These last few days I have been without internet. Now that things are back up and running, I would like to share on a hypothetical situation Ron and I have been thinking over these last few rainy days.
Just suppose, we began, if we were to look at history for the last sixty years; think in terms of what the allies learned from Hitler. Following the war, it had to have been noted that the German government's information, both vital statistics and personal information, allowed greater control over the population. The Nazi's near success in the war, and huge success at exterminating people using the brilliant manipulation of the population through media control and propaganda, were just a few of their successes. The population who are unquestioningly dutiful when asked to provide information, show up for epidemic needles, get on the train, and so on...well, they just go ahead and do whatever they're asked. The leaders know best.
We also noted that since the war, there have been some additional surefire methods to be employed, such as new drug addictions, psychotropic drugs, and rehabilitation and social agencies to deal with every little aspect of a life.Additionally, Psychology, post-war, was gaining wide respect despite never being subjected to a medical model and a Diagnostic Manual that grows with each problem society produces.
The public trusted psychology and went along with labels of depression, anxiety and stress, without asking if the social conditions precipitating their mental illness were the result of a calculated social policy meant to drive people to the edge and seek drugs, or become addicted through legal drugs, only to be refused and forced to buy illegal drugs. You would have to be manipulating the population with these and other techniques, in order to cull and remove individuals, just as Hitler did, except you wouldn't be doing it as policy but as secondary hidden agenda.
It would be necessary to create news items with world issues and various news items to keep the population focused on the usual: war, poisoning the environment, sexual preference issues, abortion versus right to life, consumerism on a scale unparalleled, and give them any darn thing they want and let them fight themselves silly. Just don't let the population notice what is really happening: we're getting rich off their misery.
If you need or want to cull or get rid of a certain segment of society, you don't do it overtly in this new order. You just scare everyone into lining up for a needle to cure the latest epidemic. Later, when some who went to one nurse get cancer and others who went to another desk don't get cancer, no one will make the connection.
If you want to control people, you come down heavy on crime but only once you've made sure that there is plenty of crime. You don't want to really end crime, but make a good show of things in order to bring more and more police on board. Except the drug crime is actually being fed purposely in order to create social breakdown, further criminalize and control people, infiltrate their lives using social agencies to keep track and brow beat people, and hang labels on everyone.
You have to control most media [see my most recent post on CBC and youtube.
When all else fails, you threaten the person with death, death of a loved one, a loved one will go missing, a loved one suddenly gets cancer, dies in a freak accident and the like. Or more subtle control: the individual or group are punished by not getting a promotion, having you pay into a pension then robbing you of that pension by not closing the loop-hole laws that put creditors ahead of pensioners, and so on. Some men, no matter how good as fathers, will never find a court to enforce their Order for child access: all things in your family life are chosen for you, except you don't know it.
The internet is the last gasp for those who see what is happening and are trying to open the eyes of the public who would assume that a nice looking face and a smile wouldn't be party to this scenario: somehow I hear the words, "you won't feel a thing" coming. Hello...are they building long-term care homes? Why not?
The reason this scenario isn't jumping out and biting people is that they believe there are several political parties. There are several parties, but there is an unspoken dynasty of money that is behind the bigger plan and it's all about money and not party politics.
The control exerted increasingly over the population over the course of history these last sixty years has been just subtle enough to appear to be no more than the way life goes.
Except it isn't real.
Is it possible to reverse the power that is exerted upon the likes of Richard Fadden, a credible decent man, when he tries to give enough information so that people will get curious? Must the public wait like dump sheep, while Fadden is bullied into line and Canadian laws are not obeyed by our own police and politicians.
That's crap? you say. Given what was known about psychiatry, psychotropics, scientific advances and the like by 1945, it is not much of a leap to picture a scenario in which the greedy victors set about to create the social conditions by which they would profit for generations.
The ultimate control lies in negating the rights of the individual entrenched in democracy. What took place in Toronto at the G20 recently is the beginning of the final push for that total control.
Given what has been going on since my internet failed, I did notice that the news appears to have been manipulated yet again. Canadian politicians of Chinese background are interviewed, sounding reasonable, accusing Mr. Fadden of behaving irresponsibly with his statements and offending the Chinese Canadian population.
Meanwhile, rhe money grubbers want Canadians to focus on the issue of offending the Chinese, so you won't notice that they're stealing the country blind. As long as the Conservatives and Liberals refuse to close the cash cow loop-holes, they are separate parties in name only. The policies might differ, but the same people are getting rich. Money knows no ethnic or political ties, Chinese, or otherwise: Money only loves more money.
Well, that's what our talk covered. Hope tomorrow's post is shorter; but, if you don't see me and I suddenly die in a freak accident, or my children or loved ones suffer, would you consider it important then to ensure the police act within the law? and the law is not up for changing or being lied about by our politicians and police? Or will you wait until you're asking,"why didn't I see it coming?"
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Saturday, July 3, 2010
Dell on Outdoors Hospitality & Visitors
It's always nice when someone drops by unexpectedly at the lake. Just a couple guys, friends of Ron, checking to make sure they were heading in the right direction. Ron thought he was tucked out of the way of visitors behind the white pines and the bluffs; yet, even in the wilderness, the outdoorsmen type will drop by for a visit if he's in the general vicinity and generally you're happy to have the company.
These two fellows asked if I'd heard of any break-ins recently on this lake. I guess some folks who aren't in residence at camps on the bigger lakes have taken some tough losses when their backs were turned. What are you going to do? You can't keep a camp under guard 24/7, right? And camp insurance always costs a fortune or isn't even available if you don't meet stringent fire prevention standards. I can hear Shelley saying, "Grampa, you digress."
It actually turned out to be a serendipitous meeting, these two fellows showing up when they did. I was headed down to the dock to rinse my socks out after a hand washing, forgetting Shelley had lifted the indoor/outdoor carpet to give it a complete drying in the sun. Where the rug had been, the dock was all slippery. These two fellows saw me slip and catch myself and insisted on replacing the missing carpet before they headed out so I would have a sure footing. The outdoorsman is just naturally safety conscious to the point of watching out for whoever they meet along life's path. It's been a lovely weekend so far, despite my high blood pressure acting up. The prescription for my gout seems to be working just fine. I shudder to think of how crippled up I'd have been without it: especially, if I'd slipped on the dock with no one there to notice. Shelley would have had my hide!
What she doesn't know won't worry her, right? A good lie of omission: Is there such a thing?
These two fellows asked if I'd heard of any break-ins recently on this lake. I guess some folks who aren't in residence at camps on the bigger lakes have taken some tough losses when their backs were turned. What are you going to do? You can't keep a camp under guard 24/7, right? And camp insurance always costs a fortune or isn't even available if you don't meet stringent fire prevention standards. I can hear Shelley saying, "Grampa, you digress."
It actually turned out to be a serendipitous meeting, these two fellows showing up when they did. I was headed down to the dock to rinse my socks out after a hand washing, forgetting Shelley had lifted the indoor/outdoor carpet to give it a complete drying in the sun. Where the rug had been, the dock was all slippery. These two fellows saw me slip and catch myself and insisted on replacing the missing carpet before they headed out so I would have a sure footing. The outdoorsman is just naturally safety conscious to the point of watching out for whoever they meet along life's path. It's been a lovely weekend so far, despite my high blood pressure acting up. The prescription for my gout seems to be working just fine. I shudder to think of how crippled up I'd have been without it: especially, if I'd slipped on the dock with no one there to notice. Shelley would have had my hide!
What she doesn't know won't worry her, right? A good lie of omission: Is there such a thing?
Dell on Cooling Off
In the cold days of February I have dreamed of hot July days. Today is a scorcher, it's July, and I hear myself thinking, "a tad cooler" would be okay just about now. The truth is, I will end up taking whatever comes.The most I can ever hope to do is check which way the wind is blowing and go from there.
Time to head for the shade, slow down and cool off!
Time to head for the shade, slow down and cool off!
Dell on McGuinty, The Boys Club & Sacrificial Lambs
Premier Dalton McGuinty, " I don't believe you."
When you tell the Canadian press:
"Some confusion arose, and in hindsight I think that we could have, and probably should have, done something to make it perfectly clear to people," or that your government could have "done a better job" of informing people about the temporary, powers-granting regulations you were part of orchestrating.
Using the Ontario Public Works Protection Act, you were in on this from the beginning and made not a single clarification following that secretly changed legislation, back on June 2, 2010: notably, not even as Canadian citizens' rights were violated hundreds of times over during the Summits.
This change to Ontario law, done in secrecy, to perpetrate a lie of the supposed granting of "powers of arrest" was done, the public were told, at the behest of Toronto Chief of Police Blair, who similarly did nothing to clarify the "confusion" until after the Summit, and then, when asked if there had in fact been law permitting the unlawful searches and arrests, smiled and said, "No, but I was trying to keep the criminals out."
Blair's smug smile and clear disdain for acting within the law said it all, Premier McGuinty: this was a planned and co-ordinated effort to circumvent the law.
Sgt. Burrows in charge of G8 and G20 security needs to be relieved from his position immediately. If he simply believed he had new, sweeping powers of arrest and did not ask to see a written copy of that same new law, he's incompetent. If, having seen the written copy of the actual law, he went ahead with illegal search, seizures and arrests, Sgt.Burrows broke the law and should be fired. It's a lose/lose situation.
Ontario's solicitor general, Liberal MPP, Minister of Public Safety and Correction, Rick Bartolucci, knew as well.[see my earlier posts].
Toronto Police Chief Blair's smug admission of complicity was the undoing of all of you. The boys club attitude that says we're just going to do this it this way and later say it was a matter of "confusion" and misunderstanding, isn't going to wash this time.
Do you think the public haven't guessed that since your solicitor general, Rick Burrows, knew all about this, that your next move will be have the Crown Attorney drop the false charges in order to prevent a court challenge that would surely expose what you and your boys club have been up to?
No, I think all four of you should be thrown out on your rear ends. If there is an inquiry, I'd put money on it that this goes right to the top. There are no party lines...Conservative...Liberal...when there's money to be made, as Richard Fadden, head of CSIS revealed. The loop-holes that need closing in Canada's laws, to enforce accountability, have been there for too long and abused by the Liberals, too. Wasn't it the Liberals who brought in the flawed Whistleblowers Act (PSDPA) that sounds good but in reality provides no way to enforce accountability?
The only difference between the Liberals and Conservatives right now, is that Harper's government promised to close the loop-holes and end the gravy train with transparency in government affairs, but once elected, the Harper government bellied up to the trough, just as governments before have done.
The greed, deceit, arrogance and indifference of Harper's government is without precedent in this country, because they promised change and have sold out both Canada's security and future wealth, for the money they could make in the moment.
I am reminded of the Marcos regime of the Phillipines: and how many shoes does the lady have?
Premier McGuinty said he doesn't feel he owes the public an apology for the illegal actions of police and politicians during the G8 and G20 summits.
Save your apology, sir, I am offended enough already.
It would appear you four are to be sacrificial lambs on PM Harper's continuing altar of greed.
Honesty, Premier McGuinty, would have impressed me at this point: An apology? Not even close.
When you tell the Canadian press:
"Some confusion arose, and in hindsight I think that we could have, and probably should have, done something to make it perfectly clear to people," or that your government could have "done a better job" of informing people about the temporary, powers-granting regulations you were part of orchestrating.
Using the Ontario Public Works Protection Act, you were in on this from the beginning and made not a single clarification following that secretly changed legislation, back on June 2, 2010: notably, not even as Canadian citizens' rights were violated hundreds of times over during the Summits.
This change to Ontario law, done in secrecy, to perpetrate a lie of the supposed granting of "powers of arrest" was done, the public were told, at the behest of Toronto Chief of Police Blair, who similarly did nothing to clarify the "confusion" until after the Summit, and then, when asked if there had in fact been law permitting the unlawful searches and arrests, smiled and said, "No, but I was trying to keep the criminals out."
Blair's smug smile and clear disdain for acting within the law said it all, Premier McGuinty: this was a planned and co-ordinated effort to circumvent the law.
Sgt. Burrows in charge of G8 and G20 security needs to be relieved from his position immediately. If he simply believed he had new, sweeping powers of arrest and did not ask to see a written copy of that same new law, he's incompetent. If, having seen the written copy of the actual law, he went ahead with illegal search, seizures and arrests, Sgt.Burrows broke the law and should be fired. It's a lose/lose situation.
Ontario's solicitor general, Liberal MPP, Minister of Public Safety and Correction, Rick Bartolucci, knew as well.[see my earlier posts].
Toronto Police Chief Blair's smug admission of complicity was the undoing of all of you. The boys club attitude that says we're just going to do this it this way and later say it was a matter of "confusion" and misunderstanding, isn't going to wash this time.
Do you think the public haven't guessed that since your solicitor general, Rick Burrows, knew all about this, that your next move will be have the Crown Attorney drop the false charges in order to prevent a court challenge that would surely expose what you and your boys club have been up to?
No, I think all four of you should be thrown out on your rear ends. If there is an inquiry, I'd put money on it that this goes right to the top. There are no party lines...Conservative...Liberal...when there's money to be made, as Richard Fadden, head of CSIS revealed. The loop-holes that need closing in Canada's laws, to enforce accountability, have been there for too long and abused by the Liberals, too. Wasn't it the Liberals who brought in the flawed Whistleblowers Act (PSDPA) that sounds good but in reality provides no way to enforce accountability?
The only difference between the Liberals and Conservatives right now, is that Harper's government promised to close the loop-holes and end the gravy train with transparency in government affairs, but once elected, the Harper government bellied up to the trough, just as governments before have done.
The greed, deceit, arrogance and indifference of Harper's government is without precedent in this country, because they promised change and have sold out both Canada's security and future wealth, for the money they could make in the moment.
I am reminded of the Marcos regime of the Phillipines: and how many shoes does the lady have?
Premier McGuinty said he doesn't feel he owes the public an apology for the illegal actions of police and politicians during the G8 and G20 summits.
Save your apology, sir, I am offended enough already.
It would appear you four are to be sacrificial lambs on PM Harper's continuing altar of greed.
Honesty, Premier McGuinty, would have impressed me at this point: An apology? Not even close.
Friday, July 2, 2010
Dell on What Is CBC Up To?
You know how something sticks in your craw? Someone will say something? or you see something? and something about it nags at you? Something just doesn't fit and you can't quite put your finger on what it is?
For me it was several things all on the same day.
One was the video report by Jennifer Hollet of CBC on June 27, 2010.
The other was Susan Ormiston's report to CBC 'The National' on the same day regarding the police abrogation of citizens' rights in Toronto at the G20, asking, "What country am I living in?"
Jennifer Hollet,of CBC, in her report, made a point of showing two videos side by side and a number of what I found intriguing statements, throughout her video report:
Prior to Ms. Hollet's report, another CBC reporter draws attention to a protester shouting out, "See you on youtube"
Then Ms. Hollet's report followed, in which she talks about the 70 "new security cameras" in Toronto for the G20...
" one could argue that these are actually the new security cameras." [Hollet holds up her flip cam]
"My flip cam allowed me to get right up close when protesters took over police vehicles"
..."Here I was shooting a police car on fire when riot police suddenly storm the crowd"
..."Just this morning, with everyone having these little cameras"..."Police can't separate the protesters from the press"..."the media line blurs"...
At this point the side by side videos are shown: "take a look...it's actually the CBC's "
Jennifer Hollet CBC video
Side by side are then two identical videos. The video was posted to youtube by the CBC video journalist...
Hollet draws attention to the fact a CBC journalist has posted to youtube...what's with that? why mention it?
Is she saying the CBC video was posted by the journalist filming it because he didn't think it would make it to air? ...or is she saying some news doesn't make it to air?...or is she saying, something you've seen as news is not real?
"as journalists we're trying to make sense of what you see?" is the ending.
Is someone manipulating the news?
... with staged bank bombings? terrorist acts that are really "controlled events"? to drum up public support for Harper's policies and discredit CSIS' whistleblower, Richard Fadden?
Is there an effort being made to draw Canadians' attention from the bigger story?
Richard Fadden has told Canadians that Harper's government has done nothing to close the loop-holes that make Canada vulnerable to foreign influence and theft of trade secrets and technology? [because PM Harper and his friends are getting rich leaving the loop-holes in place.]
If I wanted to draw the attention of the public to news manipulation, I'd do a piece like Jennifer Hollet's report. It comes across like a hostage trying to send a message.
If that's what Hollet was up to, sending an innocuous report with a deeper message, in such a way as to not draw attention from the censors, I would have used the same sort of word choices, phrasing, order of phrasing, visual clues, etc....
Susan Ormiston, "What country am I living in?"
CBC reports: "protestor shouts back: See you on youtube."
Jennifer Hollet does a piece on CBC news footage being posted at youtube.
Either CBC is slipping in the way it covers news, or CBC is telling Canadians, "look, listen and make sense of what you are seeing."
CBC news: what are you up to?
For me it was several things all on the same day.
One was the video report by Jennifer Hollet of CBC on June 27, 2010.
The other was Susan Ormiston's report to CBC 'The National' on the same day regarding the police abrogation of citizens' rights in Toronto at the G20, asking, "What country am I living in?"
Jennifer Hollet,of CBC, in her report, made a point of showing two videos side by side and a number of what I found intriguing statements, throughout her video report:
Prior to Ms. Hollet's report, another CBC reporter draws attention to a protester shouting out, "See you on youtube"
Then Ms. Hollet's report followed, in which she talks about the 70 "new security cameras" in Toronto for the G20...
" one could argue that these are actually the new security cameras." [Hollet holds up her flip cam]
"My flip cam allowed me to get right up close when protesters took over police vehicles"
..."Here I was shooting a police car on fire when riot police suddenly storm the crowd"
..."Just this morning, with everyone having these little cameras"..."Police can't separate the protesters from the press"..."the media line blurs"...
At this point the side by side videos are shown: "take a look...it's actually the CBC's "
Jennifer Hollet CBC video
Side by side are then two identical videos. The video was posted to youtube by the CBC video journalist...
Hollet draws attention to the fact a CBC journalist has posted to youtube...what's with that? why mention it?
Is she saying the CBC video was posted by the journalist filming it because he didn't think it would make it to air? ...or is she saying some news doesn't make it to air?...or is she saying, something you've seen as news is not real?
"as journalists we're trying to make sense of what you see?" is the ending.
Is someone manipulating the news?
... with staged bank bombings? terrorist acts that are really "controlled events"? to drum up public support for Harper's policies and discredit CSIS' whistleblower, Richard Fadden?
Is there an effort being made to draw Canadians' attention from the bigger story?
Richard Fadden has told Canadians that Harper's government has done nothing to close the loop-holes that make Canada vulnerable to foreign influence and theft of trade secrets and technology? [because PM Harper and his friends are getting rich leaving the loop-holes in place.]
If I wanted to draw the attention of the public to news manipulation, I'd do a piece like Jennifer Hollet's report. It comes across like a hostage trying to send a message.
If that's what Hollet was up to, sending an innocuous report with a deeper message, in such a way as to not draw attention from the censors, I would have used the same sort of word choices, phrasing, order of phrasing, visual clues, etc....
Susan Ormiston, "What country am I living in?"
CBC reports: "protestor shouts back: See you on youtube."
Jennifer Hollet does a piece on CBC news footage being posted at youtube.
Either CBC is slipping in the way it covers news, or CBC is telling Canadians, "look, listen and make sense of what you are seeing."
CBC news: what are you up to?
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Dell on PM Harper: An Abuser Behind A Churchy Face
There was a time when I voted Conservative. I trusted when the Reform Party, made accountability a big part of their platform. I trusted both before and after they joined the Conservative government. I naively believed that the goodness of a person from a Christian background was an indication of moral stature.
Canadians have been horrified at the sexual abuse that went on because a few clergy put on a "churchy face" only to seek victims for their personal gratification.
What I believe now is that PM Harper and his friends put on their "churchy" faces, promised to do the morally correct thing, and then sc**wed those they claimed to serve.
If it sounds a lot like the clergy abusing boys scenario, keep in mind there is a difference:
Harper & Co. find their gratification in money, and not sex.
The Christian community were shaken by the sex abuse revelations. I am hoping they will be similarly reviled following Richard Fadden's whistleblowing. Harper's government have brought further shame to all Christians and their churches.
There will always be some who will use another's goodness as an occasion to serve their own ends. What bothers me, this Canada Day, is that PM Harper and his government doubted anyone would speak out. Their arrogance and self-interest was proceeding unimpeded.
Until Richard Fadden spoke up to save the victim from further abuse. Will Canadians support and protect Richard Fadden?
I believe they will. And that, is a terrific reason to start celebrating Canada Day.
Canadians have been horrified at the sexual abuse that went on because a few clergy put on a "churchy face" only to seek victims for their personal gratification.
What I believe now is that PM Harper and his friends put on their "churchy" faces, promised to do the morally correct thing, and then sc**wed those they claimed to serve.
If it sounds a lot like the clergy abusing boys scenario, keep in mind there is a difference:
Harper & Co. find their gratification in money, and not sex.
The Christian community were shaken by the sex abuse revelations. I am hoping they will be similarly reviled following Richard Fadden's whistleblowing. Harper's government have brought further shame to all Christians and their churches.
There will always be some who will use another's goodness as an occasion to serve their own ends. What bothers me, this Canada Day, is that PM Harper and his government doubted anyone would speak out. Their arrogance and self-interest was proceeding unimpeded.
Until Richard Fadden spoke up to save the victim from further abuse. Will Canadians support and protect Richard Fadden?
I believe they will. And that, is a terrific reason to start celebrating Canada Day.
Dell on What Richard Fadden Said & What It Means To Canadians
On June 23rd and 24th, I posted, following the CBC interview of Richard Fadden, director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, (CSIS). I believed then that Fadden's timing was no accident.
Having since read Alison Crawford's Blog at CBC Inside Politics CBC Whistleblowers Act : Disclosure Not Enforceable, I see exactly what Richard Fadden was saying.
Harper has put this country's wealth and resources at risk to the tune of billions of dollars and allowed foreign infiltration, secondary to his government and cronies getting rich.The closure of loop-holes that would prevent the rape of the nation are secondary to Harper's government's self-interest.
Instead of addressing those loop-holes, as one would expect Harper to have done, given Harper's promise on the transparency of PSPDA, Harper instead chose to do nothing.
There is no accountabilty! The Whistleblowers Act is flawed. There is no way to enforce disclosure. There are loop-holes all over and this government won't shut them because they are getting rich on not doing so.
That 1 billion dollar security threat for the G20: another opportunity to spend without accountability. Get tough on crime? Sure.Who cares if you break the taxpayers back building those jails. He'll tell you where to put your tax dollar after he comes up with a policy aimed to drain your pocketbook.
Couple the unenforceable Whistleblowers Act and loop-holes all over the place, with Fadden's revelations, and this is what it means:
Harper's government have used these flaws as a means to get rich because there is no accountability. Harper has knowingly permitted foreign influence in Canada and failed to acknowledge and deal with the billions of dollars lost to stolen Canadian trade and technology secrets. Why? Because it would mean the end of the gravy train.
"Secret, unethical political donations and government lobbying are legal across Canada, as are blatant conflicts of interest, and no enforcement agency conducts audits to ensure compliance with the weak ethics rules that do exist, making it easy for anyone, including foreign governments, to corrupt any politician or government official in any government in the country," from Duff Conacher, Coordinator of Democracy Watch.I strongly recommend you read the entire release: Democracy Watch: June 23rd release 2010
The thing about this particular whistleblower, Richard Fadden, is his long and faithful service: He's credible. We, as Canadian citizens, need to understand what it is he said and means and then "get mad as hell" and say we're "not going to take it anymore."
The Harper government have put their self-interest ahead of Canadians interests. They should be tossed out promptly, the loop-holes closed and the nonsense of Harper's tough on crime policy exposed for what it is. His friends get rich getting tough on crime: it's a chance to build jails we don't need so his friends will make money. He would create misery getting tough to make a buck. Harper has robbed Canadians over and over and over, failing to close the loop-holes, demonstrating an utter contempt for those he is supposed to serve. It's time to get tough on crime, PM Harper. Let's start with what you have done on the backs of Canadians.
And, on this Canada Day, let me be among the first to say to Richard Fadden, "Thank you."
Having since read Alison Crawford's Blog at CBC Inside Politics CBC Whistleblowers Act : Disclosure Not Enforceable, I see exactly what Richard Fadden was saying.
Harper has put this country's wealth and resources at risk to the tune of billions of dollars and allowed foreign infiltration, secondary to his government and cronies getting rich.The closure of loop-holes that would prevent the rape of the nation are secondary to Harper's government's self-interest.
Instead of addressing those loop-holes, as one would expect Harper to have done, given Harper's promise on the transparency of PSPDA, Harper instead chose to do nothing.
There is no accountabilty! The Whistleblowers Act is flawed. There is no way to enforce disclosure. There are loop-holes all over and this government won't shut them because they are getting rich on not doing so.
That 1 billion dollar security threat for the G20: another opportunity to spend without accountability. Get tough on crime? Sure.Who cares if you break the taxpayers back building those jails. He'll tell you where to put your tax dollar after he comes up with a policy aimed to drain your pocketbook.
Couple the unenforceable Whistleblowers Act and loop-holes all over the place, with Fadden's revelations, and this is what it means:
Harper's government have used these flaws as a means to get rich because there is no accountability. Harper has knowingly permitted foreign influence in Canada and failed to acknowledge and deal with the billions of dollars lost to stolen Canadian trade and technology secrets. Why? Because it would mean the end of the gravy train.
"Secret, unethical political donations and government lobbying are legal across Canada, as are blatant conflicts of interest, and no enforcement agency conducts audits to ensure compliance with the weak ethics rules that do exist, making it easy for anyone, including foreign governments, to corrupt any politician or government official in any government in the country," from Duff Conacher, Coordinator of Democracy Watch.I strongly recommend you read the entire release: Democracy Watch: June 23rd release 2010
The thing about this particular whistleblower, Richard Fadden, is his long and faithful service: He's credible. We, as Canadian citizens, need to understand what it is he said and means and then "get mad as hell" and say we're "not going to take it anymore."
The Harper government have put their self-interest ahead of Canadians interests. They should be tossed out promptly, the loop-holes closed and the nonsense of Harper's tough on crime policy exposed for what it is. His friends get rich getting tough on crime: it's a chance to build jails we don't need so his friends will make money. He would create misery getting tough to make a buck. Harper has robbed Canadians over and over and over, failing to close the loop-holes, demonstrating an utter contempt for those he is supposed to serve. It's time to get tough on crime, PM Harper. Let's start with what you have done on the backs of Canadians.
And, on this Canada Day, let me be among the first to say to Richard Fadden, "Thank you."
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Dell on Using Your Brain
Shelley was here early this morning. My grand-daughter told me her visit was an opportunity to bring out the heavier stuff before Canada Day weekend, but when we sat down for a coffee on the deck, right off the git go she mentions an "unusual phenomenon", and I knew it wasn't about the lawn chairs and tables.
"Unusual phenomenon" is a term Shelley uses when she's talking about her online experiences [see Dell on Dating & Fishing]. Shelley's an IT wizard and finds her way into all sorts of places [legally, she assures me].
"Be specific, Shell," I said, wondering if she was about to say I had done something wrong on my blog.
What she told me was certainly food for thought. You see, Google Analytics, which has something to do with bounce rates [see Dell on Getting It: June 19th], is apparently so sophisticated, a blogger can check his analytics to learn which blogs were read, on which day, the depth of each visit and location by city, around the world.
Her unusual phenomenon was something she found out using Google Analytics for my blog. She said there had been an unusually high number of visits from Bracebridge and North Bay, Ontario, together with in-depth viewing and serious time spent reading my blog posts. I was all set to strut around the deck like a peacock when she stopped me cold with this:
"I queried Google using those two cities and the word "G20" and up comes a link to a page with the banner: G20 Security Guards - Private Investigations - North Bay Huntsville Bracebridge Orillia Gravenhurst."
"Back up," I said,"are you saying I do or I don't have a following in Bracebridge and North Bay?"
"Well, it is odd that this unusual phenomenon should occur within hours of your post on The Truth Behind Toronto's G20 Summit Costs, and only from those two cities. And remember that Anonymous email comment, Grampa?"
"I suppose now you're going to tell me my one and only comment isn't from a follower?"
"Well, I wouldn't go that far, but it is unusual that only that post has been commented on."
"Are you telling me that this anonymous person was sending me a comment in order to find out where I am actually located?"
"It's possible, Grampa, if you are something of an expert, to do just that, and to cover your trail," she went on,"In your case, I'd call tracking like that a form of covering your Canadian tail."
"C'mon, Shelley," I responded,"you sound as paranoid as Buzz, with his three plant grow-op."
"I am definitely not going to accuse this security service of anything," Shelley said,"but I will say this, I find it very interesting that your one comment drew an attack crying foul and innuendo. Using the facts at hand is exactly the sort of thing that Google Analytics is basically about: drawing conclusions based on the information provided. Not much point having analytics if you don't apply them."
"Rather like having a brain but refusing to form an opinion. But then accusing someone of innuendo is typical of the bully who will try to gag those who disagree with him. I saw it in action this week with the posts at CBC news' online. The comments sections, below the articles on the Toronto G20 and violations of citizens' rights, were peppered with individuals crying fascist at commenters who supported the Civil Liberties groups or were outraged at the treatment of Canadian citizens protesting peacefully," as an afterthought, I asked her," Am I going to live long enough to see the return of the Canada I remember?"
"I hope you don't mean that literally," Shelley replied.
"You've forgotten my post on Win/Win, already?" and we laughed, but not for long.
"Unusual phenomenon" is a term Shelley uses when she's talking about her online experiences [see Dell on Dating & Fishing]. Shelley's an IT wizard and finds her way into all sorts of places [legally, she assures me].
"Be specific, Shell," I said, wondering if she was about to say I had done something wrong on my blog.
What she told me was certainly food for thought. You see, Google Analytics, which has something to do with bounce rates [see Dell on Getting It: June 19th], is apparently so sophisticated, a blogger can check his analytics to learn which blogs were read, on which day, the depth of each visit and location by city, around the world.
Her unusual phenomenon was something she found out using Google Analytics for my blog. She said there had been an unusually high number of visits from Bracebridge and North Bay, Ontario, together with in-depth viewing and serious time spent reading my blog posts. I was all set to strut around the deck like a peacock when she stopped me cold with this:
"I queried Google using those two cities and the word "G20" and up comes a link to a page with the banner: G20 Security Guards - Private Investigations - North Bay Huntsville Bracebridge Orillia Gravenhurst."
"Back up," I said,"are you saying I do or I don't have a following in Bracebridge and North Bay?"
"Well, it is odd that this unusual phenomenon should occur within hours of your post on The Truth Behind Toronto's G20 Summit Costs, and only from those two cities. And remember that Anonymous email comment, Grampa?"
"I suppose now you're going to tell me my one and only comment isn't from a follower?"
"Well, I wouldn't go that far, but it is unusual that only that post has been commented on."
"Are you telling me that this anonymous person was sending me a comment in order to find out where I am actually located?"
"It's possible, Grampa, if you are something of an expert, to do just that, and to cover your trail," she went on,"In your case, I'd call tracking like that a form of covering your Canadian tail."
"C'mon, Shelley," I responded,"you sound as paranoid as Buzz, with his three plant grow-op."
"I am definitely not going to accuse this security service of anything," Shelley said,"but I will say this, I find it very interesting that your one comment drew an attack crying foul and innuendo. Using the facts at hand is exactly the sort of thing that Google Analytics is basically about: drawing conclusions based on the information provided. Not much point having analytics if you don't apply them."
"Rather like having a brain but refusing to form an opinion. But then accusing someone of innuendo is typical of the bully who will try to gag those who disagree with him. I saw it in action this week with the posts at CBC news' online. The comments sections, below the articles on the Toronto G20 and violations of citizens' rights, were peppered with individuals crying fascist at commenters who supported the Civil Liberties groups or were outraged at the treatment of Canadian citizens protesting peacefully," as an afterthought, I asked her," Am I going to live long enough to see the return of the Canada I remember?"
"I hope you don't mean that literally," Shelley replied.
"You've forgotten my post on Win/Win, already?" and we laughed, but not for long.
Dell on Lies of Omission & Toronto's G20 Security
I took a jaunt to town yesterday, with Ron driving. We went to the walk-in clinic for the doctor's opinion on my sore feet. Gout: just what I thought, but best to have it checked out, and I picked up the prescription while I was in town. Afterward, we stopped at the coffee shop. Perfect timing: the usual suspects were all there. I questioned them on the various issues emerging following Toronto's G20 Summit and want to share with you some of the feedback generated.
Keep in mind that in this neck of the woods, Ontario's solicitor general, Rick Bartolucci, is the Liberal MPP for the riding of Sudbury, as well as the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services.
You are considered more or less a neighbour if you are within a five hour drive of someone in northern Ontario, so these folks know who Bartolucci is, compared to most Canadians.
You need to understand, too, that Bartolucci isn't particularly popular in these parts having chosen to remain neutral in October 2009, avoiding voting on NDP's Peter Kormos' private member's bill to bann the use of replacement workers during the Vale Inco strike in Sudbury.
Having chosen not to speak up on the strike issue, no one was surprised that Bartolucci didn't speak up and reveal the truth regarding the secret June 2 change to the Ontario Public Works Protection Act. [The regulatory amendment was approved through an order-in-council by the cabinet; no debate in the Legislature: then quietly posted June 16 at the government’s e-laws website.]
The NDP's Justice Critic, Peter Kormos has now been quoted as saying "McGuinty's solicitor general [Bartolucci] misled the people of Ontario and the police into believing that police had the authority to demand identification and to search people without warrants," entering the Red Zone area designated around the Summit meeting in Toronto.
Who else was in on this lie of omission?
Certainly, Sgt. Tim Burrows of the G8/G20 Integrated Security Unit knew. He had said, "The public has nothing to fear with this legislation and the way the police will use this legislation, It really comes down to a case of common sense and officer discretion. If you're approaching that fence line, we want to know why."
Burrows was also quoted as saying that the police, at their discretion, could deny access to the area and "use whatever force is necessary" to keep people out. Anyone who refused to identify themselves or refused to provide a reason for their visit, were told they could be fined up to $500 and face up to two months in jail.
You should have heard the hoots of derision when I mentioned that this Ontario Public Works Protection Act regulation states that if someone has a dispute with an officer and it goes to court "the police officer's statement under oath is considered conclusive evidence under the act."
You have to understand, these folks had heard Toronto Chief of Police Blair's notion of what consitutes a lie. When asked on Tuesday, after the Summit, if the "five meter rule existed," Blair smilingly replied, "No, but I was trying to keep the criminals out."
"Liar, liar, pants on fire!"
Praising the police, Bartolucci referred to the "thugs" protesting the G20 as proof such measures were justified.
The end justifies the means? Lie by omission? Deny citizens' their rights? Who are the "thugs" now?
These politicians and senior police officers lied, not only to the public, they lied to all the decent, dedicated police officers called to serve security in Toronto, who believed they were acting within the law, only to learn after the Summit that they had been hood-winked into breaking the law they were sworn to uphold.
If this deception doesn't anger police forces across Canada, they're missing a golden opportunity to regain credibility with the Canadian public by demanding the resignation of Blair, Burrows and any other police personnel found to have participated in the deception.
Bartolucci has been quoted: "Will there be armchair quarterbacks? There's going to be armchair quarterbacks, there always are," as recently as Sunday.
This was Tuesday: Does Bartolucci consider Liberal public safety critic, Mark Holland, an armchair quarterback?
Holland says the National Security Committee will be seeking answers to questions "over the coming weeks". In my opinion, Holland will likely have the support of opposition parties, and the House of Commons committee will be convened over the summer. There were dissenters at the coffee shop, sure no politician would want to spend a summer that way.
Mark Holland has asked Conservative MP and Public Safety Minister, Vic Toews, the former Minister of Justice for the Government of Canada, to provide answers to his questions and I don't think he's prepared to wait.
Here's a few questions from regular citizens: How high up did this deception go? Did others holding public office know and similarly believe Canadians find the lie of omission any less offensive than an outright lie? Who are the guilty parties who took the law into their own hands?
By four o'clock we were headed back to the lake and Ron left me to my thoughts while he drove. As I reflected on our friends' opinions I suddenly realized I had been totally wrong; my concern that Canadians would mostly be angry about the billion dollars spent, rather than the civil liberties issues, had been an unnecessary worry. The general consensus was that it was money well spent if the ongoing erosion of Canadian citizens' rights ceases.
And that reminds me, my next post is on CSIS, Fadden, Harper's promised transparency in government and a flawed piece of Liberal legislation: the Whistleblower's Act.
Keep in mind that in this neck of the woods, Ontario's solicitor general, Rick Bartolucci, is the Liberal MPP for the riding of Sudbury, as well as the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services.
You are considered more or less a neighbour if you are within a five hour drive of someone in northern Ontario, so these folks know who Bartolucci is, compared to most Canadians.
You need to understand, too, that Bartolucci isn't particularly popular in these parts having chosen to remain neutral in October 2009, avoiding voting on NDP's Peter Kormos' private member's bill to bann the use of replacement workers during the Vale Inco strike in Sudbury.
Having chosen not to speak up on the strike issue, no one was surprised that Bartolucci didn't speak up and reveal the truth regarding the secret June 2 change to the Ontario Public Works Protection Act. [The regulatory amendment was approved through an order-in-council by the cabinet; no debate in the Legislature: then quietly posted June 16 at the government’s e-laws website.]
The NDP's Justice Critic, Peter Kormos has now been quoted as saying "McGuinty's solicitor general [Bartolucci] misled the people of Ontario and the police into believing that police had the authority to demand identification and to search people without warrants," entering the Red Zone area designated around the Summit meeting in Toronto.
Who else was in on this lie of omission?
Certainly, Sgt. Tim Burrows of the G8/G20 Integrated Security Unit knew. He had said, "The public has nothing to fear with this legislation and the way the police will use this legislation, It really comes down to a case of common sense and officer discretion. If you're approaching that fence line, we want to know why."
Burrows was also quoted as saying that the police, at their discretion, could deny access to the area and "use whatever force is necessary" to keep people out. Anyone who refused to identify themselves or refused to provide a reason for their visit, were told they could be fined up to $500 and face up to two months in jail.
You should have heard the hoots of derision when I mentioned that this Ontario Public Works Protection Act regulation states that if someone has a dispute with an officer and it goes to court "the police officer's statement under oath is considered conclusive evidence under the act."
You have to understand, these folks had heard Toronto Chief of Police Blair's notion of what consitutes a lie. When asked on Tuesday, after the Summit, if the "five meter rule existed," Blair smilingly replied, "No, but I was trying to keep the criminals out."
"Liar, liar, pants on fire!"
Praising the police, Bartolucci referred to the "thugs" protesting the G20 as proof such measures were justified.
The end justifies the means? Lie by omission? Deny citizens' their rights? Who are the "thugs" now?
These politicians and senior police officers lied, not only to the public, they lied to all the decent, dedicated police officers called to serve security in Toronto, who believed they were acting within the law, only to learn after the Summit that they had been hood-winked into breaking the law they were sworn to uphold.
If this deception doesn't anger police forces across Canada, they're missing a golden opportunity to regain credibility with the Canadian public by demanding the resignation of Blair, Burrows and any other police personnel found to have participated in the deception.
Bartolucci has been quoted: "Will there be armchair quarterbacks? There's going to be armchair quarterbacks, there always are," as recently as Sunday.
This was Tuesday: Does Bartolucci consider Liberal public safety critic, Mark Holland, an armchair quarterback?
Holland says the National Security Committee will be seeking answers to questions "over the coming weeks". In my opinion, Holland will likely have the support of opposition parties, and the House of Commons committee will be convened over the summer. There were dissenters at the coffee shop, sure no politician would want to spend a summer that way.
Mark Holland has asked Conservative MP and Public Safety Minister, Vic Toews, the former Minister of Justice for the Government of Canada, to provide answers to his questions and I don't think he's prepared to wait.
Here's a few questions from regular citizens: How high up did this deception go? Did others holding public office know and similarly believe Canadians find the lie of omission any less offensive than an outright lie? Who are the guilty parties who took the law into their own hands?
By four o'clock we were headed back to the lake and Ron left me to my thoughts while he drove. As I reflected on our friends' opinions I suddenly realized I had been totally wrong; my concern that Canadians would mostly be angry about the billion dollars spent, rather than the civil liberties issues, had been an unnecessary worry. The general consensus was that it was money well spent if the ongoing erosion of Canadian citizens' rights ceases.
And that reminds me, my next post is on CSIS, Fadden, Harper's promised transparency in government and a flawed piece of Liberal legislation: the Whistleblower's Act.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Dell on Harper & Watering the Maple
There is nothing like sitting down with a friend you have known for years. Ron and I have lived roughly the same history, seen the same movies, loaned each other books. We're of a similar mind, even if we don't always see eye to eye. Ron boated over yesterday on the windiest day we've had in a bit, then headed home just before dark under a sky thick with dark, thunderous clouds. I was relieved when he gave me a shout on the two-way radio: arrived in one piece.
To give you an idea of the how it is with us, I'd like to share with you the gist of our talk last night: the subject being my earlier posts about Harper and the show of police force at Toronto's G20 Summit.
Honest to God, Dell, I'm dancing in the dark on this one. I can see what you're getting at, but I can't put it together.
1986 with Martha Henry or 1995 with Victoria Principal? I'm hurt...you've already forgotten my post on missing pieces?
As in Dancing in The Dark, 1995. Raped: as in seriously screwed. I've got all the pieces, Dell, it's the context I'm missing.
Be specific, Ron.
All right, let's talk specifics...is this a give the mouse a cookie situation?
Air Force One, and you've got part of it. Harper is the mouse. He's already got the cookie if no one opposes his abuse of civil liberties. Worse, Harper has used Canada's own police forces to enforce his abuse of power. Canadians should be concerned that if this mouse gets this cookie he's going to be able to demand, not ask, for his glass of milk. He'll point to the cookie and say, "Hey, you were okay with the cookie." Suppose Harper wants to screen The Deer Hunter instead of Coming Home, as he has promised Canadians?
Deer Hunter beat Coming Home at the Oscars after a timed film release for Oscar consideration. It wasn't screened in public theaters until after it had already received the Oscar nod. A risky move on the part of Universal..but the gambit worked. Does it make a difference if he's screening Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps?
Art imitating life. Nope. Doesn't matter. You were screwed when you gave the mouse the cookie.
Has Harper used "a sledgehammer to crack a peanut"? and if he has, where's the peanut?
Tommy Douglas, criticizing Trudeau's invoking the War Measures Act, perfect quote for an analogy. Harper has swung an unauthorized sledgehammer against a fake peanut labelled G20. Trudeau only pulled out the sledgehammer when there was an actual peanut.
And if Harper gets away with using his sledgehammer against the fake G20 peanut...
... we will have given Harper the power to swing that same sledgehammer against any future real peanuts of public dissent.
We're talking peanut butter. Do you think Canadians will screen The Trotsky?
More like Network.
Howard Beale, 1976, "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore."
Maybe it'll be the first known instance of a Prime Minister ousted for lousy ratings.
Would you quit already! I gotta take a piss.
Wild at Heart, 1990.
I'm serious, Dell, I gotta take a leak.
All right, Ron. You go water the maple. I'll grab us a couple more cold ones.
To give you an idea of the how it is with us, I'd like to share with you the gist of our talk last night: the subject being my earlier posts about Harper and the show of police force at Toronto's G20 Summit.
Honest to God, Dell, I'm dancing in the dark on this one. I can see what you're getting at, but I can't put it together.
1986 with Martha Henry or 1995 with Victoria Principal? I'm hurt...you've already forgotten my post on missing pieces?
As in Dancing in The Dark, 1995. Raped: as in seriously screwed. I've got all the pieces, Dell, it's the context I'm missing.
Be specific, Ron.
All right, let's talk specifics...is this a give the mouse a cookie situation?
Air Force One, and you've got part of it. Harper is the mouse. He's already got the cookie if no one opposes his abuse of civil liberties. Worse, Harper has used Canada's own police forces to enforce his abuse of power. Canadians should be concerned that if this mouse gets this cookie he's going to be able to demand, not ask, for his glass of milk. He'll point to the cookie and say, "Hey, you were okay with the cookie." Suppose Harper wants to screen The Deer Hunter instead of Coming Home, as he has promised Canadians?
Deer Hunter beat Coming Home at the Oscars after a timed film release for Oscar consideration. It wasn't screened in public theaters until after it had already received the Oscar nod. A risky move on the part of Universal..but the gambit worked. Does it make a difference if he's screening Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps?
Art imitating life. Nope. Doesn't matter. You were screwed when you gave the mouse the cookie.
Has Harper used "a sledgehammer to crack a peanut"? and if he has, where's the peanut?
Tommy Douglas, criticizing Trudeau's invoking the War Measures Act, perfect quote for an analogy. Harper has swung an unauthorized sledgehammer against a fake peanut labelled G20. Trudeau only pulled out the sledgehammer when there was an actual peanut.
And if Harper gets away with using his sledgehammer against the fake G20 peanut...
... we will have given Harper the power to swing that same sledgehammer against any future real peanuts of public dissent.
We're talking peanut butter. Do you think Canadians will screen The Trotsky?
More like Network.
Howard Beale, 1976, "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore."
Maybe it'll be the first known instance of a Prime Minister ousted for lousy ratings.
Would you quit already! I gotta take a piss.
Wild at Heart, 1990.
I'm serious, Dell, I gotta take a leak.
All right, Ron. You go water the maple. I'll grab us a couple more cold ones.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Dell on CBC Reporter Susan Ormiston's "Visceral Response"
My first post today, June 28th, commented on the CBC's The National and their Sunday evening coverage at the G20 Summit in Toronto. See: Dell on The Truth Behind Toronto's 2010 Summit Costs.
In her moving report, Susan Ormiston, in Toronto, said the police presence there evoked a "visceral response". As words are the tools of Ms. Ormiston's trade, I pay attention to the words she chooses.
The adjective visceral is a form of the word viscus: an internal organ, with viscera being the plural form.
The internal organs removed from a butchered animal are known as "offal" which is pronounced exactly the same as the word "awful".
Visceral response: Offal response: Awful response: you don't have to be Freud to get the message.
Roman pagan priests used the viscera or offal of animals as a means of divining the future. Susan Ormiston's report is a means for Canadians to divine the future, too!
CBC reporters are among the best in the world, and it is reporting of this calibre that makes CBC news and The National my choice for reliable news.
I'm back from the clinic and shopping in town, where it is not raining today. Shelley says Ron plans to boat over for dinner this evening, so I have to do some preparations before his arrival.
In her moving report, Susan Ormiston, in Toronto, said the police presence there evoked a "visceral response". As words are the tools of Ms. Ormiston's trade, I pay attention to the words she chooses.
The adjective visceral is a form of the word viscus: an internal organ, with viscera being the plural form.
The internal organs removed from a butchered animal are known as "offal" which is pronounced exactly the same as the word "awful".
Visceral response: Offal response: Awful response: you don't have to be Freud to get the message.
Roman pagan priests used the viscera or offal of animals as a means of divining the future. Susan Ormiston's report is a means for Canadians to divine the future, too!
CBC reporters are among the best in the world, and it is reporting of this calibre that makes CBC news and The National my choice for reliable news.
I'm back from the clinic and shopping in town, where it is not raining today. Shelley says Ron plans to boat over for dinner this evening, so I have to do some preparations before his arrival.
Dell on Hate Emails & Refugees
You have probably opened your mailbox at least once to find a friend has sent you a provocative piece of information regarding the amount of money paid to "simple" refugees, including dollar figures meant to elicit Canadian's outrage:
Typically, it will read:
It is interesting to know that the federal Government of Canada allows :
A monthly pension of : $1,890.00 to a simple refugee
plus 580.00 in social aid to a grand total of : $2,470.00 monthly X 12 months
By comparison, the Old Age Pension of a senior citizen who has contributed to the development ofCanada for 40 or 50 years, cannot receive more than $1,012.00 in Old Age Pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement per month X 12 months.
These hate emails then go on to state Canadian seniors should be applying for the Status of Refugees, instead of applying for Old Age Pension.
You will then be asked to circulate this false information to all your friends. BEFORE YOU HIT FORWARD TO ALL YOUR FRIENDS ~ SPREADING MIS-INFORMATION, you may want to check the following link to Canada's web site dealing with these emails. The Canadian government's web site states this myth originated with a letter to a newspaper, later corrected. No one read the correction, and bigots continue to spread these false figures as a way to incite hatred. See: Canadian Government Website: Media Myths vs. Facts
Then go to Google and query the original email information: you will find it contained in personal posts and the like.
My father's reply to people's gullibility in these cases was, "They have read it in a comic book: must be true."
This would be funny, if the intent behind the emails was anything other than race motivated hatred toward refugees: designated "refugee" through a lengthy and detailed process .
Because refugees are not eligible for welfare until their status changes, they are provided with one time payments and, for up to a year, an amount roughly equivalent to general welfare rates, far below what a Canadian pensioner receives.
In this age of information, make sure you are getting the facts and not taking part in a smear campaign.
I'm off to have my one perfect cup of coffee, and then I will get back to you with some additional thoughts on last night's topic: PM Harper's G20 costs of one billion: an expense you may find outrages you, with good reason.
Typically, it will read:
It is interesting to know that the federal Government of Canada allows :
A monthly pension of : $1,890.00 to a simple refugee
plus 580.00 in social aid to a grand total of : $2,470.00 monthly X 12 months
By comparison, the Old Age Pension of a senior citizen who has contributed to the development ofCanada for 40 or 50 years, cannot receive more than $1,012.00 in Old Age Pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement per month X 12 months.
These hate emails then go on to state Canadian seniors should be applying for the Status of Refugees, instead of applying for Old Age Pension.
You will then be asked to circulate this false information to all your friends. BEFORE YOU HIT FORWARD TO ALL YOUR FRIENDS ~ SPREADING MIS-INFORMATION, you may want to check the following link to Canada's web site dealing with these emails. The Canadian government's web site states this myth originated with a letter to a newspaper, later corrected. No one read the correction, and bigots continue to spread these false figures as a way to incite hatred. See: Canadian Government Website: Media Myths vs. Facts
Then go to Google and query the original email information: you will find it contained in personal posts and the like.
My father's reply to people's gullibility in these cases was, "They have read it in a comic book: must be true."
This would be funny, if the intent behind the emails was anything other than race motivated hatred toward refugees: designated "refugee" through a lengthy and detailed process .
Because refugees are not eligible for welfare until their status changes, they are provided with one time payments and, for up to a year, an amount roughly equivalent to general welfare rates, far below what a Canadian pensioner receives.
In this age of information, make sure you are getting the facts and not taking part in a smear campaign.
I'm off to have my one perfect cup of coffee, and then I will get back to you with some additional thoughts on last night's topic: PM Harper's G20 costs of one billion: an expense you may find outrages you, with good reason.
Dell on The Truth Behind Toronto's 2010 Summit Costs
For those of you following my posts on concerns surrounding the criminalization of Canadian citizens, you may want to check out the archived news for June 27th : CBC's The National with Peter Manbridge, reports from Rex Murphy and Susan Ormiston [the latter in Toronto for the G-20 Summit]. Susan Ormiston's reports included her describing a "visceral response" to the imagery before her in Toronto: "two or three lines" of riot police, two rows deep, sometimes reinforced by police on horses, and she found herself asking, "What country am I living in?" Susan Ormiston went on to describe how one woman had wept to see the city of her childhood filled with the enormous police presence.
Do you suppose this visual image of a huge police force in Canada was the real reason behind the spending of almost a billion tax dollars?
Rex Murphy suggests that the violence of a small group of 200 or so "losers" he also refers to as "The Black Bloc" [a misnomer because there is no group; it's just a catch-phrase for those who wear black and protest violently] will be a "partial cover" of PM Harper's spending almost one billion to host the two Summits. Has Rex Murphy already forgotten President Sarkozy's remarks of the day before?
When French President Sarkozy was asked about the price tag for the G-8 and G20 Summits in Canada, he side-stepped the question, instead saying he hadn't seen anything "opulent or luxurious". Interesting then, that Sarkozy should make a second statement which appeared to be a criticism of Canada, the host nation, saying that when France hosts the Summits, the cost will be one-tenth what Canada has spent. Why would Sarkozy make those two particular statements?
It would appear President Sarkozy found a nice way of drawing attention to what Harper was actually doing: using the G20 as a staged scene with a message for the Canadian populace.
The film imagery of these last days in Toronto is stunning. The last time I recall such effective propaganda imagery, the director was Leni Riefenstahl, and I imagine that classic piece of film was expensive, too. Riefenstahl's 1935, Triumph of the Will, was made at the request of her leader with a message for the populace. It was wildly successful.
If the spending of one billion on the two Summits wasn't about security [Fadden] and wasn't about luxury for the guest nations [Sarkozy], then it had to be something else. What might that be?
With already 600 protesters arrested and that number expected to rise overnight, Susan Ormiston additionally reported that the previous Quebec and Seattle Summits, where the black-garbed violent protesters also showed up, resulted in fewer arrests than in Toronto 2010. Ormiston also stated the FLQ October Crisis of 1970, [following the kidnapping of James Cross and Pierre Laporte, the latter murdered by his kidnappers], resulted in fewer arrests; in fact, 497 were arrested, but only 62 were charged and held.
Does Rex Murphy actually believe his talk of "heavy penalties" and "banned for life" treatment of protesters is going to have any meaning in the face of what Prime Minister Harper has actually done here? Harper has played fast and loose with our civil liberties and tax dollars, in order to orchestrate a show of the police power at his disposal. And why would he do that?
We're supposed to be pulling out of a war. If we don't, there are going to be protests. I predict Harper is gearing up the propaganda machine in advance of his release of that very news and perhaps news of a financial collapse to boot. Would PM Harper dare to use this country's police force against its own citizens? Harper hasn't said it, but I'm hearing the words, "Just watch me."
Do you suppose this visual image of a huge police force in Canada was the real reason behind the spending of almost a billion tax dollars?
Rex Murphy suggests that the violence of a small group of 200 or so "losers" he also refers to as "The Black Bloc" [a misnomer because there is no group; it's just a catch-phrase for those who wear black and protest violently] will be a "partial cover" of PM Harper's spending almost one billion to host the two Summits. Has Rex Murphy already forgotten President Sarkozy's remarks of the day before?
When French President Sarkozy was asked about the price tag for the G-8 and G20 Summits in Canada, he side-stepped the question, instead saying he hadn't seen anything "opulent or luxurious". Interesting then, that Sarkozy should make a second statement which appeared to be a criticism of Canada, the host nation, saying that when France hosts the Summits, the cost will be one-tenth what Canada has spent. Why would Sarkozy make those two particular statements?
It would appear President Sarkozy found a nice way of drawing attention to what Harper was actually doing: using the G20 as a staged scene with a message for the Canadian populace.
The film imagery of these last days in Toronto is stunning. The last time I recall such effective propaganda imagery, the director was Leni Riefenstahl, and I imagine that classic piece of film was expensive, too. Riefenstahl's 1935, Triumph of the Will, was made at the request of her leader with a message for the populace. It was wildly successful.
If the spending of one billion on the two Summits wasn't about security [Fadden] and wasn't about luxury for the guest nations [Sarkozy], then it had to be something else. What might that be?
With already 600 protesters arrested and that number expected to rise overnight, Susan Ormiston additionally reported that the previous Quebec and Seattle Summits, where the black-garbed violent protesters also showed up, resulted in fewer arrests than in Toronto 2010. Ormiston also stated the FLQ October Crisis of 1970, [following the kidnapping of James Cross and Pierre Laporte, the latter murdered by his kidnappers], resulted in fewer arrests; in fact, 497 were arrested, but only 62 were charged and held.
Does Rex Murphy actually believe his talk of "heavy penalties" and "banned for life" treatment of protesters is going to have any meaning in the face of what Prime Minister Harper has actually done here? Harper has played fast and loose with our civil liberties and tax dollars, in order to orchestrate a show of the police power at his disposal. And why would he do that?
We're supposed to be pulling out of a war. If we don't, there are going to be protests. I predict Harper is gearing up the propaganda machine in advance of his release of that very news and perhaps news of a financial collapse to boot. Would PM Harper dare to use this country's police force against its own citizens? Harper hasn't said it, but I'm hearing the words, "Just watch me."
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Dell on Going Viral & Vampires
Kevin and Shelley arrived this morning as I sat inside watching the rain on the lake. It's such a peaceful sound you would think it would be my favourite. Instead, I prefer the sound of rain on a tin roof. Did you know you can actually order these sounds online? Before Kevin put on the new camp roof, this was one of my life's simple pleasures; although I know he was right, the roof needed an upgrade. Now, whenever I get lonesome for that sound, I just take whatever book I am currently reading and go sit in the outhouse which still has the original tin roof. That Kevin is some kind of smart. He rigged a set-up using heated water line built into the outhouse floor, charged off the inverter, I can switch on up at the cabin before heading to the outhouse. I can sit in there with my feet in total comfort. Love comes in all shapes: a heated floor in the outhouse is just one.
Shelley said their tenting was wonderful and thanked me for minding Dorg. Then continued, "...and since it was raining, we thought we might as well be in the rain at the lake. [I think they missed us: or at least Dorg.] Shelley, Kevin and Dorg left just before lunch, heading across the lake to Ron's, in the rain. Ron will appreciate their surprise for him, a lovely rainbow trout packed in ice. There was one for my cooler, too. I took a pass on joining them, as my feet are aching. They'll be back in the morning to run me in to the Vampires at the clinic.
Shelley took a few minutes to look at what I'd been up to on the computer, then said if I was "going viral, she had to do something."
I told her I couldn't be viral. I have a card in my wallet proving I had the H1N1 shot at the clinic, last October. She said she'd explain later and gave Kevin an odd look. Was it something I said?
She made a few phone calls. Apparently, she has a freind with an extra email address they were willing to help out with, so now I have my own official email address. Her friend will have my emails directed here. "I'll do it before we head to town in the morning," Shelley said, so it must be a simple thing, as we have to be in town for ten. Shelley had better not use that word 'viral' around Leona. That woman will be bleeding me like a leech before you can say, "Now take a deep breath."
Tomorrow's going to be a long one: shopping. We won't be the only ones. Running the gauntlet [my phrase for shopping], is one of my life's unfortunate necessities.
The only highlight will be the local Farmer's Market. A buddy rang me up this weekend to tell me the first fresh srawberries are on sale, as well as, asparagus and, for sure, I'm picking up fresh local eggs. Shelley generally sets the menu for our Canada Day celebration: she gets me to help out sitting at the kitchen table peeling potatoes, or fixing the strawberries. Again, love comes in all shapes: giving me the sitting down jobs, while she stands, is just one of them. Ain't life grand?
There was a fine looking full moon last night. The impending rain made it all misty and fuzzy around the edges. We're socked in as Graham, my pilot friend, would say. Clouds appear to be just above tree level. You know, I'm missing Dorg already!
Shelley said their tenting was wonderful and thanked me for minding Dorg. Then continued, "...and since it was raining, we thought we might as well be in the rain at the lake. [I think they missed us: or at least Dorg.] Shelley, Kevin and Dorg left just before lunch, heading across the lake to Ron's, in the rain. Ron will appreciate their surprise for him, a lovely rainbow trout packed in ice. There was one for my cooler, too. I took a pass on joining them, as my feet are aching. They'll be back in the morning to run me in to the Vampires at the clinic.
Shelley took a few minutes to look at what I'd been up to on the computer, then said if I was "going viral, she had to do something."
I told her I couldn't be viral. I have a card in my wallet proving I had the H1N1 shot at the clinic, last October. She said she'd explain later and gave Kevin an odd look. Was it something I said?
She made a few phone calls. Apparently, she has a freind with an extra email address they were willing to help out with, so now I have my own official email address. Her friend will have my emails directed here. "I'll do it before we head to town in the morning," Shelley said, so it must be a simple thing, as we have to be in town for ten. Shelley had better not use that word 'viral' around Leona. That woman will be bleeding me like a leech before you can say, "Now take a deep breath."
Tomorrow's going to be a long one: shopping. We won't be the only ones. Running the gauntlet [my phrase for shopping], is one of my life's unfortunate necessities.
The only highlight will be the local Farmer's Market. A buddy rang me up this weekend to tell me the first fresh srawberries are on sale, as well as, asparagus and, for sure, I'm picking up fresh local eggs. Shelley generally sets the menu for our Canada Day celebration: she gets me to help out sitting at the kitchen table peeling potatoes, or fixing the strawberries. Again, love comes in all shapes: giving me the sitting down jobs, while she stands, is just one of them. Ain't life grand?
There was a fine looking full moon last night. The impending rain made it all misty and fuzzy around the edges. We're socked in as Graham, my pilot friend, would say. Clouds appear to be just above tree level. You know, I'm missing Dorg already!
Dell on Eminem
Do you remember the children's lullabye Hush Little Baby? Shelley and her friends were playing their music one evening out here at the lake and right in the middle of this one song, I was hearing words from this lullabye. When I asked them to play it again, they took me inside to check it out on youtube, so I could read the lyrics as it played. I was surprised when she entered Eminem. I thought she had been saying, M & M, like the candy. Shelley said I was half right [or half wrong] because the artist's name was Marhsall Mathers.
With the words in front of me and the music playing, I was just blown away, to use one of Shelley's phrases. Here was someone using the same consonance rhymes I recognized from the World War I poet, Wilfred Owen. Considered the finest war poet from that period, Owen wasn't the first to play around with consonance and pararhyme, although he used it more than other poets. Wilfred Owens' poems are especially heart-rending because he was killed a week before the end of the war. His poems described the terror of life in the trenches and the horror of mustard gas. You may have seen old photographs of the masks on the soldiers. Owen's most famous poem Dulce Et Decorum Est is a description of the reality of chemical warfare and ends with a quote from Horace: Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori - it is sweet and right to die for your country. That nonsense is still being told to young people; romanticizing war makes about as much sense as romanticizing 8 Mile in Detroit.
Eminem's rap Mockingbird
made a fan out of me. The lyrics of Mockingbird are an account of the breakdown of his relationship with his children's mother, his longing to be a good father and see his children happy: familiar emotional territory.
Then Shelley brought me the movie 8 Mile, starring Eminem. Loved it.
When I hear my contemporaries call rap "crap", I make a point of telling them why I think Eminem is worth a listen. The misery of poverty, depicted in 8 Mile, is in part rooted in the prejudiced mind-set that hangs labels like "crap" without even listening to the music. When did people get the notion that maturity is getting one vision of how things should be and then refusing to budge from that vision? Nothing changes if nothing changes.
Tomorrow Shelley and Kevin are due back. Dorg has been pacing back and forth tonight obviously ready to be reunited with his owner. Maybe I'll sing Hush Little Baby to him, or not.
With the words in front of me and the music playing, I was just blown away, to use one of Shelley's phrases. Here was someone using the same consonance rhymes I recognized from the World War I poet, Wilfred Owen. Considered the finest war poet from that period, Owen wasn't the first to play around with consonance and pararhyme, although he used it more than other poets. Wilfred Owens' poems are especially heart-rending because he was killed a week before the end of the war. His poems described the terror of life in the trenches and the horror of mustard gas. You may have seen old photographs of the masks on the soldiers. Owen's most famous poem Dulce Et Decorum Est is a description of the reality of chemical warfare and ends with a quote from Horace: Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori - it is sweet and right to die for your country. That nonsense is still being told to young people; romanticizing war makes about as much sense as romanticizing 8 Mile in Detroit.
Eminem's rap Mockingbird
made a fan out of me. The lyrics of Mockingbird are an account of the breakdown of his relationship with his children's mother, his longing to be a good father and see his children happy: familiar emotional territory.Then Shelley brought me the movie 8 Mile, starring Eminem. Loved it.
When I hear my contemporaries call rap "crap", I make a point of telling them why I think Eminem is worth a listen. The misery of poverty, depicted in 8 Mile, is in part rooted in the prejudiced mind-set that hangs labels like "crap" without even listening to the music. When did people get the notion that maturity is getting one vision of how things should be and then refusing to budge from that vision? Nothing changes if nothing changes.
Tomorrow Shelley and Kevin are due back. Dorg has been pacing back and forth tonight obviously ready to be reunited with his owner. Maybe I'll sing Hush Little Baby to him, or not.
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Dell on Broken Hearts
Two posts ago, I said I'd blog on an incident in a small town. While I've changed bits to protect folks' privacy, it's a true tale, nonetheless.
A few years back, following my heart surgery, I spent the next six months recovering, staying with friends in a little northern Ontario community. Everyone knew everybody else going back generations. I made friends while I stayed there, but have never returned. Whenever my chest scar itches, I think of one friend in particular: Sammy.
For some reason, young people like to tell me all about their lives. Maybe it's their way of saying I can get on with the business of dying: they are ready to take on the world. Sammy and I became friends in early autumn as she strolled her year old daughter through the park. My surgery had left my chest some kind of sore and I'd walk a bit and then sit on the park bench until I could walk some more. Sammy would spot me at the park, wheel Nicole alongside and plop down beside me. "How's things going?" I'd enquire, and Sammy would be off and running.
She would tell me whatever new things little Nicole was doing. How Jason, Nicole's father, had been picked up by the police for showing up at her place again. Jason was in his twenties, quick with the fists and slow on responsibility. Mostly I just let her talk. She, Jason and Nicole had started out as a family until Jason decided to go a couple rounds with Sammy, who is a good fifty pounds short of his weight class. Children's services decided Nicole should temporarily live with Sammy's parents. Eventually, I met them and Sammy's brother, Trevor, too. He would have been about thirteen at that time.
Trevor had the scars of having once been badly burned. Sammy told me he had been just three years old. and had woken up one evening, after being put to bed. He had gone outside and fallen into the coals in the campfire. Both his hands and one side of his body had been badly burned. Their father had been drinking, her mother at work. Sammy said she woke to Trevor's screams and ran outside. Too young to know what to do, she had pulled Trevor from the fire and dumped him in the wading pool. Then she had shaken her father, passed out in a lawn chair, until he woke up. Trevor spent years going back and forth to a burn unit for skin grafts. Sammy said Children's services didn't want to give Trevor back to her parents until they quit drinking.
"And did they? give him back?" Dumb question. He was living with them. "Did the drinking stop?"
"Yeah, they were perfect parents until Children's services backed off. The drinking's never got that bad again."
"Do you worry about Nicole being with your folks?" I asked Sammy.
"Nope. Trevor watches her like a hawk. He adores Nicole. If there's trouble, I'll hear about it."
Mid-winter, Sammy showed up at my friend's front door, looking for me. She had brought Nicole, tucked under a mountain of blankets in a snow sled. Sammy was over the moon with happiness; Children's services had returned Nicole to Sammy's care. The two of them came in to visit and warm up. Little Nicole was all over the place and into everything. Sammy had the patience of a saint with her daughter.
My failure to properly parent my own daughter had led to my becoming a better parent to my grand-daughter. She came to live with me when she was fourteen, after her mother's drunken boyfriend went after her. Her mother never asked Shelley to come back and my daughter died suddenly two years later. My post Where Were You? tells that tale. Raising Shelley, and being involved in her emotional recovery, gave me a whole new understanding on the role of parenting.
Sammy's folks didn't know who I was when I came up to them in the coffee shop one day. I had recognized Nicole in her snow sled, so I introduced myself. They were quick to say they had no use for Jason. He wasn't from town. Sammy had met him while visiting her aunt out west and Jason had followed a pregnant Sammy home. Sammy's father said he had offered to find Jason work at the mine until he got in that fight with Sammy. "He can piss up a rope sideways, for all I care. He'll move on once he gets the message," Sammy's father proclaimed with confidence.
Sammy had told me she kept hoping Jason would show her parents he could be a good father. Court orders forbid Jason going to Sammy's apartment and his visits with Nicole were always supervised by Children's services. With so many folks against Jason, Sammy's dreams didn't look like they'd be coming true any time soon.
Three weeks before I was due to leave, Sammy came running up to me, sobbing hysterically. "They took her, they took her," was all I could make out at first. As she calmed down, the details emerged. She had been home with Nicole when Jason showed up at the door with a puppy. Sammy had told him to leave but he put the puppy down and then followed it into the apartment. He wasn't there more than five minutes, according to Sammy. Then, minutes after Jason left, the police came knocking on Sammy's door looking for him. She admitted he had been there and had left. The officers then began to search her apartment. They found a single joint of marijuana on top of the fridge. Children's services were called. They immediately took Nicole and placed her with Sammy's folks.
"Honest, Dell, it wasn't mine. Jason must have put it there. There is no way I would risk losing Nicole by doing something that stupid."
"So what will happen now?" I asked, "is she going to stay with your folks again?"
"I don't know. Family court is next week." We talked for a bit and then, as she was walking away I hollered after her "Chin up!" She waved without turning around, but her shoulders were shaking and I knew she was crying again.
The time finally arrived for me to leave. I took a walk into town to see if I could find Sammy. Instead, I found her brother, Trevor. He told me Jason had left town quite suddenly. Family court had given their parents permanent custody of Nicole. Sammy had moved in with a fellow she'd only just met.
"How did it happen?" I wondered aloud to Trevor, "Surely to God they don't take a child from its mother for something as minor as a joint?"
"You know that saying It's not who you know?... In this case, who my parents knew was all that mattered."
As we said our good-byes, he shook my hand, then looking at his scarred palm said, "Sammy always looked out for me. She would have been a great mom. She just never got a chance."
A few years back, following my heart surgery, I spent the next six months recovering, staying with friends in a little northern Ontario community. Everyone knew everybody else going back generations. I made friends while I stayed there, but have never returned. Whenever my chest scar itches, I think of one friend in particular: Sammy.
For some reason, young people like to tell me all about their lives. Maybe it's their way of saying I can get on with the business of dying: they are ready to take on the world. Sammy and I became friends in early autumn as she strolled her year old daughter through the park. My surgery had left my chest some kind of sore and I'd walk a bit and then sit on the park bench until I could walk some more. Sammy would spot me at the park, wheel Nicole alongside and plop down beside me. "How's things going?" I'd enquire, and Sammy would be off and running.
She would tell me whatever new things little Nicole was doing. How Jason, Nicole's father, had been picked up by the police for showing up at her place again. Jason was in his twenties, quick with the fists and slow on responsibility. Mostly I just let her talk. She, Jason and Nicole had started out as a family until Jason decided to go a couple rounds with Sammy, who is a good fifty pounds short of his weight class. Children's services decided Nicole should temporarily live with Sammy's parents. Eventually, I met them and Sammy's brother, Trevor, too. He would have been about thirteen at that time.
Trevor had the scars of having once been badly burned. Sammy told me he had been just three years old. and had woken up one evening, after being put to bed. He had gone outside and fallen into the coals in the campfire. Both his hands and one side of his body had been badly burned. Their father had been drinking, her mother at work. Sammy said she woke to Trevor's screams and ran outside. Too young to know what to do, she had pulled Trevor from the fire and dumped him in the wading pool. Then she had shaken her father, passed out in a lawn chair, until he woke up. Trevor spent years going back and forth to a burn unit for skin grafts. Sammy said Children's services didn't want to give Trevor back to her parents until they quit drinking.
"And did they? give him back?" Dumb question. He was living with them. "Did the drinking stop?"
"Yeah, they were perfect parents until Children's services backed off. The drinking's never got that bad again."
"Do you worry about Nicole being with your folks?" I asked Sammy.
"Nope. Trevor watches her like a hawk. He adores Nicole. If there's trouble, I'll hear about it."
Mid-winter, Sammy showed up at my friend's front door, looking for me. She had brought Nicole, tucked under a mountain of blankets in a snow sled. Sammy was over the moon with happiness; Children's services had returned Nicole to Sammy's care. The two of them came in to visit and warm up. Little Nicole was all over the place and into everything. Sammy had the patience of a saint with her daughter.
My failure to properly parent my own daughter had led to my becoming a better parent to my grand-daughter. She came to live with me when she was fourteen, after her mother's drunken boyfriend went after her. Her mother never asked Shelley to come back and my daughter died suddenly two years later. My post Where Were You? tells that tale. Raising Shelley, and being involved in her emotional recovery, gave me a whole new understanding on the role of parenting.
Sammy's folks didn't know who I was when I came up to them in the coffee shop one day. I had recognized Nicole in her snow sled, so I introduced myself. They were quick to say they had no use for Jason. He wasn't from town. Sammy had met him while visiting her aunt out west and Jason had followed a pregnant Sammy home. Sammy's father said he had offered to find Jason work at the mine until he got in that fight with Sammy. "He can piss up a rope sideways, for all I care. He'll move on once he gets the message," Sammy's father proclaimed with confidence.
Sammy had told me she kept hoping Jason would show her parents he could be a good father. Court orders forbid Jason going to Sammy's apartment and his visits with Nicole were always supervised by Children's services. With so many folks against Jason, Sammy's dreams didn't look like they'd be coming true any time soon.
Three weeks before I was due to leave, Sammy came running up to me, sobbing hysterically. "They took her, they took her," was all I could make out at first. As she calmed down, the details emerged. She had been home with Nicole when Jason showed up at the door with a puppy. Sammy had told him to leave but he put the puppy down and then followed it into the apartment. He wasn't there more than five minutes, according to Sammy. Then, minutes after Jason left, the police came knocking on Sammy's door looking for him. She admitted he had been there and had left. The officers then began to search her apartment. They found a single joint of marijuana on top of the fridge. Children's services were called. They immediately took Nicole and placed her with Sammy's folks.
"Honest, Dell, it wasn't mine. Jason must have put it there. There is no way I would risk losing Nicole by doing something that stupid."
"So what will happen now?" I asked, "is she going to stay with your folks again?"
"I don't know. Family court is next week." We talked for a bit and then, as she was walking away I hollered after her "Chin up!" She waved without turning around, but her shoulders were shaking and I knew she was crying again.
The time finally arrived for me to leave. I took a walk into town to see if I could find Sammy. Instead, I found her brother, Trevor. He told me Jason had left town quite suddenly. Family court had given their parents permanent custody of Nicole. Sammy had moved in with a fellow she'd only just met.
"How did it happen?" I wondered aloud to Trevor, "Surely to God they don't take a child from its mother for something as minor as a joint?"
"You know that saying It's not who you know?... In this case, who my parents knew was all that mattered."
As we said our good-byes, he shook my hand, then looking at his scarred palm said, "Sammy always looked out for me. She would have been a great mom. She just never got a chance."
Dell on Ribbons
Thousands of miles away an oil disaster is wreaking havoc and she wanted me to pause for a moment to consider her pain and loss; asking if I will support her cause.
If you've ever seen Schindler's List, you may recall Schindler's reaction on receiving the gift of a golden ring in thanks for the lives he saved: he weeps for the lives he failed to save.
Nature has a huge capacity to recover from man's inflicted indignities: her generosity is no excuse for my having done so little, for so long.
Dell on Good Intentions Gone Bad
Another wet morning and my dogs are hurting again. Dorg is lying on top of my feet so that will warm them and ease the pain.
To pick up from my last post: I had stated I believe social policies and their supporting agencies have become part of a systematic means to criminalize Canadians. PM Harper calls for more jails and longer jail sentences, this despite a cost expected to break the backs of Canadian taxpayers. [see Dell on The War on Drugs]. With the best of intentions, laws and the social agencies originally formed to help families have, over the last decades, become power tools.
The horror of having government agencies running your life has always been the nightmare of the poor and minorities. Having discovered the "help system" can be used to castigate whomever, that is exactly what is happening. Those in power have seen the effectiveness of employing the police and supporting agencies, including the legal system, to create more poverty and despair. Are people getting rich on this misery? You betcha!
Agencies serving troubled and disabled young people in their care, usually cease involvement after the ward turns sixteen. In fact, they will make a point of returning children to their original families just before this time, thereby avoiding mandated financial responsibility. Those still in care who outgrow the agency, end up living at a group home. I am not talking community living or regulated group housing, but something else.
Large homes are bought as an investment. The owner runs a lucrative business renting to young people in need of housing. He will charge the exact amount social services allows these young people for room and board and provide them a single bedroom with shared bath facilities. With no staff to speak of, the owner may have from four to eight young people bringing in between $3,2000 to $6,400.00 a month. You do the math. The remainder of the social services cheque that is given to the boarder is his own, but it isn't much, and many unscrupulous landlords find a way to get every cent of these cheques into their own pocket. It's easy money. They don't have to police their boarders, either. They simply set them up for a police charge and the system takes over. You think I'm making this up? Not so.
I personally met a young man with learning disabilities [18 at the time] who was living in just such an arrangement. When the landlord, an alcoholic with a mean streak, objected to this young man coming in after nine in the evening, the young boarder was arrested. Another resident's unopened monthly cheque had been found in the boarder's dresser drawer. This young man couldn't read and his own cheque was directly deposited because he didn't have sufficient skills to negotiate banking matters. He told me he had no idea how the envelope got there because his door was locked and only the landlord had a key. Charged, he was released prior to his court appearance, with conditions that suited the owner/landlord: curfew. The charge itself never made it to court. Instead, the Crown used a Mental Health Diversion. Unable to read or write, this very sweet young person signed the form, unaware that he had placed himself under the ongoing control of a mental health agency. There was no crime and he did not fit the profile for Mental Health Diversion. The entire system worked to serve the needs of the landlord/owner.
In an earlier post, I described the typical scenario of the destruction of a family. Courts now routinely require the involvement of agencies; a systematic form of control in which counsellors do assessments, recommend psychiatrists who then recommend medications for adults and/or children, and ongoing agency interventions; all this as part of addressing, or as a requirement of, sentencing. This is the fuel that keeps the system going: money made by creating misery and criminalizing the population.
Having created a miserably unhappy citizenry, it is no surprise that drug abuse has reached epidemic proportions. Yet, as I pointed out in 'Dell on The War On Drugs', the warring is only a war in name. In reality it is punishment or control of individuals and NOT meant to stop the burgeoning drug business (prescribed or illicit) nationwide. Why on earth would they want to "make war" on the very lucrative business of drugs? There are millions if not billions to be made by increasing misery.
Whole industries depend on rehabilitation to create jobs and secure funding.
Why do doctor's rarely sign forms for medicinal use of cannabis? Would drug companies want people using non-addicting cannabis instead of their very addictive prescription drugs?
The saddest part of this situation is the number of Canadians working in these agencies, who unwittingly believe they are doing good work.
In the next post or two, I will tell the tale of a small town family, the police and service agencies, lest you think the problem is confined to large cities.
I'm off to have my one perfect cup of coffee and give Dorg his run along the shoreline.
To pick up from my last post: I had stated I believe social policies and their supporting agencies have become part of a systematic means to criminalize Canadians. PM Harper calls for more jails and longer jail sentences, this despite a cost expected to break the backs of Canadian taxpayers. [see Dell on The War on Drugs]. With the best of intentions, laws and the social agencies originally formed to help families have, over the last decades, become power tools.
The horror of having government agencies running your life has always been the nightmare of the poor and minorities. Having discovered the "help system" can be used to castigate whomever, that is exactly what is happening. Those in power have seen the effectiveness of employing the police and supporting agencies, including the legal system, to create more poverty and despair. Are people getting rich on this misery? You betcha!
Agencies serving troubled and disabled young people in their care, usually cease involvement after the ward turns sixteen. In fact, they will make a point of returning children to their original families just before this time, thereby avoiding mandated financial responsibility. Those still in care who outgrow the agency, end up living at a group home. I am not talking community living or regulated group housing, but something else.
Large homes are bought as an investment. The owner runs a lucrative business renting to young people in need of housing. He will charge the exact amount social services allows these young people for room and board and provide them a single bedroom with shared bath facilities. With no staff to speak of, the owner may have from four to eight young people bringing in between $3,2000 to $6,400.00 a month. You do the math. The remainder of the social services cheque that is given to the boarder is his own, but it isn't much, and many unscrupulous landlords find a way to get every cent of these cheques into their own pocket. It's easy money. They don't have to police their boarders, either. They simply set them up for a police charge and the system takes over. You think I'm making this up? Not so.
I personally met a young man with learning disabilities [18 at the time] who was living in just such an arrangement. When the landlord, an alcoholic with a mean streak, objected to this young man coming in after nine in the evening, the young boarder was arrested. Another resident's unopened monthly cheque had been found in the boarder's dresser drawer. This young man couldn't read and his own cheque was directly deposited because he didn't have sufficient skills to negotiate banking matters. He told me he had no idea how the envelope got there because his door was locked and only the landlord had a key. Charged, he was released prior to his court appearance, with conditions that suited the owner/landlord: curfew. The charge itself never made it to court. Instead, the Crown used a Mental Health Diversion. Unable to read or write, this very sweet young person signed the form, unaware that he had placed himself under the ongoing control of a mental health agency. There was no crime and he did not fit the profile for Mental Health Diversion. The entire system worked to serve the needs of the landlord/owner.
In an earlier post, I described the typical scenario of the destruction of a family. Courts now routinely require the involvement of agencies; a systematic form of control in which counsellors do assessments, recommend psychiatrists who then recommend medications for adults and/or children, and ongoing agency interventions; all this as part of addressing, or as a requirement of, sentencing. This is the fuel that keeps the system going: money made by creating misery and criminalizing the population.
Having created a miserably unhappy citizenry, it is no surprise that drug abuse has reached epidemic proportions. Yet, as I pointed out in 'Dell on The War On Drugs', the warring is only a war in name. In reality it is punishment or control of individuals and NOT meant to stop the burgeoning drug business (prescribed or illicit) nationwide. Why on earth would they want to "make war" on the very lucrative business of drugs? There are millions if not billions to be made by increasing misery.
Whole industries depend on rehabilitation to create jobs and secure funding.
Why do doctor's rarely sign forms for medicinal use of cannabis? Would drug companies want people using non-addicting cannabis instead of their very addictive prescription drugs?
The saddest part of this situation is the number of Canadians working in these agencies, who unwittingly believe they are doing good work.
In the next post or two, I will tell the tale of a small town family, the police and service agencies, lest you think the problem is confined to large cities.
I'm off to have my one perfect cup of coffee and give Dorg his run along the shoreline.
Friday, June 25, 2010
Dell On Criminalizing the Canadian Citizen
I was playing around in blogspot earlier and all hell broke loose. Well, maybe it wasn't that bad. I finally figured out what I did wrong, all by myself. Not bad for an old guy.
Anyway...I'm back, with part two of my thoughts on Canada's tough on crime policies.
A decaying society typically includes the criminalization of its citizens: tough laws, more jails and jail time, more police state behaviour. Now why is that?
It always comes down to money. As the gap widens between the haves and have-nots, the necessity to control those at the bottom, requires a heavy hand. Take a look through history if you think I'm making this up.
Who is usually targeted for criminalization? the poor, minority races and anyone who threatens to end the gravy train. You might be surprised to find it's you next in line. Nonsense you say. Consider this:
Over the last decades, Canada's family and criminal laws have changed. The system of agencies meant to provide supports and assist the severest cases of family problems, have instead become the power tool in the systematic and endemic criminalization of Canada's citizens.
Prior to these changes, if a marriage was in trouble, family, friends or a church minister stepped in and talked to the couple. People who actually knew the couple helped them through their troubles. Only in truly difficult cases would the police or social services be called in to work with a family.
Family matters are now routinely dealt with by government services. These agencies almost always claim a mandate to keep families together. In practice, almost without exception, they have the exact opposite effect. Intrusive, manipulating, controlling and punishing, they exhibit the hallmarks of bullying: police, mental health services, the legal system, social welfare, child protection services and the list just keeps growing.
A typical scenario now goes like this: John and Mary get married, have a couple kids and all is well for some years until the local manufacturer closes down and John is out of work. Stressed out and worried, John who was never been a big drinker begins regularly having a few beers. Mary is concerned but figures once John gets back to work he'll be fine. After some months of this, John's drinking is beginning to become a real problem. When his EI cheque fails to show up one week, he gets in a foul mood, proceeding to get really drunk. He's hollering, banging doors and Mary is yelling at him to settle down. The kids are upset and one of them runs outside crying. The next-door-neighbour has seen the crying child and heard Mary yelling and calls the police. The police arrive and can hear Mary yelling, "Don't....don't...John...don't!"
The police officer knocks on the door. John answers and is asked to step outside. Quite drunk, John tells the officer to, "Go f**k himself!" and proceeds to head back in the house. Before he can figure out what's happening, he's on the ground, knee in the back, cuffs on and out to the cruiser. Mary and the children are in shock at this. The police officer takes down the particulars of the situation as he sees it. Mary says John didn't hit her, but the officer notes a bruise on her arm. Mary says she got it moving a table out of the dining room. She insists John has never been violent with her or the children. She is informed that John is going to be charged with assault. They don't know if an assault actually took place. That's what court is for. One officer takes the oldest child aside and asks, "Has your Dad ever hurt you or your mother?" Not sure what the officer is asking, the child says nothing. Within the hour a Children's Agency worker shows up wanting to interview the children.
Mary and John are now under the thumb of the system. They will spend the next couple years paying for lawyers or rely on legal aid. They will have to jump through hoops to get the Children's Agency worker out of their lives. Mary will be required to see a family counsellor who will then recommend she see a psychiatrist for depression. The psychiatrist will put her on medications and refer her for ongoing mental health evaluation. John will have to see an alcohol and anger management counsellor. The children will be assigned a counsellor at school. Not surprisingly, the children will begin having all kinds of school troubles. John will keep losing jobs because he misses so much time for court ordered counselling, anger management, and court hearings that keep getting put over. Eventually the charges are withdrawn...but not before John and Mary's marriage breaks down.
A formerly okay family, who might well have managed, given time and family support, to gresolve issues surrounding John's unemployment and drinking, is demolished by the very system that claims to serve them. Who is gaining from all this? It sure isn't the families.
More on this subject in tomorrow's post. Right now, Dorg needs outside, then I'm headed for the sack.
Anyway...I'm back, with part two of my thoughts on Canada's tough on crime policies.
A decaying society typically includes the criminalization of its citizens: tough laws, more jails and jail time, more police state behaviour. Now why is that?
It always comes down to money. As the gap widens between the haves and have-nots, the necessity to control those at the bottom, requires a heavy hand. Take a look through history if you think I'm making this up.
Who is usually targeted for criminalization? the poor, minority races and anyone who threatens to end the gravy train. You might be surprised to find it's you next in line. Nonsense you say. Consider this:
Over the last decades, Canada's family and criminal laws have changed. The system of agencies meant to provide supports and assist the severest cases of family problems, have instead become the power tool in the systematic and endemic criminalization of Canada's citizens.
Prior to these changes, if a marriage was in trouble, family, friends or a church minister stepped in and talked to the couple. People who actually knew the couple helped them through their troubles. Only in truly difficult cases would the police or social services be called in to work with a family.
Family matters are now routinely dealt with by government services. These agencies almost always claim a mandate to keep families together. In practice, almost without exception, they have the exact opposite effect. Intrusive, manipulating, controlling and punishing, they exhibit the hallmarks of bullying: police, mental health services, the legal system, social welfare, child protection services and the list just keeps growing.
A typical scenario now goes like this: John and Mary get married, have a couple kids and all is well for some years until the local manufacturer closes down and John is out of work. Stressed out and worried, John who was never been a big drinker begins regularly having a few beers. Mary is concerned but figures once John gets back to work he'll be fine. After some months of this, John's drinking is beginning to become a real problem. When his EI cheque fails to show up one week, he gets in a foul mood, proceeding to get really drunk. He's hollering, banging doors and Mary is yelling at him to settle down. The kids are upset and one of them runs outside crying. The next-door-neighbour has seen the crying child and heard Mary yelling and calls the police. The police arrive and can hear Mary yelling, "Don't....don't...John...don't!"
The police officer knocks on the door. John answers and is asked to step outside. Quite drunk, John tells the officer to, "Go f**k himself!" and proceeds to head back in the house. Before he can figure out what's happening, he's on the ground, knee in the back, cuffs on and out to the cruiser. Mary and the children are in shock at this. The police officer takes down the particulars of the situation as he sees it. Mary says John didn't hit her, but the officer notes a bruise on her arm. Mary says she got it moving a table out of the dining room. She insists John has never been violent with her or the children. She is informed that John is going to be charged with assault. They don't know if an assault actually took place. That's what court is for. One officer takes the oldest child aside and asks, "Has your Dad ever hurt you or your mother?" Not sure what the officer is asking, the child says nothing. Within the hour a Children's Agency worker shows up wanting to interview the children.
Mary and John are now under the thumb of the system. They will spend the next couple years paying for lawyers or rely on legal aid. They will have to jump through hoops to get the Children's Agency worker out of their lives. Mary will be required to see a family counsellor who will then recommend she see a psychiatrist for depression. The psychiatrist will put her on medications and refer her for ongoing mental health evaluation. John will have to see an alcohol and anger management counsellor. The children will be assigned a counsellor at school. Not surprisingly, the children will begin having all kinds of school troubles. John will keep losing jobs because he misses so much time for court ordered counselling, anger management, and court hearings that keep getting put over. Eventually the charges are withdrawn...but not before John and Mary's marriage breaks down.
A formerly okay family, who might well have managed, given time and family support, to gresolve issues surrounding John's unemployment and drinking, is demolished by the very system that claims to serve them. Who is gaining from all this? It sure isn't the families.
More on this subject in tomorrow's post. Right now, Dorg needs outside, then I'm headed for the sack.
Dell on The War on Drugs
Do you believe there is a war on drugs? Is the tough on crime stance legitimate? or propaganda?
I thought it was for real, as the young people say, until I took my blinders off and had a rude awakening.
Consider the following: Local girl in her late twenties who likes her alcohol, doesn't smoke marijuana or use any drugs. She works at minimum wage and sells small amounts of pot to teens, at affordable teen budget prices, for their weekend parties. Everyone in town knows her and her family: local youth came and went from her place without incident for years. Then, her boyfriend gets a cocaine habit. She's not happy about it but talks to her man who lives on the outskirts of town, who supplies her pot...he sells her the coke boyfriend wants but she refuses to sell the coke to others. Her thing is selling marijuana and she doesn't want any trouble. When the boyfriend runs up a tab for his coke habit and doesn't have the cash to cover it, her supplier tells her she can have some time to pay that debt, and he will continue to supply her marijuna, but no more cocaine until the debt is clear. After much nagging by the boyfriend, he talks her into driving to the next city, a couple hours away, to purchase cocaine for him there.
She is arrested, for the first time ever, returning from the city with the cocaine in the vehicle.
What are the mathematical odds of her being stopped the one and only time she goes out of town to purchase cocaine? That's what I thought.
She owed one dealer in one city, she shows up elsewhere with cash, she's arrested on the way home. The lesson to her is this: pay your bill or you won't buy anywhere else and we'll f**k up your life if you try it. The police had to have been in on it as did the other dealer in the other town. That's some networking going on. Her dealer remains untouched.
"The dealer or someone else could have called the police," you say? Just try and call the police on someone selling drugs. Good Luck! Unless you sign an affidavit saying you have seen the drugs, been present during transactions, and so on, they will not be doing a take-down any time soon. More likely, you will be targeted for some harassment thereafter. If you belong to the right circle of friends, the dealer may be quietly relocated elsewhere.
What is true in a small way is usually true in a larger way.
After that incident, I made a point of watching and learning.
Same town: a man in his forties relocates with his family and becomes part of the downtown scene selling his own prescription for oxycontin, his child's Ritalin prescription, marijuana from the same supplier as the first young lady, in both teen and adult-sized quantities. He can also negotiate for hard drugs with the supplier, depending on who is doing the asking. His favourite thing is selling small amounts of marijuana to teens, because this guy likes, according to the young people, to do the grabby, feely thing with either sex, and two different young ladies say he raped them. You want something to smoke? you put up with it. Then come a flood of charges against local teens who get probation, curfews and are subjected to the local police questionning them every time they are looking for another teen to arrest. There is a raid at the local highschool and Mike __ , is arrested for having a couple joints on him. He had only got it the night before from this same man and no one else knew he had it. How did the police know? Bingo! You have guessed it: Mr. Creepy has a deal with the local police: I give you information so you can look like you're doing your job. Some kid complains I've sexually assaulted them, you point to their drug record. Who will believe the teenager? the Crown won't even look at the case.
Another man, on a disability pension, augments his poverty by selling oxycontins bought from others with legitimate prescriptions. They sell their prescriptions because their pensions don't meet their needs, either. This man also sells marijuana and can find ecstacy, date rape drug, meth, cocaine, etc. if the customer wants it: one phone call and its delivered to his door in minutes. This man went on unmolested until he tries the cocaine a few times and gets a habit. Now he's cocaine paranoid: keeps guns, bear spray, brass knuckles, pitbull dogs are adopted...eventually a decision is made that he is just too big a risk, given his paranoia. He gets arrested.
Compassion clubs, providing marijuana to those who use it medicinally, are similarly targeted for big take-down scenes and arrests.
So is there a war on drugs? If you want the answer to that, you have to follow the money and power trail.
That will be the subject of my next post. In the meantime, you might want to read Lies the Government Told You: Myth, Power, and Deception in American History
(March, 2010) a thought provoking book, including what you can do to confront the lies perpetrated by your government and its agents.
I thought it was for real, as the young people say, until I took my blinders off and had a rude awakening.
Consider the following: Local girl in her late twenties who likes her alcohol, doesn't smoke marijuana or use any drugs. She works at minimum wage and sells small amounts of pot to teens, at affordable teen budget prices, for their weekend parties. Everyone in town knows her and her family: local youth came and went from her place without incident for years. Then, her boyfriend gets a cocaine habit. She's not happy about it but talks to her man who lives on the outskirts of town, who supplies her pot...he sells her the coke boyfriend wants but she refuses to sell the coke to others. Her thing is selling marijuana and she doesn't want any trouble. When the boyfriend runs up a tab for his coke habit and doesn't have the cash to cover it, her supplier tells her she can have some time to pay that debt, and he will continue to supply her marijuna, but no more cocaine until the debt is clear. After much nagging by the boyfriend, he talks her into driving to the next city, a couple hours away, to purchase cocaine for him there.
She is arrested, for the first time ever, returning from the city with the cocaine in the vehicle.
What are the mathematical odds of her being stopped the one and only time she goes out of town to purchase cocaine? That's what I thought.
She owed one dealer in one city, she shows up elsewhere with cash, she's arrested on the way home. The lesson to her is this: pay your bill or you won't buy anywhere else and we'll f**k up your life if you try it. The police had to have been in on it as did the other dealer in the other town. That's some networking going on. Her dealer remains untouched.
"The dealer or someone else could have called the police," you say? Just try and call the police on someone selling drugs. Good Luck! Unless you sign an affidavit saying you have seen the drugs, been present during transactions, and so on, they will not be doing a take-down any time soon. More likely, you will be targeted for some harassment thereafter. If you belong to the right circle of friends, the dealer may be quietly relocated elsewhere.
What is true in a small way is usually true in a larger way.
After that incident, I made a point of watching and learning.
Same town: a man in his forties relocates with his family and becomes part of the downtown scene selling his own prescription for oxycontin, his child's Ritalin prescription, marijuana from the same supplier as the first young lady, in both teen and adult-sized quantities. He can also negotiate for hard drugs with the supplier, depending on who is doing the asking. His favourite thing is selling small amounts of marijuana to teens, because this guy likes, according to the young people, to do the grabby, feely thing with either sex, and two different young ladies say he raped them. You want something to smoke? you put up with it. Then come a flood of charges against local teens who get probation, curfews and are subjected to the local police questionning them every time they are looking for another teen to arrest. There is a raid at the local highschool and Mike __ , is arrested for having a couple joints on him. He had only got it the night before from this same man and no one else knew he had it. How did the police know? Bingo! You have guessed it: Mr. Creepy has a deal with the local police: I give you information so you can look like you're doing your job. Some kid complains I've sexually assaulted them, you point to their drug record. Who will believe the teenager? the Crown won't even look at the case.
Another man, on a disability pension, augments his poverty by selling oxycontins bought from others with legitimate prescriptions. They sell their prescriptions because their pensions don't meet their needs, either. This man also sells marijuana and can find ecstacy, date rape drug, meth, cocaine, etc. if the customer wants it: one phone call and its delivered to his door in minutes. This man went on unmolested until he tries the cocaine a few times and gets a habit. Now he's cocaine paranoid: keeps guns, bear spray, brass knuckles, pitbull dogs are adopted...eventually a decision is made that he is just too big a risk, given his paranoia. He gets arrested.
Compassion clubs, providing marijuana to those who use it medicinally, are similarly targeted for big take-down scenes and arrests.
So is there a war on drugs? If you want the answer to that, you have to follow the money and power trail.
That will be the subject of my next post. In the meantime, you might want to read Lies the Government Told You: Myth, Power, and Deception in American History
(March, 2010) a thought provoking book, including what you can do to confront the lies perpetrated by your government and its agents.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Dell on Knowing When to End It
My rule is this: If there is no love in it, end it.
Let's use the example of a business relationship: How does love come into business? you ask. Okay, substitute the term "goodness" for "love", since goodness is a form of love.
You are in a business relationship. Over some months, you realize that your associate has a behaviour that is somewhat self-serving. Do you end the relationship?
...what if this self-serving behaviour clearly feeds something emotionally undeveloped in them?
...what if others or yourself are getting hurt?
...what if, having spoken to your associate regarding this behaviour, having pointed out it is hurtful to yourself or others, the associate still persists. Just when should you end the relationship?
We all want to be liked and, when it comes to a spouse or family member, a decision to disengage can be difficult. So how does one know when to end it? As my mother [and probably your mother] always said, "It's all fun and games, until someone loses an eye." Yet, it is not always necessary to disengage or end a relationship, even if someone is getting hurt. In fact, being patient while another person processes is a normal part of human relationships. We should be as patient with others in this regard as we hope others will be with our own failings. It is inevitable that even those who love us will hurt us. Just because we identify the other's behaviour as self-serving isn't necessarily a call for action.
It's the intent behind the behaviour and the resulting effect that need to be discerned, and it is at this point I apply my rule. I absolutely must disengage as soon as I realize that there is no "goodness" to be found anywhere in what is going on: the other person is engaging in a behaviour which has no "love" in it, nor any hope of love. Even if I were willing to put up with whatever is going on, I must not participate and I must disengage. By applying my rule I find I am able to make a decision without too much difficulty.
One thing is certain: No amount of love you bring to a relationship will have any effect whatsoever if there is no love there, excepting your own.
Dell on Richard Fadden & Air India
Richard Fadden, head of CSIS, revealed his concerns, with Canada's national security, to Peter Mansbridge of the CBC. John Iveson of the National Post wrote the following:
"The most likely explanation is that Mr. Fadden sees himself on a mission to shake Canadians from their complacency over threats to their national security and has just learned the hard way why previous CSIS directors have stayed in the shadows." See: National Post: John Iveson on Fadden for the full article.
If it is any comfort to whistle blowers everywhere, you have your admirers, including myself.
Mr. Fadden is now in the same boat as Richard Colvin, who daringly spoke up on the torture of Afghan detainees. Confronted with the choice to do the right thing or the convenient thing, those who speak out should receive our full attention.
When the whistle blower is then made to retract part of all of his statement, I might wonder what is behind the retraction, but it rarely leads me to conclude the original statements were anything other than the truth.
That Richard Fadden's revelations coincide with the report on, and another anniversary of, the Air India bombing, seems an unlikely coincidence. Timing is everything in politics. Why now, Mr. Fadden? Is there something more you're trying to tell Canadians? I'm listening...
"The most likely explanation is that Mr. Fadden sees himself on a mission to shake Canadians from their complacency over threats to their national security and has just learned the hard way why previous CSIS directors have stayed in the shadows." See: National Post: John Iveson on Fadden for the full article.
If it is any comfort to whistle blowers everywhere, you have your admirers, including myself.
Mr. Fadden is now in the same boat as Richard Colvin, who daringly spoke up on the torture of Afghan detainees. Confronted with the choice to do the right thing or the convenient thing, those who speak out should receive our full attention.
When the whistle blower is then made to retract part of all of his statement, I might wonder what is behind the retraction, but it rarely leads me to conclude the original statements were anything other than the truth.
That Richard Fadden's revelations coincide with the report on, and another anniversary of, the Air India bombing, seems an unlikely coincidence. Timing is everything in politics. Why now, Mr. Fadden? Is there something more you're trying to tell Canadians? I'm listening...
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Dell on Foreign Ownership & Investment
I don't know how things are where you are, but it's raining cats and dogs here: sure to help keep the fire risk low.
I'm looking for feedback on the situation outlined below :
A foreigner buys a lakefront property in Canada: everyone in the area has always traipsed through the hilly forest to get to the lake at the top. It's a deep cold lake, fed by a series of ground springs and its full of Walters. I'm talking big fish, pristine water, Canada's finest resources: stocked since great-great grandpappy's day by hardy men who backpacked fingerlings in to provide for future generations.
The foreigner spends a good number of years and dollars improving his property: an investment in the future, you might say. The road he builds up to the lake is gated from the time of purchase, but left unlocked as contractors come and go. Tresspassing continues in the owner's absences. After the contractors leave, the gate is securely locked. The owner, has done nothing to confront trespassing: indeed, locals always leave his property as they found it, minus a fish or two. Now worth a small fortune, the foreign owner's vision is perfectly fulfilled: generated electricity, water system, fancy heated water line, solar generated back-up, septic system, all those trees and the finest fishing, too!
Another form of access to this jewel of a lake has never been an option. Due to heavy terrain and cliffs, only a couple of hardy souls have managed to scale the cliffside using special gear. It's just not something your ordinary man is willing or able to undertake: daunting task.
Nothing happens until the owner arrives one sunny day to find a group of locals in their boats fishing on the lake. Then, all hell breaks loose. The local constabulatory are called in: the trespassers are warned not to return.
Within a few months of the completion of this magnificent wilderness domicile, the place burns to the ground at the owner's next absence.
The foreigner is paid on his claim for damages. The locals resume their fishing, keeping their backs to the burned wreckage.
Who is to blame that this event got to the point of arson? Should the foreigner have been confronted regarding his intentions? Should the foreigner have spoken up in the beginning? Why do you think the two parties weren't talking to each other? Did separate agendas play a role in all this? Whose resources are we talking about? and to what degree can they be owned, shared or denied? Does the foreigner come out ahead on this situation? or do the locals fare best?
Fires are serious business. I was raised with Smokey: "Remember...only you can prevent forest fires!"
I'm off to my own special spot this evening, for a last cast in the fading light. Dorg is turning circles at my feet knowing the tackle box on the table can only mean one thing: we're going to the lake. Dorg is one smart dog.
I'm looking for feedback on the situation outlined below :
The foreigner spends a good number of years and dollars improving his property: an investment in the future, you might say. The road he builds up to the lake is gated from the time of purchase, but left unlocked as contractors come and go. Tresspassing continues in the owner's absences. After the contractors leave, the gate is securely locked. The owner, has done nothing to confront trespassing: indeed, locals always leave his property as they found it, minus a fish or two. Now worth a small fortune, the foreign owner's vision is perfectly fulfilled: generated electricity, water system, fancy heated water line, solar generated back-up, septic system, all those trees and the finest fishing, too!
Another form of access to this jewel of a lake has never been an option. Due to heavy terrain and cliffs, only a couple of hardy souls have managed to scale the cliffside using special gear. It's just not something your ordinary man is willing or able to undertake: daunting task.
Within a few months of the completion of this magnificent wilderness domicile, the place burns to the ground at the owner's next absence.
The foreigner is paid on his claim for damages. The locals resume their fishing, keeping their backs to the burned wreckage.
Who is to blame that this event got to the point of arson? Should the foreigner have been confronted regarding his intentions? Should the foreigner have spoken up in the beginning? Why do you think the two parties weren't talking to each other? Did separate agendas play a role in all this? Whose resources are we talking about? and to what degree can they be owned, shared or denied? Does the foreigner come out ahead on this situation? or do the locals fare best?
Fires are serious business. I was raised with Smokey: "Remember...only you can prevent forest fires!"
I'm off to my own special spot this evening, for a last cast in the fading light. Dorg is turning circles at my feet knowing the tackle box on the table can only mean one thing: we're going to the lake. Dorg is one smart dog.
Dell on CSIS,Fadden, Harper & Air India
I am enjoying another sunny morning here in N. Ontario: Dorg is keeping me company while Shelley and Kevin are off on holiday with his family, returning in time for my next appointment with the clinic vampires.
Speaking of vampires, the news is rich with those who suck the life's blood out of Canada. This week, Peter Mansbridge's CBC interview with CSIS', Richard Fadden, was particularly thought provoking, as was the news that the federal government's tough on crime policy means more jail cells will be needed.
After watching the news, I found myself thinking about a book someone gave me several years ago: Kevin Trudeau was the author. I remember how I laughed out loud as he prefaced his work by saying he was telling the truth despite threats to his life. If he lived it was only because they didn't dare touch him because he told the truth. If he wound up dead, it was further proof he was telling the truth. A win/win situation. This was a brilliant marketing move: he's right no matter what. Unfortunately, Kevin Trudeau's marketing technique, with a few adjustments, works just as well in politics.
In Canada, according to the CBC news report, 80% of security money is spent on terrorism, despite evidence the greater national threat is foreign influence through long term efforts to control key persons in government and the ongoing theft of billions in trade and technology secrets. If there is a terrorist incident, the millions spent to fight terrorism will appear to have been a good decision. If there is no terrorist incident, it's because the money was spent to prevent one. It's a "win/win" situation, that fails to address the real threats.
Prime Minister Harper has announced he plans to build more jail cells. The Ontario government is rightly balking at a Federal policy intending to dump the cost of those jail cells on the provinces. If Canadians are going to get tough on crime, we need more jails, this despite a projected cost for those jail cells capable of breaking the finanacial backs of Canadians. If crime rates soar, Harper is right. If they go down, Harper is still right. It's "win/win" policies such as these that fail Canadians.
With technology advances, many of those in jail cells for non-violent crimes, could be monitored safely with house arrest in the community. Criminalizing the poor creates a 'them versus us' mentality necessary to motivate the public's fear and continued financial support of a tough approach to a perceived threat. With reports claiming 15% of adult Canadians use cannabis, I cannot help but notice the criminal "them" is "us".
If Fadden is correct in saying Canada's biggest threat is the billions of dollars lost to the theft of technology and trade information, we have not only misplaced our funds, but our fear as well. The government is willing to spend millions on airport security and install X-ray equipment for passengers, while the real threat, according to the findings of the Air India bombing report, is loose security then and now, along with crime protection agencies unwilling to share information.
The Canadian taxpayer, duped into the fearful belief that crime and terrorism are rising threats, is asked to dig into his pocket yet again and fork over more cash. As long as this government formulates policies using the "win/win" method, unwarranted rising taxes will continue to flourish. What is needed is social reform. Unfortunately, no one gets to rich with a scenario that promotes understanding instead of fear.
I'll post more on this subject after lunch and power nap. Would you believe that it is now pouring buckets of rain here? If we have rain, it's good for the garden. If we have no rain, it means I can spend time outside. Another "win/win" situation.
Speaking of vampires, the news is rich with those who suck the life's blood out of Canada. This week, Peter Mansbridge's CBC interview with CSIS', Richard Fadden, was particularly thought provoking, as was the news that the federal government's tough on crime policy means more jail cells will be needed.
After watching the news, I found myself thinking about a book someone gave me several years ago: Kevin Trudeau was the author. I remember how I laughed out loud as he prefaced his work by saying he was telling the truth despite threats to his life. If he lived it was only because they didn't dare touch him because he told the truth. If he wound up dead, it was further proof he was telling the truth. A win/win situation. This was a brilliant marketing move: he's right no matter what. Unfortunately, Kevin Trudeau's marketing technique, with a few adjustments, works just as well in politics.
In Canada, according to the CBC news report, 80% of security money is spent on terrorism, despite evidence the greater national threat is foreign influence through long term efforts to control key persons in government and the ongoing theft of billions in trade and technology secrets. If there is a terrorist incident, the millions spent to fight terrorism will appear to have been a good decision. If there is no terrorist incident, it's because the money was spent to prevent one. It's a "win/win" situation, that fails to address the real threats.
Prime Minister Harper has announced he plans to build more jail cells. The Ontario government is rightly balking at a Federal policy intending to dump the cost of those jail cells on the provinces. If Canadians are going to get tough on crime, we need more jails, this despite a projected cost for those jail cells capable of breaking the finanacial backs of Canadians. If crime rates soar, Harper is right. If they go down, Harper is still right. It's "win/win" policies such as these that fail Canadians.
With technology advances, many of those in jail cells for non-violent crimes, could be monitored safely with house arrest in the community. Criminalizing the poor creates a 'them versus us' mentality necessary to motivate the public's fear and continued financial support of a tough approach to a perceived threat. With reports claiming 15% of adult Canadians use cannabis, I cannot help but notice the criminal "them" is "us".
If Fadden is correct in saying Canada's biggest threat is the billions of dollars lost to the theft of technology and trade information, we have not only misplaced our funds, but our fear as well. The government is willing to spend millions on airport security and install X-ray equipment for passengers, while the real threat, according to the findings of the Air India bombing report, is loose security then and now, along with crime protection agencies unwilling to share information.
The Canadian taxpayer, duped into the fearful belief that crime and terrorism are rising threats, is asked to dig into his pocket yet again and fork over more cash. As long as this government formulates policies using the "win/win" method, unwarranted rising taxes will continue to flourish. What is needed is social reform. Unfortunately, no one gets to rich with a scenario that promotes understanding instead of fear.
I'll post more on this subject after lunch and power nap. Would you believe that it is now pouring buckets of rain here? If we have rain, it's good for the garden. If we have no rain, it means I can spend time outside. Another "win/win" situation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
