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?"
Showing posts with label G20. Show all posts
Showing posts with label G20. Show all posts
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 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?
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.
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 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."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
