Conservative Theory that Trudeau is Going for the Stoner Vote

I began to read this opinion piece online from the "Star Phoenix", and before the first paragraph was done, I was already getting that "right wing nutjob" vibe from the author, Les MacPherson.

I didn't know this until I checked the internet, but yes, the Saskatoon Star Phoenix is owned by the same group as the right wing National Post.  So there is a good chance this is purposeful conservative propaganda.

Breaking down the article to its basic arguments and assumptions:

- Justin Trudeau (Liberal Leader) is promising to legalize pot in order to capture the all important stoner vote.

- Stoners will hate legalization, (if it happens) as government meddling will make pot more expensive and less appealing.

- Dealers will hate legalization, as they will be put out of business by excessive government regulation and taxing.

- Trudeau will not legalize marijuana anyway, he is only lying.  Hypocritical liberal governments do more marijuana busts than conservative governments.

- Conclusion: Trudeau should wait until the US legalizes marijuana before doing anything.

- Recommendation (implied): Don't vote for Trudeau, as he is a hypocrite and a Socialist, (if that is not too redundant)


Seems like an inoffensive article, but there are some underlying right-wing assumptions that I do not accept.

- The negative stereotyping and use of the pejorative name stoner.  Why are conservatives always stereotyping people????  OOOPS now I'm stereotyping.  Anyway, it's true.

- The assumption that all the people who want marijuana legalized are stoners, and only stoners want marijuana legalized.  That is not true, as many "non-stoners" believe that decriminalizing marijuana will boost our economy.  (a non-stoner is the opposite of what a stoner is supposed to be in this article, I have no other definition for it).

- The assumption that if the government gets involved in the marijuana business, things will fall apart.  This is dumb, even from a conservative free market point of view.  OK, we need a short lesson in right wing free enterprise.  ILLEGAL activities are not free enterprise.  LEGAL activities are not automatically "government run". By Les MacPherson's logic, black market gasoline would be cheaper and more potent than legal pump gas. I don't think so.

- Les's conclusion is typical of your basic Canadian Conservative:  Wait until the US does it, on the assumption that, except for Obama, the US is always right.

Is Justin Trudeau Really Flip Flopping on Charity?

Justin Trudeau, new leader of the Liberal Party of Canada has gotten into more trouble with the Conservatives.

Many months ago, Justin Trudeau was paid $20,000 by the Grace Foundation to be a speaker at a fundraiser.  Later on, a letter was sent from someone at the Grace Foundation to ask for the money back. It was not returned, and about a week ago,  the letter to Trudeau was made public by the Prime Minister's Office.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/charity-makes-statement-regarding-justin-trudeau-public-speaking-fee-dispute/article12735221/

The view from a seemingly Liberal slanted website:
http://thecanadianpoliticalscene.blogspot.ca/2013/06/grace-foundation-never-authorized.html

Is the scandal here that Trudeau charged an outlandish amount of money, considering that it was a charity, after all?

Or is it more of a scandal that The Grace Foundation engaged somebody at a mutually agreed amount, then demanded the money be returned, because they are a charity.

Or is the biggest scandal that the Grace Foundation asked an individual for donations, then upon receiving no response, attempted to shame them by publicizing their name?

Incidentally, not all charities are the same, as I have found out over the course of my life.  Some charities really do good work for the most unfortunate people, other totally legitimate, but more self-serving charities are only to fund local projects in wealthy neighbourhoods.

The Grace Foundation is legally a charitable organization, but I consider it more an unpaid auxiliary to the "Church of St. John and St. Stephen Home". Before I start feeling sorry for the residents of that Seniors home, I would like to know what fees they are charged, and who is allowed into that home, and why they are admitted.  Most of the better seniors homes (like this one) are not charitable institutions, and I would guess that many of the Grace Foundation board members volunteer mainly as a way to get priority admittance for their aged parents when the time comes.

I would consider a "real" charity to be something like "Doctors Without Borders", or a soup kitchen.  An example here in Kitchener is "The Working Centre", that helps unemployed people get jobs.

It's not such a bad thing to give money to a real charity, although some people get awfully worked up about giving money to poor people.  But I prefer to at least be given a choice in my charitable donations, and be allowed to do it privately.  I would not appreciate being publicly humiliated by any charity that I decline to donate money to.

The chairman of the board of the Grace Foundation has said he regrets that this issue has been made public, that he did not agree to it, and does not know why the letter was made public without official knowledge of the board.  That is a reasonable response.

Unfortunately, Justin changed his mind later and offered to give back the money to the Grace Foundation. I think that's a bad mistake, but I'm sure he can recover from headlines like the (conservative) London Free Press "Trudeau Flip Flops on Charity".

What the Grace Foundation should do now is ask for a matching donation from the Conservatives.  And ask any overtly conservative board members for a refund of any  expense money they paid them, such as mailing expenses. If the conservatives have millions of dollars to waste on negative TV ad campaigns, surely they could afford to donate a little to charity, especially when donating to charity becomes such a well publicized event.

I Do Not Know Brian Mulroney, But I Voted For Him

Brian Mulroney, Prime Minister of Canada from 1983 to 1993, was born in Baie Comeau, Quebec.  Coincidentally so was I, but I was never Prime Minister of Canada.

I have said in my blog that I voted Conservative twice, both of those were for Brian Mulroney. (not in the same election, of course)  I used to be a lot more conservative back then, than I appear to be today.  Partly because I have changed a little, but more because of the extremism on the right in the USA, which spills over into Canada.

Although Brian Mulroney was elected democratically twice, by the time his last term was finished, Canadians hated the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada so much that the party no longer exists today. When I took a vacation in Saint Lucia in 1992, Mulroney's reputation had sunk very low.  A local street vendor approached me to buy some coconuts, and somehow it slipped out that I was Canadian.  He offered me his condolences, because we had such a horrible Prime Minister.

St Lucia was not the first time I had problems with Brian Mulroney's reputation.  When I was teaching in Sept-Iles QC, in 1973-75, Brian Mulroney was the CEO of the Iron Ore Company of Canada, and Sept Iles was a one-company town built by IOC.  The teachers on staff knew that both of us were from Baie Comeau, which was located not very far away.  Brian was in the process of shutting down the IOC's biggest iron mine, which did not sit well with the townspeople.  So I got several comments associating me with Brian, which was not true, as I never knew him or even attended the same school with him.  And anyway, he was ten years older than me.

When Brian became Prime Minister, all of a sudden Baie Comeau went from being a quiet unknown backwater town to being a well known town nationally.  Before this, if someone asked where I was from, I could say Baie Comeau, and generally receive blank stares in response.  When  Brian campaigned for prime minister, he made a very big deal being a "boy from Baie Comeau".  So after that successful campaign, whenever it came out where I was from, I was always asked if I knew Brian Mulroney.  And as time went on, and Brian became more and more hated, I felt a greater need to distance myself from him, pointing out that I always lived on Laval St. while Brian lived on Champlain St. The notoriety has died down a lot, but today I occasionally have this same reaction from people who find out where I live.  Canadians apparently have long memories.

Compared to today's conservatives, I think he was a good prime minister.  But there was the GST tax, that I suppose most people still blame him for.  I don't feel the GST was a bad tax, as it replaced a hidden tax. But many Canadians think differently.  On the other hand, he initiated the Acid Rain pact with the USA, that effectively put a stop to the acid rain pollution in the eighties.  Brian also spoke out against South Africa in the international campaign to stop apartheid.  Brian also brought in the Free Trade pact between Canada and the USA, which has given us prosperity even up to today.  Yes, I know Canadians love to complain about how poor we are, but that's because Canadians don't get out much, and half our brains, and all our asses are frozen in winter.  That's the simple excuse for our stupidity.

Long after Brian Mulroney left office, we found out that he had accepted bribes from an aircraft manufacturer to buy their merchandise.

Back when Brian was debating Liberal John Turner in the first election, it was all about appointing political friends to the senate (as it is again today).  During the debate, Brian pointed out all the recent dubious Liberal appointees to the senate (made by the previous leader Trudeau) and asked why John Turner did not cancel them.  Turner Replied that he had no option.

Brian replied

"You had an option, sir. You could have said, 'I am not going to do it. This is wrong for Canada, and I am not going to ask Canadians to pay the price.' You had an option, sir--to say 'no' — and you chose to say 'yes' to the old attitudes and the old stories of the Liberal Party."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Mulroney#Party_leader

Picture:  http://historyofthegreatwhitenorth.blogspot.ca/2011/05/brian-mulroney-boy-from-baie-comeau.html

The End for America is Now in Sight

Finally after six years of back-to-back Obama scandals, I realize the right wing people are not nut jobs.  It looks like they were right all along.

A few days ago, there was a joint press conference with the Prime Minister of Turkey and President Obama of the United States.  During the conference, there was a light drizzle of rain. Obama forced two US Marines to hold umbrellas: one over his own head, and the other over the head of the Turkish state.  To me, this was an insignificant act.  The marines were standing around doing nothing anyway.  It's not like they were busy at the time rescuing the U.S. Ambassador in Benghazi.  No no, they were just standing around listening to a bunch of stupid questions being fielded by Obama and the Turkish guy.  They were probably hoping the rain would intensify enough to call off the whole thing.

But I was wrong.  This was not insignificant. What I did not know, was that no US president had ever asked a Marine to hold an umbrella over his head during a press conference - other than Obama.  And it was not the first time for Obama either.  The linked video clearly shows pictures of various Presidents holding their own umbrellas, and other pictures of Obama getting marines to hold his umbrella.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sI_3hLrixOU

Now for the true insult of this seemingly small act.  If you didn't notice yourself, don't be embarrassed.  It means you are probably not from the Southern U.S. Many Canadians, like me, will miss this too.  Here is the clue: Look at the skin colour of the two men.  The one holding the umbrella is white, the one having the umbrella held over him is black. Therein lies the insult to real Americans (i.e. Southerners).

The true American way to do this, and one that would not have raised a single eyebrow south of Cincinnati and East of Waco Texas, would have been for the white guy to be the President of the USA, and the black guy to be the Marine holding the umbrella.

This umbrella thing was Obama's plan all along.  Health Care was a mere diversion. Killing Osama Bin Laden, a smoke screen.  Boosting the Dow Jones from 7,000 to 15,000 in six years was a red herring.  The hidden plan was to humiliate the white race by making them hold umbrellas for black people, thus destroying the real America.  There is no going back. Real Americans will have to reluctantly, and with heavy hearts, begin gearing up for the second Civil War  (or as real Americans prefer to call it:  "the Second War Between the States" or  "Second War for Southern Independence" or  "Second War of Northern Aggression".) And finally, Al Quaida's plan will be complete: America torn apart just like they destroyed the Soviet Union back in 1990.  All their thanks go to Obama.

An outsiders opinion (from Nigeria) http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/350336

Picture: From http://astuteblogger.blogspot.ca/2013/05/obama-umbrellas-and-what-it-all-rev.html

Mike Duffy Discussion on CBC

On the CBC last night I watched Power & Politics with Evan Solomon.  They had a panel discussing the Mike Duffy affair.  In this case, Senator Mike Duffy accepted a gift of $90,000 from the Conservative Prime Minister's Chief of Staff.

In the panel discussion, I thought there was a lot of unwarranted support for Mike Duffy. Maybe they were even handed because the CBC is afraid of losing its government funding.  But in my mind, and the mind of 97% of Canadians, this gift was against the law, which clearly says senators cannot accept gifts.

I do not accept the excuses given.

1.  That the gift came out of the personal pocket of the Chief of Staff makes no difference to the law.

2.  A second argument was that the gift was simply to cover the money that Mike Duffy was forced to repay the government from a previous scandal involving expenses.  This is a red herring.

3.  That Mike Duffy is sick, (possibly dying??) and is trying to protect his estate from a huge debt load.  While of course I have some human sympathy on this, it really should not enter the debate, as Evan Solomon mentioned last night.

4. The rules are confusing.

There is a reason why Senators are not allowed to accept gifts, and that is to protect our government from corruption in office.  I know people try to get around this law all the time, but that makes it even more important to protect this principal of our political system.  Why are we even debating it?  Might as well just end this farce of democracy right now, if that's what we really think.  Luckily, most Canadians are not yet stupid enough to let it go.

Mike Duffy has a questionable history, too.  He was once a journalist, who helped the conservatives get elected a few years ago.  He aired a show that made Liberal leader Stephan Dion look foolish, days before the election.  After Dion lost the election, Duffy was awarded the position of Senator by the Conservative leader Stephen Harper (who won the election).

It seems that Mike Duffy's ethics and principles are just as weak as a senator as they were as a journalist. He never really seemed to understand that this political position was not just a reward for underhanded political hacksterism. A senator in the federal government has certain responsibilities, and is actually governed by a code of ethics, even though I suppose many people treat it as a joke in Canada, where senators are not elected.  But Mike Duffy seems to understand very little of the requirements of his post.  And I believe some of the blame goes back to Stephen Harper, who once promised to eliminate the Senate, but now pads it with ignorant sycophants.


Picture: http://www.leaderpost.com/news/Auditor+general+take+over+senate+probe/7962385/story.html

Jon Stewart Agrees with Fox News About Obama's IRS Scandal

Last night I was watching the Daily Show with Jon Stewart.  Jon Stewart is usually a pro-Obama supporter, although he claims to be neutral.  Last night Jon sided with Fox News against Obama on one (or maybe two) issues.  Mainly, it was the issue of the IRS investigating right wing organizations.  Apparently the Internal Revenue Service in the US is targeting Republican political groups by investigating their tax-exempt status, while letting Democrat (or liberal) groups get through without much scrutiny.

I disagree with Jon Stewart on this.  By the way I also disagree with Fox News, but that almost goes without saying.  And now, since Obama has apologized, and says changes will be made to the IRS, I also disagree with Obama.

The IRS is supposed to investigate organizations seeking tax exempt status.  That is how they discover fraudulent operations claiming tax exempt status.  If you stop them from investigating organizations that have right wing sounding names, you are simply giving a pass to organizations with "Tea-Party" or "Patriot" in their names.

Let's assume there are lots of fraudulent operations in the USA applying for tax exempt status, just for the sake of argument.  Even before this scandal, it would be likely that many of these scams would be targeting gullible right wing fanatics.  That is because gullible right wing fanatics have lots of money, and of course they are gullible.  So the logical thing to do would be to put words like Tea Party, or Patriot in their name.  Just because they are called "Patriot-Tea-Party-something or other",  does not mean these scams are truly right wing politically.  But now that the IRS cannot investigate any new organization that sounds right wing, I think all of these fraud artists will be soon be using right wing sounding names.

The defense of the IRS is that they were actually supporting the political opposition by weeding out fraudulent operators preying on right wing supporters.  The IRS was actually doing the right wing conservatives a service.  But, to be fair, as New Gingrich says, the IRS should at least spend equal time investigating organizations applying for tax-exempt status with  "Terrorist" in their names.

Picture: From http://www.occupycorporatism.com/irs-scandal-unites-patriot-movement-as-no-politician-has-been-able-to/

Killer Domestic Drones, Did Rand Paul Change His Mind?

There is a bit of a debate about the use of drones to kill people.  Over the last ten years, the use of drones has increased, and the technology has moved forward.

Basically, a drone is a remote controlled airplane.  I guess the actual definition continually varies, but to me it means an airplane with a video camera in it that relays the view back to a remote operator.  Apparently the real definition of drones includes non-human non-remote computer controlled aircraft, but I think that is an entirely different thing.  For me, the key thing about drones is that they are using human intelligence.  The controversial use of drones is to assassinate suspected terrorists with missiles fired from the drone, which results in a lot of collateral damage (i.e. probably innocent people killed or maimed in the strikes.)

Recently, the US administration announced that they would expand the use of drones to Americans as well as foreigners, which resulted in a great outcry. Then it was announced that absolutely no Americans would be killed in America.  This targeting of Americans would only be if these people holding American citizenship were overseas engaged in anti-American terrorist plots (or suspected of doing so).

But now we come back to America.  Rand Paul, the libertarian politician and son of Ron Paul, filibustered the use of drones in America. But  after the Boston Marathon bombings, Rand Paul backed down and said that he never opposed using drones in an immediately threatening situation, for example a person coming out of a liquor store, after committing a robbery,  with a gun and fifty dollars.

The Young Turks (Cenk Uygur rant about Rand Paul's about face)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07MH-WhrlK8

Rand Paul (Before Boston bombings)

“No American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court,” 

Rand Paul (after)

“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and $50 in cash, I don’t care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him,” 

A political blogger commenting on Rand Paul
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/04/23/rand-paul-faces-blowback-after-new-drone-comments/

How can we ever have an intelligent debate about topics like this when people appear to be willing to shift their position dramatically depending on how they feel on a given day?  I believe this is a dramatic shift in position, although many right wing conservatives do not think it is.  Apparently, for right wingers, it was so obvious drones would and should be used for killing bad guys, that they forgot to mention it.  They are only opposed to drones flying over their outdoor hot tubs.

More questions: Since when is somebody carrying a gun fair game in the USA?  I thought there was this thing about "the right to bear arms"?  I am probably missing something, but when this person comes out of the liquor store with a gun and fifty dollars, how do you know that he committed the crime?  And is he (she) really an immediate threat?  Wouldn't that depend on what kind of gun they were carrying, on where they were pointing it, on whether it was loaded, or if maybe it was a toy gun?  I'm thinking that a person coming out of the liquor store with a gun and $50 is relatively harmless unless you try to stop them.

A domestic police drone would probably not be equipped with Hellfire missiles.  At least I hope not.  Some possible weapons a domestic drone could be equipped with would be smaller guns, rubber bullets, tear gas, a taser, paintball bullets, maybe a net?   A domestic drone only needs to detain, slow down, or track an individual.  A foreign drone  kills mainly because it operates without human police assistance.

Being a Canadian, I don't really understand the USA, but I remember back in the early nineties, in Panama City Beach, Florida, seeing a sign "Drive Thru Liquor and Machine Gun Rental".  Assuming I went in there and rented a machine gun, then the person behind me in line pulled a robbery, I could be killed by a drone on my way out. (according to Rand Paul's scenario.)

Picture: Huffington Post comments on drones replacing police helicopters
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/11/domestic-drones_n_2854589.html

Trudeau vs. Harper About Bombers

Canada's Federal Liberal Party has a new leader, Justin Trudeau, son of the famous Pierre Trudeau who was Prime minister of Canada during the seventies.

Already, it looks like there is a battle between the present Conservative Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, and Justin Trudeau.

The opening salvo, fired by the Conservatives, was a round of attack ads, taking Justin's words, quoting him as saying "Quebecers are better than the rest of Canadians."*  And the ads continue on to say "Trudeau is in over his head."

Now back to real life, and hours after the bombing of the Boston Marathon, Justin says in a CBC interview, (in part) "we have to look at the root causes".

Was Justin's comment an attack on the Prime Minister?  Whether it was an attack or not, it did draw return fire from the Prime Minister. A few hours later, then Stephen made a statement that people should not be sitting around rationalizing or making excuses for bombers.  All we should do is make sure we have harsh punishments.

And now the ball was in Justin's court.  He could back down and apologise to the Prime Minister. Or he could ignore the jibe.  Or, I guess he could tell the Prime Minister to shut up and mind his own business.  What did Justin do?

Justin said [something like] the Prime Minister should rethink how far he wants to go in politicizing tragedies.

This really got the Conservatives fired up, and there were counter-counter attacks on the CBC program "Power Politics with Evan Solomon".  On that show, the NDP (Now Canada's official opposition party) jumped in on the side of the Conservatives, saying an apology from Justin Trudeau to Stephen Harper would be nice.

This is not over yet.

There is obviously some kind of school yard fight going on.  The new guy has shown his face in the playground, and words get exchanged with Stephen, the kid with the biggest entourage.  Some might call him the bully. So the way you view this altercation will depend on your view of Stephen Harper.  I personally am leaning toward cheering on Justin.  He has certainly shown willingness to stand up for himself.  But can he also be disciplined and in control of his emotions?  In my opinion, the worst he could do would be to apologise for that simple statement.  Because it is actually true that we need to look at what might be motivating these psychopaths.  Yes, you heard that right.  Even psychopaths have some kind of motivation.  And it is possible to know what it is, and we need need to know what it is. Harsh punishments cannot be the only answer.  A Liberal must not apologise for supporting a scientific approach.


* P.S. Is it true that A. Quebecers are better than the rest of Canadians? B. Justin really said that?

As I was born in Quebec I am inclined to agree with A. although it may not be a good thing for a politician to say publicly.  But it seems that for B. the answer is no, that is not what Justin said.  The conservatives edited a sentence in order to isolate those words.  I think that tells you a lot more about the tactics of Conservatives than it does about Justin Trudeau.

Picture: Photoshop job by "The Lost Motorcyclist"

The Royal Bank Foreign Worker Project Goes Too Far

There is a story creating some concern in Canada, about our biggest bank, the Royal Bank of Canada, hiring foreign workers to replace Canadian workers.  All by itself, this would not be enough to cause outrage, as we have been doing this for years. But now there is a combination of circumstances that could make this "the straw that broke the camel's back".

- Canadians are aware that good jobs have been shipped overseas for many years: Computer jobs, phone answering jobs, manufacturing jobs. I don't know how many jobs have gone overseas, but I am aware of many local industries and offices that have simply closed down.  I think it is widespread enough to harm our economy, if not now, sometime in the future.  We know jobs pay a lot lower wages overseas than in Canada, and I guess we understand why.

- Canadians may not be aware that many jobs even in Canada are filled by foreign workers on temporary visas.  Over 100,000 in 2001 growing to over 300,000 in 2012.  It used to make sense, because these are mostly jobs we don't care for such as fruit picking.  They are supposed to pay Canadian wages, though really it's not, because Canadians apparently cannot afford to work for those wages any more.

- There are also high tech jobs, or skilled jobs that not enough Canadians are trained for.  I personally know at least one person who was recruited overseas to work in Canada in such a job.  I think there is a need for a limited amount of this type of recruiting.  These jobs are also supposed to pay Canadian wages.

But this is just too much: Unskilled foreign workers on temporary visas, replacing Canadian workers, at a lower salary, in Canada, recruited to do a job that some Canadians have invested their own time and money at University and college to qualify for.  I don't care if it's a mistake, or a loophole, or an accident, or any other excuse. If this continues, even the CEO's job may be outsourced.  After all, it would improve the corporation profits by $10,000,000 per year (the CEO salary, minus whatever we have to pay the replacement on a temporary CEO work visa).  The resulting executive decisions couldn't be any more short sighted.

I am somewhat at fault myself, as a shareholder in the Royal Bank.  And so the only decent thing to do is begin divesting shares in favour of some company that does not outsource its jobs, if there are any left.

Already, we have a case in Canada going before the court, where Chinese temporary workers were hired by a Chinese mining company to work in a mine in Canada.  Once again, it was a combination of circumstances.  As I understand it, the Chinese company bought mining rights in Canada.  The Canadian government assumed that there would be jobs for Canadians in the deal.  The Chinese company put out help wanted ads, but no Canadian miners qualified, so they were forced to bring in Chinese workers on "temporary" work visas.  Is appears that one of the requirements listed for the job was fluency in speaking Mandarin.

I looked up some of the facts in the Globe and Mail article here:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/jobs/ottawa-pushes-for-answers-as-uproar-over-rbc-outsourcing-gains-volume/article10870961/

Picture: From a foreign worker application support website
http://www.routleylaw.com/immigration-legal-services-overview/

Was the Jeep Move to China Really a Lie?

The Weekly Standard website ran this blog from Mark Hemingway titled "PolitiFact Concedes Their 'Lie of the Year' is the 'Literal Truth'"

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/politifact-admits-their-lie-year-literal-truth_696336.html

So Politifacts awarded the "Lie of the Year" to the Republican ad saying that Jeep was moving its production to China.  Mark Hemingway points out that the so-called lie was actually the truth, because the wording of the ad was more like "the Obama administration played a hand in selling Chrysler to Italians, who are going to build Jeeps in China."

Politifacts concedes this:

"The Romney campaign was crafty with its word choice, so campaign aides could claim to be speaking the literal truth, but the ad left a false impression that all Jeep production was being moved to China."

My impression was that this ad, true or not, was trying to get people to vote Republican by showing Obama in a bad light.  And it backfired, not because it was a lie or because it was the truth, but simply because it made people realize that Obama had done a good thing.

First, this ad ran in Ohio, where they actually make Jeeps, and so people do real serious fact-checking on any statement about Chrysler moving to China.

Obama had a hand in selling Chrysler to the Italians.  However, anyone who knows the car business understands that Chrysler had previously been sold to Mercedes Benz (a German firm), which had nothing to do with Obama. And selling to Fiat (an Italian company) is not the same as selling to a Chinese firm that is moving production to China. Second, Chrysler declared bankruptcy, also not Obama's fault.  Chrysler (makers of Jeep) did get a financial bailout from Obama, and that was what most people in Ohio were thinking about when they saw the ad, so it's not surprising the ad backfired.  So thousands of jobs were saved by Obama, and this ad simply highlighted how out of touch the Republicans were with the car-making public of Ohio.

The second "fact" highlighted by the ad, trying to make Obama look bad was Jeep production moving to China. Admittedly the ad narrative didn't say jobs "moving" to China. (although the words "return to China"  appeared briefly in print)  It said "Jeeps would be built in China", possibly giving the impression that jobs would be moving.  Actually, this was a NEW assembly plant in the planning stages, that Chrysler had not yet announced publicly.  So Chrysler was forced to come out with a public statement that the plant was a new assembly facility to build Jeeps for the emerging Chinese market.  Was that bad news for the Ohio workers? No, it was actually good news.  Only a PR specialist with no knowledge of the car business would think it was bad news.  Let me explain why its good news (I am not a Chrysler worker, but I know people who have worked for car companies, and there are many car factories around here.)  So this is why it is good news to open a Jeep assembly plant in China. The assembly plant is often a way to open up a market to your cars, just as Japanese makers have opened assembly plants in Canada to sell their cars.  When a new market opens up with a new assembly plant, many components of that car are still made in the home factories.  And some jobs actually go to Americans who move to China to help supervise the construction and operation of the plant.  Also, being a new market, no jobs are lost at home.

Actually, setting up a plant in China could be good or bad, depending on how the deal is worded, and the conditions that are set by China. It could be very bad if the Chinese plant started exporting ultra-cheap Chinese Jeeps to the USA or other parts of the world.  It could be very good if the Chinese assembly plant opened up a huge new market in China for American built components in Chinese-assembled Jeeps.  But if this deal is the way things usually work, it's a good deal for Jeep and Chrysler.

In the final analysis, this ad backfired because it gave the impression that this deal was going to be bad for Ohio, where they make Jeeps, and it left Ohioans wondering if Romney and the rest of the Republicans cared about them at all.  Because Romney himself had misunderstood this point and said in a speech that "Jeep was moving to China".  If Romney himself misunderstood the issue, I'm not sure you can get away with the claim that "The ad was worded clearly enough that nobody could mistake it."

The basis of the ad was an incorrect news story from Bloomberg, saying that Fiat, which owns Chrysler, "plans to return Jeep output to China and may eventually make all of its models in the country."  The ad was careful to not make the same mistake. But by picking up this story without fact checking it, the Republican campaign further reinforced the negative perception that they wanted the car companies to fail, and were prepared to let them fail, while Obama had done something good by keeping them alive.

Ironically, the ad starts out "Who will do more for the car industry...?"  When the dust settled, and the points were clarified, the answer turned out to be Obama.

Quoting the ad:
"Obama took Chrysler into bankruptcy and sold it to the Italians, who are going to build Jeeps in China."  The key "fact" being left out is that Chrysler is back in business in the USA because of Obama's bailout that was vigorously opposed by the Republicans, including Romney.  Such an ad may work with voters who don't know much about the business, but it was stupid to run it in Ohio.

Then the printed false quote from Bloomberg was superimposed on the video of the ad in case you didn't see it, it came at 23 seconds in.  (Almost like subliminal messaging) But the ultimate lie was that Romney would do more for the car business than Obama.

What is a Marxist-Leninist Capitalist Tool?

Another Forbes Magazine article by Mark Hendrickson titled "President Obama's Marxist-Leninist Economics: Fact And Fiction" takes a scholarly look at whether Obama's policies are truly Marxist-Leninist, or whether this is just name-calling.  However, despite the scholarly first paragraph it then soon loses the high road.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhendrickson/2012/07/26/president-obamas-marxist-leninist-economics-fact-and-fiction/

Mark Hendrickson's final paragraph in this article does a better job than I ever could of summarizing the entire article. Here it is in Mark's own words:

"In closing, I repeat that we should not recklessly call Obama a “Marxist-Leninist.” Although it’s too long and cumbersome a label for a generation addicted to sound bites and simplistic labels, a fair description of Obama and his economic goals is to say that he is “an interventionist, corporatist, statist, Big Government progressive, free-market-hating control freak who favors economic policies of a Marxist-Leninist flavor.”"

Whew. That was a mouthful. I had to look up some of the words in his "fair description of Obama".  "Corporatism".. is that a new swearword?  I had to check with Wikipedia, and honestly I don't see how the word could be applied to Obama any more than it could be applied to either the NRA or to Christian Fundamentalists, or even to corporations, actually.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism


And statist too? Wikipedia says

"statism (French: étatisme) is the belief that a government should control either economic or social policy, or both, to some degree.[1][2][3][4] Statism is effectively the opposite of anarchism."

So Obama is opposed to anarchy and favours some degree of state control of economic policy.  Is that all?

I was afraid I was missing something here, and so I went to Conservapedia to see if there was a different definition on Statism.  And I think I found one.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Statism

"A statist government treats its political sovereignty as a platform for moral sovereignty. In other words, as ultimate sovereign, the state is therefore not subject to God, the Bible, natural law, or any other religion or ethical system. A statist government need not be accountable to its own citizens.
The philosopher Georg Hegel described the state as "God walking on earth".[2] In other words, as the state is the ultimate power in life, it assumes the status of God and can do as it pleases. This line of thinking influenced the political thought of Karl Marx. "

So according to conservatives, a statist opposes God's rule. Now back to Wikipedia to define a theocracy (where God does rule):

"Theocracy is a form of government in which a deity is officially recognized as the civil Ruler and official policy is governed by officials regarded as divinely guided, or is pursuant to the doctrine of a particular religion or religious group.[1][2][3]
From the perspective of the theocratic government, "God himself is recognized as the head" of the state,[4]

The arguments against theocracy, taken directly from Conservapedia:

• "Stifling of speech. In a theocracy, it would be counterlogical to allow the citizens to know, or accept other religions or ideologies. Presumably, some mechanism will be placed to prevent dangerous speech, or make the ideas within artificially unwanted.
• Thought is severely engineered, to prevent "dangerous" thoughts (Atheism, etc).
• Unaccountable government. Because the government is supposedly an extension of a deity, they cannot be held accountable."

Sounds to me like high praise for Obama the Statist, from Conservapedia.  But then, wasn't it Conservapedia that defined Hitler as a Leftist, and then defined Leftists as opposed to military spending?

In the end, I think there is a twist of logic in Mark Hendrickson's essay.  Apparently, Obama is not a true perfect Marxist Leninist, but then, neither was Marx or Lenin.  Therefore, according to Hendrickson, it is even more correct to call Obama a Marxist-Leninist.  Because Obama, like Lenin, is not a perfect Marxist-Leninist either.

Mark Hendrickson first states that the standards for being called a Marxist Leninist are set impossibly high. But then he sets the bar impossibly low.

Picture: from the Marxist-Leninist Study Guide http://marxistleninist.wordpress.com/study-guide/

Benghazigate: Coverup or Statesmanship?

I was just reading through Canada's National Post on the subject of General Petraeus and his remarks today on the Benghazi situation.

First I will rant about the headline of the National Post story contradicting the text, with the headline as usual leaning to the right and the text (and presumably the more accurate and fact-checked) text of the story skewing to the left.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/11/16/david-petraeus-says-he-believed-terrorists-behind-libya-attack-all-along-but-talking-points-removed-by-other-agencies/

The headline was

"David Petraeus says he believed terrorists behind Libya attack all along as pressure mounts on Obama’s version"

The text contains this

"Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said Petraeus disputed Republican suggestions that the White House misled the public on what led to the violence in the midst of President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign.
“There was an interagency process to draft it, not a political process,” Schiff said after the hearing. “They came up with the best assessment without compromising classified information or source or methods. So changes were made to protect classified information.
“The general was adamant there was no politicization of the process, no White House interference or political agenda,” Schiff said. “He completely debunked that idea.”
Schiff said Petraeus said Rice’s comments in the television interviews “reflected the best intelligence at the time that could be released publicly.”

 So the headline suggests that Petraeus testimony conflicts with the President's version.  But according to an eyewitness (I'm taking this from the text of the story), Petraeus backed up the President's version as "the best intelligence at the time that could be released publicly.”

Once again, the title composer at the  National Post seems to have a right wing agenda.  But I suppose I should be thankful that the text itself is not pure fabrication, like Fox News in the U.S.  I'm thinking the real title, before the composer redid it, might be seen by reading the computer filename in the internet link (which I suppose the title composers forgot to edit: )

"david petraeus says he believed terrorists behind libya attack all along but talking points removed by other agencies"

Next, I made the mistake of reading some of the comments. Woo-wee!  Is it just me or is the tone of the comment section going to h-e-double hockey sticks in a handbasket?  It is quite clear that people are divided along party lines.  Some people suggest that, had they been President, they would have sent in a large enough contingent of Marines to protect the Ambassador and all the people in the the US embassy.  And furthermore they suggest that Obama failed to do this through sheer laziness, and then lied about his incompetence and dereliction of duty so that he could get re-elected, while 52% of the American public are simply too stupid to realize they have been duped by the mainstream media, and voted for incompetent Obama again thereby completing the destruction of America so desired by people with their heads up their asses.

The pro-Obama side are inclined to give Obama a break for the following reasons: 1. You cannot send marines into a sovereign country to kill people without an invitation, or you risk war, or at least a backlash that could end up killing more Americans and tipping the political balance to the anti-American side.  2. This was not in the embassy.  The consulate, unlike the embassy, is not technically U.S. territory  3. S-h-double hockey sticks happens.  4. The president is not obligated to keep inbred hillbillies informed of every nuance of foreign affairs. 5. Sometimes, diplomacy requires you to keep your thoughts to yourself until the right time.

I am not really sure why Petraeus is such an important witness anyway? He, like Obama, was not on the scene.  Both were in Washington getting their information through the usual channels.  He is not even really a General any more, as head of the CIA. Notice he is wearing a business suit now?

In the final analysis, this difference of opinion shows how much the entire world needed Obama to win the 2012 election.  To keep out the "Shoot first and ask questions later" crowd for at least four more years.  Just to give us some rest before the pro-war faction gets their next turn.

My Advice to Republicans, FWIW (i.e $30 million)

A lot of money was spent in the US election to try and swing the voters.  I think Karl Rove was given about $700 million, and basically all that money is gone.  At least the taxpayers don't have to foot the bill.  But that amount would have been able to bail out half of Chrysler Financial, and would not even have cut into Romney's campaign funds because they were all external funds (Super PAC rules).

I would love to get a piece of that money.  But obviously I am not Karl Rove.  Anyway, to start it off, I will offer some advice for free to the wealthy Republicans, and see if that gets me a job the next time round (if this advice seems good).

Advice from "The Lost Motorcyclist" to fix Republican election problems

Obviously one place to start would be to eliminate racism and anti-female rhetoric, because it is not working now, and the demographics (ignored by your current highly paid experts), are changing to make it even worse.  It is not enough, as Rush Limbaugh suggests, to place minority groups "front and center".  You know why that does not work? Because Rush Limbaugh makes racist comments on radio all the time.  And so it looks very fake to make racist comments and then call on the party to put racial minorities "front and center" at the national convention.

It is not enough, either, as Charles Krauthammer suggests, to give "AMNESTY" to all illegal aliens.  According to Charles, this one simple move could tip the balance, and get the Republicans elected.  I don't think so.  Your first problem is that you have to get elected first.  Because until you are elected, all you can do is promise amnesty.  So your election is based on the assumption that voting aliens will believe you and vote for you to make illegal aliens legal.  Some of those people are going to think you're lying, and some are not going to want amnesty granted to others anyway.  And for sure you would lose many of your racist supporters, guaranteeing you won't get back into power.  So, Krauthammer's strategy is not going to work either.

I see the Republican problem as lack of trust.  There is a perception among many Americans, that Republicans make up facts to get elected.  And I believe that as time goes on, you will have more people thinking like that.  Here is why. You have several high powered, Republican pundits like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Fox News, and Pat Robertson (and maybe others), who regularly make false claims on TV or radio.  Most of the time, you can count on voters to not bother fact checking for themselves.  But it seems like the population is getting better and better at spotting the falsehoods in the Republican story.  And at the same time, the Republican pundits are making even more outrageous false statements.

Think of Megyn Kelly (normally a Fox News hardliner) asking Karl Rove  "Is this just math that you do as a Republican to make yourself feel better"?

If all the extremist rhetoric and misleading information have not succeeded in unseating Barack Obama for a second term, you have to wonder if maybe that strategy has lost it's power.  As somebody once said, you can fool all the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.  Apparently that time is passed.

Who Would God Vote For?

Hurricanes are starting to be a pain in the behind to Republicans. To some people who believe that hurricanes are controlled by God, and that God cares about who wins the US elections, it is starting to look like God is helping Obama.

Let me just go over the list.

Does anyone remember hurricane Katrina that wiped out New Orleans and made President Bush and the Republicans look bad?

In 2008, there was a failed Christian prayer campaign for God to rain out Obama's acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention.

http://lostmotorcycles.blogspot.ca/2009/03/propaganda-sarcasm-and-irony.html

However, a few weeks later, the Republican Convention was disrupted by Hurricane Gustav, forcing President Bush to cancel his speech.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Republican_National_Convention#Hurricane_Gustav

As we all know, Obama won the 2008 election.  Let's move forward to the next presidential election.  Hurricane Isaac, in August 2012 again disrupted the Republican Convention. (Democratic Convention had no problems)

http://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonykosner/2012/08/26/hurricane-isaac-would-be-a-pr-disaster-for-the-republican-convention/

The latest is Hurricane Sandy, which allowed Obama to "look presidential" and apparently convinced a few people he was not trying to destroy America. (Including Republican Governor of New Jersey Chris Christie)  In the end, Obama won a second election, with the hurricanes voting 2-0 for the Democrats in 2012.

I'm not going to make any hurricane predictions based on this pattern, because I think it was all coincidental.  But some people  conveniently forget about unfavourable coincidences, and boast about favourable coincidences as being the result of their personal prayers to God.  I just want to put a reminder here for the next time somebody mounts a political prayer campaign.



Picture: from this website http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0709/S00354.htm

Who Does the Rest of the World Vote For?

Canadians cannot vote in US elections.  But US elections affect not only the US, but Canada, and also the whole world.  I think that if the US election was open to the whole world, only two countries would support Romney.  They would be Israel and Pakistan.  My impression is that both those countries have more than enough religious fanatics. (so does the USA, by the way, as a recent survey says more Americans believe in Demonic possession than believe in Global Warming.)

So I am going to try to explain this mysterious tendency for Canadians to favour Obama over Mitt Romney. To do that, I will use only one question, which I think is the most important. Was four years enough time for Obama to turn the US (and World) economy around?

I have heard some Republicans say that Obama could blame Bush for the deficit for the first six months in office, but after that, Obama takes the blame.  I'm not sure I agree, because my understanding of debt is that it does not expire magically after 6 months.  If I personally were to get saddled with a million dollar debt for something I didn't do, I know that I would have to pay it, no matter how long it took. Even if I did pay it off somehow, there were plenty of other things I could have done with a million dollars.  I will resent that unfair bill forever.

Sometimes a debt can have a silver lining. For example, if it was a mortgage to a house with a good market value, and if the debt came with the ownership of the house.  Then I could sell the house, or possibly even keep the house if I needed it.  But in some cases, that one million dollar debt may have no silver lining, for example if it was paid to a lawyer to fight a legal case that I didn't win, or it paid for a house that has been flattened by a hurricane without insurance.  In political terms, if the deficit handed to Obama was because money was spent for new infrastructure (such as a new road system or electric grid), then Obama could leverage the value of those items to help improve the economy.  So that kind of  deficit would not be all bad.  But if the deficit was created by two lost wars and trillions of dollars lost in financial shenanigans, then none of that money can be recovered. There is no silver lining. Not only that but four years later, the negative repercussions of the wars and the financial meltdown are still hampering economic recovery.  I guess you could argue that the deficit's only silver lining was that some lessons were learned about what NOT to do next time, and I admit it's worth something that Saddam Hussein is gone.  But the problem is that smart people would not have needed to waste trillions of dollars learning this, so all this money proved only that Republican neo-con ideology was wrong about militant go-it-alone foreign policy and about economic deregulation and laissez faire theory.

I suppose that if the only net benefit from Bush's legacy was to learn that the Republicans were wrong, that might be worth going trillions of dollars in debt over, but has the lesson actually been learned?  Actually, no, not by the American voters anyway.  Sure they voted for Obama in 2008, and may again in 2012.  But from what I can see it's a toss-up and it's all about the wrong things.  Don't vote for Obama because he's black, or because he "looks presidential".  Vote for Obama because the US is not in a major depression today.

In my mind, the question is not so much about "Was 4 years enough time to get the economy moving again?" It should be "Was four years out of office, enough time for the Republicans to figure out where they went wrong?"  You would think they could learn by watching how Obama is finessing foreign policy.  They could compare Obama's taking care of Osama Bin Laden and Mohammar Gaddafi's in four years, and then think about how Bush took care of Saddam Hussein in seven years. They could observe Obama's investments in rebuilding the US economy, compared to investing in war.  But when when you hear that the Republicans are still talking about deregulating the banks, and next bombing Iran, well, what more incentive do you need to vote for Obama?

Gorillas are Liars

If a human speaks truthfully only once in their entire life, they are still an honest person. But if a Gorilla tells one lie, that gorilla is a liar for the rest of their lives.   This is a double standard.

In California, there is a female gorilla named Koko, who has been taught to speak in sign language. With an I.Q. of about 75, and a vocabulary of 1000 sign language words, she can form sentences and make up new compound words.

There are reports that Koko lied once.  Once, when left alone, Koko tore a sink out of the wall.  When her human discovered the ruined sink, and asked Koko who did it, Koko blamed her pet kitten.  Yes, Koko the gorilla had a pet kitten.  How did Koko get a pet kitten?  She asked for one through sign language, of course.  Anyway, With this one lie, Koko is now famous for being a liar, even though everything else she says is true (e.g. Koko want banana)

I have noticed that lying is more acceptable among humans than among gorillas.

Performing experiments on Koko could answer a lot of questions for us.  I have an idea for an experiment to force Koko to watch Fox News 24 hours a day.  After a few weeks, will this gorilla begin to forward right wing e-mails?

I am also interested in whether a Gorilla has the "God Gene", enabling them to have paranormal spiritual experiences.  I suspect that somebody has already spoken to Koko about religion. In wikipedia, I read that Koko named a Macaw "Devil tooth" because of the Macaw's dangerous beak.  So I assume at some point an attempt was made to convert Koko to Christianity, because otherwise how would Koko know the word "Devil". Unfortunately, I could not find out what Koko's religious affiliations were.

I Googled this website, titled "Koko the Gorilla PROVES Evolution a Lie!".  My immediate thought was that the born again Christians had gotten to Koko, and now Koko thinks that evolution is a lie.  But how would a gorilla, even as smart as Koko, prove Darwinism is a lie, while many humans have not been able to do so.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evolution%20Hoax/koko.htm

Unfortunately, it was not Koko's clever arguments that proved evolution was a lie.  It was the existence of Koko that proved humans could not have descended from apes. (The reason being if apes turned into humans, then how come Koko is still here?)  Frankly I was  disappointed, as I was looking forward to reading about Koko's thoughts on evolution and instead I got the thoughts of David J. Stewart, a Born Again Christian, and a long time non-gorilla.

If I understand religion correctly, God has made it possible only for Humans to commit sins.  The concept of sin does not apply to animals, therefore Koko can never "be saved by Jesus".  However even though Koko is an animal, it appears that she has officially sinned in the Human sense. Koko was once accused of sexual harassment in the workplace. I am not sure how the lawsuit against Koko ended, but innocent or guilty, where there's smoke there's fire, I always say.

I found a web page with an online chat between Koko and other AOL users, (no jokes about AOL users please.)  Many AOL'ers found Koko's conversation boring and began to dismiss her intellectual abilities.  If you are familiar with what people say about AOLers, this is a real put down.

http://worldofjasoncraft.com/Kokostory.html

Fortunately, Jason Craft was able to provide a simple explanation for Koko's seemingly nonsensical chat session.

Picture: Koko uses sign language to show Pet Kitty how to chat on AOL.  I photoshopped the computer and the words.  The Kitty is real.

Romney is More of a Bullshitter than Obama

Did I hear correctly?  Apparently, Barack Obama called Mitt Romney a bullshitter. And is it true? I mean is Mitt Romney really a bullshitter, not a truthful Mormon missionary?  Mormon missionaries never tell a lie, and never use a word stronger than "H-E-double hockey sticks".

Well, Obama didn't directly call Mitt Romney a liar to his face.

Actually, Barack Obama said that children have good instincts for calling the other guy a bullshitter. And then to put it in context, he made that statement after a small child had expressed support for Obama.  Which if you think about it a bit, means Romney has just been called a bullshitter by Obama.

Well, I think it really is bullshit when Romney keeps saying "I know how the economy works".  While it may not be a lie, it is certainly bullshit.  Nobody really knows how the economy works, it is too complicated. Romney does not know for sure that his extremist economic theories are right, and after those theories set the stage for the 2008 collapse, why does he want to continue with them?  Oh yes, I just remembered: those theories involve more tax cuts for the wealthy.

More bullshit when Romney says he saved the 2002 Winter Olympics.  That's because Romney "saved" the Olympics with government funding.  And Romney is running on a platform that is opposed to government funding.  It was the taxpayers who really saved the Olympics, and they should be given some credit.  Similarly, Obama did not really save GM and Chrysler, but he did fight for funding to get them restarted, which Romney would not have done.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/31/1114110/-Romney-did-NOT-save-2002-Olympics-Lost-his-cool-Likely-breached-his-contract-Profiteered


Barack Obama is doing a little bullshitting on his own.  He is bullshitting about children having good instincts about liars.  Apparently there have been studies done, indicating children are easily fooled by bullshitters.  Also Obama once called himself "as patriotic as anybody" which is plainly a lie, as he didn't wear a US flag on his lapel and didn't put his hand over his heart during the pledge of allegiance.  If you want to see hundreds, if not thousands of other lies by Barack Obama, consult Google. (55,900,000 hits, including this one)

http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/fashion-shows/

But two places Obama did not lie, was saying that Romney opposed the auto company bailout, and Romney opposed going after Bin Laden in Pakistan.  Obama succeeded in both, and now Romney is trying to take credit, which is my definition of a classic, if not pathological, bullshitter.

Picture: I made it with "The Gimp" a Linux photo editing program like Photoshop.

Translation: The Mormon word for bullshitter is "bu -double hockey sticks- shitter", in case that helps.

Making Racism Part of the Presidential Debate

It seems like a lot more than usual is riding on the presidential debates between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama.  Before the first debate, we were told that the debates historically did not affect the outcome of the election.  But after the first debate, where Obama had a weak performance, the polls showed that the lead in the popular vote had changed hands.  It went from an almost insurmountable lead by Barack Obama, to a small lead by Mitt Romney. So for the second debate, Obama needed to perform better or possibly lose the election.

When the pundits and experts analyze the debates, it seems to me that they pay a lot of attention to the style, and very little to the substance.  This does not make much sense to me.  As a teacher, when marking essay questions, for example, I would first of all look for facts that show the student knows what they are talking about.  I would pay much less attention to style - e.g. handwriting neatness, spelling, grammar (Unless it was a course in handwriting spelling or grammar of course.)  And I would try to not be influenced by racism or prejudice against certain a students. (Yes some students are way more likeable than others, in case you were wondering).  And most of all, I would be looking for B.S.  Here is an example.  "For ten marks, write a one page essay about how you would improve the US economy."  One students writes "I understand the US economy, so obviously I would know many ways to fix it". And then proceeds to fill the rest of the page with the same thought stated over and over.  That would fetch him or her a zero regardless of neat penmanship.  If another student goes ahead and lists ten different points, that all seem perfectly valid possible actions to take that might improve the economy, and correspond what was discussed in class, even though I may not agree with them personally, I would probably give a 10/10.

Apparently in Presidential debates, style matters more than substance, especially this time.  I wonder why?  One answer I can think of, is that people are looking for someone they can trust to lead the country into prosperity.  Since nobody really knows how to fix the economy, the substance is unimportant.  The important thing is: Do you trust this person to make the right decisions, do you think his entire world view is basically right, is he a deluded stooge who people will not respect?  Is he or she a real leader who can get things done?

Unfortunately, if we are going to start valuing style over substance, it also means that prejudice takes hold, and in a country like the USA, which has a history of racism right up to present day, that means Barack Obama has a  handicap in the election.  But this handicap is reinforced by pundits who take up a lot of space arguing about who has better style, instead of doing some much needed fact checking.  Also the Republicans insist they are "Not going to be dictated to by fact checkers".  If style is valued over substance, another casualty is the truth.

This is what I see in the first debate, if style is the only standard.  Debate one: Stereotypical wealthy white man yelling at black man about what a bad job he did.  Black man avoiding eye contact and saying "yes massa". Nobody questions the truth of what the massa says, or his right to say it. Apparently this style resonated very strongly with some parts of America, and immediately after the debate, the polls indicated Romney (the white guy) had wiped out Obama's lead in the popular polls.

Now what do I see in the second debate?  The black guy is not going to take any more crap, and basically says "You are lying."  To which the white guy stares him in the face and says "You dare to question me, boy?  For this you will be punished."  Then the moderator jumps in and says "Well basically he is right." And then all the white supremacists go crazy.  That is my summary of the style of the second debate.

If you would like to watch it again, in this light and see if it makes sense, here is the debate video - fast forward to one hour and 13 minutes, for the 2 minute part part where Romney tells Barack Obama how bad he was for not calling the attack terrorism right away. Obama says, but I did call it terrorism right away, and Romney flashes his eyes about being challenged on a fact, then the moderator jumps in "But Obama is right".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEpCrcMF5Ps   (The second debate)

Then read about the attitude displayed by Mitt Romney's son, about this "President" essentially calling his father a liar.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/9617247/Tagg-Romney-wanted-to-take-swing-at-Obama.html

In the old south, if a white gentleman made a statement like "On September 12th in the Rose Garden, I said it was terrorism", and another white gentleman said "No you did not", the rest of the conversation would go like this: "Sir, are you calling me a LIAH?"  second southern gentleman. "That I am, sir."  first gentleman "Bring your duelling pistols and your attendant tomorrow at dawn.  Good day.".

Picture: Romney's best "You dare to speak back to me, boy?" face.  Style over substance.

Stephanie Cutter Wades into the Consular Attack Debate

Last month, there was an attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya that killed the US ambassador and several other people.  This attack is now becoming part of the Republican campaign to win the US presidential elections.  Because making a political football of this attack seems like a strange tactic, I decided to investigate.

It seems strange to me that this attack would become a campaign issue.  How is President Obama responsible for the death of the ambassador?  The attack took place in Libya, where President Obama has little capacity to guarantee the safety of anyone.  Of course, the Ambassador himself would have been guarded, and would try to stay safe, but security is a gamble in any war zone.  I will need to research the Republican arguments to find out why they think Obama is to blame for the attack, and why Obama deserves to lose the election because of it.

I read this web page, which is a right wingers point of view, I don't really have time to read all of them.  So I'll assume this is representative.  It is at Townhall.com, by Guy Benson, political editor.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2012/10/02/whoa_obama_administration_denied_repeated_requests_for_increased_security_in_benghazi

The main thrust of this is that Ambassador Stevens has made repeated requests to the white house for more help, which were denied, leading to his death.

How are we to interpret this?  Well, for one thing there is no documentation at this point saying what the requests were, who they were made to.  Was he requesting a transfer out of the danger zone? A request for more money to hire local guards?  Was he requesting a US military presence in Libya?  Not likely, as the entire Libyan operation was being done without an overt US military invasion.

Here is the statement on this by Guy

"More security for US interests would have meant more US forces in Libya -- which could be perceived as escalating a new war of Obama's doing.  Couldn't have that politically, so we proceeded with an exceedingly "light footprint," to a lethal fault." - Guy Benson

I guess this brings us the the essential point - all bullshit aside.

The Republicans want US soldiers on the ground in Libya, and they think that will make everyone safer, including the US ambassador. The Democrats do not want the Libyans to think that the USA is invading their country.  That is the basic difference between the two political points of view.  One is to invade the foreign country, the other is to not invade, but to try to manage with diplomacy and intelligence gathering.

Which approach to foreign war is better? I believe this is a point where we separate right wingers from liberals in foreign policy.  My own opinion is that Obama has done a remarkably good job in foreign policy, even though he has the right wing extremists hampering his every move.  But then, I thought the war in Iraq was also a mistake, and we could actually live in a safer (and wealthier) world if it had never happened.  The only country to benefit dramatically from that Iraq war fiasco was Iran, a sworn enemy to Saddam Hussein.  Anyway, that's just my opinion, we'll never know.

Recently the momentum in the presidential election race has apparently been on the Republican side.  The best news for the Democrats recently was Joe Biden's vigorous defence in the Vice Presidential Debates (Laughing aside).  And one other bit of good news, a new hero emerging from the Democrats ranks, Stephanie Cutter.

Here is Stephanie Cutter being attacked by right wingers

http://conservativewatchnews.org/?p=29844

Here is why Stephanie Cutter is being attacked: this video (below) where she accused the Republicans of making a campaign issue out of the attack in Benghazi.  Her accusation has resulted in a storm of protests from Republicans demanding her resignation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrWPUlbKcAE

Actually, Harper's Resemblance to George W Bush is More Disappointing

Recently Stephen Harper, Canada's Prime Minister expressed his disappointment over opposition leader Nycole Turmel's one time membership in the "Bloc Quebecois" political party. Apparently Conservatives think the Bloc is a party of traitors to Canada.

Here is a news article from the Toronto Star on this subject

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1034040--harper-says-turmel-s-sovereigntist-ties-are-disappointing

“It’s most disappointing, it’s disappointing for me,” the Prime Minister said in French at a press conference Wednesday. He said other Canadians will also be disappointed by the revelations about Turmel’s political affiliations.

“I think Canadians expect that any political party that wants to govern the country be unequivocally committed to this country,” Harper told reporters as he switched to English. “I think that’s the minimum Canadians expect.”

Actually Stephen is right and wrong at the same time. Yes, as a Canadian I expect politicians to be committed to this country. But my disappointment is not with the Bloc Quebecois, or any of their members. It is with Harper and his Conservatives for turning Canada from a well respected country to a disgraceful imitation of the worst America has to offer. Even Harper's denunciation of Nycole Turmel for being a "Card carrying" --(fill in the blank)-- has creepy overtones of Senator Joseph McCarthy's anti-communist witch hunts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCarthy

Harper has turned Canada from a leader in human rights to an abuser. He has turned the Canadian military from peacekeepers to invaders. He has turned over vast areas of Canada's wilderness to American Oil company's tar sands destruction. The real traitor to Canada is not the Bloc Quebecois, it is the greedy gun-toting US-style conservatives who care nothing about social justice, the environment, peace, democracy or Canadian traditions.

So Stephen, if you can read this, I am one Canadian who is not disappointed in the leader of the opposition. I am disappointed in you. The sooner you are voted out, the better it will be for the Canada that I knew and liked.

Not that it really matters to Stephen or Senator McCarthy I guess, but Nycole Turmel does not actually support separatism.