MP Expenses Scandal: Grassroots Outrage or Media Invention

Whooee! Well, friends an' foes, I like the discussions that take place over at Steve V's Far and Wide. They're mostly Grits but they tolerate my Green-tinged rants and the partisanship doesn't permeate the conversation as much as on some other blogs. The topic on everybody's tongue these days is the MP expenses issue. Steve figgers the dang media's blown it all out of proportion and he's got hisself boog on that idea today.

I disagree with Steve and I just spent a few minutes blatherin' on (and on) about it. I'm recyclin' that comment here.

We all gave the MSM proper shit for failing to seize upon the prorogation issue. Their excuse was that they didn't think the public was politically astute enough to grasp the nuances of parliamentary protocol. They were wrong and they ended up admitting as much.

You don't have to be too politically astute to understand expense account sleaze, though. The issue comes hot on the heels of the UK's MP expenses scandal with homegrown provincial counterparts in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. The MSM doesn't have to wonder whether or not the public understands. We get it and they know it.

While I agree there are similarities between this issue and prorogation, there are major differences. Prorogation was all about ducking responsibility for the handing over of Afghan detainees to torture. I am one of those who have been on top of that issue for years but I know very well that it fails to strike a chord with many Canadians.

The A-G issue is all about money --- our money. Despite the fact that the amount pales in comparison to what we've squandered on an unwinnable and immoral war, it hits us close to home.

WRT the Facebook thing, there could be a couple of mitigating factors. First, the very fact that the MSM IS all over this issue makes it seem less important for individuals to get personally involved. This time around, the media is not ignoring the issue and perhaps would-be Facebook group members are sitting back and allowing the media to do its job and push for disclosure.

Secondly, the first and largest Facebook group is the creation of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, considered by many to be a right-wing lobby group. The anti-prorogation group was the creation of a non-partisan student and was truly a grassroots effort.

Perhaps partisanship is the biggest difference here. With prorogation, it was everyone against the ruling Conservatives. They only got 38% of the votes, after all. 62% voted against them and were not happy with the affront to democracy. There weren't too many card-carrying CPCers out on the streets on January 23. There were plenty of Liberals, Dippers and Greens.

In the expenses issue, highly partisan citizens -- card-carrying party members from all parties -- may be holding back. Ignatieff hasn't endorsed the protest. Neither has Layton. In fact, they are the ones we are protesting against, along with the Harper Conservatives. When the party faithful are being told that this isn't an issue by the party leaders and nearly every MP, party members are not too likely to join a Facebook group or take to the streets.

When the 4 parties finally struck a deal on the detainee documents, it was big news. The parties in this hitherto fractious parliament had been able to reach an agreement. The media was a bit surprised by the fact, as were many voters. Getting to the bottom of the torture allegations was secondary in the reportage. The all-party agreement on a divisive issue was the big story.

Jump ahead a couple weeks and there's parliamentary unanimity on another issue: MP expenses. Why shouldn't that be newsworthy? When the MPs solidarity is contrasted with the public's diametrically opposite solidarity, it's news.

Poll after poll after poll has found the MPs to be entirely out of step with public opinion. That's news and the media would be remiss in failing to report it. Remember, we faulted them severely for failing to pick up on the outrage around prorogation. Do they want to be accused of being out of touch yet again?

There is a big difference between journalists' expense accounts and MPs expense accounts. The MPs are spending our money. The MPs are our employees. The MPs are public servants. The MPs pledged accountability and transparency and we elected them and gave them our confidence. Abuse may be commonplace in every workplace but in this particular workplace, we are the employers. We have every right to see the books and we have every right to be outraged when MPs band together across party lines to hide them from us.

If we lose confidence in the media, we can quit buying newspapers. If we lose confidence in MPs of every party, we can live with it until the next election at which time we can choose between tweedle-crook and tweedle-crookeder.

Scandals are news. Scandal sell papers. So what? Would we rather bury our heads in the sand? There's a bigger scandal brewing regarding the detainees and I relish the moment that the media grabs it and runs with it. Crimes against expense accounts are scandalous, sure. War crimes and crimes against humanity are more scandalous and I won't fault the media for delving into such a scandal -- even if their motivation is to sell more papers.

Green Party Calls for MPs to Open Expenses to Auditor-General

Whooee! Well, friends an' foes, Earth Mother Lizzie May put out a press release this morning and she's on the money a hunnert percent's worth, sez I.

Greens call for transparency

17 May 2010 - 10:26am

The Green Party of Canada pledges full support for the Auditor General in her bid to increase the transparency of MPs' spending habits. Greens are calling for the release to the Auditor General of the last 10 years of MP expenses.

"The Green Party of Canada fully supports the Auditor General having a mandate to oversee MP expenses," said Green Party Leader Elizabeth May. "The Canadian public deserves accountability for the half billion dollars MPs spend every year. The fact that MPs are afraid to have Sheila Fraser examine their accounts suggests that it is probably long overdue."

Provincial governments and the government of Britain have been rocked by government spending scandals in recent years, adding to the disillusionment of citizens and mistrust of politicians.

"Given the declining voting record in this country, Parliament should be doing everything possible to encourage public trust and engagement in democracy," said May.

According to the Toronto Star, a Leger Marketing poll showed 88% of Canadians would like a deeper examination of politicians' expense accounts. Currently, details of any spending by MPs and senators are kept secret.

"For someone who campaigned on transparency, Prime Minister Harper is failing miserably," said May. "Shame on the Liberals and the NDP for agreeing that the public doesn't deserve to know how their tax money is being spent."

Dang right!

JimBobby

JimBobby Sings "Hey There, Guergis Girl"

Whooee! Well, friends an' foes, I ain't been boogin' too much lately but I got me a new song that I just posted up on the YouTube an' it's all about pore little Helena Guergis: Hey There, Guergis Girl.

Harper (once again) displays dangerous ignorance on nuclear file

Whooee! Well, friends an' foes, Pryminister Harper was up on his hindlegs yammerin' about nuclear safety an' how Canada's gonna help save the world by sendin' 50% of our stockpile of highly enriched uranium (HEU, i.e. weapons-grade uranium) over to the USA.

In fairness, Harper did mention that he's not an expert with regard to nuclear technology. That, however, does not excuse the PM from making hugely inaccurate statements or from committing Canada to a course of action which could have disastrous consequences for future generations.

Harper was somewhat unclear about why we are only returning 50% of our stockpile but he was unequivocal (condescending, even) when he stated that 'Of course, we don't use highly enriched uranium for reactor fuel anymore.'

Wrong, again, Mr. Nuclear Physicist. The Chalk River NRU that makes medical isotopes does, indeed, use HEU as its fuel.

But, Harper may actually be partly correct. Thanks to years of mismanagement and the fact that it is about 10 years past its projected decommissioning date, the Chalk River reactor is out of service, so Harper may be technically correct that we aren't using HEU. The leaky reactor is undergoing a major repair job and is expected to limp back into service, possibly in June.

It is hard to believe that Harper is unaware that Canada has special dispensation under a side agreement to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) that enables us to purchase weapons-grade uranium to fuel Chalk River. The issue made news in January when AECL ordered a fresh supply of HEU from the US.

While Harper's ignorance (or obfuscation) is a serious enough problem, the fact that Canada is returning used fuel to the country of origin is very significant, precedent setting... and foreboding. Under terms of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), all used nuclear fuel is to be repatriated to the country of origin. This is a big deal.

Canada is the world's second largest producer of Uranium (behind Australia) and the world's biggest exporter of uranium. Absurd as it sounds, the GNEP calls for used nuclear fuel that originally came from Canada to be returned to Canada. In case anyone is not aware, used nuclear fuel is 1000x more radioactive than unused fuel and must be kept in a secure location until it becomes harmless. That will take approximately 250,000 years. Quite a long term commitment with which our PM is saddling countless future generations of Canadians!

Canada's Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) has only just begun looking for a suitable and willing host location for a Canadian nuclear waste repository. If the repository is ever built, it is designed to handle waste from the increasingly small number of Canadian nuclear power plants generating waste. How are we supposed to handle the thousands of tonnes of radioactive, toxic waste that could be returned to us under terms of the GNEP?

Canada: Energy Superpower or America's Nuclear Waste Dump?

JimBobby

Good News! Gordon Lightfoot Lives!

Whooee! Well, friends an' foes, I had a tribute post up here when I heard that a great Canadian, Gordon Lightfoot, had died. It was all over Twitter and was in some big news outlets, too. I ain't kiddin' when I say I had tears runnin' down my face when I posted that RIP tribute but now The news is that it wasn't true. Glad to hear it.

In case anybody thinks I published on the basis of rumour only, here's what I saw in the Calgary Herald.

Harper's Haiti Trip - Please, MSM, Don't Go. Don't Take Photos

Whooee! Well, friends an' foes, Pryminister Harper is off to Haiti today. The official announcements say he's going there to assess the relief effort. Over at Steve V's Far and Wide, there's a lot of skepticism and at least one commenter who says Harper's visit will bolster troop morale.

Surprise visits to troops deployed in faraway locales is a trademark of tinpot heroes like Dick Cheney. I wonder where Harper got the idea he could bolster the troops -- and maybe his sagging poll numbers -- by paying a surprise visit?

Two years ago, Haitians were rioting for food and eating dirt patties to fill their empty bellies.

The food shortage was spurred by high commodities prices which the World Bank attributed mainly to biofuels. Canada was riding high on a crest of grain prices and federal and provincial "environmental" policies mandated 5% - 10% ethanol content for motor fuel. Harper and McGuinty denied the effect of their policies on world markets while thousands starved.

Today, the situation is compounded by the quake. Desperate reports from those on the ground are revealing a situation where food and water are stockpiled and people are starving.

They don't need Stephen Harper or Angelina Jolie or John Travolta scrambling for self-serving photo-ops. Harper can manage things just as well from Ottawa or Vancouver. If the troops need bolstering, he can do it via video link.

What are Harper's qualifications regarding the delivery of disaster relief? Do his medical qualifications go beyond his expertise in nuclear medicine? Where was he when they were eating dirt?

Haiti is headed for more grief. Their planting season begins in March and by all accounts, they need seeds, fertilizer, agricultural equipment and expertise to avert yet another round of starvation and desperation. Yet, little of this type of aid is reaching Haiti.

The first reports of Harper's trip said he would be sleeping inside the Canadian embassy and reporters should be prepared to sleep in tents outside the building. After a bit of negative reaction to the photo op started cropping up, the PMO quickly came out with new details. Harper will be flying in on an aid transport plane (read: white horse) and sleeping aboard a Canadian battleship anchored offshore.

Just how high does Haiti really rank in Harper's priorities? We have more troops serving as security detail for the Olympics than we have serving in Afghanistan. We have more than twice as many in Afghanistan as we have in Haiti.

If only our pandering news media would simply refuse to send anyone to cover this obvious play for approval. If only...

JimBobby

(Most of this post was originally written as a comment at Far and Wide.)

Bombshell! Forces Downplaying Canadian Afghan War Casualties

Whooee! Well, friends an' foes, there's an old saying that the first casualty of war is the truth. Sadly, that adage is proving to be accurate with regard to the Canadian Forces' release of information on casualties in the Afghanistan conflict. The Hill Times is reporting this morning that the number of returning troops on disability is up to ten times higher than what has been reported by the Canadian Forces.

More than 6,000 Canadian Forces members and discharged veterans who are receiving physical or psychiatric disability benefits from Veterans Affairs Canada have either served in Afghanistan or have a disability that has been related to their service in Afghanistan, the department says.

The Forces have been telling us that the number wounded in Afghanistan is 529. 529 wounded Canadians would be bad enough but when the real number is more than 6000, the figure quoted by the Canadian Forces is an all-out assault on the truth.

A few weeks ago, I posted up an audio blog where I sang a song by Tom Paxton that decried the psychological toll we exact upon our young people when we send them off to war. Today, when I read the Hill Times article, the poignancy of that song came back to haunt me again.

It's bad enough when we are forced into a war and must fight for our way of life and our very survival. In Afghanistan, we are fighting to support a fraudulently elected Hamid Karzai and his gang of warlords, opium merchants, bribe-takers and torturers. We've sacrificed the lives of 139 Canadians to an unworthy cause with unworthy allies.

Now, we find out that the wounded number far more than we were led to believe.

When I was a boy in the 1950's my WWII veteran dad would sometimes point out one of what he referred to as the "walking wounded". We'd see them on the street, often wearing a ragged military uniform and holding out a cup, begging for a handout from those for whom they sacrificed their sanity. My grandfather was a WWI Vimy vet. His name for the walking wounded was "shell shocked."

Today, we have a new name for the same problem. We call it "post traumatic stress disorder" or PTSD. When a loved one is killed in action it is a tragedy with a certain amount of closure, honour and solemn dignity. When a loved one sacrifices his or her sanity and mental well-being it is an ongoing, festering sore that rips apart families and continues to take physical, mental and financial tolls on the individuals, their families and society, in general.

The very least we should be able to expect is a truthful accounting of the numbers of troops who are suffering as a result of this misguided mission. We all bear the costs... and the shame.

JimBobby

(h/t to zippyFX on Twitter)

It's All About Torture. Don't Let Anyone Forget.

Whooee! Well, friends an' foes, Steve over at Far and Wide has a post about the polls and how bad ol' King Steve is doin' an' is the trend gonna continue. I left a bigass comment there an' I'm saving' energy by recycling that comment here.

We all saw the pundits come out wrong, wrong, wrong on the expected reaction to prorogation. Now, I've heard a few of 'em say that once the HOC resumes sitting, the prorogation issue will fall off the map. Maybe it'll be another swing and miss for the pundidiots. Maybe not.

If the prorogation outrage and backlash is to survive, we will need to show exactly how much work went down the tubes. How long will it take to get the legislative agenda back to where it was before the December break? How long before committees are reconstituted and back to where they were pre-prorogue?

If, as a small number believe, the budget triggers an election, how much work will be lost and, importantly, who will take the blame?

My own advice on this is that the public needs to be kept acutely aware that ducking the Afghan detainee issue was the primary reason Harper rolled the dice... and crapped out. So far, so good on that with the committee sitting.

The committee, however, is getting too bogged down in questions of privilege and protocol vis-a-vis the unreleased documents. The facts as reported by NGO spokespersons are that the current agreement is failing to do what it was intended to do. While they play cat and mouse with the document issue, detainees are not being monitored as required on paper and they ARE being tortured... now.

I think many voters see the power play over documents as politics -- parliamentary procedural wrangling done more for partisan gain than for truth-gathering. We know the truth. We've always known it. Detainees we hand over to the Afghans are abused. That fact can be clearly illustrated without the gamesmanship.

Despite some of the callous and uninformed comments I read in MSM comment threads, I truly believe most Canadians are repulsed by torture and are ashamed of any suggestion that our country was complicit in detainee abuse. If they are made to see that we are STILL complicit in ongoing abuse, we will achieve something. That "something" that we must be striving for is a cessation of torture by our allies -- Afghan or American.

Though we can show that abuse continues and we can demand it cease, the reality is that we have little power over such matters. Secret detention centres and denial of monitoring rights precludes our ability to wash our hands.

What to do? Either we quit handing over detainees altogether or we quit Afghanistan altogether.

Ignatieff made some encouraging comments a few days ago regarding the legitimacy of our support for the fraudulently elected Karzai and his gang of warlords, opium merchants and torturers. This theme will resonate; especially, when coupled with the message that the current transfer agreement is failing to prevent torture.

Human decency will prevail.

JB

JimBobby Sings Again: "Do the Prorogation"

Whooee! Well, friends an' foes, last night when Ma an' I was out walkin' the dogs, I made up some new lyrics to an old tune. Little Eva was the original, I think. The Beach Boys done it, too. I reckon they're better singers than ol' JB but their lyrics is kinda outta date. I made a little video an' posted it up on You Tube. Here it is:



Here's the words in case somebody wants to do it with a half-decent singer an' maybe a little back-up instrumentation.

Do the Prorogation

Stephen Harper's doin' a crazy dance now,
Come on Stevie, do the prorogation...
He thought no one was lookin' so he took a big chance now,
Come on Stevie, do the prorogation...

He's got a Governor General who's his partner in crime,
She let him get away with it a second time,
So come on, come on, do the prorogation with Steve...

Never mind the hypocrisy,
When you attack our democracy...
Well he's really got the knack,
Woah woah...

Lettin' Afghans torture Afghans now that was his intention,
Come on Stevie, do the prorogation...
He doesn't give a crap about Geneva Conventions,
Come on Stevie, do the prorogation...

He's lookin' warm and fuzzy in his sweater vest,
Lockin' out the opposition and liberal press,
So come on, come on, do the prorogation with Steve...

Oh yeah...
Do the prorogation...
Kill your legislation...
Yay, yay, yay, yeah...

He's got the people riled up across the nation,
Come on Stevie, do the prorogation...
By givin' his MP's an extended vacation,
Come on Stevie, do the prorogation...

He thought his little trick would be easy to do,
An apathetic public is so easy to screw,
So come on, come on, do the prorogation with Steve...

Never mind the hypocrisy,
When you attack our democracy...
Well he's really got the knack,
Woah woah...

Stephen Harper's doin a crazy dance now,
Come on Stevie, do the prorogation...
He thought no one was lookin' so he took a big chance now,
Come on Stevie, do the prorogation...

Shut down the committees. They can start up later,
Who needs the House of Commons when we've got a dictator,
So come on, come on, do the prorogation with Steve...
yeah...
Come on, come on, do the prorogation with Steve...

Three-Way Pissing Contest Keeps Harper on the Throne

Whooee! Well, friends an' foes, I reckon my immodest proposal will attract some mud but here goes...

I just came from reading a blog post by a Dipper who used his first five paragraphs to trash Ignatieff before giving a nod to Layton for taking the high road and welcoming Ignatieff's support and expressing a willingness to work together on limiting the PM's prorogation powers. Ironic? Maybe. Counterproductive? Absolutely.

If we ever want to rid our country of the Harper dictatorship, the opposition parties will need to work together. If we want the public at large to accept a perfectly legal and constitutionally valid coalition, multi-partisan cooperation will need to extend from the top to the bottom and back up to the top again. Partisan sniping only demonstrates that the opposition would be unable to work together in a coalition.

Here's the radical proposal. There are a great many ridings where the three-way split between Greens, Liberals and New Democrats ushers in a minority victory by the Conservatives. Various strategic voting initiatives have emerged attempting to deal with the inherent unfairness of our first past the post (FPTP) electoral system. Since the Conservatives are still in power, it would be logical to assume that these strategic voting efforts have not been effective.

I propose a comprehensive top level agreement between the LPC, NDP and GPC. In ridings where vote splitting has allowed the CPC to elect an MP without a 50% majority, the parties should enter into non-compete agreements whereby the CPC candidate faces only one serious opponent.

How to choose which party will run a candidate in which riding? The simplest way would be to look at the last election results and have the 3rd and 4th place finishers step aside.

Why include the Greens, one might ask? Well, if we're aiming to eliminate vote-splitting among anti-Conservative parties, the Greens are a definite factor. Greens garnered more than 9% of the popular vote in 2008 and should at least run unopposed by LPC and NDP candidates in 9% of the available ridings.

It won't be enough for the 3rd and 4th place parties to simply bow out, though. They must endorse and work for the chosen banner carrier, regardless of which banner they carry. That will be difficult for hyper-partisans like a certain dead horse and plenty of Liberals and Greens. The benefits, in my opinion, would outweigh the obstacles.

Such a plan must be openly and honestly presented to the voter as a coalition. If the coalition is successful -- and I really believe it could be -- it must provide for a proportional cabinet that includes members of all three cooperating parties.

Of course, my back-of-a-napkin plan has some obvious drawbacks. Died-in-the-wool Dippers, Grits and Greenies may well refuse to vote at all if they cannot vote for their favoured party. Some may even vote Conservative rather than vote Liberal, Green or NDP. So be it.

Where does the Bloc fit in? Mostly, it doesn't. My proposal is about doing what's best for Canada. The Bloc is interested only in doing what's best for Quebec. If non-compete agreements in Quebec ridings would elect non-Bloc, non-Conservative MP's, good. Bringing the BQ into the non-compete agreements would be counterproductive in TROC and play into the CPC's hands by including the rotten separatists in the deal.

A coalition can be quite reflective of the voters' wants and needs. Solid cooperation from the top down by way of strategic non-compete agreements can serve to demonstrate to the voters that the ABC parties are capable of working together to get elected. If they can work together to get elected, they can work together to run the country.

Okay. There it is, hyper-partisans, naysayers and hacks. Unleash your vitriol and prove it can't be done.

JimBobby