The Contradictory Ideology Of The Left

I have always tried to bring a level of objectivity to what I write. I tend to be conservative by nature, although not always by voting practice. If I have an ideology, it is that I am opposed to injustice and hypocrisy (not to mention stupidity) and can be as critical of what I see on the right as what I see on the left. That objectivity is increasingly being threatened by what I see happening on the left lately.

Former President George W. Bush
expressing his feelings about
the Constitution and the law.

I was highly critical of the administration of George W. Bush for establishing Guantanamo and of both former President Bush and his unprincipled pit bull, Dick Cheney, for allowing torture and terror to be a part of their imprisonment and intelligence gathering practices. They were clearly not only contrary to American law and justice but to the very spirit and ideals set forth in the American Constitution. It seemed to me that the administration was attempting to defend the American way of life by becoming the very thing it fought against. It was a violation of what most Americans believe in and for which too many Americans have died to defend.


 More troubling, it was a clear message to terrorists that they had succeeded in making their enemy so afraid, they were willing to violate their own beliefs and laws in order to protect themselves,

Detainees at Gitmo, blindfolded and
water boarded.. Started by a  right-wing
president, continued by one from the left.
Is this really American?

Not surprisingly, many on both sides of the political spectrum agreed and spoke out against Gitmo and the administration’s practises. Today, however, the voices on the left are quite silent at the egregious threats to democracy by the current left-wing administration.

Consider these policies implemented by under a Democratic presidency.

FAST AND FURIOUS: The ATF was authorized to sell, and did sell, illegal automatic weapons to members of drug cartels abroad. Many of those illegal weapons found their way back into the United States where more than one American Citizen has been murdered as a result. In the current administration's twisted way of thinking in the War On Drugs, they have somehow developed the idea that the best way to fight crime is through criminal acts is supposed to be an anathema to the morality espoused by the left.

REDEFINING DUE PROCESS: The current Administration has now redefined due process to such a narrow, legalistic meaning, they had to come up with a separate name for it; judicial process. According to the those who defend liberty on behalf of Americans, citizens of the U.S. are not entitled to due process, just judicial process. This is the interpretation they now use to justify the killing of American citizens abroad and are using to rationalize the killing of American citizens within the country.

No need to take my word for it, Eric Holder, Attorney General under Barrack Obama is on record with this definition and his FBI Director refused, before a  Congressional Committee, to answer whether or not, the administration  now condoned the killing of Americans within their own country. Syria's Basshar Al-Assad uses much the same legal argument to justify the killing of Syrian citizens and while the left is highly critical of the Syrian government, it is silent about the dangerous path its own president is taking them down.

SOPA and PIPA, two bills put forward to provide the administration far-reaching powers to control the Internet, again outside the limits of constitutional due process. (For those on the left who were unaware, drafting of the legislation now known as SOPA was initiated in 1997 at the beginning of Bill Clinton's term in office. In typical government fashion, it has taken 14 years for various Congressional Committees to finally get it to a stage where people can actually see it and oppose it.)


PRE-CRIME DETECTION: In what can only be described as science fiction, The Department of Homeland Security is moving forward with pre-crime detection, a means whereby it believes it will be able to predict the likelyhood of someone to commit a terrorist or criminal act. It's almost as if the administration has turned national security over  to the same people who develop video games or at the very least, watched Minority Report starring Tom Cruise just once too often.

The left sneers at the right for its tough on crime agendas but the right never came close to dreaming up a way of holding people accountable for crimes the authorities thought they 'might' do. What kind of left-wing mania drives such a level of paranoid tyranny?

THE LACK OF RESPECT FOR THE TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY OF OTHER NATIONS: Under President Obama, The United States violated the sovereignty of Pakistan in order to kill Osama Bin Laden and Yemen to kill Anwar al-Awlaqi, an American citizen. I don’t condone terrorists and support efforts by all democracies in taking strong and aggressive action to capture, try and convict them. Having said that, I fail to see how violating your nation’s laws and ideals to protect those things, including violating the sovereignty of other nations, does anything other than demonstrate the failure of your own system and way of life. When the enemy successfully brings you down to his level, he's already won.There are some who celebrate this international form of vigilante justice but the left, which heavily criticized the Bush Administration for similar attitudes and breaches of law, has been silent on this now that it is their man behind the trigger.

TAXING AMERICAN BORN CITIZENS OF OTHER COUNTRIES: Under the current administration, the IRS has been authorized to now treat anyone who was born in the United States but who is actually the citizen of a foreign country as an American taxpayer.  Consider that for a moment. Your parents were visiting or working in the U.S., your mother was pregnant and you were born before your parents returned to their own country. You are now an 'accidental' American citizen and  taxpayer even if you  never lived in the United States, claimed American citizenship or even dropped in for a visit to Disney World with your kids on a two-week vacation. In fact, you are not only a taxpayer, you now owe back taxes for all the years you have been working and paying taxes in your own country.

Thousands of letters were sent to citizens of other countries, born in the United States, advising them that they were going to be charged with tax evasion, ostensibly making them criminal fugitives, unless they contacted the IRS and made arrangements to settle their outstanding tax debt.

There are countless more examples but these are some of the more egregious and they exemplify a growing trend in government to control the lives of its citizens. There has been an increasing encroachment on civil liberties and the rights of citizens in most democratic countries and I don’t see it as a left or right issue.

Are any of the extreme media
opportunists good for any of us?

What disturbs me is the blind eye that supporters on the left turn to the erosion of rights caused by their own while literally frothing at the mouth to condemn those on the right. To be sure, the right has its share of sins and does its own share of finger-pointing but not with the arrogant and sanctimonious self-righteousness of the left.

Recently, Rush Limbaugh called a university student a slut on air. He was rightly criticized heavily for it by outraged people on all sides of the political divide. Where was the left when Bill Maher referred to Sarah Palin as a "c*nt" or Ms Palin and Michele Bachman as "boobs"? Where was the left's outrage when it was one of their own who behaved so shamefully?

It certainly didn’t come from Gloria Steinham who happily sat on Mr. Maher’s program to chat with the 'wonderfully provocative' darling of the left entertainment world.

It would seem that Bill Maher share
as much in common with George. W. Bush
as he does with Rush Limbaugh.

It didn't come from the left-biased media elite who are always quick to jump on every perceived slight by those on the right, no matter how insignificant.

Where were all those left-leaning celebrities who speak out against even the slightest  comment that demeans women they see or hear on the right? Where was Susan Sarandan, Soledad O'Brien or even Hillary Clinton? Apparently the Left believes it is only inappropriate to demean women you like or with whom you tend to agree.

In what can only be described as bemusing, the outrage over Maher's comments came from people like Ann Coulter. Routinely criticized by the left, it was Ms Coulter who is best known for her somewhat rabid, extreme right-wing, shoot-from-the-lip attitude was equally critical of both Mr. Limbaugh and Mr. Maher. The rest of those on the left, apparently were too busy applauding Mr. Maher’s grandstanding donation of $1 million to Barrack Obama’s Super PAC to be concerned with concepts like hypocrisy. For his part,  President Obama has yet to decline the contribution despite all of his comments about wanting his daughters to grow up in a society where women are treated with respect and free to hold and voice their opinions without being demeaned. In the president's rarified world, money talks...bullshit walks.

While it is still impossible to actually know what Occupy actually stands for, it is fairly self-evident that it is not right-wing.  While the left likes to criticize the Tea Party and not without justification, the simple fact is that the Tea Party has used the system to build its membership. We may not agree with its policies or principles but one thing is clear, it has shown respect for the democratic process and the Constitution of the United States.

Another example of the kind for freedom of expression
condoned and supported by many on the left

Contrast that with Occupy which tramples the rights of others, stands in solidarity with convicted prisoners as San Quentin, rationalized sexual assault and child abuse within its own camps and defaced and vandalized public and private property including churches. Where was the left when Occupy was on its rampage? They were writing checks in support of a protest rabble they claimed was the ideal of democracy. Tired, forgotten left-wing activists from the 60’s were lining up to for photo ops at the tent cities and left-leaning celebrities were all over themselves to demonstrate they were in solidarity.

Are you getting the point?

There is much to criticize on the right and it should be criticized aggressively and usually is. It is the hypocrisy on the left that bothers me.  While the right is accused of being ideological, it is the left that clings to its ideology even in the face overwhelming evidence that what it supports is undermining the very things the left claims to hold most dear.

Michael Moore protesting the wealth of others
while enjoy the luxury of his own

While the left criticizes corporate tax breaks and bailouts (which I also criticize), it has a different opinion when it comes to entitlements for its own causes. The left is only too happy to see money pumped into activist groups and increased salaries, benefits and entitlements. It's even willing to see some social programs cut back if it means the 'pet' projects will go forward.

It claims to support the poor but doesn’t do much more than pay lip service to any concept of real support. Even in times of high unemployment and harsh economic realities, the left can always be counted on to support another union demand for higher wages and more benefits regardless of the impact it has on others.

The left criticizes wealth on the right while celebrating and even wallowing in the reflected glory of those who support them like Michael Moore, George Soros and Al Gore. The left has turned environmentalism and social activism into highly profitable ventures and have become highly accomplished at ensuring government funding for their profitable, non-profit organizations and causes.

 In a world where there are some hard economic choices that have to be made, the left always finds a way to justify making sure the funds continue to flow to their pet projects and friends even if it means not using money to overcome things like child poverty. They can blame that on the right after the check clears the bank.

And in the end, that is my increasing problem with the left.

The left talks a good game but when they have their hands on the reins of power, they are no better than the right and too often even worse. The hypocrisy is palpable and offensive. Too many groups and organizations on the left that claim to be working for the greater good are lined up like pigs at the trough at every opportunity to get a piece of the cash.

Politically, they are as ideological as anything the criticize on the right.

The left is determined to support Barrack Obama, not because he is the great defender of liberty or even all that effective as president. They support him because to do otherwise might make them seem racist, a charge they often make against those critical of the president. They support him because it's politically correct and the image of voting for a black man is one they like. He's young and seems cool. They support him because he's on the left, with them and when his policies seem a little right-wing, they remain silent because to criticize him would be an admission they were wrong. Image is everything with the left.

They support him in much the same way they supported Occupy, without much thought to the consequences of where he is leading them. It is absurd adherence to ideology and a wilful partisan blindness that not only rivals but that exceeds most on the right.

I believe that if all you can offer up is the same hypocrisy that you are against in  others, then you are no better than what you oppose. Your stated values and principles are made meaningless. There is corruption, lack of ethics  and sheer stupidity on the right but those are more than just a part of the left’s lexicon as well.

The only real difference between the left and the right today is the left wants it both ways with its sanctimonious, self-righteous hypocrisy. It is impossible to maintain any sense of credibility for what you espouse when you embrace the same language, tactics and assaults on ethical morality as those you criticize.

Unfortunately for the left, principles are only valid if you actually live them and you can't lay claim to living them if you are unprepared to judge yourself by the same standards by which you judge those with whom you disagree. While it likes to lay claim to the moral high ground, the simple fact is that the left has proven itself to be as unprincipled as anything it criticizes on the right.

It's hard to imagine how that is going to make a reality out of the left's promise of a better way of doing things.

LINKS

US Defends Killing American Citizens Abroad

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5joay9Ja42SsH3Ll18mXVpRz3C8xQ?docId=CNG.8feec9dc17b9d8bb080003d2f171a36a.01

Fast and Furious Just May Be President Obama's Watergate

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2011/09/28/fast-and-furious-just-might-be-president-obamas-watergate/

The Attack On Accidental American Citizens

http://mises.org/daily/5666

Homeland Security Moves Forward With Pre-Crime Detection
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20117058-281/homeland-security-moves-forward-with-pre-crime-detection/

© 2012 Maggie's Bear

all rights reserved

The content of this article is the sole property of Maggie's Bear but a link to it may be shared by those who think it may be of interest to others

Reefer Madness?

A few days ago, I posted a tongue-in cheek satire about how government over-regulates just about everything it touches. The piece was called “The Real Problem With Legalizing Marijuana” and it attracted almost ten times as much readership as anything else I’ve written. I’d like to think it was because people are interested in government but that wouldn’t be true.

It attracted more attention because many people thought it was about marijuana and judging from the response I received, there is apparently a very large constituency that is heavily invested in the issue of marijuana legalization.

After reading it, most people got the satire and had a chuckle but not all. Some were quite concerned that I was making assumptions that I wasn’t qualified to make. That may be true but the great thing about satire is that it doesn’t require qualification, just a sense of humour which also seemed to be lacking in some who read the piece.

More than a few who read the piece were quite perturbed by my reasoning, especially as they took it to be a serious attempt to undermine efforts to legalize the demon weed. I couldn’t help but wonder if maybe they were the victims of smoking a little too much Mother Nature and were perhaps, as a result, the best argument against legalization.

For clarity’s sake, let me state that I really don’t care if they legalize marijuana or not. I am not threatened by the fact that many smoke it and my life won’t be minimized if it disappears tomorrow. Marijuana was far more important to me when I was a teenager and thought it was one more symbol of rebellious freedom against the establishment, my parents and anyone else that made the enemies list.

I don’t feel like that now.

Marijuana has some therapeutic medicinal use and I think that should be explored and opened up. Certainly, weed can’t be any more harmful to those in chronic pain, suffering from MS or other debilitating diseases than the prescription medications they get through their doctors. Most of those drugs are so powerful that in a sixty-second commercial, as much as forty-five seconds can be devoted to the harmful side-effects of those drugs and only fifteen seconds given to promoting its benefits.

From my own personal experience and that of folks I have known over the years, there are two basic side-effects to smoking a few joints now and then.

The first is becoming so mellow that you willingness to do much more than breathe can be quite prevalent in some. This in and of itself isn’t much of a problem, the world could probably do with a little more mellowing but it can become an issue if that term paper has to be in tomorrow or your boss is expecting you to show up on time for the client presentation.

The other issue, and I believe a more serious one, is the craving for things like chocolate chip cookies that often accompanies marijuana use. As I have seen with some of my friends in the past, this can eventually lead to excessive weight gain and there is just nothing cool about being tubby while trying to look ‘with it’ while smoking a joint; especially if your jeans have become two sizes two small as a result. I know…been there….done that.

At the end of the day, marijuana which used to be legal (as did cocaine, actually) is really one of those ridiculous debates that fill too much time and which are clouded by too much prejudice and bias. We have far more legal products that are more harmful to waste so much time debating the evils of weed.

What does concern me though is that I can draw thousands to read a piece on the legalization of marijuana and only hundreds to read a piece on child abuse or the undermining of our democracies. It makes me wonder just where, exactly, our values as a society lay.

Smoke ‘em if you got ‘em by all means but take a moment to think about the real issues in the world. Worrying about legalizing marijuana when almost a million children are missing in North America or The Attorney General of the United States is able to justify the killing of American citizens abroad is nothing less than reefer madness.

Or maybe it’s just one more example of a world going mad. I’ll let you decide.

LINKS
The Real Problem With Legalizing Marijuana
http://bearsrant.blogspot.com/2012/03/real-problem-with-legalizing-marijuana.html

© 2012 Maggie's Bear

all rights reserved

The content of this article is the sole property of Maggie's Bear but a link to it may be shared by those who think it may be of interest to others

CNN's Soledad O'Brien - The Erosion Of Professional Journalism Continues

Watch this ‘interview’ by CNN’s Soledad O’Brien and then we’ll talk.

This kind of biased, prejudiced and bullying excuse for journalism has more in common with The National Enquirer than it should ever have with a news organization that claims the credentials of CNN.

Ms Obrien was not interested in covering the story, she inserted herself into it as if somehow she is part of the story and her opinion is as important, if not more important, than that of her interview subject.She had so little objectivity she  even talked down to and over some members of her celebrity panel of ‘experts'.

Indeed, I found it interesting that only one person on the celebrity panel of talking heads actually got it right. She criticized the media for the uneven job they do as gatekeepers of the information that is fed to the public and suggested that it wasn’t the media’s role. Ms Obrien, clearly didn't agree and was quick to talk over her ‘guest’ because she didn’t like the criticism.

In fact it was self-evident that Ms O'Brien came to the interview prepared to shoot down the claim being made by Joel Pollack and it quickly became even more clear that she wasn't interested in anything Mr. Pollack had to say. Her conduct had more in common with the Rush Limbaugh's of the world than anything even remotely representing professional and objective journalism.

Ms O’Brien exemplifies the worst in modern mainstream media. She was demeaning, rude, lacked objectivity, was poorly informed about Critical Race Theory (the actual topic of the interview) and argumentative. I respect a journalist being aggressive in their search for the truth but I resent this kind of arrogant partisanship posing as journalism.

I don’t happen to think the President Obama is a racist nor do I think he should be held accountable for what he may or may not have believed when he was in college. We all hold different opinions over the course of our lives and those opinions often change as we gain more life experience.

For that reason, I don’t happen to believe that the video in question is all that revealing or even important in trying to determine President Obama’s suitability for office. He has a record in office, judge him favourably or not based on his record. The constant search for extraneous nonsense from his past is nothing less than a desperate attempt by some to try to discredit him because they are either unwilling or unable to debate him on the issues or his record.

It is equally abhorrent to watch his supporters conduct themselves like cult followers who block any attempt to criticize him, especially in the media. I found Ms O'Brien's obvious bias as disgraceful as anything I've seen on Fox News. I think the president has a sufficient record from his first term in office that is all that is necessary to help people decide whether or not he deserves a second term.

Having said that, I have no issue with people like Mr. Pollack  voicing their opinions no matter how much I may disagree with them. That is democracy and that is what we all purport to believe in. There is, however, something distasteful and inappropriate in watching a ‘journalist’ mock, lecture and denigrate the subject of her interview as Ms Obrien did in this video clip. It betrays her bias and a belief by too many in the mainstream media that they know more than anyone else and are not only the gatekeepers of information but the gatekeepers of what we should be allowed to see and believe.

That isn’t the role of the news media and if Ms Obrien is incapable of understanding that, one would have hoped that the executives at CNN would have understood it. I think there is something dangerous about media acting like government when it comes to the dissemination of information.

Freedom of the press is a highly-prized and valued right in most democracies but with great freedom comes great responsibility. Too many in the mainstream media have lost sight of that as they turn their reporting into entertainment or platforms for their own biased beliefs. 

Whether it is John King with his ridiculous question to Newt Gingrich during a Republican candidate debate (a question clearly designed to embarrass Mr. Gingrich), the daily rantings of Fox News or Ms O’Brien’s complete lack of professional objectivity during this interview, the state of a journalistic standard that was once the envy of the world is clearly deteriorating. Too many who work in the media today are arrogant, elitist and less interested in presenting the story than they are in presenting their opinions of the story.

It’s small wonder that more and more people are turning their backs on the media celebrities and elite and searching for their information from other sources.

The bottom line is that when the media makes itself part of the story, it is no longer qualified to cover the story. After watching this embarrassing interview, one is forced to wonder if some media personalities will ever be able to get past the arrogance of their own celebrity to understand that.

© 2012 Maggie's Bear

all rights reserved

The content of this article is the sole property of Maggie's Bear but a link to it may be shared by those who think it may be of interest to others

Wikipedia overview of Critical Race Theory

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

Scholarly articles on Critical Race Theory

http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=critical+race+theory&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=dTVZT4niNMbl0gHRwcHaDw&ved=0CCEQgQMwAA

For Outstanding Achievement In Government Waste & Stupidity - The 2011 Teddy Awards

Many countries and industries present awards for outstanding achievement by individuals and groups and we are all familiar with awards like The Grammies, The People’s Choice and The Oscars. Awards are not merely presented for achievement in the arts and in entertainment, however. The Nobel Committee presents awards recognizing significant contribution in fields such as medicine and environmental sciences and there are countless academic, scientific and industry-specific awards world-wide.

Perhaps no single group, however,  is more overlooked when it comes to awards than government but in Canada, a nation of thoughtful and sensitive people, we have rectified this with the Taxpayers' Federation of Canada's Annual Teddy Awards for outstanding achievement in government waste and stupidity.

The 2011 Awards were presented yesterday on Parliament Hill. Sadly none of the recipients were available to accept their awards in person but we believe they should receive the recognition they deserve. Here are the Teddy Award recipients for last year.

The Federal Teddy Award – Winner: Agriculture Canada

Agriculture Canada won for its program to provide financial subsidies to tobacco farmers to make the transition from growing tobacco to an alternate crop. The program was a bargain at a mere $284 billion but unfortunately, after the investment was completed, there were actually twice as many farmers growing tobacco as there were before the cash subsidies were distributed.

The Life-time Achievement Teddy Award – Winner: Gilles Duceppe

For those unfamiliar with Canadian politics, Mr. Duceppe was the former leader of the Bloc Quebecois, a political party with the decided objective of bringing about the break up of Canada by causing the province of Quebec to secede and become an independent nation (still using Canadian currency and relying on Canada for defense, communications and health care). Mr. Duceppe who did not wish to be a Canadian nonetheless felt obliged to encourage others to benefit from Canada and quickly put his party's executive director on the federal payroll. It is estimated that his career in federal politics has cost the country in excess of $41 million and a grateful nation has awarded him a pension worth in excess of $2 million for his efforts.

The Provincial Teddy Award – Winner: The Alberta Legislature

This award was presented in recognition of Alberta’s standing committee on privileges and elections. Each member of the committee, which is comprised of 25% of the politicians sitting in the legislature, is paid a monthly stipend of $1,000 in recognition of their commitment and dedication to review political privilege. The committee has not met since 2008 which makes it quite the privilege.

And my particular favourite

The Municipal Teddy Award – Winner: The City of Montreal, Quebec

The award was presented in recognition of the city’s dedication to ensuring that sidewalks were plowed even when it hadn’t snowed. This video says it more elegantly than any words of mine ever could. Close runners up might have been the City Of Ottawa for putting GPS tracking devices on Blanding Turtles and a $1.3 million bike lane over six blocks in the downtown core but nothing quite rose to the effort put forward by Montreal. Here's the video of their hard work and dedication.

The Teddy is named for Ted Weatherill, a former federal government bureaucrat who was dismissed in 1999 for inappropriate expenses. Apparently Mr. Weatherill was never able to find a lunch in the city for less than $100 when the government was paying….which apparently was frequently.

Sadly, Mr. Weatherhill is no longer able to spend taxpayer money but fortunately it appears that there are more than a few who were only too willing to step up and carry on the tradition of waste and stupidity.

We salute them all.

© 2012 Maggie's Bear

all rights reserved

The content of this article is the sole property of Maggie's Bear but a link to it may be shared by those who think it may be of interest to others

Reflections The Day After Super Tuesday

It could just be me but it seems like we are voting more and accomplishing less with each election held in our various democracies.

Super Tuesday, as it is affectionately known, was held yesterday in the United States and a raft of delegates were awarded to the various Republican Candidates. Despite all the talking head predictions, nothing has been decided and while Mitt Romney remains the front-runner, he hasn’t wrapped the nomination up and the also-rans refuse to bow gracefully out of the race for the good of the party and perhaps the country.

Barbara Bush called this the worst political campaign she’s ever witnessed and I tend to agree with her. Billions are being spent to indulge three old men and a guy in a sweater-vest in their lust for power. None bring much that’s any different from the other three to the table and this orgy of empty rhetoric and ridiculous pandering is far from over. The only real question right now is, how much damage can this primary campaign do to the Republican Party? It’s difficult to believe it could possibly do much more than it already has but after yesterday’s results, it appears there is still more damage to do.

It isn’t any better anywhere else.

In Greece, people riot in the streets to protest austerity measures forced on them by the spendthrift ways of previous governments. In Egypt, people rioted against the provisional government put in place to transition Egypt from Mubarak’s reign to a new democracy even as the elections were about to be held.

In Canada, we’ve had 5 elections since 2000, that’s one election every 2 years in a country where the typical life of a government should be 4-5 years.

None of this includes bi-elections to replace retiring or representatives who have died in office nor does it include all of the municipal, county, regional, provincial/state or other elections held in various countries.

Like Winston Churchill, I believe that democracy is a terrible form of government, it’s just better than all of the alternatives but it seems to me that a simple concept like democracy has been hijacked by politicians and their political parties. Elections and preparing for elections has become a bigger part of their reason to exist, than governing.

In fact, I have come to believe that governing is increasingly in the hands of the bureaucracy with only minor tinkering from whichever politicians have most recently been elected.

Think about it.

Most of the regulations, laws, taxes and other things that get imposed on us are created by bureaucracies. Politicians may pontificate in their legislatures and even pass the legislation created by the bureaucracy but in the end, it’s the bureaucracies that actually put it all together and then implement it. Sometimes, the very legislation Party A introduced but failed to get adopted before their term ended, and which was opposed by Party B, gets implemented by Party B once they’re elected. Why? It’s because the bureaucracy remains constant. Only the politicians and their parties change.

Most politicians don’t have much experience with running a business let alone a government and many of the issues are complex and far-reaching. Politicians have difficulty focusing far enough ahead to plan on where to have lunch. It’s small wonder they tend to let bureaucracies do the heavy lifting.

Of course, that begs the question. Why do we need politicians and their parties when all they do is spend obsene amounts of money trying to get elected, draft legislation that is favourable to themselves, their parties and their ‘friends’ and which generally treat the electorate as no more intelligent than participants on the Jerry Springer Show?

I’ll grant you that there is a slight possibility that this an over-simplification and that political leaders actually do some governing. They embroil us in wars we can’t afford and in which we shouldn’t be involved. They attend international conferences where they agree the situation is grave and then further agree to do nothing except forging agreement on the conference press release. They pass money bills to make sure that the bureaucracy is fed and the social assistance checks go out on time and they dream up legislation that never seems to actually address the real and long-term issues facing our societies (like poverty, infrastructure and crime) but which always give them lots to talk about on Meet The Press, CNN or CTV.

The simple fact is that, we the people, need people to represent us in government. We can’t all drop by our respective legislatures for a discussion of the issues. Occupy has been trying that out without much success. The ‘up twinkles’ approach to democracy isn’t any better than what we already have, it’s just funnier to watch.

What we need is true representative democracy. By that I mean a democracy where the politician represents his or her constituents, not a political party, power base or Super PAC. We need people with integrity, vision and a strong moral sense of public service, people who see serving their neighbours as an honour rather than as a path to power and wealth.

Overthrowing a dictatorship or other tyranny isn’t of much use if it only going to be replaced by democratically elected party hacks who are no better than those who were overthrown.

In the end, I look at what passes for political leadership in my country (Canada) and I am disgusted by what I see. It is nothing but the basest partisanship and a lack of principles. It is political parties that confuse not getting caught as being morality. It is no better anywhere else and I despair for my friends in the United States who have watched billions spent over the past ten months but have precious little from which to choose despite the expenditure.

As long as we continue to believe that it is only the candidate or political leader we don’t like who is the problem, the political parties and their strategists will continue to  win the game and our system(s) will never change for the better.

We will continue to watch our democracies be eroded by immorality, greed, influence and sheer stupidity.

It almost makes you long for the good old days of a Julius Caesar.

© 2012 Maggie's Bear

all rights reserved

The content of this article is the sole property of Maggie's Bear but a link to it may be shared by those who think it may be of interest to others

The Shameful Disgrace Behind The RoboCall Scandal

A hypocrite is someone who is defined as pretending to have values, morals or principles that they don’t actually possess or live. A politician is defined as someone engaged in politics and as someone who acts in a manipulative and malicious way usually to gain advancement.

If anything more clearly demonstrates that both of these definitions are alive and well in government, it is surely the RoboCon scandal in Canada. The level of political hypocrisy has become so repugnant it is threatening to deflect attention from the issue itself and redirect it to the disgraceful response by politicians on all sides of the political divide.

Just a week ago, Bob Rae interim leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, apologized for the behavior of one Liberal staff member for VikiLeaks, a dirty little smear campaign by a rogue employee of the Liberal Party. I believe Mr. Rae’s apology was sincere and that he, as leader, knew nothing about the staffer’s activity. He clearly expected the Conservatives to believe that when he apologized. It did not, however, prevent Mr. Rae from attacking the Prime Minister for the very same thing he just denied applied to himself



Liberal Party Interim Leader Bob Rae

“The prime minister has created a Nixonian culture. This stuff doesn't happen unless the boss lets it happen. He has allowed to seep into his party and into his organization a culture of attack and, frankly, a culture of deception and dirty tricks..."

NDP Member Pat Martin has been so careless with his accusations and vitriolic that he is now being sued by RackNine for defamation, a lawsuit that Mr. Martin dismisses as an attempt to shut him up. Exactly! It is more than an attempt; it is a desperate move to put some sense of responsibility back into the issue. Mr. Martin has no evidence whatsoever that RackNine has done anything improper or illegal but it hasn’t prevented him from smearing the company with careless innuendo and defamatory labels like “RackNine rascals” in attempt to further his self-serving attack on the Conservatives.



For their part, the Conservatives, led by Prime Minister Stephen Harper have conducted themselves with no more dignity or integrity. Instead of taking a leadership role in uncovering the truth of what happened and working cooperatively with all parties the paty has done the usual circle the wagons defense and then counterattack strategy. They have hurled outrageously stupid accusations back at the opposition parties that border on lunacy. It almost makes you believe their political strategies are developed by children who have too much sugar in their systems.



Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper

 It is an ongoing disgrace and an overwhelming insult to Canadians and to our democracy.

Our electoral system has long been demeaned by cynical political parties who promise much during campaigns and deliver little but more of the same inefficiency, lack of vision and hypocrisy once elected. Now our electoral system, our very democracy, is being attacked by those who believe our right to vote is merely one more commodity to be manipulated on the way to victory.

What are our politicians doing about it? Nothing!

They pontificate, they yell across the floor at each other in the House of Commons and they strut their arrogant self-righteous rhetoric before the public at every televised opportunity they can arrange but in the end, they are doing nothing of any real value.

The simple truth is that there isn’t one politician sitting in the house who really gives a tinker’s damn about our democracy. RoboCon is a ‘made in Heaven’ opportunity for the opposition parties to advance their political agenda against the government while to the government it is just one more attack to be deflected. Nobody really cares about what RoboCon or the subsequent gamesmanship that is now going on is actually doing to our society, our government or to our democracy. It's all about winning political points.

Far from demonstrating that they are interested in discovering the truth, the actions and words of all politicians are undermining what little confidence Canadians had left in their democratic processes and the integrity of government. If the only response politicians can offer when our right to free and fair elections is under attack is more partisan name-calling and unproven accusations protected by parliamentary privilege, what use are they?

Automated calling systems are used by all political parties. The misuse of it as appears to be the case in the 2011 election has serious repercussions for the integrity of our elections and, therefore, our democracy. Anyone and everyone involved in voter fraud should be charged and punished to the full extent of the law. That is something all political parties should be working cooperatively towards.

Instead, we are given just more of the same self-serving partisanship because our electoral system has been hijacked by those to whom it was entrusted. Political parties, their politicians, staffers and backroom strategists have turned our elections into little more than a game in which they treat voters as little more than the pieces to be manipulated and moved around the board at their discretion. It is this attitude by all politicians and their parties that have led to corruption like AdScam, VikiLeaks and now RoboCon.

I'm tired and more than a little disgusted by the self-righteous rantings of members of Parliament like Pat Martin and the simpering hypocrisy of NDP Interim-leader Nicole Turmel. I'm tired of the folksy, dishonest arrogance of Liberal Interim Libear Leader Bob Rae and I am tired of Prime Minister Stephen Harper putting his viscious partisanship ahead of the welfare of the country.

If nothing else, RoboCon has demonstrated once again how little respect politicians and their parties have for the people they claim to represent and the Parliament in which they sit. It demonstrates once again how little integrity and decency they bring to politics and to the people's government.

Politicians claim to represent us but they don't. They don't share our values. That is the real meaning of RoboCon and it is nothing less than a disgrace.

© 2012 Maggie's Bear

all rights reserved

The content of this article is the sole property of Maggie's Bear but a link to it may be shared by those who think it may be of interest to others

CNN And Michael Moore Go At It Over Health Care

I’m having a bad day.

I just watched an interview with Michael Moore on CNN and find myself almost agreeing with him, if not on all of the facts raised by CNN, certainly on Mr. Moore's response to Wolf Bliitzer's presentation and questions. Finding myself to actuallly be 'sort of', 'almost', 'kind of',  'possibly' in agreement with Michael Moore is threatening to make my head explode.  Here's the interview on video.

I consider Michael Moore to be just one more cynical opportunist making a great living off criticizing things with anything but an objective and balanced view of everything from gun control to health care. He has accused middle-class Americans of being racist while sidling up to the young in attempt to present himself as hip and aware to help promote his movies.

He sided with Occupy in their protests against the so-called 1% and when it was revealed that Mr. Moore is actually a member of the 1%, he quickly altered his stance to try and redefine the 1% as an attitude rather than an economic issue.

Now it’s health care and while I have no doubt that many of his statistics are probably accurate or close to accurate, the simple fact is that they do not prove what he thinks he is trying to prove. First and foremost, despite his oft-repeated  statement about 'free' health care in countries like Canada (my country) the fact is that it is not free or even close.

In Canada free health care is  paid for by every Canadian who pays taxes through those taxes. In some provinces, like Ontario, there is an additional health tax added on and when it’s all added up, almost 50% of every tax dollar goes to funding ‘free’ health care.

The result?

Longer wait times in emergency rooms, a shortage of hospital beds, increasing administrative costs, ridiculously long wait times for surgeries, a shortage of facilities like MRI clinics and of family physicians and the delisting (privatizing) of various medical procedures that were once included, like chiropractic and optometry in some jurisdictions.

Even more disturbing, Canada ranks below the United States when it comes to wait times for medical treatment.

I support universal access to health care and I don’t mind seeing it funded by taxes but I resent the way the current mess of the Canadian health care system is constantly held up by the uniformed like Mr. Moore as being something to which other countries, including his, should aspire. Indeed, the debate in Canada about how to improve health care is anything but. The mere suggestion of looking at new and different ways to deliver health care, which might include a blend of private and public delivery, is immediately blocked by the hysterical screams of those who would rather defend an increasingly unaffordable system, with declining efficiency, than do anything to improve it.

But, as Arlo Guthry said after a 20 minute disertation on his experience one Thanksgiving at Alice's Restaurant, this isn't what I came to talk about. I came to talk about the mainstream media and the CNN interview with Michael Moore is just one more example of the problem.

It isn’t CNN per se, it’s the mainstream media in general with their biased and slanted opinion- based approach to journalism that is as demeaning to democracy as the cynical lack of morality demonstrated daily by our politicians and the political parties they represent. The mainstream media are the fourth estate and are protected by the right of freedom of the press. With great freedom comes great responsibility but the mainstream media are failing in meeting that responsibility.

Their coverage of major news events is more about presenting their ‘take’ on the event than actually presenting facts and letting the public decide for themselves what it all means. Indeed, the media now spend more time interviewing each other about the news than they actually do interviewing the newsmakers themselves.

I don’t deny Mr. Moore his right to make his movies even if I don’t agree with the content of them nor do I begrudge him his financial success. I think his movies are one-sided and that Mr. Moore himself needs to become more objective but that is just my opinion.

I am less forgiving with the mainstream media.

When I watch a debate of presidential candidates and one of the key questions asked is about ridiculous things like the allegations of infidelity made by the ex-wife of a candidate, I just shake my head in disbelief. When a national television news network prefers to show talking heads rather than the event, as the CBC did during the ‘televized’ coverage of the last federal budget, I sit in wonderment at how little televised coverage the presentation of the budget actually received.

There is a place in journalism for comment and opinion but here’s a big 10-4 for the mainstream media. Your opinions are not news and are not as important to us as you think they are. We want to know what is going on, not simply what you think about it. Most of us actually have brains and are more than capable of using them. Give us the facts and let us decide for ourselves rather than spoon feeding us your opinions as if every bit of commentary was part of the Sermon on the Mount.

The relationship between the media and politicians is becoming incestuous and that is worrisome. In Britain, the phone hacking scandal by various newspaper tabloids is no less disgraceful than the Robocon scandal in Canada over potential electoral fraud during the last election.

There was a time when the news media was above all of that, a time when the news media could be trusted to uncover the truth and get it into the hands of the people. Now, the mainstream media are a biased, opinionated entertainment medium complete with super-graphics and theme music for every major event from political debates to wars.

And worst of all for me, the behavior of many in the mainstream media have put me on the same side of the fence as Michael Moore and that has seriously ruined my day.

© 2012 Maggie's Bear

all rights reserved

The content of this article is the sole property of Maggie's Bear but a link to it may be shared by those who think it may be of interest to others