Tuesday, September 06, 2011

Daily Digest September 5-6, 2011

ARCHIVED at http://cdndailydigest.blogspot.com/

Firebrand Mulcair is the best bet to take on Harper
Early in a conversation with Thomas Mulcair the heavy lumber is rolled out. You have the reputation
of being "too tough to get along with, an abrasive bastard," he is told. "How do you respond to that?" MORE...
How the legacy of Jack Layton will define the race

>>>>>>>>>>INFOS <<<<<<<<<<



Nothing to-day - a post relating to 9/11 underway.

From: Peggy Merritt
Subject: One answer to Canada's role

Hi Joe:   this is an important question and I of course am in agreement with the role our Prime Minister has chosen for Canada.  The peace keeping role for Canada was a farce.  It's like giving our military a job and not providing the tools.   In the past years under the Liberals our military had been reduced to an under equipt force who could not defend themselves even in a peace keeping role.  I firmly believe that our world is under the treat of world wide terrorism and we ignore that to our peril  I am in agreement with John Ibbitson In Monday's  G,@M. "How Canada has quietly grown up" The BNA act very clearly describes how  Confederation is supposed to work.... giving the Federal government specific responsibilities like National Defence and the Provinces control over social programs.  This has been badly eroded  over time and I think that reconsidering this original mandate a  better way to look after Canada. We are now in the era of the Northern vision for our great country and  protecting our northern boundaries  is crucial.  In addition I believe that working with NATO (other democratic countries) though not perfect is much better than relying on the UN.   who constantly dither and rarely take effective action on terrible situations in our world.  I believe that the mistake many people make in assessing  our Prime Minister's record is that he does have a vision for Canada and is a pragmatic and very bright leader and the direction he has chosen will enhance our international role.      Thanks   Joe  Peggy Merritt

From: "Daria I.A. Mercer,
Subject:  Alex Jones Movie (2005) - Martial Law 911-Rise of the Police State - Full version

Lengthy worth the time  BE PATIENT  INFORMATIVE PLUS

From: Rebecca Gingrich
Subject:  Is there nothing al Qaida can't do?????

Atlantic Council: Is Libya a "Global Con?"
Globalist organization ponders whether Al Qaeda has "snookered" NATO.

September 6, 2011
First, a Conflict of Interest
The Atlantic Council claims to be a "preeminent, non partisan institution devoted to promoting transatlantic cooperation and international security." It is partnered with NATO and sponsored financially by some of Wall Street and London's largest, most powerful corporate-financier interests. These include many of the big oil interests poised to reap a whirlwind of profits over NATO-backed regime change in Libya, namely BP, Chevron, Exxon, and Shell. It also includes defense contractors already enriched by the protracted bloodshed in Northern Africa including Raytheon, BAE, SAAB Technologies, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Dynamics, and Northrop Grumman. Additionally, the world's largest banks and equity firms sponsor Atlantic Council, including Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Deutsche Bank, Barclays Capital, the Blackstone Group, Citigroup, and Credit Suisse Bank. There is also a tremendous amount of foundation support, each with a nefarious back-story worthy of their own thorough examination, including the Carnegie Corporation of New York , the Ford Foundation, and billionaire bankster George Soros' Open Society Institute....

The above mentioned Atlantic Council recently penned an article titled "Global Con?" within which senior globalist scribe Arnaud de Borchgrave assaults our sensibility by proposing the following question, "Were the United States, France, Britain, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates — the NATO-led coalition that set out to overthrow Col. Moammar Gadhafi's regime — snookered by al-Qaida?" De Borchgrave concludes that it is a preposterous scenario and indeed he is correct, though not for the reasons he proposes.

[read full article at link below]

From: Larry Kazdan
To: Vancouver Sun LetED <sunletters@vancouversun.com>
Subject: Letter to Editor re:  Social media, online petitions used in effort to stop Gordon Campbell from receiving Order of B.C., September 4, 2011

Re:  Social media, online petitions used in effort to stop Gordon Campbell from receiving Order of B.C., September 4, 2011

A word association test for "Gordon Campbell" brings to mind the HST, B.C. Rail, child poverty and a boozy police mug shot.  This politico deserves not an award but a swift kick in the rear, and that is what voters delivered by forcing him from office and by repudiating his tax policies. 
Larry Kazdan,
620 E. 23 Ave,
Vancouver, B.C.
(see subject line for telephone number)              

Robert Ede
Subject: Re Perpetual Video

Mr Higgenbotham-Jones Esq,
Your inclusion of this vid
Perpetual Debt: Bank of Canada & why we should use it instead of wall st.
is much appreciated.
Once a regular Canadian is in a position to consider the question:
"Is is any more inflationary to print money(at virtually no interest), than to borrow it at-interest?

Robert Ede,

From: Dan Kahraman
Subject: Alternative news links for September 3, 2011

Turkey cuts all military ties with Israel
Beseiging and Terror Bombing Siirte
"Friends of Libya" meet in Paris for imperialist carve-up
ADL: Speaking the truth about 911 is Anti-Semitic
Dan Kellar arrested after blog on G20 "infiltrator"
From: Wanderer / John Halonen
Subject: Only in Canada : Bank of Nova Scotia - Senior`s Don`t Count

Blog: Only in Canada
Post: Bank of Nova Scotia - Senior`s Don`t Count
Link: http://only-in-canada.blogspot.com/2011/09/bank-of-nova-scotia.html

From: Henry Atkinson
Subject: Fwd: Brampton man and son cleared of attacking thieves | Toronto & GTA | News | Toronto Sun

Of course, in any civilized society, they should have never been charged, but congratulated and thanked.

From: Zeb Landon
Subject: Guernica (painting) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Our "punching above our weight" or even just "punching" as Stephen Harper may put it, can easily become some other country's 'Guernica'.
From: Mahmood Elahi
Subject: With a contrived majority and without charismatic Layton, Conservatives should also provide the opposition

The Editor
The Ottawa Citizen
Copy to: Mr. Michael Taube, Political analyst, Toronto.
With a contrived "majority" and without charismatic Layton, Conservatives should also provide the opposition
Re "We'll soon return  to partisan politics --- and that's a good thing," by Michael Taube (Sept. 3).
Thanks to our first-past-the-post (FPTP) electoral system, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has won a contrived "majority," despite winning only 40 per cent of votes. By appointing Conservatives Senators, who failed to get elected in the last election, he also has a majority in the Senate. Mr. Harper is known as "a control-freak," and now he the absolute control in the parliament. The untimely demise of charsmatic NDP leader Jack Layton, who could have provided a vigorous opposition, has also increased Harper's grip on power and we may be in for an elected autocratic rule. Former Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien at least faced two powerful opposition leaders -- Lucien Bouchard of the Bloc and Preston Manning of the Reform.
With an absolute "majority" and a weakened opposition, Conservatives may have to provide their own opposition to Mr. Harper's one-man rule. There is precedence of the same party members providing their own opposition. Since the end of the World War II till its defeat last year, Japan was ruled by the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) and any opposition to the LDP came within its own ranks. In fact, the LDP prime ministers feared most the critics within their own party. Will some Conservative MPs have the courage to oppose their own party leader on issues they might disgree?
Aristotle once remarked: "All systems of government are inherently unstable; that all political regimes are inherently transitional; that the stability of all regimes is corrupted by the corrosive power of time." In due course, Harper's Conservatives will face the corrosive power of time. Remember, how Jean Chretien became hero after winning three back-to-back majorities, only go down in the sponsorship scandals and how the most successful Finance Minister Paul Martin came to be ridiculed by the Economist magazine as "Mr. Dithers" for his procrastination and indeciciveness. The same might await Mr. Harper if his rule becomes too long for his own good.

From: Jim McGillivray
Subject: RE: Daily Digest September 2, 2011

DEAR JOE:  Did you know that the short movie the other day by David Korten was what it was.  Did you know that it was the KEY ANSWER that is needed for the government's recurrent question namely ' where will the money come from?   Did you know that what he said was pure, essential Social Credit.?  I was surprised.  There must be hope still in the world.      James McGillivray

From: Henry Atkinson
Subject: Fwd: War and corruption are responsible for famines, not droughts - The Globe and Mail

Subject: Re: Daily Digest September 3-4, 2011
From: Rene Moreau

To Joe
From Rene Moreau (416-489-8347)
   re;  Words of War,

   The fact that Harper would be so controlled by the money makers of war, that he would say,' A handful of soldiers is better than a mouthful of arguments', in public, is indeed scary, but to be expected. Expending the lives of fellow humans to win arguments, is so much more profitable than having arguments.

   Why would he think first, about it, when his handlers keep him too busy to think. (including Gerry Schwartz's, ONEX, member of staff, as being Harper's Chief of Staff. {Nice placement eh?})

   Then again, it could be said, that with war being so profitable, and the likelihood of the profit motive being removed in a corporate-run  world, perhaps we should seriously keep a strong force. Consider how the neighbours corpos tend to attack those who are not well defended, since it cuts costs, right?

                                            Rene Moreau (416-489-8347)

Subject: Fwd: "New PMO (Prime Minister's Office) hire signals Quebec's fading presence," By Chantal Hebert, The Toronto Star, September 3, 2011.
From: "Robert G. Gauthier/The National Capital News Canada"

Hello, Joe,
As a former MP, you may in agreement that the parliamentary press gallery was established to facilitate the transfer of information between the Canadian Government/Parliament and the people.
That the clique of journalists and their employers have formed an enclave, not to disseminate, but to disrupt, distort and generally impede the intended purpose of the facilities and services provided by the House of Commons for the media
This perversion was recognized earlier particularly when the Reform Party came to Ottawa and the Press Gallery journalists showed such contempt for freedom of expression in their personal attacks and ridicule of such distinguished Canadians as Preston Manning for one.
Too many press gallery journalists perceive their accreditation as a licence to insult, demean and otherwise misrepresent the activities in Ottawa.
In effect, their conduct has created a media chill that compels public officials to bypass the press gallery in order to communicate accurately with constituents.
Perhaps some of the readers of Daily Digest may be interested in seeing to what extent this abuse of privileges has reached, as described in my letter to The Toronto Star.
All the best,
Bob Gauthier,

In his letter, the editor of a newspaper in Uganda wrote: "One would not expect such a situation in the more advanced democracies."
 Known around the world as Article 19, the fundamental right of freedom of expression is defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as the right, not only to impart, but to seek and receive information:
 "Article 19:
1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.
3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:
(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;
(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals."
  The Parliamentarians of Canada, who are the Guardians of the Fundamental Rights and Freedoms for every Canadian, need to step up to the plate of the Rule of Law and provide the required oversight and transparency so that a prime minister and other public officials will not need to skulk around to communicate without fear of misinformation with Canadians.
From: "Paul Downie"
Subject: Preparedness While Traveling

From: The Natroses
Subject: Re: War or Peace as Canada's international role?

Joe, neither war or peace matters. What does matters is the underlying incentives and motivations of those who are in a position of power and authority. Rather funny for Harper to become a tough guy talking about war, when he himself could not fight his way out of a wet paper bag, let alone face the the negative consequences of bad policy. Much like the 18th century, and where the powers to be had policies that brought a lot of negative consequences to their citizens,  And why not quote from the 18 century powers to be, like Lichtenberg and Kant, the privilege elite of the time. They too saw war as a way to keep their citizens under the screws of those who felt the citizens have become a threat to the elite, their power and wealth. Hell, Harper and the rest of the politicians would sell out the country, and for that matter other nations as well, to maintain the current political/economic systems and governance, that puts the thumb-screws to their citizens, by controlling their behaviour, using negative incentives. Starting in the 18th century, how many ordinary citizens were put on a ship, to another country working as slaves for the crime of stealing a loaf of bread? Millions perhaps, but it is not the numbers matters, but the motivations of the ruling and economic elite that matters. After all the 18th century was called the Age of Enlightenment for good reasons. " The Age of Enlightenment (or simply the Enlightenment or Age of Reason) was an elite cultural movement of intellectuals in 18th century Europe that sought to mobilize the power of reason in order to reform society and advance knowledge. It promoted intellectual interchange and opposed intolerance and abuses in Church and state. Originating about 1650–1700, it was sparked by philosophers Baruch Spinoza (1632–1677), John Locke (1632–1704), and Pierre Bayle (1647–1706) and by mathematician Isaac Newton (1643–1727). Ruling princes often endorsed and fostered Enlightenment figures and even attempted to apply their ideas of government. The Enlightenment flourished until about 1790–1800, after which the emphasis on reason gave way to Romanticism's emphasis on emotion and a Counter-Enlightenment gained force."  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment
As for the current situation, thumb screws are still on their lowly citizens and is an age that can be called, Enlightened Totalitarianism. "It was not until after World War II that 'the Enlightenment' re-emerged as a key organising concept in social and political thought and the history of ideas. Shadowing it has been a resurgent Counter-Enlightenment literature blaming the 18th century faith in reason for 20th century totalitarianism. The locus classicus of this view is Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno's " Dialectic of Enlightenment" (1947), which traces the degeneration of the general concept of enlightenment from ancient Greece (epitomised by the cunning 'bourgeois' hero Odysseus) to 20th century fascism. (They say little about soviet communism, referring to it as a regressive totalitarianism that "clung all too desperately to the heritage of bourgeois philosophy" [2])." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-Enlightenment
As one can see, and observed, it is all about the state superseding the rights, freedoms, behaviour, and culture of the citizens. Thus the crackdown of harsh negative consequences of breaking the rules and the laws of the state. And where now, what was once normal behaviour is now being criminalize. Hell, it is very difficult to be homeless where homelessness policies often criminalizes the very act of being homeless. Hence the many rules of thou shall nots', referring to where a homeless person can set up their cardboard shelters, or where they sleep, to the many fines imposed on them. Jail seems like a good alternative to them, where at least they know there is a bed, and three meals a day. After all, the homelessness exist today, because it serves the best interests of those who are in power and other special interests, by using them as examples to the citizens to control the average citizen in behaviour and thoughts. In the Alfred the Great Society, " In her 1910 publication Euthenics: The Science of Controllable Environment, Ellen H Richards wrote that, "The control of man's environment for his own good as a function of government is a comparatively new idea in republican democracy….It is part of the urban trend that the will of the man, of the head of the family, should be superseded by that of the community, city, state, nation….In the social republic, the child as a future citizen is an asset of the state, not the property of its parents. Hence its welfare is a direct concern of the state." Richards' idea was a simple one: children do not belong to their parents, but are the property of that Great Parent known as the State." http://atgsociety.com/2011/03/absolved-from-being-good-mannered-the-romantic-totalitarianism-of-rousseau/
Further down in the article it speaks of Rousseau, another 18th century person of status and his Utopia that reflects much of today's world in the political and economic spheres. The thumb screws are still attached, but even tighter to control citizens on their behaviour and thoughts. " Forced to be free? What exactly does this mean in practice? In principle it could mean anything since whatever the ruler chooses to do is automatically just: "For the rulers well know that the general will is always on the side which is most favorable to the public interest, that is to say, the most equitable; so that it is needful only to act justly to be certain of following the general will." The problem, of course, is that an infallible state is a state that can legitimately aspire to omnipotence. Such a state can demand that its citizens surrender to it their individuality, property and lives, which is exactly what Rousseau urges: "Each one of us puts into the community his person and all his powers under the supreme direction of the general will; and as a body, we incorporate every member as an indivisible part of the whole." Moreover, since individual liberties are always defined in terms of what benefits the whole, the state has the right to dispose of individual members when it deems that it is necessary:

If the state, or the nation, is nothing other than an artificial person the life of which consists in the union of its members and if the most important of its cares is its preservation, it needs to have a universal and compelling power to move and dispose of each part in whatever manner is beneficial to the whole."

Yes, Harper likes war better than peace because it represents his values and culture. The same values of the 18th century elite, that really serves their own best interests. It speaks more on being superior, much like Rousseau did back in his day. The ordinary citizens do not serve a purpose, other than doing the work of the state. If not, they are disposed of using the laws of the states, as well as ideological and dogma that has served the political and economic elite well in the last 500 years. It is time to wake up citizens, or one day be faced with the prospect of being taxed for breathing the same rarefied air as our government. Rarefied air, because of the lack of oxygen, that spurns logic and reason in favour of feelings to decide on policies. The feelings are focused on, spurring many to act against their own best interests, and opt working on behalf of others whose intentions are to increased their own power and pocketbook. Libya, is a fine example where transfer of power, will leave the Libya citizens exchanging one set of chains for another. It is the era we are living in, Enlightened Totalitarianism. The era of where citizens must turned into game players, in order to preserved their station as well as working around the rules and regulations of the state  that impact the citizen's own best interests. The era of forcing freedom down the citizens' throats, so people will act against their own best interests, no matter the stripe of government. Yeah, Canada is punching its own weight - the weight of supremacy over others, and very much like the 18th century enlightenment era.

From: "Efstratios (Stratos) Psarianos"
Subject: RE: Daily Digest September 2, 2011

Aaaaaaaaah, at last. A long weekend, so time to write. Cheers!

Delay NDP leadership race or I'm not running: Mulcair
Thomas Mulcair says he won't run for the leadership of the NDP unless the
 to hold its convention in late winter or early spring, because he wouldn't be able to compete in a short race.

Waaaaaaaaaah, boohoohoo.
All part of your party's growing up, chummy. Will it be an 'everyone equal' (aka 'one man, one vote') thing, or will it be a national one like the CPC (i.e., an 'all ridings equal' or something like that)? The days of personal egalitarianism are likely almost over. But then, with unions having established privileges, that's never been the case, has it? ;-)

This is a crucial time in the maturation of the NDP. I wish it well, but let's see what happens.

From: Robert Ede
Subject: FYI - New Inflation Policy - coming to a country near you

Uncaged Inflation Is a Beast That's Easy to Free, Hard to Control:Bloomberg News Editorial Sept 1/11
"Inflation decreases the value of debts, like the $14 trillion owed by the federal government to lenders such as the government of China (and a lot of ordinary American savers, too), and it increases the value of assets, like houses. Thus it helps all debtors, from the federal government to individual homeowners who can't pay their mortgages."
Robert Ede,

It decreases the value of debts, making them easier to pay: yes. It increases the value of assets: yes and no. It helps debtors: yes. It harms lenders (and cash holders): yes.
The basics:
         inflation is a form of money devaluation; it's believed to be a normal consequence of an economy's thriving, provided that it doesn't get out of hand;
-          central banks can force inflation by increasing the money supply (i.e., by 'printing money');
-          inflation 'enriches' debtors (and some others) in that it reduces the REAL value of their debts; this is because the NOMINAL value (measured in dollar$) stays the same but the value of the dollars themselves fritters away;
-          inflation 'pauperizes' creditors, holders of money, and some others in that the NOMINAL value of their debt/money holdings stays the same but the fixed value of the dollars in with their holdings fritters away;
-          holders of debt assets (that is, bonds and variants thereof) lose to inflation;
-          holders of real assets (aka 'real estate') lose to inflation too, but the price of real assets often increases with inflation so there's often compensation for real value lost; if the prices of real assets DON'T increase, there is no compensation.
Since governments are pretty much always debtors these days, increasing inflation works to the governments' favour, making then richer and their debtors and money-holding schmoes like The People 'poorer'. So a government's forcing inflation in cahoots with a Central Bank takes wealth away from its debtors and money holders (including The People) and gives it to the government. Cutting inflation work sin reverse.
That being said, creditors aren't stupid: they factor in inflation based on a government's good behaviour, and when a government misbehaves (i.e. it resorts to borrowing from its Central Bank to 'print and spend money') said creditors stop lending it $$$. Witness Zimbabwe's government's having had gazillion Zimdollah bills circulating and no one wanting to lend to it.

From: "Paul Downie"
Subject: Hypocrisy

Buffett's Berkshire Owes $1 Billion In Back Taxes
"At December 31, 2010… net unrecognized tax benefits were $1,005 million", or about $1 billion."

"The notation means that Berkshire Hathaway's own auditors have probably said that $1 billion is more likely than not owed to the government," the ALG report explained.

Wilson also points to a prior tax fight the company fought. "Apparently, this is not the first time that Berkshire Hathaway has tangled with the IRS. They fought a 14-year battle over the dividends received deduction. That case was just resolved in 2005," Wilson reports..

"Although the prior case was settled in Buffett's favor, it demonstrates a decades-long pattern of behavior by Buffett to minimize his taxes.

Read more on Newsmax.com: Report: Buffett's Berkshire Owes $1 Billion In Back Taxes
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election?
Vote Here Now!
You know, what really irritates me about US politics is that:
-           its political system forces parties and politicians to be populist;
          populist pontificators proliferate;
          said pontificators either take The People (aka the plebs) for morons or are low-grade ones themselves.
What this story involves:
          Berkshire is disputing its owing $1B, and it's gone to court with the IRS to resolve the dispute;
          honest accounting practices force it to declare that it may have to pay that $1B later, but that for now the figures in its annual financial report are as given;;
          that's it, that's all.
The point is that Mr. Buffett says that zillionaire$ like him should pay more taxes. What he means is that laws should be passed so that Mr. B. and His Ilk pay more taxes. What it DOESN'T mean is that he should pay when he believes that laws say that he doesn't owe certain taxes. And anyway, Berkshire is a company in which Mr. B. has shares, it's not Mr. B. himself.