threatens Ignatieff with old tapes

Opposition smells blood

Flaherty won't resign over $50B deficit: 'not a time for partisan games'

Ignatieff to PM on rising deficit: 'How much more?'

120 Days of Budget Inaction Leaves Canadian Families Hurting
ohn McCallum is the Finance Critic for the Liberal Party of Canada

Is Peter mackay Leaving the Conservative Party?

Harper knows Flaherty must be shuffled


Federal CPP changes push off early retirement

Tories renew bid to limit Senate terms

Tories punt climate change enforcement up to six years down the road

Student-loan activist says Ottawa is misusing term 'grace period'

Airlines fume over Canada Post's sole-sourced deal

Quebec bias in Canada Day funding 'fair': Tory MP


C-SPAN won't sue Tories over Ignatieff footage

Recession breeds more repression

It's deep breath time

The '$50-billion man'

Tories make conservative progress

Disaster in Financeland

Hope corrodes for isotopes

Say No to Big Government

It's time to get to work on EI By MONTE SOLBERG

Le Canada condamne les attentats «lâches» perpétrés au Pakistan

Ottawa attendrait trois à six ans pour limiter les émissions des industries

Projet de loi des conservateurs pour réformer le Sénat

Ignatieff réclame la tête de Flaherty

Le Canada n'est pas à l'abri des critiques

L'opposition veut la tête de Flaherty

Stéphane Dion injustement traité

Ottawa cherche des partenaires privés pour investir dans Energie atomique


AECL to be divided, CANDU division for sale

Direct questions relating to the Candu division of AECL being for sale:
  • (1) Do you support or oppose this sale?
  • (2) If you support, would you have any consitions you'd make?
Some responses to the questions posed above have been received.

They provide you with thoughts to which you can state your agreement or disagreement

I hope you will;.

But the widespread anticipation is that the most likely buyer will be another reactor maker interested in eliminating
a competitor at a time when new reactor sales in Canada are likely, as well as picking up A.E.C.L.'s maintenance business. (Some design issues with Atomic Energy's reactors make that a potentially good business proposition.)

Google collection of articles


From: The Natroses

Hi Joe,
On think tanks, and their studies/research: It is not a coincidence that the research councils that are funded by the feds, had their funding cut, and at the same time where the think tanks have risen to become more prominent and for all purposes decisions are being made based on those reports, rather than the research that are scientifically based. I discovered this, when I was trying to find Canadian research on language/literacy about 2 years ago. I had to make personal contact to the research council, to acquire the material needed to support my position. At that time, I asked questions why the general public cannot easily access the material. The answer was that it costs money and time to put it one the Internet, and more importantly it is expected the other institutions to pass the research information and material down to the general public. I responded it is not happening in Canada, as it is in United States. She responded that they are aware of the problem, and have moved to put it on the Internet. Eventually the research coming from the research councils will be open up to all the public, no matter who you are. Thanks to the research, I won a battle against the school, whose arguments were based on non-scientifically research-based material that supported their viewpoint.

Since Harper came on the scene, it is apparent this government are using any material that supports their positions. Think tanks, consultants are their favourite, because opinion can be brought and spinned to the general public on a multitude of topics from economics to IE to science to accountability. The media often support the government's view point, because it is much easier to read a report from a think tank, than it is combing the scientific research archives to find material that supports or not support the position taken by the government.

It is why, Harper is still getting away with making statements, without explaining why and in detail. Instead, we get lines, that are more in keeping with a parent talking to a child. It does not help, when others describe the current Conservatives, as fiscal conservatives. As Phyllis stated, " Unfortunately, this government is neither progressive nor fiscally conservative but a new and different government with priorities based on theory rather than reality." I will go further, and that is their theorem is based on false assumptions, and the only goal is to become a majority government. One way of doing this, is  to hindered the flow of information to the general population, and slowly whatever the government says, must be true. The old communist countries became experts at being the gate keepers of information and history will tell us that the Harper government  became gate keepers of information, in attempts to become a majority government.

From: "Phyllis Wagg "

To The Natroses

I agree with you on most of your points except for your belief that in is different in the U.S.  It is not.  There is a systemic and global problem.

In fact, it appears the problem started with the U.S. universities that attracted huge endowments by promoting a certain "corporate" agenda.  The students who come out of these universities are indoctrinated into certain views and independent thinking, for the most part, is stifled.

"Tenure" was supposed to provide academic freedom.  It has accomplished the opposite.  To gain tenure a professor has to be willing to maintain the status quo.  He or she cannot challenge the status quo or they will be consistently passed over in the selection process.

Students learn, as they move through the various levels in the system, that if you follow the agenda you will succeed.  Those who buck the trend will be left by the way side.  They learn to "play the game."

This fact was driven home to me one day when I was having lunch with an established economics professor and one of his brilliant former students.  The former student, who at the times was teaching in the U.S., began to demolish a well-established trend in economic research.  His professor warned him not to rock the boat or he would never get tenure.  By the time these individuals get tenure they have been playing the game so long that they have lost the enthusiasm for challenging the status quo.

Another excellent example of "playing the game" was Michael Ignatieff.  The quotes the Conservatives are using against him illustrate this point.  He was obviously very good at the game.  The problem is that we don't know the real Michael Ignatieff.

There is a huge irony in the fact that the same people who promote the concepts of freedom and individuality are generally the most successful in destroying freedom and individuality.  

Phyllis Wagg  

From: Ron Thornton
Subject: Re: Daily Digest May 27, 2009

*Hi Joe:

Phyllis Wagg's comments got me to thinking. Okay, my head hurts, but I think it worth the effort. She mentioned that Stephen Harper, in the past, characterized the new Conservative Party as a coalition of "economic conservatives, social conservatives, democratic reformers, and red Tories."

Well, I can tell you that the democratic reformers got the short end of the stick early. By  the time Reform became the Canadian Alliance, there were a number of us who could have told you that it was one constituency that was spitting into the wind. Come to think of it, democratic reform in the Conservative Party amounts to disenfranchising its own membership to rubber stamp the re-nomination of its own MP's. Not exactly a step forward.

Another constituency that went the way of the dodo would include economic conservatives. As a conservative, I firmly believe that our government should spend little during the good times in order to be solvent enough to assist during the bad. To do otherwise would make one more an "economic liberal", or a fool, which probably is one and the same. It would seem there hasn't been any economic conservatives around for some time.

I am not a socialist nor am I a bleeding heart liberal, so I am left being a pissed off conservative who turned his back on the Progressive Conservatives when they were in power, and find myself doing the same to its successor nearly 20 years later. As I can not vote for the federal alternatives, I am left with the decision of what style of happy face I will mark on my ballot the next election, and whether to use my purple or my orange Sharpie to draw it with.

Ron Thornton

From: "Brian D. Marlatt"
Subject: Re: Do we support or opposer?

Oppose.  This is nothing more than selling off public assets.  It is purely ideological.  Nuclear energy is a technology that needs to be tightly regulated as a matter of public safety and control of contractual arrangements which could, in private hands, have security implications.
The ideological component flows from a stance which argues that government should not participate in or manage any area in which private interest may benefit.  It is a view that places private interest ahead of the public good.  In this instance, private interest is placed ahead of national interest, as well.

From: Rod Morley
Subject: Nuclear issues


I am in favour of  the Canadian Government in shutting down the nuclear business entirely. Until such time that a viable fusion reactor can be created, I do not think we should create any more versions of the CANDU reactors and because of the danger of the fuel from those reactors possibly being used in the creation of nuclear weapons, I think it is irresponsible of us to sell any more of that technology abroad.

I am totally against the Ontario Government's probable move to spent initially 27 billion on a new reactor. Everyone knows that EVERY new plant always at least doubles in price before it is fully functional. There are many ways to spend that 27 billion that is more economical and more environmentally friendly and would ensure that future generations of Ontarians  will have access to electrical energy.


From: "Leo Chisholm"
Subject: Re: Do you support or oppose this sale?

JOE, I OPPOSE THIS SALE. No if's and but's. 
Leo Chisholm

From: Robertg Gauthier
Subject: Re: Do you support or oppose this sale?

Dear Joe,

No sale. AECL was the victim of the big is better mindset of earlier years and it would take 10 years to bring such massive reactors into production.

CANDU is fine. It should be built at 1/10 th the capacity for quick production and revenue.

Chalk River not for sale.

Robert G. Gauthier

From: Mathew Bregg
Subject: RE: Do you support or oppose this sale?

One Government after another Government doesn?t mater which one would sell off their mother, if they could make a dollar doing it and to show a balanced budget.

From: Tom Brewer
Subject: Re: Do you support or oppose this sale?

I oppose the sale!!

From: "Peter Robertson"
Subject: RE: Do you support or oppose this sale?

                Again, an illustration of this government's intellectual bankruptcy.   Instead of selling off AECL in whole or in part, the government should invest in it to make it grow and prosper.  The result of a sale will probably be the end of a viable, independent Canadian nuclear industry.

                 Peter A. Robertson.

From: "Dorothy Dobbie"
Subject: Re: Do you support or oppose this sale?

I absolutely do NOT support  this sale. When we privatize these things they inevitably become American property within about five years.  If the bureaucrats can't manage it, then make it a crown agency or farm out the operation, but let's keep it Canadian.

From: "John Knops"
Subject: Re: Do you support or oppose this sale?

Of course not, Joe.
Putting this nuclear facility in private hands will expand the nuclear arms race when the private company sells reactors and enriched uranium to anyone who wants it. No government restrictions will stop them.
What is needed is proper management of the facility, that's all. Hire  top notch business people and scientists to run AECL instead of filling the decision making positions with political appointments of incompetents. It has survived so long by mere luck, in spite of all the stupid decisions. The problems now are a culmination of bad management and insufficient funds for proper maintenance because of the lame excuse "there is no money in the budget".
Don't get me going on that subject.
John Knops,

From: "Gail Walsh"
Subject: Re: Do you support or oppose this sale?
Yes, absolutely!! I oppose this sale. There is NO way the Canadian govt should be selling a nuclear program of any kind! It is too dangerous a world out there for us to even be contemplating such unmitigated nonsense!
Gail Walsh

From: "Anne Dickinson"
Subject: Re: Do you support or oppose this sale?

They've  been cooking this up for awhile.
They probably  feel they have to move now to sell off Crown Corporations
in case they are defeated before they can carry out their plans for privatization.
The Conservatives can claim they will make much needed money with this move as, under their guidance, the Canadian economy craters. They can consider a job well done, achieving their aims by other means, as a by product of their ideological manoeuvring in concert with their inept fumbling.

From: "Phyllis Wagg"
Subject: RE: Do you support or oppose this sale?

Oppose.  While ideologically it has been an agenda of the government to sell the nuclear industry.  This lends support to the theory that the government has intentionally created the huge deficit to further its own agenda.  The theory is that if you run a huge deficit you can get public support for selling public infrastructure to private crony "global" corporations at fire sale prices.  

From: "John Duddy"
Subject: Re: Do you support or oppose this sale?

Hi Joe.
Mostly I avoid political positions until we solve the BIG ONE.
I direct energy to seeking an investigation of the attacks of 9/11, 2001.
What party in Ottawa will ask for an investigation?  A team of scientists has proven the official story false.;;
24 Canadians murdered, no investigation.
After we solve the crime of the century I will be ready to support other good causes.
Until we Earthlings solve that crime the planet will remain in chaos.
Canadians of all parties need to support our cousins taking power from corporate control.
Thanks for this site.
John Duddy.

From: "Mike James"
Subject: Re: Do you support or oppose this sale?

I oppose the sale unless it can go to a nuclear company already operating in Canada (there are a couple).
Mike James

From: Shane Mussche
Subject: RE: Do you support or oppose this sale?

I would not support sale. Despite the usual scripted ideological argument that is made for privatization the facts are clear that public ownership is better. Every utility ever taken over has ushered in greater cost to consumers. It's a real simple debate. Strictly math.
Lets take a hospital for example. Compare the operating costs.
Public = cost to operate.
Private = cost to operate + profit. Despite claimed cost reductions these never exceed profits and as a result costs are higher.
To support this one need only look at the OECD countries. The U.S. has more private than any other country. It also has the highest costs. The argument that privatization is cheaper does not hold water. As much as I want government out of most things there are ample areas where the benefit is greater. In areas of national benefit I would support public in most cases because it is the only way to insure national benefit.
From: Ray Strachan
Subject: Re: Do you support or oppose this sale?

Quoting Joe Hueglin <>:
 I find it difficult to guess on what The Harpers will or will not do,  I only
know it will be devious...Ray Strachan

From: The Natroses

Hi Joe, My opinion is maybe, since governments over the years have either neglected or did not bother with it. From what I heard on the news, it is a big IF that the government can attract private investors. Another worry, is that there is new nuclear technology that does not deal with heavy water; whereas heavy water technology is much older, and requires a lot of know-how and man power. Otherwise, my concerns may be for nought, since I heard within the same newscast of Facebook being value at 10 billion dollars, a company that has yet to turn a profit.

From: "Roger Christianson"
Subject: CANDU sale

Greetings Joe:
If anyone believes that the other "private enterprise" nuclear builders are not heavily subsidized by their respective governments, ie France, Britain, USA, etc then the sale of AECL would make perfect sense.
But if anyone believes that then I would like to sell AECL to them with the proviso that they must pay me 10% of the estimated profits annually for twenty years following the sale.  Please note that I specified
ESTIMATED profits.
Since it seems to be impossible to sell the CANDU reactors, it would be interesting to see what value anyone would place on AECL whose sole asset appears to be the CANDU technology.
Roger Christianson
Vernon, BC

From: "Ernie Schreiber"
Subject: Re: Do you support or oppose this sale?

Seems to me we are engaging in selling out Canada.  I am absolutely opposed to this sale.  We'll be returning to a seller of natural resources and a servant for the international Corporate world with no control over anything.  Our high-tech industry and research center that was so promising (see Nortel Networks) is being allowed to fail and disappear due to lack of government support while we prop up the moribund auto industry just for the sake of saving job numbers.  Wrong idea!
Ernie Schreiber

Subject: Re: Do you support or oppose this sale?

I adamantly reject the idea of selling AECL to anyone other than a Canadian buyer with no ABSOLUTELY NO connection with any other nuclear agency. This is possibly the repeat of the Arrow debacle and we all know what happened to the Conservatives under Diefenbaker.

From: "Gord Hill"
Subject: Re: Do you support or oppose this sale?
This would take time to study in depth - in  general I am opposed at anything that lessens Canada's sovereignty. If it is sold it must be to Canadians. I am totally disheartened that we would give millions to foreign corporations yet we allow our Canadian corporations to be allowed to be taken over. If a corporation wants to  buy Why are we not holding on to it.

Subject: Canadian manufacturer will buy CA firm
From: "Efstratios Psarianos"

To those who woory about US firms buying up Canadian ones: it works both ways. Here's a Canadian one buying a US firm ...
P.S. More US firms are owned by Canadian ones that there are the reverse. And that's likely to become even more so, as the US dollar's value declines (part of the US Government's approach is to create US dollars by acquiring some from the Federal Reserve and spending them; more dollars for a same-sized economy = each dollar being 'worth less') and holders of Canadian dollars (and those who can borrow Canadian dollars) find US companies cheaper and cheaper.
Canadian manufacturer will buy CA firm
 Quebec CITY H2O Innovation Inc., a water treatment equipment manufacturer headquartered in Quebec, announced in a May 28 press release it is proposing to purchase all the assets of Professional Water Technologies, Inc. (PWT).

Subject: IMF Supports Canada's Economic Action Plan

IMF Supports Canada's Economic Action Plan
The Honourable Jim Flaherty, Minister of Finance, today welcomed the International Monetary Fund's (IMF) annual review of Canada's economic developments and policies. The report provides a strong endorsement of Canada's Economic Action Plan. 

In its 2009 Article IV Consultation with Canada report, the IMF commends the Government's fiscal stimulus plan as "large, timely, well diversified and structured for maximum effectiveness." Further, the report notes that the Plan takes "steps to facilitate labour reallocation and protect the vulnerable." The report also notes that total fiscal stimulus undertaken in Canada is among the largest of any G20 economy.

Subject: Canada's #1, OK?

The IMF's take on Canada ...
 Concluding Statement of the IMF's 2009 Article IV Mission to Canada

An International Monetary Fund (IMF) mission visited Canada during February 23-March 9, 2009 for discussions with officials and the private sector, as part of the IMF's regular Article IV consultations with its member countries. IMF Mission Chief Charles Kramer issued the following statement today on the mission's findings:

From: "Eduard Hiebert
Subject: California Doesn't Need to Borrow Billions from Washington -- It Can Create Its Own Money

Hi Joe,
Our money and the federal deficit was "privatized" years before I knew of this terms meaning, nor was it likely imployed then in this way either.   While by now I have many concerns about privatizing the commons for corporate enrichment, I myself am a later come to this money privatisation issue, which like most privatisation schemes is designed as a hidden wealth transfer from the masses.  

And to apply Phyllis Wagg's clarification of conservative terms in yesterday's DD, what a bunch of wolves in sheep clothing who are currently on both sides of the bench steering our socalled self-governing democracy ever further away from civilized wealth sharing and towards the standard reverse Robin Hood mentality of the super rich.
For those of us not into the thick of this stuff, the following article is likely a good introductory primer on the subject, as well as corroborating and making mainstream the info you distributed some days earlier.
California Doesn't Need to Borrow Billions from Washington -- It Can Create Its Own Money By Ellen Brown, AlterNet. Posted May 27, 2009.

Gov. Schwarzenegger thinks CA can only get credit from DC, but there's another way of doing it that the prosperous state of North Dakota figured out.

AlterNet Social Networks:

Also in Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace
How the Financial Bailout Scams Taxpayers, Subsidizes Wall Street, and Props Up Our Broken Financial System
Andy Kroll
Wall Street's Scams, Lies and Frauds
Danny Schechter
Foreclosure Crisis Hits Poor Renters Hard: Evicted Families Have to Fight to Live Together
Michelle Chen
Why Goldman Sachs Is the Greediest and Most Dastardly of the Wall Street Pigs
Jim Hightower
Corporations Now Widely Using Wal-Mart Tactics, New Report on Unionbusting Finds
Art Levine
More stories by Ellen Brown
RSS icon  Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace RSS Feed
RSS icon  Main AlterNet RSS Feed