Chomsky on Ignatieff

I've watched this week in horrified disbelieve as many Libloggers, including some very high profile ones, have talked themselves into supporting Michael Ignatieff for the leadership of the party. I imagine this may have something to do with Mr. Ignatieff's electability. After losing so hard in the last election with a less than charismatic leader, many Liberals are looking for an eloquent and engaging leader to take us into the next election. Mr. Ignatieff has these qualities in spades. He is one of the best speakers in the House of Commons in both French and English and has a very commanding presence. If he managed to run a gaffe free campaign, and that is a very big if, I believe he would have the best chance of winning the election.

Unfortunately, he is wrong about almost everything and is the last man, including Stephen Harper, who should be running the country. Mr Ignatieff, in my opinion, is the worst sort of Neo-Liberal. The type that has an almost evangelical view of the market and its ability to grow wealth and help poor people. This of course never happens. For any of you economist types who want to argue that point with me just look at your latest failure. For the last few years the free market parishioners have been telling us about the "Celtic tiger," look at Ireland they would say. They stopped their social programs, sold off their crown assets, deregulated their economy, cut taxes and increased corporate subsidies. Now foreign investment is up and the economy is growing. Same old song they sung while they ruined South America . Well, the Celtic tiger has just become the first European Union country to dive into recession. The Irish will get through it, they have seen tough times before. Of course this time they won't have any social programs to lean on.

Believing in the neo-Liberal fantasy is just one part of Ignatieff's problem. Much more worrisome is his belief in Empire and Imperialism. It is my opinion that Mr. Ignatieff feels we not only have a right to impose our way of life on other countries but a responsibility to do so. If you want Canadian troops to fight and die in Afghanistan for the rest of time never mind Stephen Harper, Michael Ignatieff is your boy.

These are just a few of the reasons I think Mr. Ignatieff should not lead the party or the country, but why take my word for it? I'm just a simple carpenter. What does eminent intellectual and possibly the world's smartest man, Noam Chomsky, think of Michael Ignatieff? Just check out this 2003 interview with David Barsamian. About three quarters of the way through you will find this,

"TRADITIONALLY IF you used the word "imperialism" and attached the word "American" in front of it, you were immediately dismissed as a member of some far left fringe. That has undergone a bit of a transformation in the last few years. Let’s just take Michael Ignatieff, for one. Son of a Canadian diplomat, he’s at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard where he is Carr Professor of Human Rights Policy. He writes in a New York Times Magazine cover story on July 28, 2002, "America’s entire war on terrorism is an exercise in imperialism." Then he adds, "Imperialism used to be the white man’s burden," echoing Kipling. "This gave it a bad reputation. But imperialism doesn’t stop being necessary just because it becomes politically incorrect." On January 5, 2003, in yet another cover story in the New York Times Magazine, he writes, "America’s empire is not like the empires of times past, built on colonies, conquests and the white man’s burden.... The 21st century imperium is a new invention in the annals of political science, an empire lite, a global hegemony whose grace notes are free markets, human rights, and democracy, enforced by the most awesome military power the world has ever known." And he has a new book out, called Empire Lite."

Chomsky continues,

"OF COURSE, the apologists for every other imperial power have said the same thing. So you can go back to John Stuart Mill, one of the most outstanding Western intellectuals, now we’re talking about the real peak of moral integrity and intelligence. He defended the British Empire in very much those words. John Stuart Mill wrote the classic essay on humanitarian intervention. Everyone studies it in law schools. What he says is, Britain is unique in the world. It’s unlike any country before it. Other countries have crass motives and seek gain and so on, but the British act only for the benefit of others. In fact, he said, Our motives are so pure that Europeans can’t understand us. They heap "obloquy" upon us and they seek to discover crass motives behind our benevolent actions. But everything we do is for the benefit of the natives, the barbarians. We want to bring them free markets and honest rule and freedom and all kinds of wonderful things. Today’s version is just illustrating Marx’s comment about tragedy being repeated as farce. "

Mr. Chomsky goes on to talk some more about England and John Mill, then comes back to Mr.Ignatieff,

"I’m surprised that Ignatieff is not aware that he’s just repeating a very familiar rhetoric. And it’s true, even in internal records, when people are talking to themselves. A lot of Soviet archives are coming out, basically being sold to the highest bidder like everything else in Russia. It’s kind of interesting to see that they talk to each other the same way they talk in public. So, for example, you go back to 1947 or so, and Gromyko and those guys are talking to each other and saying things like, We have to protect democracy. We have to intervene to protect democracy from the forces of fascism, which are everywhere, and democracy is surely the highest value, so we’ve got to intervene to protect it. And he’s talking about the "people’s democracies." Well, he believed it probably as much as Ignatieff believes what he is saying."

There is more and I encourage you to read it all. I wouldn't want to be accused of taking something out of context. Now for those of you who say, "this is old news from five years ago," I guess we won't be hearing any talk about "Rae days" then. And for those of you that think I'm wrong and Chomsky is wrong because you believe in "the economic miracle" that is the free market, you just keep on believing it. As for the rest of you, take another look at Michael Ignatieff.

Can Obama save the world?

If all goes according to the polls Tuesday, Barrack Obama should have enough of a margin of victory in electoral votes to overcome any GOP legal challenges, or the Bradley effect. I'm sure there will be attempts to line up "urban voters" in lines so long that some will just go home. I'm sure some voting machines will malfunction and some votes will get "lost", but none of it should be enough to change the results. Also Obama and the Dems will have lawyers and people on the ground fighting for every voter they try to disallow and sounding the alarm on unscrupulous behavior.

So barring a miracle Obama will be the next President of the USA. I am of two minds on this. Firstly I'm not made of stone. I watched that half hour commercial the other day and I have watched Obama speak on many other occasions as I'm sure all of us have now. The guy gives one hell of a speech and by the end I always find myself wanting to believe, wanting to hope that maybe this guy will do things differently . Maybe there can be meaningful change. Maybe America can go back to being a force of good in the world instead of a constant source for Noam Chomsky to write books about. A new diplomacy that takes into account (sometimes) what other countries think. A turn away from the Neo-Liberal school of trickle down economics. A better trade deal for workers in all NAFTA countries.

Alas my cynical side fears things will probably not change much. Obama will be working from a very weak economic position and may have trouble implementing much of his agenda. This has been mentioned by others. It has also been pointed out that Obama may just be trying to win blue collar Ohio and Pennsylvania votes when he talks about changing NAFTA. He may just be another Liberal like Clinton from the, "you only help poor people by growing the economy" school of economics.

He also, despite all his good intentions, may have no ability to effect change. There are many who believe, and I am sometimes one of them, that the USA is run by a small group of industrialists and the people in the Pentagon. Whomever the people choose to be President really doesn't matter and whatever party he is from doesn't really matter. He is just a figurehead. The late, great comedian Bill Hicks used to do a great bit about politics in America that explains what I'm talking about. It is a little dated now but still holds up remarkably well. I hope Bill Hicks and I are wrong and I hope Obama really can save the world. I also hope they don't shoot him down like everyone else who ever tried to make a difference.

Election 2008 The good, the bad and the ugly.

The good,
1. Mr. Burns was denied his majority. We can all breathe a giant sigh of relief. The CBC lives, the Canadian Wheat Board lives, gay people can still walk the streets and artists wont be sent to the guillotine.
2. Harper is dead in Quebec. Good old Quebec, they saw through Harper's sweater an stopped the majority. I love the irony of people voting for a separatist party in order to save Canada. Good old Quebec, the only people in Canada properly horrified by the prospect of putting 14 year olds in prison for life. Out here in the west the only thing people see wrong with that is that we're not giving them the death penalty. Does it bother anyone else that Harper thinks it is okay to make an exception in Quebec (where it is politically unpopular) and raise the age to 16 before you can be thrown into jail for life? If Harper really thinks his law will make Canadians safer why does he not want Quebec to benefit? On the other side why should my kid be subject to this punishment but not some kid in Quebec? No Canadian kid should be subjected to this fascist nonsense.
3. Rahim Jaffer loses his seat. A different colour finally then Blue in Alberta! A speck of orange in the middle of Berlin. I wonder if Helena Guergis will drop him now. I have this dream where her and I and Ruby Dhalla are drinking margaritas and ........ but I digress.
4. The Liberals are back in the game in Quebec. If not at least they have stopped the bleeding. The much maligned Stephane Dion can take some credit for that.
5. Harper still has zero seats in Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal. He also has zero seats in NFLD. I wish every province had a Danny Williams working for us.
6. Best of all I am hearing a lot of talk about a coalition. This is of course the only answer. Throw out Harper tomorrow. Alas were probably all gonna fight amongst ourselves instead but hope springs eternal.

The bad
1. My home province of Manitoba has fallen under the shadow of the empire. Anita Neville, my MP, is the last Liberal left standing in Manitoba. ST Boniface, my parents riding, went to the dark side last night. More on this in " The Ugly"
2. The greens failed to win a seat. Their voice deserves to be in the house. It is very unlikely that anything will get done about climate change of any value in the next parliament.
3. The Libs are back in disarray. Down 19 seats more and right back in the middle of a leadership contest. The right wing is mad about Dion and the green shift. The left wing is mad about Afghanistan. Both wings are smaller and feeling pissy. How do you avoid a costly election and leadership battle and still maintain your principles? COALITION people.
4. Vic Toews was re-elected. I guess the people of Provencer (Steinbach) can forgive adultery, babies out of wedlock and divorce from a Conservative cabinet minister. How many single moms and families have they run out of town for similar behavior? Fucking hypocrites. After all we all know Jesus is a Conservative.
The Ugly

1. Stephen LeDrew. With friends like him who needs enemies. Honorable mention to that dumb-ass Ontario finance minister who thought the election was a good time to trash the green shift.
2. CTV. Duff's conservative cheer leading reached all time highs and the back stab on Dion was beyond contempt.
3. As mentioned before my parents riding of ST Boniface, my childhood home has gone back to the Tories. They are now represented by a get tough on crime, ex police spokesmen named Shelly Glover. Where has my country gone? In Quebec Shelly Glover would be laughed at. In my pathetic town they put her in Govt.
4.Vote-splitting. This was the ugliest of all. Red Tory mentioned this example. Three
thousand idiots in Saarich-Gulf Islands voted for an Ndp candidate, Julian West, who was no longer eligible. This handed back the seat to that little weasel Gary Lunn. Also why would anyone vote for the NDP in Central Nova when they could have voted for Lizzie May, made history and best of all, kicked Peter McKay out of office? You know how good Rahim Jaffer losing feels? Peter McKay would have been twice as sweet. Ditto John Baird. A ridicules vote-split in his riding gets this screaming fool back in the house. All over Ontario Liberals lost close races where only a small amount of the NDP votes would have pushed them past the Cons. The reverse is true in Saskatchewan and BC. In many riding's the Liberals should have voted NDP if only to stop a Tory. We have got to start working together people!
Having said that I am also guilty of voting stupid. I really had trouble supporting the Liberals because of their position on the war in Afghanistan. In the end I couldn't and voted for the NDP. I did this out of principle and because I was pretty sure Neville was gonna win anyways. So I understand not being able to vote for a party out of principle. I get it , I did it but I could have regretted it. A little co-operation can go a long way. Next election more of us need to look into vote swapping and riding co-operation. In the meantime, COALITION PEOPLE.

Pimp my vote

I have never been a very prolific blogger, averaging only 1 post every 2 weeks in my first year of blogging. However lately I haven't been writing at all. I just haven't had the zest for it. I attribute this mostly to Dion's capitulation on Afghanistan and the crime bill. This same malaise has come over me regarding the election.
I live in Winnipeg South Centre represented by Anita Neville and I voted for her last election. This has traditionally been a safe Liberal seat. This year however it is being targeted hard by the Conservatives. Neville is leading by about 5 percent according to a poll done by the Winnipeg Free Press. The Tories are running an ex-Blue Bomber place kicker named Trevor Kennard and feel they have a real shot. The NDP have a lot of supporters in this riding and usually do very well also. If there was ever a time to support Ms Neville this is it . I don't think I can do it however and look myself in the mirror. That's right, "themilitantliberal" won't be voting Liberal.
I watched live as Ms Neville cast her vote to extend the Afghanistan Nightmare and it was my personal worst moment in politics. I cannot in good conscience risk putting blood on my hands again by voting for a Liberal Party that still contains way too many Ignatieffs. I don't however want to put another Con in the House of Commons by splitting the progressive vote in my riding.
Until recently this was my dilemma and the source of my depression. I think I may have discovered an answer though. There has been a lot of talk in the blogosphere and in the media over the last few days about a Facebook group called "Anti-Harper vote swap Canada." For those of you who don't know what it is about, it is basically a site where those of us on the broad left can swap votes from different ridings to try to assure that the party with the best chance of beating the Conservative candidate gets enough support to do it. For example, an NDP supporter in a riding that has no chance of an NDP victory could swap his vote with a Liberal in another riding where the Liberal has no chance of winning. This way your vote can count somewhere where it makes a difference. I think this is the greatest idea ever. I haven't joined the group because I'm not on Facebook and really don't want to be on Facebook but I thought I could express a similar notion here.
I have decided in this election I would like to support the Green party. A Green party vote in my riding won't do anybody any good. However, I am still willing to cast my vote for Anita Neville in my riding if there is a liberal in Central Nova who will vote for Lizzie May in my name. There must be many Liberals in the riding who would like to vote Liberal but are unable to because of the arrangement between Ms May and Mr Dion. I can give you that Liberal vote in a riding that could really use one. It is win,win. We get to vote our conscience and hopefully keep the Tories out of two seats. Now truthfully there is a pretty good chance Ms Neville will win with or without my support and there is a pretty good chance Ms May will lose with or without your vote. Obviously it would be much better if the idea caught on with other individuals in the same boat as me. It also may be very close in my riding and as for Central Nova, I can think of no better way of making my vote count than unseating the evil and treacherous Peter McKay.
So if you live in Central Nova and are willing to vote Green and want me to vote Liberal let me know. I will also consider trades with Liberals in a dipper riding. Like I said it's win,win. Vote strategically and follow your heart.

Please not Judge Toews!!

Recent speculation has ex Justice Minister and current Treasury Board President Vic Toews accepting a patronage appointment as a federal Judge in Manitoba. It seems he may have a tough time getting re-elected in his ultra Conservative riding. Apparently these folks may have a problem with his recent divorce and an even bigger problem with the fact that he knocked up another lady out of wedlock. Vic and his boss, of course, rallied against patronage appointments while in opposition. To most Canadians, this may seem like good riddance but what about us Manitobans who may have to be subjected to the tender mercies of Vic Toews and his Spanish Inquisition outlook on justice. This is the man who campaigned for re-election to the Manitoba Legislature with a great plan to snuff out drugs in schools by randomly deploying sniffer dogs to terrorise children. A practice the Supreme court recently outlawed. This Steinbacho-fascist has no business judging a pig calling contest never mind deciding the punishments of unsuspecting Manitobans who run afoul of the law. Mr. Toews, when he was Justice Minister, appointed some of the very people who would be approving his application to become a Judge. That is a move worthy of Stalin.

This is exactly the reason the Libs and everyone else need to force an election sooner rather than later. While everyone has sat around acting like Harper hasn't done anything too ideological and waited for the polls to get better, Harper has appointed 165 judges. At least that is what some Conservative Asshole on "Duffy Live" was saying the other day. 165! We better start building some more prisons. Harper has even announced some crazy plan to elect the next Supreme Court Justice. He, of course, would still have the final say. Losing the Supreme Court would be worse than a Harper Majority. Wake up and smell the police-state, these incremental changes and appointments don't seem like much until you add them all up and you turn around and you're living in America.

Three Amigos? ...How about Three Cheaters !

Frances Russell is one of my favorite writers and represents the entire left wing of the Winnipeg Free Press. Her column today "Were the 2006 election results tainted? " talks about the Conservatives and the " In and out scandal ". Russell seems to think that the extra million the Cons allegedly had to spend on advertising may have changed a few minds.

This along with the RCMP announcing during the election that they were investigating the Liberals may have made the difference in who would form a minority. The RCMP, as Russell points out, seemed to have deliberately changed their policy on announcing criminal investigations during elections.

Could it be true? Could the state police have colluded with the party they favored and attempted to subvert democracy? Did the Tories deliberately overspend beyond the advertising limits also subverting democracy? I hope not because just as Lizzie May says, "Canada is not a banana republic".

All of this talk about subverting democracy got me thinking about George Bush, elected in two questionable elections himself. As a matter of fact Mexican President Calderon was elected under massive protest and allegations of vote rigging. It's nice to know that these three can get together in our name and discuss NAFTA and SPP and sell out all our interests to a small corporate elite and turn all three countries into Oligarchys.

I feel like Lady Macbeth

During the last election I cast my vote for Anita Neville the liberal MP from my riding. She won. To my absolute dismay I just watched her stand up in the house of commons with the rest of the Liberals and vote to extend the nightmare in Afghanistan until 2011. Why can't I get this blood off my hands. I suspect that most of the Liberals who just betrayed Canada know in their hearts that I am right. They may comfort themselves with whatever Ignatieff told them or tell themselves that they achieved a compromise but they achieved nothing(accept drive the entire left-wing of the party to the NDP). Let's look at this so called compromise. The combat mission will absolutely end in 2011. Ya until you all vote to extend it again in 2010). NATO must supply 1000 more troops. Unless there is a miracle those troops will be American putting even bigger fucking targets on our soldiers back. It may be nice to have a 1000 Americans on your side in a fire fight if you can withstand all the friendly fire but our troops for the most part aren't dieing in firefights, they are dying from roadside bombs which by the way there will be many more of now that there are a 1000 more American targets standing beside us. Probably more villagers will get killed in the air strikes called in constantly by said Americans. What a recipe for success. Were gonna get some helicopters woo-hoo! now instead of running over roadside bombs our soldiers can be killed by the bushel from RPG fire. That's of course if we ever get these helicopters. They will probably be ready to go right around the time Parliament is voting to extend the mission to 2015. I give up, I guess the powers that be have decided this war is a go no matter what a majority of Canadians think. Now I know how people in England felt when the Labour party abandoned them over Iraq. This country is broken, this democracy is broken. How many of those dickheads that voted to extend this war live in ridings that are hugely against this war? All say it again, Democracy is fucking broken. Dion you were originally against this why did you cave? You know this is fucking wrong, out damn spot indeed. Fuck why cant I get this blood of my hands?

Dion lets down Canada

I just finish up carpentry school for the year in time for the latest scandal to come out of Stephen Harper's scandal free gov't. As we all know by now, it looks as if the conservative party may have tried to buy a dying man's vote with a million dollar life insurance policy. Now that's classy. I have no idea if these allegations are true but I actually hope they are not because they're just that slimy. It really doesn't seem to matter much if dirt sticks to Harper or not on account of the absolutely spineless behavior displayed by the Liberal leadership and Stephane Dion. I've been blogging for a year now and have defended Mr Dion many times. I supported his plan to leave Canadian troops in Afghanistan till 2009 even though I wanted the troops out immediately because I thought it was a plan that Canadians would support and anything was preferable to the Conservative plan which calls for Canadian troops to fight and die in the Middle East until the end of time. I believed like many Liberals that he would pull the party to the left. For awhile it seemed that he might, he was prepared to let the most offensive parts of the Anti-terrorism act die by refusing to support their renewal. A position he has since sadly reversed. He was sticking to his guns on that 2009 withdrawal date and he was properly instructing the senate to pass nothing. Unfortunately this is no longer the case. The last few weeks have been nothing short of shameful for anyone who is Liberal. Is Ignatief a Jedi knight? Does he just wave his hand in front of otherwise sensible people and they loose their fucking minds and start getting into bed with conservatives and extending bullshit wars that half the people in this country want over like right now. Who the fuck speaks for us now? Jack Layton? He's the only one talking any sense when it comes to this war. The Dippers also make sense when they accuse Liberal Mp's of caring more about their seats then they do about doing the right thing. "Boo-hoo my riding has a military base I can't run an election campaign on the war." Not only did Dion drop his pants when it came to the war, he and the Liberal leadership have failed miserably by letting Harper's Crime bill pass. The number one job of all Liberal Mp's, Senators and judges is to make sure that no Conservative anywhere at any time passes a crime bill of any variety. These people have an outlook on crime rooted some where in the middle ages and should never be allowed to subject Canadians to any of their backward social engineering. If you don't get that and you think Harper's crime bill was "moderate" you are a Liberal in name only. Then of course there is the budget. It's true that it didn't contain any poison pills but the last two sure did. If Dion doesn't like this budget he should vote against it. Fuck Harper's threats. I hate to agree with Rex Murphy but he was completely right last week when he said "at some point the opposition has got to well, oppose." Harper might as well have his majority because he is getting away with everything he tries. Mr Dion stop listening to the people around you who's greatest fear seems to be an election and stand up for Canada.

What's up with the flag?

So I guess Conservatives want us to know exactly what country they are ruining. They have a flag the size of a barn door dwarfing our beloved Prime Minister, (insert your own joke) at their celebration for being in office for 2 years. (Shudder). The flag looks like something out of an Orwell novel or one of those hysterical rallies the Nazi's used to throw back in the 30's. What jingoistic nonsense. My favorite part is the giant shadow cast by Mr. Harper on the bottom left corner. Besides casting his shadow over Canada, Harper used the occasion to agree in principle with John Manley that Canadian troops should stay in Afghanistan until the end of time provided we get some helicopters and a thousand more NATO troops. I must say I find it hard to believe that Manley and Harper would be in agreement. Sure their both continentalist American lapdog, war mongering, supply side economist, big business friendly dicks, but Manley is far more to the right then Harper. Ok you got me , you can't be more to the right than Harper but Manley is certainly no Liberal. Bi-partisan commission indeed. Bring home the boys, toss out these bums and let's go back to showing our pride in Canada, not by waving really big flags and taking sides in tribal warfare, but by showing leadership on the environment and on achieving peace through negotiation and diplomacy. You know like adults.