If Tom Lukiwsky is an A, then I'm proud to be B; I'd rather be B

Rally held outside MP Tom Lukiwski's office

Leader-Post

Published: Tuesday, April 08, 2008

REGINA -- About 60 people gathered in the parking lot of Conservative MP Tom Lukiwski's Regina office Tuesday to condemn comments he made about homosexuals more than 16 years ago.

"We're here to say that we demand better from our elected officials," said Nathan Markwart in a speech to the cheering crowd.

[...]

Lukiwski [is] the Tory MP for Regina-Lumsden-Lake Centre [since] 2004.

The groups at the rally called themselves the "B-Team."

"Tom Lukiwski said there are two classes of people -- there's A people and then there's B people. What we're saying is if an A person casts people out ... makes everyone else an outsider that isn't exactly like them and perpetuates prejudice, then we don't want to be A," Markwart said.

"In fact we're proud to be B. We'd rather be B."

A handful of people at the rally marched around the parking lot after speeches wrapped up chanting: "Hey, hey, ho, ho, homophobia has got to go."

Lukiwski's office in Ottawa said there would be no comment on the event. [...]

LINKS

- Leader Post: Rally held outside MP Tom Lukiwski's office
- Getting it Right: A is for Asshole - Meet Conservative MP Asshole Tom Lukiwski (video)

A is for Asshole - Meet Conservative MP Asshole Tom Lukiwski (video)

How much I love Conservatives like Tom, making things sooo easy for us. Watch and be appalled:



PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT (more)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We – we would like to ask you a question. You are actually quite – quite – how can I put this delicately –
TOM LUKIWSKI: Old.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: -- fucking old, eh?
TOM LUKIWSKI: Well, as we say in tour, I may be old, but I’m fucking A, eh.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And who is this A person?
TOM LUKIWSKI: Well, let me put it to you this way. There’s A’s and there’s B’s. The A’s are guys like me, the B’s are homosexual faggots with dirt on their fingernails that transmit diseases.

LINKS
- Wikipedia: Tom Lukiwski
- Youtube: Conservative MP Tom Lukiwski's Hate Speech
- National Post: Sask. MP Lukiwski's homophobic comment

Bye, Bye, Canada; Stephane Dion doesn't see any problem with SPP's Deep Integration plans

Neo-liberals love SPP. It's secretive, exclusive (for government and big business only) and authoritarian (no citizens' involvement in the decision making; not even allowing a public forum on SPP). What neo-liberal would not fall for it?

Stephane Dion has been awfully silent on the SPP issue. And there's an obvious reason for the apparent indifference: Stephane Dion couldn't care less about deep integration with US and Mexico; SPP fits the Liberal's neo-liberal platform so why complain about it, why not let sleeping dogs lie? I see no evil....

Can we now say the Liberal Party of Canada is neo-liberal? Can we now, after Progressive Conservatives turning Conservatives, call the Liberal Party the Neo-Liberals of Canada?

Just wondering.

- Wikipedia: neo-liberalism
- Council for Canadians: IntegrateThis!

The Energizer Baird; My Blahg

My Blahg by Robert McClelland

Minister Tony Clement or: How Canadians should learn to stop worrying about drug addicts

The good old straw man fallacy is working overtime for Conservatives again. This time it's the method of reasoning against safe-injection sites. Here's how it goes:

1. you think up an issue ("What about safe-injection sites?")
2. you poll for the views of Canadians (many believe these sites reduce harm to the community)
3. you check your own beliefs ("illegal drug use? Bad....")
4. in case 3 opposes 2 (regardless of any facts of course), you - by the strongest means possible - shoot down each and every opposing argument by misrepresenting the opponent's position ("for God's sake, call them myths"), and then refuting the misrepresentation.
5. you spread the word (the "Debunking the Myths" document).

And when I say by the strongest means, I mean the strongest means.

Ottawa debunks safe-injection site myths
Federal health minister's top adviser targets Vancouver's Insite facility
Peter O'Neil, CanWest News Service
Published: Monday, May 28, 2007

OTTAWA -- The top policy adviser to Health Minister Tony Clement ordered federal officials to debunk five "myths"about Vancouver's Safe Injection Site, just before Clement announced his refusal last year to extend the site's permit. [...]

The Debunking the Myths document was delivered to Jo Kennelly, Clement's senior policy adviser, only days after other Health Canada internal briefing notes and media analysis described the facility's progress and public support in positive terms.

The [Debunking the Myths] document [...] declared there were five widely held but false public views: that safe injection sites are "commonly used" in other countries; they operate "all across Canada;" they are legal; they present "a complete solution" to drug-use harms; and that the safe-injection site "has the complete support of the community."

It doesn't matter what YOU think, what matters is what the New Government TELLS YOU to think. Are you still with me?

Each of the so-called myths -- there is no indication which individuals or groups were espousing these views -- are then all shot down.

There you have it. Of course it's a lot easier to shoot down non-existing myths (myths you never had in the first place) than deal with the real facts. But who cares about facts on criticism of harm reduction when the fabrication of non-existing myths can lead to such wonderful straw men?

Read the whole story

- Harm reduction and illicit drugs Australia
- Wikipedia: Harm Reduction
- Wikipedia: Criticism of harm reduction
- Wikipedia: Safe Injection Sites
- Wikipedia: Media Manipulation
- Victoria Times Colonist: Ottawa debunks safe-injection site myths
- Wikipedia: Dr. Strangelove, or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb
- Wikipedia: Straw man Fallacy
- Wiktionary: Myth

(video) Canada's New Government considers Canadians too stupid for PR

Yes, the latest "message" from the New Government is that Canadians are a lot more stupid than the citizens of most European countries.

Delivered by Edward Fast:

Proportional Representation is too hard to understand

Now, keep repeating it, OK?

Blogging Tory: "O'Connor's gotta go"

Yes, even conservative circles seem to have enough of Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor. Dark Blue Tory's reasoning is of interest.

His posting starts off with an article in the Toronto Sun:

We agree with Harper (and the previous Liberal government) that our mission in Afghanistan is vital to [defend Canada's security]. However, Canadians do need to be shown that it has a demonstrable chance of success, both in its war-fighting and reconstruction components.

Dark Blue Tory comments:

Unfortunately, Gordon O'Conner hasn't been relaying that message to Canadians. [...] He has misunderstood the facts and has been unable to articulate the possible success of the [Afghanistan] mission effectively to Canadians.

So because he wasn't able to relay the message, he's got to go? Not exactly, there's more:

[Defence Minister O'Connor] made stories up on the fly and has completely undermined his position to the point of no return.

Indeed. And these two wrongs don't make a right. Did it occur to anyone that these wrongs are not really at an even footing? It's clear to me that a lying minister creates a problem for the Harper government. But how does the inability to "relay the message" fit in? Which one is worse?

Well, the two wrongs are actually more or less the same thing. Sticking to "the message" Conservative style is nothing more than using "the facts [...] to articulate the possible success [...] effectively to Canadians". But O'Connor, being unable to twist the facts to his advantage, felt forced to lie. Eventually this appeared to be the wrong decision; it started a chain reaction of lies by Conservatives desperate to keep "the message" (Conservatives are on top of things, the mission in Afghanistan is a possible success") straight.

The American's got their War in Iraq, we've got our own Afghanistan to deal with. Both wars are lasting a lot longer as planned and the increasing and enduring "insurgencies" have been undermining any possibility of success.

But it's all good; God bless the Conservatives.

- Dark Blue Tory
- Big Lie
- Gorden O'Connor

Liberals+Conservatives=Air India Coverup

Did I ever mention that Liberals and Conservatives are not that different as they would like you to believe? MPs crossing the floor is one example, the inaction on environment another.

But the latest example is about 22 years old: the cover up of the Air India bombing. For National Security purposes, naturally.

Did I ever mention that FPTP is making abuse by big parties more likely?

Oops, FPTP is just another example of Libs=Cons.

Yawn.
Big parties are boring.

video: "New Government" linked to torture

It looks like the new government support for the torture of "detainees" has reached new levels. Did I hear "war crimes"? Some professors don't seem so amused:



More to follow:



In case you missed what this is about, then watch this first:

Latest climate report has one major flaw; it calls for inaction

You've got to admire the Conservatives; they have taken spin to a new level! But will it work? Below I will compare two prime examples of 21st century neoconservative spin.

How the Neo-Cons got the US into Iraq:
- they cherrypicked and even fabricated "intelligence" (WMD)
- the result is "evidence" for fear mongering (WMD can kill 1000s of people in less than 30s)
- this lead to an approval to action (go to war)

How the New Government tries to keep us out of Kyoto
- they cherrypicked and even fabricated "intelligence" (the "Climate Report")
- the result is "evidence" for fear mongering (Kyoto will cause a recession)
- this lead to an approval of inaction (stay out of Kyoto)

Flawed NeoCon Spin
If there's one thing Americans seem to admire in George Bush, then it's his decisiveness. Action makes you look strong. inaction makes you appear weak.
The call for inaction in the latest Conservative climate report is an underestimated strategic flaw in rhetoric; let's call them on it.

If Conservatives can't make Kyoto work, one way or another, then isn't it time for a "new government"?

Canada's New Government: Job losses only a crisis when WE call it a crisis

Good post by Robert McClelland:

SELECTIVE CONCERN ON JOB LOSSES

I see John Baird has all the rubes worked into a high state of dudgeon because he claims that if Canada tries to meet its Kyoto targets 275,000 Canadians might lose their jobs.

Well if that’s the case I wonder what state they’re in knowing that Canada’s manufacturing sector has shed 250,000 jobs over the past 5 years. What’s that? They aren’t concerned about those lost jobs.

“On March 28, along with the leaders of Canada’s largest private sector unions, I met with the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Industry and the Minister of Labour about the fact that since November 2002, Canadians have suffered a net loss of over 250,000 jobs in the manufacturing sector. They acknowledged that they see the same numbers that we see but they did not see them as a crisis.”

So for the record, the Conservative position on job losses is:
275,000 hypothetical lost jobs = economic armageddon.
250,000 actual lost jobs = stop your bitchin.

Harper's Transformations Explain his Flip-Flops and Broken Promises

Steven Harper's transformations explain his flip-flops and broken promises.

Conservatives trying to control the message at a not so "Open House"

On Saturday, March 31st, 2007, Scott Ross visited MP Ron Cannan's Open House, and found out it wasn't all that "open" after all.

Where Steve Harper insisted that he has the right to choose who asks questions at press conferences, Ron Cannan doesn't want to answer questions at all, especially not from non-conservative members.

A nice bunch of people, those conservatives. Great catch, Scott!

Is Stockwell counting his last days in office?

Liberals ask RCMP to probe Day nomination
OTTAWA – The Liberals have asked the RCMP to investigate the circumstances around how Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day first secured the nomination in his British Columbia riding.

Liberal MP Mark Holland said Thursday new documents his party happened upon raise serious questions about the matter, and have been forwarded to the national police force.

Back in 2000, Day was the newly elected leader of the Canadian Alliance but did not have a seat in the Commons. MP Jim Hart stepped aside in July to allow Day to run in a byelection, which he won handily that fall.

Shortly afterward, reports circulated that Hart had been paid $50,000 to move aside. The RCMP briefly looked into the matter at the time to determine whether Hart had resigned in exchange for money, which is a criminal offence, but decided against launching a formal investigation.

[...]

Another page, a motion apparently voted on by the Canadian Alliance's governing body, approves payment of $20,000 to Hart to pay for his living expenses while he waited to start another job. The motion says the intention was that the party pay half the amount, and the Office of the Leader of the Opposition pay the other half.

Read the whole post

Minister John Baird on YouTube: he doesn't seem to know the essential basics about the environment portfolio

Ask people on the street who John Baird is, and probably, many still won't know. But things could be worse, and when it comes to the current Conservatives, they almost always are.

Ask John Baird what the difference is between carbon tax and carbon trading, and he won't have the answer.
(he could just look here and here)

Ask John Baird which countries have a carbon tax today, and he won't have the answer.
(he could just look here)

Ask John Baird how much his department has spend the past year, and he won't know.

Meet John Baird, the "all new" Conservative Minister of Environment for the New (so-called) Government. And be amazed:



John Baird on YouTube

Exxon's "hidden" product placement; in PM Harper's speech.

Wondering where it was "hidden" yesterday? Well, when Harper was talking about how to curb greenhouse gas emissions, this is what he had to say:

"I don't think realistically we can tell Canadians stop driving your car, stop going to work, turn the heat off in the winter; these are not realistic solutions."

Yes, less driving is, according to our prime minister Stephen Harper, not realistic. Given the booming economy, Canadians should probably be driving more, realistically speaking of course.

Wonder why PM Stephen Harper supports driving more?

Exxon Mobile supports Conservatives, so Conservatives support Exxon; it's THAT simple. So where does the environment fit in? Well, it doesn't. Don't expect the Conservatives to move on the environment any faster. After almost a year of so-called "governing", the first environmentally friendly move from the CPOC still has to be made; let's call it "getting things done" liberal style.

So is PM Harper corrupt? Legally maybe hard to prove - but morally? Without a doubt.

Resources:
- Toronto Star
- DeSmogBlog.com
- CBC

Doomsday, Gary Lunn and the first Dutch Traffic Warning; Are Conservatives Connecting the Dots?

I'm in the Netherlands for two weeks and right now I'm in the middle of a severe storm:

The traffic authorities issued a warning to motorists not to use the roads if at all possible, in the first such use of the "traffic alarm" since it was instituted in November 2005.

The weather bureau said the storm, with southwesterly winds gusting up to 130 kilometers an hour, was the worst since October 2002. The storm, which follows a southwesterly storm a week ago, was expected to peak in the late afternoon. (source)

And I have to say; weather is seriously bad; winds of up to 130 km/hour are blowing through the country. Dutch train stations are closed, many flights at Schiphol airport are canceled; it looks like it's going to be the worst storm since 1990.

In international news, scientist are warning us (for the first time) for the world's two biggest threats. And guess what, terrorism is not one of them:

"As scientists, we understand the dangers of nuclear weapons and their devastating effects, and we are learning how human activities and technologies are affecting climate systems in ways that may forever change life on earth," said Professor Hawking (source).

Well, and then there's Gary Lunn. He uses the argument of global warming as a reason to expand nuclear activity on Canadian soil.

Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn yesterday said a $238 million green science fund, to be distributed over four years, will help pay for the research and development of technologies such as [...] nuclear energy.

First of all, nuclear energy is not a clean energy source. Secondly, I don't think Canada is in a "catch 22" like the US (Iraq, "should I stay or should I go now"); there are good other options that are clean and less dangerous.

We're in the 21st century, the century of sustainability. Let's walk the talk and do the math; nuclear technology is at the base of generating nuclear waste and nuclear arsenal, both contributing to the world's most important threats as outlined by Professor Hawkin.

There are many green solutions out there; this century is the (only?) time to do things right. With or without the Conservatives?