Whooee! Well, friends an' foes, I posted up the lyrics yesterday an' now I got the audio-video with ol' JB screechin' an' a few pertinent pitchers.
The Ballad of Fake Lake
The legend lives on from Toronto on down
Of a six inch deep pond they call Fake Lake.
The lake, it is said, made the blue Cons turn red
When they realized they'd made such mistake.
With Muskoka chairs and canoes in the air
The fake lake was meant to thrill writers.
A pleasant surprise, there ain't no blackflies,
No mosquitoes or other skin biters.
Fake Lake was the pride of the Conservative side,
With fake loon songs and JumboTron pictures
Of real lakes and woods and handcrafted goods
And all the outdoors you could wish for.
Surrounded by concrete and security teams,
They relax by pool that's reflecting.
While they sip on free beer they need never fear
Uncouth Torontonians protesting.
They'll file their stories of promises made
That the G20 leaders had spoken.
But every man knew, as the leaders did, too,
Promises are made to be broken.
The dawn came early for the hungover scribes
And the G20 pow-wow had ended.
Outdoors they must go to the real world and so,
Reality's no longer suspended
Does anyone know where Steve Harper will go
The next time they hold a G20.
He'll be headed headed for Seoul, just another black hole
For wasting the taxpayers' money.
Wednesday, June 09, 2010
Tuesday, June 08, 2010
Ballad of Fake Lake (Edmund Fitzgerald)
Whooee! Well, friends an' foes, ol' Susan Delacourt put up a twitterin' tweet how she'd like to see some new lyrics to ol' Gord Lightfoot's Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald with a theme all about the G20 Fake Lake. Since I got me a little experience in re-writin' that there song, I took up the challenge. Here it is:
Ballad of Fake Lake
The legend lives on from Toronto on down
Of a six inch deep pond they call Fake Lake
The lake, it is said, made the blue Cons turn red
When they realized they'd made such mistake.
With a Muskoka chairs and canoes in the air
The fake lake was meant to thrill writers
A pleasant surprise, there ain't no blackflies,
No mosquitoes or other skin biters.
Fake Lake was the pride of the Conservative side
With fake loon songs and JumboTron pictures
Of real lakes and woods and handcrafted goods
And all the outdoors you could wish for.
Surrounded by concrete and security teams
They relax by pool that's reflecting
While they sip on free beer they need never fear
Uncouth Torontonians protesting.
They'll file their stories of promises made
That the G20 leaders had spoken
But every man knew, as the leaders did, too,
Promises are made to be broken.
The dawn came early for the hungover scribes
And the G20 pow-wow had ended
Outdoors they must go to the real world and so
Reality's no longer suspended
Does anyone know where Steve Harper will go
The next time they hold a G20
He'll be headed headed for Seoul, just another black hole
For wasting the taxpayers' money.
I ain't got time to sing it an' make a MP3 right now on accounta I gotta cook the macaroni an' cheese fer Ma's supper. Maybe I'll get it recorded tomorrow.
JimBobby
Ballad of Fake Lake
The legend lives on from Toronto on down
Of a six inch deep pond they call Fake Lake
The lake, it is said, made the blue Cons turn red
When they realized they'd made such mistake.
With a Muskoka chairs and canoes in the air
The fake lake was meant to thrill writers
A pleasant surprise, there ain't no blackflies,
No mosquitoes or other skin biters.
Fake Lake was the pride of the Conservative side
With fake loon songs and JumboTron pictures
Of real lakes and woods and handcrafted goods
And all the outdoors you could wish for.
Surrounded by concrete and security teams
They relax by pool that's reflecting
While they sip on free beer they need never fear
Uncouth Torontonians protesting.
They'll file their stories of promises made
That the G20 leaders had spoken
But every man knew, as the leaders did, too,
Promises are made to be broken.
The dawn came early for the hungover scribes
And the G20 pow-wow had ended
Outdoors they must go to the real world and so
Reality's no longer suspended
Does anyone know where Steve Harper will go
The next time they hold a G20
He'll be headed headed for Seoul, just another black hole
For wasting the taxpayers' money.
I ain't got time to sing it an' make a MP3 right now on accounta I gotta cook the macaroni an' cheese fer Ma's supper. Maybe I'll get it recorded tomorrow.
JimBobby
Labels:
Conservatives,
Fake Lake,
G20,
G8,
Harper
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
The Problem With Taxpayer Funded Social Media
Whooee! Well, friends an' foes, the twitterverse and blogdom is finally sittin' up and takin' notice that our gummint is paying for favourable postings in various social media. There was a story on it over the weekend: Harper government monitoring online chats about politics. As Stageleft points out, the headline is somewhat misleading. The government is not only monitoring online opinion, they're jumping in and "correcting misinformation." Stageleft says he has no problems with the practice. I disagree.
I posted a bigass comment over at Stageleft and I'm recyclin' it here. Nobody is paying me to post my opinions, btw. I'm open to offers, though. If I'm paying for the government to hire a social media contractor to refute me, I may as well get paid, too.
Here's what I said at Stageleft:
JimBobby
I posted a bigass comment over at Stageleft and I'm recyclin' it here. Nobody is paying me to post my opinions, btw. I'm open to offers, though. If I'm paying for the government to hire a social media contractor to refute me, I may as well get paid, too.
Here's what I said at Stageleft:
Of course we know that the government and political parties monitor social media. I have no problem with that and, as you say, we want them to take notice of what we, the everyday citizen, is opining.Before anyone bothers arguing or refuting anything I just said, be warned: I will be able to accuse you of being a bought-and-paid-for flak spouting the line you're being paid to spout.
What I find very questionable is the use of tax dollars to refute opinions which the government has deemed "incorrect." Perhaps a government in bed with big oil thinks it is incorrect to criticize BP for deepwater drilling without a contingency disaster plan. Rand Paul recently stated that criticism of BP with regard to Gulf oilspill is "un-American".
Is criticism of our own tar sands un-Canadian? Do we want our criticisms challenged by bought-and-paid-for PR firms working not for the oil industry but for us? When we express our opinions on our own time, should we be footing the bill for some flak to be countering us?
There's also the issue of credibility. Next time a pro-Harper comment is posted here or on my blog or on Twitter or on Facebook, who could help but wonder if that comment is being paid for with tax dollars and doesn't even necessarily represent the true thinking of the individual whose job it is to spout the government line?
If I were a pro-CPC or pro-Harper tweep or blogger, I'd be a bit concerned that I'd be suspect of not being genuine in my postings but merely working for $XX per tweet on the taxpayer dime.
If private corporations want to hire paid tweeps or bloggers and do so anonymously (or pseudonymously) without any disclaimers, that's business using investor capital to promote its product. I have little problem with that sort of astroturfing and have come to expect as much.
It's when government uses my own money to refute me that I have a problem.
I'm starting to see a few blogs supporting the MPs rejection of Sheila Fraser's request for an audit. Are those bloggers being paid from the public purse to shield MP expenses from scrutiny? One can't help but wonder.
When governments surreptitiously plant the government position into social media -- on our dime -- we no longer have honest discussion. The paying of social media contractors to shape public opinion goes beyond publishing talking points for the faithful to parrot on their own time, at their own expense.
Again, I have no problem with party staffers, company employees, paid PR firms pushing their agenda via social media. When it's done at public expense, however, it crosses a line much like the line crossed when Helena Guergis's staffers wrote letters of support to editors. It dilutes genuine public opinion to the detriment of social media.
JimBobby
Saturday, May 22, 2010
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.
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.
Monday, May 17, 2010
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.
Dang right!
JimBobby
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
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
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.
Labels:
Conservatives,
CPC,
Guergis,
Harper,
Jaffer
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
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
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
Labels:
Harper,
Nuclear Issues,
Obama
Thursday, February 18, 2010
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.
In case anybody thinks I published on the basis of rumour only, here's what I saw in the Calgary Herald.
Monday, February 15, 2010
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.)
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.)
Labels:
Food Crisis,
Food Riots,
Haiti,
Harper
Monday, February 08, 2010
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.
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)
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)
Labels:
Afghanistan,
Canadian Forces,
PTSD,
Veterans,
War
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)