Inequality has deepened under Mr. Harper’s watch

The following was written by  Lana Payne and published in the Halifax Telegram 

Statistics from Unifor economist Jim Stanford comparing a slew of economic indicators pre-Harper government to today show a deteriorating economic and labour market situation, not all of which, by any stretch of the imagination, can be blamed on the 2008-09 global financial crisis.

And since the government has bragged repeatedly of its record coming out of the recession, perhaps that bragging should be tested with some facts and data. Yes, the stuff this Conservative government derides and mocks with increasing frequency.

Employment and labour force participation rates are lower today than they were in 2006, part-time employment is up, corporate taxes are  significantly lower (22.1 per cent in 2006, 15 per cent today) business capital investment saw no increase and has been static at 19.1 per cent of GDP, business R&D spending as a percentage of GDP has declined, exports as a percentage of GDP from 2006 to today have dropped significantly from 36.7 per cent of GDP to 30.8 per cent. 

Inequality has deepened under Mr. Harper’s watch, job quality has declined, wages have stagnated, economic growth has been anemic, social protections have been reduced while corporate profits and CEO pay soar.

Not exactly great economic numbers. Add to this the over $600 billion in cash being hoarded by corporate Canada and Mr. Harper is heading into a federal election with more than a few economic weak spots.

Throw in the fact that wages are stagnant and inequality is growing and the only folks doing better are those at the top who are accumulating more and more wealth under Mr. Harper’s failed economic policies.

Inequality and poor jobs are not inevitable. Nor are they just because of technological change and globalization, as some would want us to believe. We can, with good economic policy, make a difference for the citizens of Canada, but we have to first believe that government has a role to play.

A recent report from the Broadbent Institute entitled “Haves and Have-Nots: Deep and Persistent Wealth Inequality in Canada” highlights just how bad the concentration of wealth is in this country. Inequality is not just a U.S. problem.

The report found that the top 10 per cent of Canadians hold almost 50 per cent of all wealth, while the bottom 30 per cent account for less than one per cent of all wealth. Stunning. Indeed, the bottom 50 per cent of Canadians controlled less than six per cent.

The concentration of wealth for the top 10 per cent is highest in British Columbia at 56.2 per cent and lowest in Atlantic Canada (31.7 per cent) and Quebec (43.4 per cent).

More and more countries and experts, including economists, are recognizing the importance of higher minimum wages, including their ratio to average wages, as important in alleviating working poverty. Of course, it should go without saying that strong collective bargaining is also important in combating poverty and inequality.

As Martin Luther King once noted, the best anti-poverty program is a union.

The report for the G20 ministers concludes that higher minimum wages and increased coverage for collective bargaining are key if governments wish to address working poverty and inequality. So, pretty much everything the Harper government hasn’t done.

Given all of this, it appears the NDP has hit on something with their call for a $15 federal minimum wage.

Canada can’t change the pattern of inequality if it doesn’t take steps to do so.

Pushed to the left

Emily Dee who writes a wonderful blog called Pushed to the Left and Loving it wrote a piece called If We Give Stephen Harper Another Mandate it Means That we Are Giving Him Permission.

 We have an election coming up in Canada and her words need to be read again, in light of the last four years of the harper government in Canada.

Will Canadians again respond with their votes, their only weapon against corruption and tyranny, and punish Stephen Harper and his team?  Because if we don't, it will mean that we are giving Harper and his Conservatives permission to continue to behave in the same manner.

We will be giving them permission to abuse our tax dollars for self promotion. ($247 million on the Canadian Economic Action Plan alone)

We will be giving them permission to treat our Parliament with disrespect.

We will be giving them permission to simply close down the House every time Stephen Harper is being challenged, and risks losing his job. The last prorogation cost taxpayers $50 million. 

We will be giving them permission to alter documents after they've been duly signed. (Instead of taking responsibility, Harper is on the campaign trail suggesting that we don't care and that few Canadians have ever even heard of Bev Oda)

We will be giving them permission to withhold important information required by our elected MPs, to make decisions on our behalf.

We will be giving permission to buy off ethics commissioners to avoid them speaking of 200 ethics complaints against this government, many involving fraud. $500,000 of our money is the price of silence.

We will be giving them permission to dismiss the fact that two of their senators could go to jail for fraud, suggesting that it is a mere accounting error. An accounting error that involved fabricating receipts to collect taxpayer money that they weren't entitled to.

We will be giving them permission to expand prisons, take justice issues away from the justice department, and even lock up our children for minor marijuana offenses. 

We will giving them permission to continue their assault on women's rights.

We will be giving them permission to continue their assault on gay rights.

We will giving them permission to continue their assault on basic human rights, as we witnessed at the G-20 in Toronto.

We will be giving them permission to continue their hostile takeovers of arms length agencies, and vilify any who oppose their agenda, from diplomats to academics.

We will be giving them permission to lie, cheat and steal.

If we give Stephen Harper another mandate, it means that he can continue his destruction of Canada with our blessing.

Is this really the message we want to send?

We have an opportunity to make history by taking back our country, and saying loud and clear that Canadians will continue to punish those who attempt to play fast and loose with our money and our rules.

Supporting Our Luminaries

Read the entire post here 

The following was written by  Greta on the Occupy Canada website in August, It is time to share it again

There has been much discussion over the years regarding those in Anonymous who step forward (or are thrust forward) and those who encourage, promote, and assist them.  Most of us in the collective seem to feel that words like "leader" and "follower" are anathema to all for which Anonymous, the idea, stands.  I am here to propose that, since humans need to label things, and since we need terminology for that labeling, instead of using "leader" and "follower" we use "luminary" and "supporter".  I have explored the definitions, connotations and origins of these words, which I  will present below.  Disclaimer:  Any context in which I speak of Anonymous as "we", I am expressing MY OPINION of what the idea and ideals of Anonymous mean and/or hold true.

I shall start with the word leader.  The Oxford Dictionary definitions are: 

     1. The person who leads or commands a group, organization, or country

          1a. An organization or company that is the most advanced or successful in a particular area

          1b. British A member of the government officially responsible for initiating business in Parliament

     2. The principal player in a music group

     3. British A leading article or editorial in a newspaper

     4. A short strip of non-functioning material at each end of a reel of film or recording tape for connection to the spool

     5. A shoot of a plant at the apex of a stem or main branch

     6. Printing A series of dots or dashes across the page to guide the eye, especially in tabulated material

The etymology is derived from the word lead: "to guide," Old English lædan "cause to go with one, lead, guide, conduct, carry; sprout forth; bring forth, pass (one's life)," causative of liðan "to travel," from Proto-Germanic *laidjan (cognates: Old Saxon lithan, Old Norse liða "to go," Old High German ga-lidan "to travel," Gothic ga-leiþan "to go"), from PIE *leit- "to go forth."  The first ten synonyms of leader are: chief, commander, director, head, manager, officer, ruler, boss, captain, and chieftain.

Now for the follower definitions:

     1. An adherent or devotee of a particular person, cause, or activity

          1a. Someone who is tracking a particular person, group, organization, etc. on a social media website or application

     2. A person who moves or travels behind someone or something

Its etymology is derived from follow: Old English folgian, fylgan "follow, accompany; follow after, pursue," also "obey, apply oneself to a practice or calling," from Proto-Germanic *fulg- (cognates: Old Saxon folgon, Old Frisian folgia, Middle Dutch volghen, Dutch volgen, Old High German folgen, German folgen, Old Norse fylgja "to follow"). Probably originally a compound, *full-gan with a sense of "full-going;" the sense then shifting to "serve, go with as an attendant".  Fan, enthusiast, admirer, devotee, lover, supporter, adherent, disciple, apostle, and supporter are the first ten synonyms listed for follower.

To me, when we say no leaders, we mean no commanders or directors for certain. We are not here to be a new variety of sheep, with someone telling us what to do and when to do it, which ties into the word follower. The first synonym is fan which is the root of fanatic. As far as I know, we are a collective, not a mob. We hold personal responsibility an important part of human evolution. We CHOOSE whether or not we wish to join an op, protest, work within the system or without. The organizers of these actions do not tell us what to do, they advise us of what they are going to do.

Whereas the definitions for luminary are:

     1. A person who inspires or influences others, especially one prominent in a particular sphere

     2. An artificial light

          2a. literary A natural light-giving body, especially the sun or moon

The etymology of luminary is direct: late Middle English: from Old French luminarie or late Latin luminarium, from Latin lumen, lumin- ‘light.’ The first ten synonyms are: celebrity, dignitary, notable, personage, superstar, eminence, leader, lion, name, and notability.

To be used together with supporter, which Oxford defines thusly:

      1. A person who approves of and encourages someone or something (typically a public figure, a movement or party, or a policy)

          1a. A person who is actively interested in and wishes success for a particular sports team

     2. Heraldry A representation of an animal or other figure, typically one of a pair, holding up or standing beside an escutcheon

Supporter is derived from support and the etymology of it is: meaning "that which supports, one who provides assistance, protection, backing, etc." is early 15c. Sense of "bearing of expense" is mid-15c. Physical sense of "that which supports" is from 1560s. Meaning "services which enable something to fulfil its function and remain in operation". Synonyms for supporter were: ally, defender, follower, patron, proponent, support, abettor, adherent, bearer, and booster.

So a luminary provides light, inspires and influences. This is what we do, ALL of us. Plus, it adds a dimension of meaning with the fact that many of our luminaries have had to step out of the dark of Anonymity into the light of notoriety and publicity. "Services which enable something to fulfil its function and remain in operation". This describes how we assist and encourage each other towards common goals.

Therefore, I will conclude with a proposal to all who paticipate in, write about, or discuss Anonymous to start using luminary and supporter in the place of leader and follower in all future communications.

Peace,

Greta

Job creation in Canada is a joke!

Following a year of weak job creation, the Canadian economy started 2015 by adding a strong 35,400 jobs in January. However, while that is impressive, a closer look at the numbers paints a less positive picture. Unlike last year when full-time positions accounted for the gains, all of the job gains in January came in part-time work. As well, the gains were in the self-employed category, which typically is not a great indicator of long-term job stability. Still, the gains were strong enough to push the unemployment rate down a tenth of a point to 6.6 per cent.

The federal government routinely boasts that it has created more than a million jobs over the last seven years. But the job creation numbers the government cites also include temporary foreign workers -- non-Canadians or residents brought to the country to work at jobs that employers here say they can't fill.

However, as the chart below shows, the Federal Government since Harper came to power has not done well in creating jobs or keeping unemployment down. In 2008 the Recession hit and within two years according to the government we were out of the recession. Look at the Unemployment rate from 2010 to today and while it is going down, it is still not as low as it was in 2006

A comparison of Unemployment rates between 1996 and 2006 show how this government is not a good manager of the economy. In 1996 our Unemployment Rate was close to 10%. Since the 1960’s the Canadian unemployment rate has averaged close to 7.1%, with a high of 13% and a low of 2%.  As is clear the rate of unemployment in 2006 was 6.5%. Today it is 6.8 but this number may be optimistic.

The government includes  temporary workers in the country's job creation numbers, and the government runs the risk of providing misleading information about the true state of the labour market, said a labour expert.

Kendra Strauss, an assistant professor of labour studies at Simon Fraser University in Burnaby, said lumping foreign workers in with figures for all new jobs could provide a false picture of the labour market.

There were more people working in retail and wholesale trade, transportation and warehousing, educational services, and natural resources in March. At the same time, there were fewer people working in construction, public administration, as well as agriculture.

The number of public sector workers increased in March. 

There was little change in the number of private sector employees and the self-employed.

In March, employment rose among women aged 55 and older, while there was little change among the other demographic groups. 

Over the first quarter, employment gains totaled 63,000 (+0.4 percent), the result of more part-time work.

In the 12 months to March, employment increased by 138,000 (+0.8 percent), with most of the growth in full-time work. Over the same period, the total number of hours worked was little changed (+0.1 percent).

Full Time Employment in Canada decreased by 28.20 thousand in March of 2015. Full Time Employment in Canada averaged 12.83 Thousand from 1976 until 2015, reaching an all time high of 148.40 Thousand in May of 2006 and a record low of -145.10 Thousand in July of 2010

Charts from www.tradingeconomics.com/canada/unemployment-rate

On reviewing the federal Conservative government's Bill C-51....

Mary MacDonald,  a brave woman from Prince George wrote the following  a few days ago, and in her statement she says she is not alone, she is correct and there are many who stand with her, including me.

To save the government anti terrorist troops time I am adding my information to hers so that when the thought police come for us they will know where we stand. Thank you Mary  for your courage. I for one and with you and against harper and his fear campaign.

On reviewing the federal Conservative government's Bill C-51, their "anti-terrorism" law, I see there is a clause that this law is to protect Canada against activities that undermine the security of Canada, including "the interference with the Government of Canada in relation to the economic or financial stability of Canada." I am also aware of the related RCMP document entitled, "Criminal Threats to the Petroleum Industry" which refers to "the anti-Canadian petroleum movement" and refers to alliances by the "anti-petroleum movement" with "violent aboriginal extremists" in BC. I am concerned that this law by Stephen Harper and his government will allow you to conduct surveillance on me because of my ongoing opposition to projects such as Enbridge Northern Gateway oil/ condensate pipeline. To save the tax dollars involved in doing so, here is the relevant information about me:

1. I have never broken the law other than several speeding tickets as a much younger person;
2. I love northern BC's wilderness and see the rivers as the life lines of these lands. I don't want them criss-crossed by bitumen condensate pipelines;
3. I view the north coast of BC as a majestic natural jewel worth protecting from massive oil tankers travelling its narrow inlets;
4. I have much respect for the First Nations cultures and communities of northern BC and frankly have yet to meet any "violent aboriginal extremists" but rather, people who are profoundly connected with and care deeply for these lands and waters and thus, opposed to Enbridge Northern Gateway and other dangerous projects;
5. I don't agree with Harper and his government turning Canada into a petro-state and dismissing the need for urgent meaningful action on climate change;
6. I believe in the Canadian Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, specifically the right to freedom of expression and assembly and will continue to exercise these rights;
7. I will stand on guard for thee, Canada, the Canada I love, of wilderness, fresh rivers and tolerance for diversity;
8. I am not alone.

For the government trolls who read my blog here is my information;

1. I have been involved in many many protest actions over the last 45 years, they have all been peaceful and most of them would be unlawful under the new terrorist Bill C51  I am happy that I grew up and lived in a Canada that allowed for dissent. 
2. So I can say that so far I have never broken any law for which I have been arrested or detained , However under the new anti-terror laws I would have been arrested or had my life disrupted or been held without trial or without legal council for any of the following acts  in which I participated. For the record, I have been involved in protesting against the War Measures Act, unfair labour laws, bad environment  practices and I have participated in wildcat strikes, and writing campaigns and signing petitions, and other acts that  were designed to change or influence the government of Canada, by protests which some at the time  were deemed unlawful by a stroke of a pen. These activities fit into the new act under the following provisions "changing or unduly influencing a government in Canada by force or unlawful means"; and "the interference with the Government of Canada in relation to the economic or financial stability of Canada."
3.  I too love BC, its wilderness, its mountains, its beauty I also love the waterways of BC and the abundance of natural beauty and natural resources that will be under siege when the tankers come to our waters.
4. I have great respect for the First Nations of BC for their understanding of the importance of the land.  I also have great respect people of Muslim faith, or any other visible minority who may be targeted by the new anti-terrorist act and will fight with whatever means I have to protect their rights under our Charter.
5. Over the past six years, I have watched harper transform Canada from a land where people respected other cultures and religions to a land where neighbours are afraid of neighbours because of their religious belief or the clothes that they wear. 
6. I have watched and spoken out both in this blog and on other social media while harper continued attacking our Charter of Rights and Freedoms to get Canadians to believe that his social values should be our values.
7. Over the last year five years  I have watched as our economy tumbles and Canadians fed lies by the mainstream media, are being told they are better off then they were five years ago, but people know and they feel they are worse off then five years ago that is why they are afraid for their future. 
8. The government rather than address the economic issues caused by our dependence on oil, has chosen to distract us by scaring us and offering to protect us.  In Canada we do need protection but we need protection from our government. 
9. My training is as an Economist and I find that harpers claim to be an economist shows me how far the profession has fallen.
10. In 1972 I opposed the imposition of the War Measures Act and took to the streets along with hundreds of others who did not want to live under Marshall law. History proved us right, the government overreached, but this new bill is worse. 
11. For the record, I will continue to advocate for a Canada that is respectful and tolerant of all who live here. I like Mary, believe in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including the freedom or religion and the right to freedom of expression and assembly and like her I will continue to exercise these rights and protest against those that would take these rights away.
12. I will continue to  advocate and protest and make fun of those government policies that, in my mind, will destroy the Canada I have grown to love.
13. I like Mary, know that I am not alone but my fear is that we are part of a growing minority.

harpers attack on Canadians: 25 ways he will suppress the truth of Bill C51

I posted this in September 2013, but current events in Canada make me think I should re-post. The Canadian Prime Minister is set to enact legislation that would set up a secret police force in Canada that would have unlimited powers to disrupt, and terrorize legitimate legal protest and protesters and would put a chill on freedom of speech and association in Canada. When you read or listen to the advocates of this new bill, see how many of these techniques they use to suppress the truth.

Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth:   The Rules of Disinformation  

Note: The first ten rules are generally not directly within the ability of the traditional disinformation artist to apply. These rules are generally used more directly by those at the leadership, or the key players.

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.  Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure, news anchor,  etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen,  and you never have to deal with the issues.
2. Become incredulous and indignant.  Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus  on side issues which can be used show the topic  as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the  'How dare you!' gambit.
3. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule.  Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant  and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.
4. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations -- as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.
5. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.
6. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable  events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.
7. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of theircharacter by release of blackmail information, or merely by destroying them financially, emotionally, or severely damaging their health.
8. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid  the issues, vacate the kitchen. .
9. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's   argument which you can easily knock down to make  yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges.  Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
10. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal  agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.
11. Create rumor mongers.  Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public  can learn of the facts are through such 'arguable rumors'. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a 'wild rumor' from a 'bunch of kids on the Internet' which can have no basis in fact.
12. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other  empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed and unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed. Usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim.
13. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule.  This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger'  ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs',  'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics',  'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others  shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
14. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet  and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism, reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other  attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.
15. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough 'jargon' and 'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows', and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.
16. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
17. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man -- usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with - a kind of investment for the future should the matter not be so easily contained.) Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually then be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent  is or was involved with the original source.
18. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions.  Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the 'high road' and 'confess' with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, 'just isn't so.' Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later, and even publicly 'call for an end to the nonsense' because you have already 'done the right thing.' Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for 'coming clean' and 'owning up' to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.
19. Enigmas have no solution.  Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to lose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.
20. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual material fact.
21. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.
22. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions.  This requires creative thinking unless the crime  was planned with contingency conclusions in place.
23. Vanish evidence and witnesses.  If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.
24. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys  listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can  'argue' with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.
25. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism.'

Note: There are other ways to attack truth, but these listed are the most common, and others are likely derivatives of these.

The above was built upon Thirteen Techniques for Truth  Suppression by David Martin, the following may be useful to the initiate  in the world of dealing with veiled and half-truth, lies, and suppression of truth when serious crimes are studied in public forums. This, sadly, includes every day news media, one of the worst offenders with respect to being a source of disinformation. Where the crime involves a conspiracy, or a conspiracy to cover up the crime, there will invariably be a disinformation campaign launched against  those seeking to uncover and expose the truth and/or the conspiracy. There are specific tactics which disinfomation artists tend to apply, as revealed here. 

People can be bought, threatened, or blackmailed into providing disinformation, so even "good guys" can be suspect in many cases.

 A rational person participating as one interested in the truth will evaluate that chain of evidence and conclude either that the links are solid and conclusive, that  one or more links are weak and need further development before conclusion can be arrived at, or that one or more links can be broken, usually invalidating (but not necessarily so, if parallel links already exist or can be found, or if a particular link was merely supportive, but not in itself key to) the argument. The game is played by raising issues which either strengthen or weaken (preferably to the point  of breaking) these links. It is the job of a disinfo artist to interfere with these evaluations... to at least make people think the links are weak or broken when, in truth, they are not... or to propose alternative solutions leading away from the truth. Often, by simply impeding and slowing down the process through disinformation tactics, a level of victory  is assured because apathy increases with time and rhetoric.

It would seem true in almost every instance, that if one cannot break the chain of evidence for a given solution, revelation of truth has won out. If the chain is broken either a new link must be forged, or a whole new chain developed, or the solution is invalid and a new one must be found... but truth still wins out. There is no shame in being the creator or supporter of a failed solution, chain, or link, if done with honesty in search of the truth. This is the rational approach. While it is understandable that a person can become emotionally involved with a particular side of a given issue, it is  really unimportant who wins, as long as truth wins. But the disinfo artist will seek to emotionalize and chastise any failure (real or false claims thereof), and will seek by means of intimidation to prevent discussion  in general.

It is the disinfo artist and those who may pull their strings (those who stand to suffer should the crime be solved) MUST seek to prevent  rational and complete examination of any chain ofevidence which would hang them. Since fact and truth seldom fall on their own, they must be overcome with lies and deceit. Those who are professional in the art of lies and deceit, such as the intelligence community and the professional criminal (often the same people or at least working together), tend to apply fairly well defined and observable tools in this process.However, the public at large is not well armed against such weapons, and is often easily ledastray by these time-proven tactics. Remarkably, not even media and law enforcement have NOT BEEN TRAINED to deal with these issues. For the most part, only the players themselves understand the rules of the game.

For such disinformationalists, the overall aim is to avoid discussing links in the chain of evidence which cannot be broken by truth, but at all times, to use clever deceptions or lies to make select links seem weaker than they are, create the illusion of a break, or better still, cause any who are considering the chain to be distracted in any number of ways, including the method of questioning the credentials of the presenter. Please understand that fact is fact, regardless of the source. Likewise, truth is truth, regardless of the source. This is why criminals are allowed to testify against other criminals. Where a motive to lie may truly exist, only actual evidence that the testimony itself  IS a lie renders it completely invalid. Were a known 'liar's' testimony to stand on its own without supporting fact, it might certainly be of questionable value, but if the testimony (argument) is based on verifiable or otherwise demonstrable facts, it matters not who does the presenting or what their motives are, or if they have lied in the past or even if motivated to lie in this instance -- the facts or links would and should stand or fall on their own merit and their part in the matter will merely be supportive.

Moreover, particularly with respects to public forums such as newspaper letters to the editor, and Internet chat and news groups, the disinfo type has a very important role. In these forums, the principle topics of discussion are generally attempts by individuals to cause other persons to become interested in their own particular position, idea, or solution -- very much in development at the time. People often use such mediums as a sounding board and in hopes of pollination to better form their ideas. Where such ideas are critical of government or powerful, vested groups (especially if their criminality is the topic), the disinfo artist has yet another role -- the role of nipping it in the bud. They also seek to stage the concept, the presenter, and any supporters as less than credible should any possible future confrontation in more public forums result due to their early successes. You can often spot the disinfo types at work here by the unique application of "higher standards" of discussion than necessarily warranted. They will demand that those presenting arguments or concepts back everything up with the same level of expertise as a professor, researcher, or investigative writer. Anything less renders anydiscussion meaningless and unworthy in their opinion, and anyone who disagrees is obviously stupid -- and they generally put it in exactly those terms.

So, as you read any such discussions, particularly so in Internet news groups (NG), decide for yourself when a rational argument is being applied and when disinformation, psyops (psychological warfare operations) or trickery is the tool. Accuse those guilty of the latter freely. They (both those deliberately seeking to lead you astray, and those who are simply foolish or misguided thinkers) generally run  for cover when thus illuminated, or -- put in other terms, they put up or shut up (a perfectly acceptable outcome either way, since truth is the goal.) Here are the twenty-five methods and seven traits, some of which don't apply directly to NG application. Each contains a simple example in the form of actual (some paraphrased for simplicity) from NG comments on commonly known historical events, and a proper response.[examples & response- http://www.proparanoid.net/enter.htm

Accusations should not be overused -- reserve for repeat offenders and those who use multiple tactics. Responses should avoid falling into emotional traps or informational sidetracks, unless it is feared that some observers will be easily dissuaded by the trickery. Consider quoting the complete rule rather than simply citing it, as others will not have reference. Offer to provide a complete copy of the rule set upon request   (see permissions statement at end):

The above was written  by H. Michael Sweeney copyright (c) 1997, 2000 All rights reserved  (Revised April 2000)

Permission to reprint/distribute hereby  granted for any non commercial use  provided information reproduced in its entirety and with author information in tact. For more Intel/Shadow government related info, visit the Author's Web site

Protecting Canadians from,.... the new cons mantra.

In case you missed this strong Facebook post completed by Michael Nabert I am sharing it here. Michael spends a great deal of time and energy to alert us to the actions of harper and his criminal gang in Ottawa and I thank him for his hard work. 

Be careful under the new terror laws reading the information here may get you classified as a danger to the current government, and you may be put on a watch list by CSIS, if you are not already on one by the RCMP. Stay watchful, harper is watching you 

Protecting Canadians from voter fraud by reducing our ability to investigate voter fraud.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/04/28/fair-elections-act-robocalls_n_5223890.html

I mean seriously, the so called "Fair" Elections Act even tells Elections Canada that when it suspects election fraud they should notify the people they think may be guilty of it that they are being investigated but shouldn't tell the public.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10203152761675671

Personally, I think the fact that a federal court found that widespread fraud definitely occurred during the previous election really ought to have gotten us to pay attention, even if we missed the first clue of in and out fraud in the 2006 election. The idea that dealing with widespread fraud seriously was sort of shooed away by the premise that "it wasn't enough fraud to count" completely baffled me. Isn't that a bit like "not enough malpractice to kill the patient, so let's let this guy keep practicing medicine?"

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10200981160226992

Protecting Canadians from muslim extremism by sending our military to kill muslims and incite muslim extremism.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10204665225686326

…with precisely the same kind of policies that not only fail to reduce terrorism, but actively make it worse.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10205258606280470

Protecting Canadians from knowing things that might be important to their safety.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10203656057737758

…or, you know, knowing things in general.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10205028908938180

…whether that's what the evidence says about its prison policy,

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10203687880693312

…or most especially any mention of climate change.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10205217366689506

Incidentally, the Harper government is also protecting Canadians from climate change through the worst climate policy in the industrialized world.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10204534895668157

We might add protecting free speech by making sure we have less of it.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10205159234316233

Protecting the rights of Canadians by attacking our Charter of RIghts and Freedoms.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10204936824076116

Protecting the natural splendour of Canada by making us an international pariah on the environment.

http://www.vancouverobserver.com/opinion/stephen-harper-continues-his-path-transforming-canada-international-pariah

Protecting women from the possibility of experiencing gender equality.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10204908640611547

Protecting the democratic process through the completely undemocratic use of omnibus bills to slam though legislation that couldn't be defended on its own hidden deep within hundreds of pages of legalese.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10201833864864075

Really, these things are hellishly out of line.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10205001412690791

We could even say that Stephen Harper's government is protecting Canada from the values that it cherishes most dearly.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10203619170175592

…or from even knowing what those values are.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10203732784295874

Starting to think that maybe this isn't the kind of "protection" we need?

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10204590972630046

* * * * * * * * * * *

In the last Federal election, I was naive enough to think that this was as bad as the Harper impact on Canada could get:

http://compellingcomics.justsomeguy.com/

Boy, was I wrong. Now all I want is opportunity to dedicate myself full time for a couple of months to trying to bring his regime to an end while there's still bits of Canada I find recognizable. Can you spare a buck towards unleashing me on them?

gofundme.com/j02yio

I also hope to organize a bunch of people to politely reach across the political divide to speak words of reason to supporters of my political opponents. Join me/find out more here:

https://www.facebook.com/crosstheaisleday

“The notion that a radical is one who hates his country is naïve and usually idiotic. He is, more likely, one who likes his country more than the rest of us, and is thus more disturbed than the rest of us when he sees it debauched. He is not a bad citizen turning to crime; he is a good citizen driven to despair.”
― H.L. Mencken

Links about Harper’s Canada

These links about Stephen Harper’s government and policies back up the assertions in this brilliant comic, and point to further thoughts on the subject by others.  You don’t have to take my word for it, though; simply plucking some search terms from the comic should provide plenty of Google.ca fodder to inform and upset you.

Poll: Canadians care:
http://www.canadians.org/media/energy/2010/18-Nov-10.html

Deficit over $55 billion: biggest in history
http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2010/10/canada-records-biggest-deficit-in-history.html

Tax share:
http://harperlies.blogspot.com/
Corporate tax cuts DO NOT lead to job creation. (full study)
http://www.policyalternatives.ca/newsroom/updates/corporate-tax-cuts-not-delivering-job-creation
Sign a petition to STOP further corporate tax cuts!
http://www.taxfairness.ca/civicrm/profile/create?gid=9&reset=1


Richest 1% pay lower tax rate than poorest 10%:
http://www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/reports/eroding-tax-fairness
Illustrated eloquently in The Trouble with Billionaires which you should be able to find at your local library: Highly recommended reading!
http://www.lindamcquaig.com/TheTroubleWithBillionaires/index.cfm
Lowest debt to GDP ratio: IMF quoted on government of Canada website:
http://investincanada.gc.ca/eng/investment-media/we-take-care-of-business-presentation-2010-eng.aspx
CUTS TO: skills and literacy programs, Health Canada, foreign affairs, rights programs, defence of rights and freedoms, and more.
http://thereginamom.wordpress.com/2010/02/08/what-harpers-done-to-canadian-social-programs/
What Else did he tell U.S. Republicans?
http://puzzledcat.blogspot.com/2011/04/may-2-real-ballot-question-why-harper.html

Stimulus disproportionately spent in tory ridings:
http://www.liberal.ca/newsroom/news-release/just-the-facts-independent-reports-back-up-liberal-analyses-of-conservative-stimulus-spending-bias/
Some words on eco energy retrofit program:
http://www.cleanbreak.ca/2010/05/03/why-killing-of-ecoenergy-retrofit-program-is-foolish/
Conservatives lowball cost of warplanes:
http://globalreporter.com/report/harper-s-conservative-s-mislead-canadians-on-f-35-cost-s
Parliament also misinformed on G8 funding:
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/tories-misinformed-parliament-g8-fund-may-broken-law-20110411-065615-932.html

Tar sands subsidies larger than total Environment Canada budget:
http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/en/Blog/government-subsidies-to-tar-sands-companies-l/blog/28184
Poor environmental record damaging to Canadian health:
http://www.thestar.com/news/article/970554--poor-environment-record-places-canadians-wellbeing-at-risk-report-says

All politics, no science.
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/301904

Government admits we’re 35% above Kyoto, but it points fingers everywhere but at the primary source of our emission growth: dirty tar sands.
http://www.ec.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=6F2DE1CA-1&news=95FB4D93-AC97-48F7-8E87-AC26AF1D9F75

We were the only nation to not even try to meet Kyoto targets.
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20070425/tories_climate_070426/

17% below 2005 emission levels is the Harper Government’s official target...
http://www.ec.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=714D9AAE-1&news=EAF552A3-D287-4AC0-ACB8-A6FEA697ACD6
...which still lands us above 1990 levels:
http://www.pembina.org/op-ed/2148

Muzzling climate science in media, appointment of deniers to science granting bodies, end of funding for climate change research:
Troubling Evidence: The Harper Government’s Approach to Climate Science Research in Canada

Amundsen now leased to BP (also mentions end of funding for climate research)
http://www.sikunews.com/Climate-change/No-money-for-climate-change-research-group-8271

Canadian foreign affairs lobby against green policies in other nations:
http://www.climateactionnetwork.ca/e/publications/can-tar-sands-long-shadow.pdf
also:
http://climateprogress.org/2010/11/29/canadian-diplomats-lobby-to-kill-u-s-green-policies/
and in the EU:
http://www.allvoices.com/s/event-8721487/aHR0cDovL2MubW9yZW92ZXIuY29tL2NsaWNrL2hlcmUucGw/cjQ0ODcyOTIxOTMmYW1wO3c9MjM5MDUxMg==

Colossal fossil, round 3:
http://www.straight.com/article-275894/vancouver/copenhagen-canada-takes-colossal-fossil-distinction-third-year-row
and round 4:
http://www.climateactionnetwork.ca/e/news/2010/release/index.php?WEBYEP_DI=80

Control of media and communications:
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/819779--documents-expose-harper-s-obsession-with-control
Unconstitutional gag order:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/story/2008/06/20/cwb-ruling.html
Half million payout to former integrity commissioner includes prohibition against public comment:
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/949202--integrity-commissioner-christiane-ouimet-got-500k-payout

A brief word on prorogation:
http://www.economist.com/node/15213212

Appointed senate kills decision of parliament:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/tory-senators-kill-climate-bill-passed-by-house/article1802519/
more simply and eloquently here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yV8zEjgZ8VE

Coalition then and now:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/03/26/cv-campaign-sunday.html
here's the infamous TVO interview from 1997:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDTmpXj9vyM

Afghanistan: Colvin's credibility:
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/afghanmission/article/728906--richard-colvin-portrait-of-a-whistleblower
tidbits of testimony (the whole thing is public record):
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2009/11/18/diplomat-afghan-detainees.html
watchdog Peter Tinsley's contract allowed to expire before a report could be compiled:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/meet-the-tory-hit-list/article1677414/

G20 call for inquiry, Conservative party response:
http://drdawgsblawg.ca/2011/03/parliamentary-committee-slams-g20-police-brutality.shtml

Dropping crime rates:
http://www.vcn.bc.ca/august10/politics/facts_stats.html
New super prisons:
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/845272--ottawa-s-prison-plan-won-t-work-critics-say
Privatized prisons:
http://www.straight.com/article-119340/stephen-harper-opens-door-to-prison-privatization
Bill C-25 alone may cost $10 billion:
http://spon.ca/opposition-balks-at-steep-price-of-tory-crime-bills/2010/05/18/
Prison farms shut down:
http://www.nfuontario.ca/316/prison-farm-campaign
Victims of crime programs unfunded in rush to spend on prisons:
http://crcvc.ca/en/?cat=16&paged=2

UN security council seat loss:
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2010/10/12/15662306.html
Canada votes against UN declaration on aboriginal rights:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2007/09/13/canada-indigenous.html
UN convention on biological diversity:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0MKY/is_7_30/ai_n16348224/
Agriculture committee members with Monsanto president rather than being at the vote while C-474 is killed:
http://www.suite101.com/content/gmo-exportability-bill-c-474-shot-down-in-canadian-parliament-a345789

Status of Women offices closed:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2006/11/29/status-women.html
Equality removed from stated purpose of Status of Women offices:
http://www.nupge.ca/news_2006/n24oc06b.htm
Child poverty increase:
http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/details/society/child-poverty.aspx
Infant mortality rates shocker:
Canada’s-reputation-for-low-infant-mortality-takes-stunning-decline

Not "government of Canada" but "Harper government":
http://www.forumvancouver.com/threads/government-of-canada-renamed-harper-government.912/

Reward Contempt of Parliament?
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/going+reward+contempt+Parliament/4565800/story.html

Joanna MacDonald excluded from Harper rally:
https://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_215178645165615
Not the RCMP’s job to deny Canadians access to democracy:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/06/cv-election-rcmp-rallies.html
Harper won’t answer questions about why he’s blocking media:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tLVhk8rnDM

Turning Canada into the U.S.?
http://puzzledcat.blogspot.com/2011/04/may-2-real-ballot-question-why-harper.html

Harper smack talks Trudeau:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/harper-invokes-ghost-of-trudeau/article1979007/
Your Charter of Rights and Freedoms:
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/charter/page-1.html
Funding Cut to Court Challenges Program:
http://www.rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/list-harper-government-cutsactions
Harper deficit largest in history after Liberals reduce debt for 11 years.
http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2010/10/canada-records-biggest-deficit-in-history.html

$1.2 billion dollar cut to child care programs.
http://cupe.ca/child-care/Harpers_1_billion_ch
Harper pledged to end subsidies for oil industry at 2009 G20 in Pittsburgh.  Hasn’t done anything about it, though.
http://www.canadians.org/action/2011/fossil-fuel-subsidies.html
Harper government spending priorities.
http://telegraphjournal.canadaeast.com/rss/article/1394975
An astonishing list of slashed and defunded programs.
http://dennisgruending.ca/pulpitandpolitics/2011/03/25/stephen-harpers-hit-list/

Budget officer’s report: F-35 warplanes will cost a lot more than Mr. Harper tells us.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-10/canada-s-f-35-fighter-jets-could-cost-29-3-billion-budget-officer-says.html
U.S. defence budget considers cost of F-35s over $207.6 million apiece, over $304 million with R&D included.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/reports/2/122979/us-acquisition-costs-by-weapon-system.html
Engines not included in purchase price, no money for search and rescue aircraft.
http://ipolitics.ca/2011/04/17/engines-not-included-in-f-35-purchase-documents-show/
Software needed for upkeep of F-35s not available with purchase, maintenance only possible by U.S. military as a result
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II_procurement
Contempt over failing to disclose fighter costs leads to election
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/22/world/americas/22canada.html?_r=1

Harper’s speech to involve Canada in the U.S. war in Iraq was plagiarized.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/canada/3116525/Canadian-Prime-Minister-Stephen-Harper-accused-of-plagiarising-speech.html
Rejecting the U.N. call for aid in peacekeeping.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canada-rejects-un-request-to-lead-congo-mission/article1552792/
Canada “has all but given up on professional peacekeeping.”
http://www.thestar.com/article/435224
No more flag at half mast. Oh, and we’re also not allowed to show Canadian coffins anymore.  No pictures, no problem, right?
http://www.halifaxlive.com/content/view/690/32/

Harper on same sex marriages
http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/advocacy/mot061206.htm
An astonishing list of rights and advocacy groups defunded by Harper.  Note how many advocate for women:
http://dennisgruending.ca/pulpitandpolitics/2011/03/25/stephen-harpers-hit-list/
Harper’s allies on the board subvert the politically independent Rights and Democracy group.
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/article/761409--siddiqui-pm-s-gang-of-seven-provides-a-glimpse-of-reform-politics
No abortion debate, but funding gone for pro choice groups.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/04/21/cv-election-parenthood-042111.html
Anti-abortion facebook posting by Conservative candidate.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20110416/wally-daudrich-110416/20110416?s_name=election2011
Harper poised to reshape our supreme court:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/the-supreme-court-how-a-harper-majority-could-really-change-canada/article1995432/
Also here:
http://pushedleft.blogspot.com/2011/04/harper-majority-and-supreme-court.html
Harper priorities: no gun control, no abortion rights, no  equal marriage, but the death penalty’s okay.
http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/warren_kinsella/2011/04/15/18012231.html

Internet privacy a thing of the past for Canadians under Harper.
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5733/125/

Slop pails and bodybags for natives.
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/978636--ottawa-gives-reserves-1-000-slop-pails-for-water-crisis?bn=1
‘Border infrastructure’ money spent in Tony Clement’s riding.
http://www.citytv.com/toronto/citynews/news/national/article/124190--conservatives-misinformed-parliament-on-g8-fund-draft-ag-report-claims
$100 million + in Clement’s riding, no expense spared.
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/g8/article/824640
Canada under Harper refuses U.N. resolution that water is a basic human right.
http://www.northumberlandview.ca/index.php?module=news&func=display&sid=7036

Other folks’ lists of reasons:
Ten reasons:
http://citizenactionmonitor.wordpress.com/2011/04/08/ten-more-reasons-why-the-tories-shouldnt-run-or-represent-canada/
27 Reasons (great list):
http://sowhatdidimiss.blogspot.com/
One Hundred reasons (actually 107 at this time):
http://100reasons.ca/
This is also eloquent:
http://www.thecanadiancharger.com/page.php?id=5&a=509


Please don’t forget to
VOTE!