Turn That Trickle Into A Flood

During the most recent Canadian Federal election this past May, Stephen Harper's main campaign message was that, of all the possible choices, he was the only one capable of being Canada's "economic steward." Harper claimed that it was his small 'c' conservatism that had allowed Canada to avoid the worst of the global recession. He wanted to convince Canadians that a vote for another "unstable" minority government was a vote for economic catastrophe. It was up to the other parties to refute this wild claim. They couldn't. And, sadly, many who voted for Harper did so for this reason alone. Many were not necessarily excited about his broader agenda, but they were terrified that anyone else in charge (especially, gasp!, those financially irresponsible NDP-ers) would spell an even tougher time making ends meet than they were already having.

The fear of financial break-down that Harper so successfully manipulated effectively opened the door to what will undoubtedly come to be known as the most reckless and damaging majority government Canada has known. We are witnessing long-standing Canadian institutions, many founded on intrinsically Canadian principles (eg: regulation as a way to keep things fair for everyone, not as a block to business as it is most often painted as), either torn down or systematically starved of funds.

I remember, at the time, there were some brave critics pointing out that Harper's seemingly blemish-free economic record was actually not his to celebrate. In fact, Canadians could thank their country's banking regulations, laid out in the Bank Act of 1991. These regulations outlawed much of the speculation activity which had caused the American disaster and prevented Canada from getting dragged into the sub-prime mire.

But, of course, irrationality and misinformation won the day.

Now, here we are at the precipice of a new recession. There are some seriously crazy things happening in Europe and the United States, places that have been, at least for a very long time, the economic engines of the global liberal status quo. But now, substantial fault-lines are emerging; cracks beginning to show. Canadian Finance Minister Jim Flaherty has claimed that the Euro-crisis is very serious threat to global economic security. And in his speeches and press conferences, he espouses the same old argument that those neoliberals always use, "cut spending, cut programs, cut corporate taxes, and all will be solved."

But, Flaherty has just announced that the Conservative government will not be able to meet their projected budget goals. One can only speculate that this will mean Flaherty will make the case for even more extreme cost cutting measures.And, once again, the neoliberal austerity measures will fail to target the real causes of the financial crisis.

Harper promised more jobs not less. He promised economic prosperity, not uncertainty. The truth is, nothing he and his cronies can do will really shield us from a global economic meltdown. I am just sad that so many Canadians bought his argument that he could. Now, we are stuck with not only another looming recession or worse, but a government infected with hubris and diligently removing the rug from underneath Canada's once-enviable democracy.

It all makes sense to me now. When a neoliberal says "trickle down," he really means trickle. If the 1% were really serious about finding a solution to the global economic woes, they would turn that trickle into a flood!

Can We Trust Democracy?

I almost laughed out loud this morning when I read this CBC article*, which reported that there are those who feel the Greek Prime Minister is nothing less than a complete lunatic for suggesting that the people of Greece should decide whether or not to go ahead with the drastic cost cutting measures currently on the table.

In the context of the on-going anti-capitalist protests, the headline,"European markets dive after Greek referendum pledge," might also read: "European investors, ie. very rich people, chaff at the very idea of democracy."

Think about it, when it comes to wars, illegal occupations, invasions, and other bloody-minded projects, all we hear is "democracy this" and "democracy that." Democracy, supporting it, creating it, exporting it, is the chief justification for some of the most heinous human rights violations of our time. Iraq was supposedly a mission to democratize. Canada took a leading role in NATO's Libyan mission so that it could 'liberate' Libyans and sow the seeds of democracy. But when it comes to real democracy, when 'the people' get a first-hand opportunity to really decide the outcome of a critical juncture, the money-lenders are terrified.

What this means, of course, is if the markets are driven by confidence (as we hear so much these days), and a potential referendum is enough to cause European markets to destabilize, to become 'un-confident', then, one is forced to consider the true nature of the relationship between democracy and financial capital. This particular example (and one need not look to far to find others) seems to suggest that true democracy makes capitalism extremely nervous.

But how is this so? Is this not contrary to the rhetoric we have heard time and again? That free markets and popular democracy benefit everyone? The problem is with capital's basic logic: it hates uncertainty. It is difficult for investors to sink their money into projects that seem unstable. This is why capital tries so desperately to be in control of things and will do anything (ie: police brutality, endorsing sociopathic dictators, etc.) to be the boss of everything.

But the ultimate point here is that you can't have it both ways. You can't boast about a vigorous democracy out of one side of your mouth (and wage war to export it to other parts of the world) and then claim it is dangerous and unsettling out of the other side.

And while we do need professionals, experts, and other people well-informed and experienced in obscure and complicated subjects, we also need a rock-solid ethical base from which to extend our democratic limbs. These days, alas, this base is increasingly rot with self-interest, greed, misinformation, and ignorance.

True democracy is inconvenient for capital. So it goes out of its way to commandeer the language of democracy while usurping its true value and tarnishing its name so that it may further corrupt the very system it purports to symbolize.

True democracy is unpredictable. It is often messy and chaotic. But chaos and uncertainty is also the place where real inspiration comes from and where true humanity lies.

Someone should tell those investment capitalists that old Yiddish joke: "What's they funniest joke you can tell God?

I have a plan."

*When I first linked to this article yesterday morning, the headline read how it is in the above blog posting. Today, however, it reads something different. I am not entirely sure the editorial reasoning for changing headlines from day to day for essentially the same story but, in my humble opinion, this is one of the factors that has lead to many criticize the mainstream media. At best, it is misleading. At worst, it is revisionist and cowardly.

Fob Rord: The Real Issue Here

Okay, okay, I get it. Rob Ford, Mayor of Toronto, is a big dumb wiener. He's crass, ignorant, and advocates policies that might have made Mike Harris shiver. This is well established and hard to refute.

And while his most recent run-in with a Can-con celeb has made headlines and prompted yet another profusion of Facebook-Ford-bashing, I want to officially advocate for a breather on the anti-Ford rhetoric that is becoming so common (and admittedly, pretty fun. I mean, he's saying the 911 people are lying now!).

For one thing, making fun of Ford is like shooting dead fish in a barrel. He's so easy a target, vision-impaired sharpshooters wouldn't even waste their time. For another thing, are we really surprised that a member of the new Radical Right in this country isn't familiar with a mildly popular CBC comedy show? And really, sure, he overreacted, but that shouldn't be surprising either. He has a history of overreacting (I am thinking of that video that came out just before the election that showed Ford and one of his minions chasing a reporter down the City Hall stairs yelling, "What did you say! Did you call me fat?!" Or whatever it was).

What I'd really love us to spend our energy on instead, is mounting a substantive criticism of his policies. Or even find a way to get him out of there sooner. After all, this is where he is doing the real damage: the decisions he's making at City Hall, not the hijinks and weirdness he's a part of outside his official duties as Mayor. And it makes me kind of sad that his approval rating is dropping because of what he is doing wrong and not because of what his opponents in City Hall (and the legion of Ford-bashers) are doing right. It's a huge difference!

Further, why don't we talk about how in tarnation he became Mayor in the first place? Which part of the system is so terribly broken that an electorate would vote for such a man, that so many would believe the 'gravy train' line? This was blatant populism at its worst and it worked like a charm. I hate to say it, but Ford as Mayor says more about us than it does about him. Furthermore, it is worth remembering that he is a man who has seen his approval rating fall while basically doing, or trying to do, all the things he said he was going to do. How many times does that happen in politics?

Alas, I fear that this obsession with his stupid antics amounts to the kind of trend we see in U.S. politics: fame over form, chaos over content, stupidity over substantiality.

Let's tone down the Ford jabbing. It's too easy, and it only lowers us to his level.

For a really intelligent and insightful take on the Toronto-Ford dilemma, check out John Lorinc's "How Toronto Lost it's Groove: and why the rest of Canada should resist the temptation to cheer" in the most recent issue of The Walrus.

Sarcasm In Da House, The Cons Laugh Off Criticism Like A Bunch of High School Brats

These days, when it comes to Stephen Harper, I honestly don't know where to begin.

I could talk about his weird and draconian Omnibus Crime Bill. A heinous piece of legislation, designed to essentially put more people behind bars, while the country's homicide rate is lower than its been for 40 years. The timing is also curious as it coincides with a dramatic (and expensive) expansion of this country's prison infrastructure. Are the two linked? We may never really know.

I could talk about his arrogance when it comes to the European Debt Crisis. He seems to feel that because Canada has remained relatively unscathed by the worst of the double-recession (emphasis on 'relatively', we are not out of the woods, nor did we get away scot-free) that he is now in a position to scold some nations and pat others on the head. I can only hope this condescending behaviour comes back to bite him.

But what has really got me fired up this morning, is a video I watched that shows NDP MP Charlie Angus directly challenging Industry Minister Tony Clement about the Auditor General's report, which reported strange discrepancies regarding the $50 million infrastructure grant received by Clement's home riding. In the video, Angus asks what seem to be pretty simple, to-the-point questions. Now, I don't expect someone like Clement,(who let's face it, is fucking guilty, we all know it, he seems to know it too, we just can't find a way to make it stick) to come out and admit he screwed up in front an audience as unforgiving as the House of Commons. However, what I would expect from a professional politician is some respect for his peers. I never thought I would see the day when I would long for the good old days of Canadian politics, when Tories were actually Blue, Liberals were actually Red, the socialists stood up for farmers, and MPs addressed each other with compliments, carefully worded criticisms, and ultimate respect.

Call me nostalgic (I actually didn't have the pleasure of being born before things really started to go downhill), but is too much to ask for a bit of the old way of doing things? John Baird's cringe-worthy and sarcastic comments about his 'fragile' self-esteem, are the kinds of things a bratty high-schooler, untouchable and beyond punishment because his Dad plays golf with the principle, says. "Na-na, na-na-na, you can't touch me but I-can touch yooo-ooo." Their nonchalant brush-off of the Auditor General is troubling to say the least.

I guess, in the end, I would love to say to Harper and his childish cronies: "I know you have a majority, I know you can do whatever the fuck you want, but could you at least PRETEND to give a shit what the the majority of Canadians WHO DID NOT VOTE FOR YOU think?" Because, to be sure, the MPs of the glory days certainly didn't love each other. I am certain there were back room shenanigans that would have made the Parliamentary Library's wallpaper peel. But there was at least a semblance of respect. That our modern politicians, and the Tories are easily the worst, have cast away even this semblance of respect for their peers reveals an even deeper contempt for the very way democracy is meant to function: with a multitude of voices, opinions, and ideas.

Harper doesn't need the Black Shirts or the giant parades with giant eagles and logos, but that doesn't mean he isn't a dictator. Also, saying you are open and transparent mean that you are.

Libya Liberated? Sharia Won't Like it.

One day after the reported demise of Libya's iconic dictator, Canada's Prime Minister spoke about the landmark occurrence. Eager to put a positive spin on Canada's leading role in the conflict, Stephen Harper praised the Libyan people for their tenacity claiming, "the Libyan people can finally turn the page on 42 years of vicious oppression and continue their journey toward a better future." (as reported in the Huffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/10/20/gaddafi-death-harper-libya-mission_n_1023154.html)

However, it would seem that the future may not be as rosy as Harper predicted. A recent report indicates that the new Libyan government will be instituting Muslim Sharia Law as the basis of its new democratic constitution. Among other things, Sharia Law permits stoning and other violent forms of retribution as well as polygamy. Sharia Law is outlawed in Canada partly for these reasons. And while Libyan officials have been reassuring Western observers that their version of Sharia will be moderate, it is still too early to tell what kind of effect this will have on Libyan society. Certainly, as many argue, anything is better than the zany and erratic dictatorship of Moammar Gaddafi.

But this move poses a dilemma for Harper. He has already earned the reputation for being mostly indifferent to the issue of women's rights by leaving abortion out of the Maternal and Child Health Initiative. And many questioned Canada's seemingly blind and unconditional support of the rebels, without asking what their agenda was or what their post-Gaddafi plan was (or if they even had one).

Now, the question is, can Canada support a nation governed by Sharia Law? And if so, how can it justify this? In the end, one is forced to wonder whether the situation would have been different, whether the rebels would have had such loyal NATO support, if there was no oil under Libyan soil. To be fair, there is no guarantee that Sharia Law spells disaster for Libya's women. And, Sharia also prevents the collecting of interest (known in the Bible as 'usury' and one of the reasons people were kicked out of the temple), which is, in light of the Occupy Wall Street protests, a pretty progressive idea.

The real issue here is that we have, on one hand, a Prime Minister bragging about a military success (indeed a PM desperate for such an occasion) and, on the other hand, a newly minted democratic nation, voting for a system of law that Canada has actively and publicly decried. Not to mention, the vigilante-style killing of the former dictator. Say what you will about the man, and whether or not he deserved it (he probably did), it is troublesome that a country like Canada, founded on the principles of Habeas Corpus and "Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat" (innocent until proven guilty),could be so proud of moment when these basic legal tenets were so blatantly ignored.

Is Sonic Youth Classic Rock Yet?

Statikev, Buddy Webb and I were hanging out in the vinyl library of the local community radio station after their Alumni Day. A bunch of former radio hosts came back to grace the airwaves again for the sake of the fundraising drive. Cool idea. And a good excuse for those who moved away to return.

That night, in the library, over some warm beers, we took turns randomly choosing slabs of vinyl to play. The 'random' part was fun for about four records. Then, the amount of really bad records contained in the library became pretty apparent. We quickly reverted to a more deliberate approach. Luckily for me, that turned up Eminence Front by The Who, a song I had never heard in my life. Glad I did! It was followed by Daydream Nation by Sonic Youth. We all guessed at what year it was released. I said 1989 and they laughed at me. Buddy said 1992 and Staikev said 2001 (ha!!!). It turned out I was off by a year. Lucky guess!

Anyway, it made me think something I think quite often when it comes to Classic Rock. Is it 'Classic' because it's the best and no one has done anything better since? Is it truly the bar to which subsequent artists will inevitably be measured? Or is it Classic because people just know the music? I mean, even if you're not a huge fan, you know who The Who are. And familiarity counts for quite a bit. It's like, once you start watching a crappy show, you just have to keep watching it to see what happens. You get used to the characters and so on. You know its bad, but you watch it anyway. I think there is a similar thing going on with Classic Rock. People know it isn't the best always (ie. Neil Young and Bob Dylan have many examples) but you know the characters and are willing to cut them some slack.

At any rate, I am not sure if Sonic Youth is considered Classic Rock yet, I suspect this classification may happen sooner than later, but it's pretty hard to deny that Daydream Nation is a classic record. For whatever reason. Though I'd say the same about Sailing the Seas of Cheese and I know I am probably in a smaller cohort for that particular bent.

OWS: Bootstraps VS The Ghost of Lennon

While the protestors in the park burn the midnight oil and keep the hopes alive for those who can't be there in person, the chorus of critics of the movement persist. These criticisms range from claims that a lack of cohesive message indicates a movement doomed to failure to a preoccupation with how the protestors look (ie. hippies) and what they do to pass the time (ie. play folks songs on guitar).

It is not at all surprising that these people decry the lack of a single message. Corporations rely almost exclusively on iconography, simple ideas and slogans, messages that are so clear they are devoid of subtlety and poetry. Of course they cannot understand a multi-headed, multi-purpose movement. But these criticisms clearly miss the point. I find it more than a little troubling that more time has not been spent scrutinizing the 'criticize-ors' rather than the 'criticize-ees.' Those who have reached for generalizations, such as protestors being mostly 'young people', are, I would argue, as much the victims of corporatocracy as those protesting its destructive results. Are the criticizors simply rich people, happy with the status quo? Or are they victims of Gramsci's 'cultural hegemony', duped by the pervasive corporate message that says the interests of the super-wealthy elite are the same as the general populace? (ie. 'trickle-down' theory and the near-perpetual line that corporations create jobs and prosperity for all).

Those who don't sit on a Board of Directors for a multi-national know full well that these two sets of interests are not at all the same. And the truth is, 'economies' and 'deficits' are abstract notions, invented by human beings and therefore, subject ultimately to our control. Debt and interest are inventions, but the corporate big boys pretend, coyly, that they are forces of nature, beyond their control. So, if you are forced to declare bankruptcy or have lost your house to foreclosure you are simply a hapless victim of Mother Nature, with no one to blame but fate, at best, or yourself at worst, for failing to take the necessary precautions.

So, in the end, what separates the protestors (and those who cheer them on from afar) from the critics, is a sense of what has caused the rich/poor cleavage that has widened like the Grandest of Canyons over the last 30 years: for the protestors, it's plain old human greed, left unchecked and given the run of the farm for far too long; for the critics, it's lazy people, with no one to blame but their poor old selves. We are witnessing a return of the 1930s-1950s "bootstrap" mentality. If you're poor, just find some gumption and pull yourselves up by your bootstraps.

Except these days, bootstraps are expensive, made in a third world country by quasi-slave labour and really only available to the super wealthy.

The good thing is that the protestors have been singing the song of a man, shot in 1980 by a crazed ultra-US nationalist, who once stated in the simplest of terms: "War is Over" he plainly spoke, "If You Want It." A saccharine notion, perhaps, but utterly impenetrable for the simple truth it reveals: in the end, there is no escaping it, greed is something you choose.

That's the message of the 99%. I honestly don't know how much clearer it could be.