- Carney, a Closet Con? - Tell Me It Isn't So!

Posted: 1:23 PM on August 23, 2012

Free up 'dead money,' Carney exhorts corporate Canada, Aug. 23 2012, G&M
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/free-up-dead-money-carney-exhorts-corporate-canada/article4493091/?utm_medium=Newsletter&utm_source=The%20Globe%20and%20Mail&utm_type=text&utm_content=TheGlobeandMail&utm_campaign=97190246

"On the contrary, Bank of Canada research suggests that the dollar’s appreciation accounts for only about 20 per cent of Canada’s export decline."

What is this. Sounds like Carney is applying one of the fundamental proposition's of Con'ism - as long as it sounds plausible.

If scientific researchers (assuming any qualified scientific researchers are left in Canada) came out with results that indicated a particular cause was accountable for 20% of the cases of a particular potentially terminal disease Canadians would likely be up-and-arms about getting rid of it.

If Canada's exports were to increase by 20%, economies like that in Ontario would be hugely positively impacted and unemployment significantly reduced. Talk about a job creator!

The impression is that Carney is being used by Harper to give Harper's policies a stamp of systemic approval.

Or, perhaps in reality Carney is a Closet Con

Corporations should "Free Up Dead Money"

I thought Harper's con for reducing corporate taxes was so that Corporations would invest more in development (in Canada) and thus create jobs.

I also thought the major flaw in this 'con' was that the Corporations would not invest more in development but hold the money and/or distribute it to shareholders and generally merely make the rich richer.

Seems like the numbers are starting to manifest itself, revealing Harper's con, and Harper is trying a pre-emptive strike to defuse the situation.

"Andrew Snelgrove, CFO of Halifax-based investment company Clarke Inc., said many undervalued acquisition targets are available for companies that have cash and are willing to spend it."

How does buying up undervalued businesses help our economy - it only locks in the losses in investment in these undervalued companies and make the acquisitioner bigger.

Oh, and by the way, did I mention: there is a great study just released showing the US falling behind China and India in education and discussing the huge impact on the futures of those countries in being able to compete on the international level.

I can only assume that Canada is similarly situated to the US on this one.

Wow, just think, spending money on child care and development as well as education not only actually reduces crime rates but also makes us more competitive on the International level.

For the cost of one F-35 strike force super-jets (which are designed specifically and really may only be used to anywhere near their capacity in a full pitched war) I wonder what the equivalent is in Canadian children's upbringing and education.

For that matter how many of our children can we help for $30 billion and counting. Perhaps carney can make a comment on this as well.

I also wonder how does all the hard earned Canadian tax dollars being spent on upgrading Canada's military's ability to wage war compare the the profits Canadians get from the sale of Oil and gas. I suspect that Harper is in actuality using these profits to promote his right-wing extremist agenda.

And, what war are we gearing up for anyway.

I also wonder since the high price of gasoline is obviously having a devastating impact on all Westerners and especially Canadians and reducing the price of gas at the pumps would clearly be a huge job creator and export stimulus; and given that Harper considers himself as a Oil Super Power; surely Harper could do something to reduce gas prices. For example, reduce taxes on gasoline like the HST (the increased price of gas is a sneaky de facto tax increase for Harper), instead of a pipeline to BC where the Oil is shipped to the Far East make one to Ontario (or further East) and build refineries to process the oil.

(see my post: 19 May, 2012, Oil Profits Flow Outside Canada; Environmental Costs Stay Inside Canada - It's Just That Simple, Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html)

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

We Are Because We Say We Are (or, We Don't Stop For Nobody)

posted: August 16, 2012 at 11:13 am
http://scienceblog.com/46622/minority-rules-scientists-discover-tipping-point-for-the-spread-of-ideas/comment-page-4/#comment-32671
Minority Rules: Scientists Discover Tipping Point for the Spread of Ideas


My (Lloyd) observations ( empirical ) :
If 10 – 15% of the people are animated to remove a government or ruler their days are numbered.

(see for example:
cicblog.com/comments.html “There is only one source of power – people”, 29 July, 2009)

The findings sited in this study are along the same lines but with important exceptions:

The statement: “when just 10 percent of the population holds an unshakable belief, their belief will always be adopted by the majority of the society”

Is, it is submitted, logically unsupported, since what happens in a society where there are two, or more, groups of 10% each with “unshakable believes” that are diametrically opposed – something that is not inconceivable, especially in communities with large populations, diverse geographically, politically, demographically, etc., for example say we call the groups Republican and Democrat.

It seems to me that there must be something more at work before what they are proposing comes to play. It might be that as they seems to suggest the 10% may be necessary but I am not convinced it is sufficient.

It doesn’t seems to take into account the politico-socio dynamics of a real society.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- 'Fear and Greed' - That's So 'Con'

Posted: 10:24 AM on 6/19/2012

If the Liberals can't save themselves..., Andrew Coyne, Winnipeg Free Press, 19 Jun.'12

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/westview/if-the-liberals-cant-save-themselves-159534185.html

"a willingness to go where the other parties would not go, but where expert opinion and the national interest would advise, whether this placed it on the right or the left on any given issue."

Basically I concur.

Although this approach has its drawbacks as well.

It seems there have been many studies that show 60% or more vote based on the emotions - hence almost the definition of a 'Right Wing' party is their employment of 'Fear' and 'Greed' to reach out to voters - as is so obvious with Harper and the Con's.

But, with this approach the benefits go to all Canadians and the country as a whole and not a small, sometimes very well defined, ideologically and/or graphically, group.

It promotes togetherism and the concept that government is to help all those that need help and protect all those that need protection, and not simply maximize profits, it builds a nation and not simply 32 million people saying "me".

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

That Which We Call A 'Con' By Any Other Name Smells as Much

Posted: 10:14 AM on June 15, 2012

Poll paints bleak future for B.C. Liberals, Justine Hunter, The Globe and Mail, Jun. 13 2012

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/poll-paints-bleak-future-for-bc-liberals/article4258062/

For Christy Clark and the BC 'Liberal' Party

It is clearly a question of a huge honesty and integrity gap.

She might start trying to regain voter trust and respect by

a gesture of good faith and honesty and

change the party's name to

"Conservative Party of BC"

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- How About a Real "Canada First" defence strategy

submitted: 9:52am, 4 Jun '12
Conservatives to revise $490B defence spending plan
Canada First Defence Strategy features a laundry list of ships, tanks and planes
The Canadian Press
 Posted: Jun 4, 2012 7:20 AM ET
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/06/04/defence-spending-revise-strategy.html
　

"the $490-billion, 20-year defence policy"

Am I reading this 'right'

Why that's approx $25 billion per year,

For 20 years!

No wonder Harper, MacKay and the Con's

aren't batting an eye lash

(besides it not being their money, of course -

but, to the victor go the spoils is

the 'Con First' Harper Policy )


at $30 billion and counting for 65 F-35's.

　

When it gets right down to it.

I wonder just how many people in Canada

if they had these numbers brought to their attention

I mean truly, in a straightforward manner,

without the

Harper deception, obscuration, obfuscation, obstruction, hypocrisy,

would think

it is simply insane for Canada

to be spending these mega-amounts on military.

Especially when it is for no other purpose than

Harper implementing his right wing extremist ideology.

Stevo, answer me this.

What war are you planning for Canada.

And just exactly how is this "Canada First"

I wonder how many of our most deserving children could be given a post secondary school education

How many people could rest a bit easier knowing that if they need it the health care will be available to them and their families.

How much could we put towards putting Ontario and Quebec back on their feet.

How much could we put towards our environmental deficit - you know the one that our children and our children's children be left holding the bag on so that International Corporations can maximize their offshore profits.

The biggest stifling factor in job creation and our economy

is the high cost of oil and gasoline at the pumps.

If Harper had any real intention of putting Canada First

and not simply creating wealth outside Canada and very specific sector of the Canadian demographic,

he would put his efforts into some way of reducing the cost of oil and gasoline for all Canadians.

　

Here's a real "Canada First" defence strategy

Tear up this Con - Canada First Defence Strategy

Put any amounts as we can afford towards child care, education health care

Take real steps to reverse the environmental damage and economy for all Provinces.

You know true Canadian values

　

Oh, and how about Harper resigning, and holding a new election on this $490 billion military spending.

　

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

　

Oil Profits Flow Outside Canada; Environmental Costs Stay Inside Canada - It's Just That Simple

Submitted: 9:05am, 19 May '12


Andrew Coyne: There is a method to Thomas Mulcair’s ‘Dutch Disease’ madness
 Andrew Coyne, National Post, May 18, 2012 
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/05/18/andrew-coyne-there-is-a-method-to-thomas-mulcairs-dutch-disease-madness/#Comments


Coyne,

You suggest one advantage Ontario has for the higher dollar is - cheaper machinery.

However, what that really means is less machinery being made in Canada.

Also, no one seems to want to do an actual analysis of all this.

The big argument Harper and the Con's make is that the tar sands create jobs in Ontario as well. However, no one seems to volunteer just how many jobs.

What is the ratio of jobs lost in Ontario compared to jobs gained.

With Harper and the tar sands the only thing that flows outside Canada faster than the oil are the profits.

Harper and the Con's also talk of job creation in the West.

But, how many are highly specialized that Ontarians simply don't have the training or experience to fulfill - as compared to the US where they have been going around the world extracting other counties oil for 100 years.

It is the private oil companies that do the hiring.

They are international ventures that produce oil in many countries. They have their own skilled labour pools and you can betcha they will bring them in first. The Western Tar sands is a mega make work project for the US (and a hand full of other countries), but not Canada. We see this paradigm at work in the F-35's as well.

Another by Alberta is the transfer payments - but no one seems to volunteer how much transfer payments.

Or, more importantly in the 145 years of Confederation what's the net transfer payments out of Ontario compared to into Ontario, or how much into Western provinces compared to how much out of Ontario.

Harper, Flaherty and the other Con's are being very hypocritical about wanting to grow jobs.

The biggest stiffling factor in job creation and our economy (and most if the other developed economies) is the high cots of oil and gasoline at the pumps.

If Harper really were interested in the Canadian economy and not simply creating wealth outside Canada and very specific sector of the Canadian demographic, he would put his efforts into some way of reducing the cost of oil and gasoline for all Canadians.

Harper calls Canada an oil superpower - well, Harper, how about using some of that 'power' to help all of Canada.

Mulcair is right (morally) that the financial burden of cleaning up the environment is bing pushed off to our children and our children's children.

The profits are flowing outside Canada but the environmental damage isn't.

It's just that simple.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

Who Knows What Evil Lurks in the Hearts of Men - the Harper Knows!

Posted: 11:10 AM on 5/17/2012
RCMP conducted five-month national security probe into leaked F-35 story, Murray Brewster and Jim Bronskill, The Canadian Press, 05/16/2012
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/rcmp-conducted-five-month-national-security-probe-into-leaked-f-35-story-151781025.html

He [ Wesley Wark] said it is also unusual in that the government would have known that media leak provisions of the legislation were struck down a few years ago in the aftermath of the case where Ottawa Citizen reporter Juliet O'Neill's home was raided following stories she wrote about the Maher Arar affair.

"There are a number of things at work here that are troubling, quite apart from what appears to be the silliness of the exercise in the first place and the waste of resources," said Wark.

"Even if they had a strong case, prudence would suggest this is not the kind of thing you would want to pursue. The Security of Information Act doesn't exist to be used for politically inspired chill."

It sounds like Wesley Wark is saying the legal basis for the investigation had been struck down prior to this incident - well that is curious.

"complaint was laid by Wayne Wouters, clerk of the Privy Council, the country's highest-ranking civil servant and adviser to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, "
hummm, I wonder if Harper had any idea what his top adviser was up to - seems like everything points to not only did he know, but Harper was the motivating and inspirational force behind it

It also looks like Harper will go to any lengths to suppress opposition and hide any and all evidence of his mis-use of power to implement his agenda and abuse of the sacred trust Canadians have, albeit perhaps for all but 33% - 35% who don't care want Harper does as long as he implements their agenda,  blindly, in him.

I wonder if there are any other examples in history where the leader of a country has abused his office to suppress criticism and hide what they are really up to.

And of course, the real question is, why - what is Harper really up to that he would go to such lengths to hide.

I would suggest just ask him,. However, we have come to realize one simply cannot rely on anything he, or any of his Cons', say.

I'm sure I've seen this paradigm before.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

The 'Harper doesn't give a rat's a[redacted]s about Canada' paradigm

Submitted: 9:42am (PDT) 16 May '12

Chinese firm's Canadian contracts raise security fears, Barred by the U.S. and Australia, tech giant Huawei makes inroads in Canada By Greg Weston, CBC News, May 15, 2012 11:58 PM ET http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/05/15/pol-weston-huawei-china-telecom-security-canada.html

Perhaps Stephen Harper feels since he is able to successfully hide his secrets and what he is doing from the Canadian people that he will be able to hide Canada's secrets to from hackers.

Here's a new flash Stevo

It's just not the same thing.

You may be able to close the doors of Parliamentary Committees by declaring the meeting 'in camera'.

However, try as you might, declaring sensitive computer files as 'in camera' won't cut it Steve.

As Michel Juneau-Katsuya, security expert and former member of Canada's spy service, is quoted
"Unfortunately, the PMO is very nonchalant when it comes to security, . . . They have an agenda, a political agenda … and they disregard some of the warnings coming from the official agencies."
You've got that right Michel, morally and politically.

In fact, it is a very insightful observation, one obviously well foundationed, which makes one wonder if it doesn't reflect the CSIS profile on Harper - ie. The Harper doesn't give a rat's a[redacted]s about Canada  paradigm.

The real problem here is that Harper has his own agenda and we gave him the keys to the vault by electing him.

Harper's attitude is he is going to implement his right wing extremist agenda and Canada and Canadian be dam[redacted]ed.

After all, we elected him with a majority as to the victor go the spoils and we must learn to live with that.

It's just that simple.

Harper simply doesn't care about the overall damaging effect that his policies will have in the long run to Canada not only our economy, and the environment but to the country as a nation, our Democracy and our social fabric, and that it is our children and our children's children that will be required shoulder this withering burdened,

Why would he give a rat's as[redacted] about something so cloudy as our national security and that of our closest and longest standing allies.

Mulcair and the NDP can do all they want

But unless:

Canadians decide to stand up for themselves and be counted and let it their opinions be known that this maybe Right but it is not right (morally).

that this is not what our forefathers gave their blood, sweat and tears building this great nation of our for.

that this is not what we want to leave for our children and our children's children.


Lloyd MacILquham cicblog comments

Are Mulcair and the NDP left to "fight the good fight"

Posted: 12:53 PM on May 10, 2012

Has NDP already lost the war over Harper's omnibus bill?, John Ibbitson, May. 10, 2012 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/john-ibbitson/has-ndp-already-lost-the-war-over-harpers-omnibus-bill/article2428375/

This is not a "parliamentary war" where

Mulcair and the NDP are left to "fight the good fight" of true Canadian values.

This is true Canadian values teetering on the precipice.

There is no way Harper is going to back down on the Omnibus bill and it will get passed as such.

Whether the manner in which Harper is passing it is disrespectful of our Parliamentary Democracy, disrespectful of the 2/3 Canadians that didn't vote for him, is simply not a concern of his.

Harper's attitude is he is going to implement his right wing extremist agenda and Canada and Canadian be dam[redacted]ed.

After all, we elected him with a majority as to the victor go the spoils and we must learn to live with that.

It's just that simple.

Mulcair and the NDP can do all they want

But unless

Canadians decide to stand up for themselves and be counted and let it their opinions be known that this maybe Right but it is not right (morally).

that this is not what our forefathers gave their blood, sweat and tears building this great nation of our for.

that this is not what we want to leave for our children and our children's children.

If Canadians speak out about the overall damaging effect that Harper and the Con's policies will have in the long run to Canada not only our economy, and the environment but to the country as a nation, our Democracy and our social fabric, after all it is our children and our children's children that will be required shoulder this withering burdened,

Perhaps Canada can be saved from the Precipice

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- What, Me Worried

See post below:
posted 12:07 PM on May 5, 2012

 

 

Osiris wrote: 11:35 AM on May 4

[in reply to my post, 10:51 AM on May 4: "The Only Thing That Will Fly Out Of Canada Faster Than the $30 Billion And Counting To Buy Them, Are the F-35's Themselves"]

 

 

"Your naiveté is very evident when you wax poetically about Canadian values such as health care and education. . . . "

My Reply to Osiris:

Well, Osiris,

 

 

I pride myself in not being naïve enough to trust anything Stephen Harper, Peter McKay have to say about anything

and from what is coming out in the media, what Canada's military has to say about the F-35's, which is shocking and one is left wondering why

I also pride myself in not being naive about catastrophic impact the Harper policies will have on my children and my children's children, not just environmentally for which they will be left to make good and big time, but also the dismantles of our social programs including health Care.

I am also not naïve about how Harper policies on oil and gas, the F-35's, and just about everything else have the common thread of money flowing out of Canada, or into the Oil have provinces, causing a weakening of Canadian Federalism and a draining of the average Canadian's finances.

I am also not naïve about there being only one reason for building up a military in the fashion Harper is doing.

And judging from your comments suggesting that Canadians are hawks, I might infer that you will be at the front line, if I were so naive.

I am also not naïve about where Harper's power base is and that as long as he has this support, and the opposition is un-united, he will do pretty much whatever he wants and Canada be dam[redacted]ed.

I am further not naïve about perceiving the only thing Canadians can do is to stand up, be counted and let it their opinion be known about Harper and his Con's.

And, I am not naïve about you being the Egyptian god of death.

And I and not naïve enough not to wonder at your sincerity and motives, when apparently you don't even have the conviction of your opinions that you would give your real name.

How's that for not being naïve.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

-- The Only Thing That Will Fly Out Of Canada Faster Than the $30 Billion And Counting To Buy Them, Are the F-35's Themselves

Posted: 10:51 AM on May 4, 2012

Global needs trump domestic concerns on F-35, DND says, Daniel LeBlanc, Globe and Mail, May. 04, 2012 1:18AM EDT

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/global-needs-trump-domestic-concerns-on-f-35-dnd-says/article2422158/

(Day Late and a Dollar Short - no, not the F-35's - that one's in terms of years and billions - this post is a day late and I'm always a dollar short with these gas prices.)

When assessing what Canada's military has to say on the need to purchase the F-35's,

Read these two very recent articles:

canada.com/
By Jeff Davis, Postmedia News May 3, 2012

"OTTAWA — The general responsible for NATO's military hardware says it's not important that countries buy the same fighter jets, punching a hole in the government's argument that it must buy the F-35 for the sake of 'interoperability.' . . . "

Well, that doesn't sound like what we've been told for the last number of years.

And

hilltimes.com

By TIM NAUMETZ |
Thursday, 05/03/2012 9:13 am EDT

" PARLIAMENT HILL—The department of National Defence last month retroactively amended a key phrase in a report it submitted for tabling in Parliament last year on the government’s planned F-35 fighter jet acquisition after Auditor General Michael Ferguson issued a scathing report on the controversial project's costs. . . ."

hummmm.

Seems like there's something rotten in the state of Denmark, Horatio. (and, no, I have nothing against Denmark, and am not suggesting that they have anything to do with our purchasing the F-35's - it;'s just a Shakespeare quote that seems appropriate).

Here's a suggestion.

How about letting Canadians know just what it is that our military has planned in the future that we need these first strike fighter jets so badly that we would pay $30 billion and counting for them, where pretty much all the money would fly out of Canada faster than the F-35's.

As opposed to say, child care, education, health care, you know things that reflect true Canadian values and not the hawkish foreign one, and where the money would not only stay in Canada but benefit Canadians.

On the other hand, if we're all going to be given a ride in one of these eye watering technological marvels - hay, perhaps we will need 65 of them, but I'd like to have it within my lifetime.

The Canadian military is here to serve Canadians and not the other way around. It is also not here to service the US or other foreign countries military objectives and world domination.

And, hey did anyone ask the Russians or Chinese about purchasing their planes - hey everything else we buy is made in China, why not our jets,

It seems to me that that is the kind of "interoperability" that is important - at least we could be sure we're keeping up with the "enemy" and not throw billions away on something that doesn't perform to spec's, the price is grossly overinflated - I'll betcha, the Chinese don't have that problem - and may likely be outclassed and obsolete by the time it is employed.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Stephen Harper is so Predictable it Hurts

Posted: 10:08 AM on April 26, 2012
Harper plans to ‘examine all options’ on 2014 withdrawal from Afghanistan Steven Chanse, Globe and Mail, Wednesday, Apr. 25, 2012 11:36PM EDT 
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harper-plans-to-examine-all-options-on-2014-withdrawal-from-afghanistan/article2414045/

I posted the following to my blog on 16 Nov.'10 & 17 Nov.'10:

16 November, 2010: - I just want to know if this Harper 'training mission' wouldn't include F-35's by any chance.

I am not sure a vote will achieve much, given Harper's track record.
But open, transparent discussion and debate where Harper reveals to the people just exactly what he has in mind is vital. It is Canada that is fighting in Afghanistan, not the Conservative Party. It is Canadians that must bear arms,not Harper, MacKay or any of the other con's.

". . . none of the troops will be posted in mentoring operations that would require them to accompany Afghan army personnel on combat operations"

When Harper said in early January:
"we will not be undertaking any activities that require any kind of military presence, other than the odd guard guarding an embassy"(OttawaCitizen, 7 Jan.'10)

I strongly suspect Harper knew at that time he would be announcing, if he, Harper, has anything to do with it, that Canadians troops would be remaining.
He is saying now it is training inside the wire.
But, as we shall see, this 'wire', along with our credulousness, will be stretched until it simply disappears and our participation becomes indistinguishable from the type of role we have now - much to the satisfaction of the US and other NATO participants.

Certainly, everyone, in Canada, and elsewhere, looked at his track record, his hawkish approach to Afghanistan and his general right-wing extremist ideology combined with 4 years of misleading, obscuring, obstructing and obfuscation - in a word "Con'ing Canadians" - and concluded that when push came to shove, he would keep a significant military presence in Afghanistan, despite he was saying the opposite.
(So, if someone knows they are being mislead, can it be said they are, in actuality, being mislead.

This continued and extensive misleading, is, of course, a manifestation of the Flanagan Fundamental Principle of Con'ism as applied by Harper:

“It doesn't have to be true. It just has to be plausible")

Any continued participation in Afghanistan ought to be aimed at economic development.

The recent news that there is approx $1 trillion in minerals affords a real opportunity to help in rebuilding Afghanistan - vis.:

"The previously unknown deposits — including huge veins of iron, copper, cobalt, gold and critical industrial metals like lithium — are so big and include so many minerals that are essential to modern industry that Afghanistan could eventually be transformed into one of the most important mining centers in the world, the United States officials believe."
 (NYT, 13 Jun.'10)

Given Canada's long history and expertise in mining certainly we can assist them in this regard. It may even supplant their current cash crop - poppies.
It would also tend to loosen the grip by the Taliban since they obtain a considerable amount of their funding from the poppy crops and it is easy for them to 'interact with' farmers. However, it is hard to see them exerting much direct influence in the mining industry and if they "beat their IED's into Caterpillars", that can't be a be bad thing, can it.

Also, if Canada leaves Afghanistan other countries will step in and give assistance - in developing its resources.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

*******

17 November, 2010

- MacKay: Afghanistan, "aircraft training"??? - No, not his beloved F-35's???
.  .  .
The consensus appears to be that rather than ending in '14, Harper, in reality has a 'no-end-insight' to Canada's military involvement.

"They will be involved in . . . and possibly some aircraft training, Mr. MacKay said." (G&M 16 Nov.'10)

"aircraft training"??? - MacKay kinda slipped that one in. I wonder just exactly what he is plotting.

Mumm, any day now Soudas and MacKay are going to start using Afghanistan as an excuse for the $16 billion F-35 purchase.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

"Oh yah, Just Watch Me"

see the prev post:

Lloyd Macilquham cicblog 12:53 AM on April 26, 2012

Veritas Omnia Vincit wrote: 12:12 PM on April 25, 2012
"Harper has no control about a by-election if it's (or they) are court-ordered."

Oh yah, just watch him.

Lloyd

Would Harper Refuse to Allow By-Elections in the Robo-Call Ridings - I Know, Let's Ask Him

Posted: 10:50 AM on April 25, 2012

Non-Tory voters targeted in robo-call scandal, pollster finds MICHAEL VALPY, Globe and Mail, Apr. 24, 2012 7:35AM EDT http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/non-tory-voters-targeted-in-robo-call-scandal-pollster-finds/article2411875/

These results are quite revealing and carry weight. Everyone, I think, can understand that using statistical methods can only give probabilities, albeit in this case apparently quite high.

However, I also think, that every knows that

There is 0 chance Stephen Harper would allow a by-election

And, there is 0 change Stephen Harper would allow an Inquiry

no matter what the evidence.

Perhaps, some enterprising polling firm, or reporter,
should poll Harper on these questions.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- The real bottom line with Harper & Mackay: the Yawning Honesty Gap

Posted: 9:26am (PDT) 10 Apr.'12

Andrew Coyne: MacKay’s defence of F-35 price gap doesn’t add up, Andrew Coyne, National Post, Apr 9, 2012
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/04/09/f-35-price-gap-andrew-coyne/

Good work, Andrew.

The real bottom line here though is:

The huge honesty gap!

You simply can not rely on anything Peter MacKay says, or Stephen Harper for that matter.

The price gap is quite probably in the ballpark this article suggests, if not higher - after all they have not finished designing or 'mass' producing them yet have they and we all know how that goes.

It is interesting that the con MacKay and Harper are now trying to hand us that the "yawning" 10 billion price gap is simply a matter of "accounting" took over a week for them to come up with after the AG shone his light into this dark corners of government and assisted the process of holding governments accountable.

I wonder how many focus groups they held to find that not so true but plausible explanation.
(the Flanagan Fundamental Principle of Con'ism: “It doesn't have to be true. It just has to be plausible")

Anybody check out the Pete-pic at:
torontosun.com/2012/03/22/mackay-boosts-f-35-hopes
Pete-pic

and compared to famous Richard Nixon's caricatures "I am not a crook".
When you look at the pic of Pete you can almost imagine him saying "I am not a liar"

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Hay, MacKay what about the yawning honesty gap

Posted: 4:43 PM on April 9, 2012 (EDT)
MacKay stands by F-35 jets, calls cost jump an accounting issue, barrie mckenna, Globe and Mail, Apr. 09, 2012
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/mackay-stands-by-f-35-jets-calls-cost-jump-an-accounting-issue/article2395294/


"But Mr. MacKay denied the government purposely hid the true cost of the F-35 and said the yawning $10-billion price gap is simply a matter of 'accounting'"

MacKay is right as far as it is an accounting problem.

It's just the true nature of the problem he appears to be confused on:

The accounting problem is:

Harper, MacKay and the other Con's accounting to the good people of Canada.

They have been hiding and misrepresenting the true cost of the F-35's which is bad enough to get them impeach, Canada style, and found in contempt of Parliament.

But what they are also not accounting to the good people of Canada is:

Just exactly why we need these strike force planes.

What plans for war are they hiding from us.

The military is here for the benefit of Canadians.

The other way around, where the people are there for the military is plain and simple, a military state.

There are many countries in the world that are run by their military, either in the foreground or pulling the strings in the background, they pretty much all are third world, oppressive states, where the people lack freedom, but hay there's always room for Canada.

Harper and the Con's have approx 35% die-hard support. They simply don't care whether they are conducting themselves as part of a free and democratic society, where the government is accountable to the people, all the people.

It is the remaining 65% that will have to stand up, be counted, and demand Harper, MacKay and the other Con's be accountable.

http://storage.canoe.ca/v1/dynamic_resize/sws_path/suns-prod-images/1331148027111_ORIGINAL.jpg?quality=80&size=650x

(for some reason teh G&M wouldn't post the URL - go figure)


Check out the Pete-pic with the peace signs and compared to famous Richard Nixon's caricatures "I am not a crook". I know, I know, Nixon didn't actually put his hands up in peace signs and say 'I am not a crook'

(Pete-pic)

When you look at the pic of Pete you can almost imagine him saying "I am not a liar"


Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Stevie, you got some 'splainin' to do! . . . continued

Some Care wrote
in reply to my post at 11:27 AM

"Lloyd, with respect to your "real shrouded issue", this program was started back in the 90's under a Liberal government. So, using your logic, what war was Chretien not telling us about? Kind of silly isn't it?"


My post:

"I think if we are all going to pay $40.00 per year for 20 years for F-35's

we should all at least get a ride in one of these

'eye watering' technological, and fiscal, marvels, . . .

Stevie, you got some 'splainin' to do!

. . ."

___
My Reply to:

Some Care (???)

Saying that Chrétien was the one who started the purchase of the F-35's ???

Even Harper has stopped trying to pull that one

The Chrétien government invested approximately $171million in the original developmental stages in order that Canada might be awarded contracts at the time.

And, in fact Canada thereby received approx $350 million in contracts

Kudos to Chrétien.

At no time have I heard anyone, who takes responsibility for what they say anyway, say that Chrétien said Canada was buying the F-35's; that the F-35 was the only plane that met Canada's military requirements; and, certainly not that he told Parliament that he was spending $16 billion, $25 billion, $30 billion or more, on planes.

It is quite easy to see Chrétien later saying no to Bush - after all he said no to Bush's pressure for Canada to join them in invading Iraq.

Again kudos to Chrétien.

Harper on the other hand wanted war

"It [referring to calling a Minister "Idiot"] was probably not an appropriate term, but we support the war effort and believe we should be supporting our troops and our allies and be there with them doing everything necessary to win.
- Montreal Gazette, April 2003

until, of course, it became clear to all that Bush's reason for invading were BS and Harper felt it was convenient in winning votes.

"It [the Iraq invasion] was absolutely an error. It's obviously clear the evaluation of weapons of mass destruction proved not to be correct. That's absolutely true and that's why we're not sending anybody to Iraq."
- To Gilles Duceppe during the 2008 English leaders' debate, October 2, 2008


Scott Taylor interviewed Former Assistant Defence Minister Alan Williams, under whose leadership it was that Canada entered the F-35 JSF Program. Participation in the JSF program came in the form of C$150 million investment. This investment by the Canadian Department of National Defence and
Industry Canada assured that Canadian Aeronautics Industry could bid on any future contracts
that would arise from the JSF project. Canada’s participation in the project was primarily to
benefit the Aeronautics Industry and it was not embarked upon with an eye towards acquisition
of these military assets.

(p.37, Come Fly With Me: Analyzing The F-35 Aircraft
Acquisition Discourse to Study Incivility in Question Period
Arun Jacob, Ryerson University, arun.jacob@gmail.com)

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- "Stevie, you got some 'splainin' to do!" . . . Again

posted: 11:27 AM on April 7, 2012
Military: Accept F-35s or lose regional spinoffs, DND warned in 2010,
daniel leblanc, Globe and Mail, Apr. 07, 2012 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/accept-f-35s-or-lose-
regional-spinoffs-dnd-warned-in-2010/article2393760/

subtitle:

'I think if we are all going to pay $40.00 per year for 20 years for F-35's

we should all at least get a ride in one of these

"eye watering" technological, and fiscal, marvels,

and that would at least put them to some use -

that Harper would not feel the need to hide from us, that is.'


Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay and the Con's are responsible plain and simple.
Harper and the Con's have already been found in Contempt of Parliament for not providing information regarding the purchase of the F-35's. Along with his 'Tough on Crime" agenda.

In fact Harper and the Con's were impeached Canadian style

and we went to the election on that issue.

If Harper had come clean at that time, would he have won the election?
Well, he would have got the support from the 35% (approx) die hard Con's who simply don't care. But, there is a real and significant chance her would have ended up out of power.

Harper said anything, irrespective of the truth, says anything, irrespective of the truth, and will say anything, irrespective of the truth, to attain and maintain power - after all, it is the American way.

MacKay has demonstrated time and again he simply can't be trusted on anything he says and he certainly can't be relied on to do the right (morally right that is) thing.

Further, you can betcha Harper won't simply give up that power as we've seen before.
(and you can betcha Harper will not allow by-elections regarding the Robo-call assault on Democracy, nor an Inquiry.)

For Harper to suggest that he did not mislead Parliament on the cost of the F-35's because he was not including "operating and salary costs, the government says, which would be incurred regardless of the aircraft purchased."

It is simply Harper-wash.

If there are no F35's then there is no work for these ""National Defence personnel", so either this is simply another Harper Con or these people will be sitting there doing nothing . . . and Harper cutting 19,200 jobs from the Civil Service.

Look for the Civil Service to be saying:

"Stevie, you got some 'splainin' to do!"

If I were Harper and given the 19,200 Civil Service jobs he is eliminating, I wouldn't be very eager to admit this, and certainly not try to palm it off on the good people of Canada as an excuse.

Here's it real simple:
no F-35's = no operating and salary costs attributable to the F-35's = no $10b

For Harper and the Con's to suggest that they: "are largely fixed and would be incurred regardless of what fighter plane Canada was flying" represents the height of dishonesty and indicates that he has no intention of coming clean.

It may be the 35% don't care.

But, what about the 65% - certainly this would be a good time to stand up and be counted. Keep in mind that spending the $30b on things like child development, education and health care would actually do some good for Canadians and keep all the money in Canada.

Also, just think, the F-35 procurement could easily have been covered by the $6 billion a year revenue lost with the 2 point reduction in the GST Harper used to buy votes.

“In fact, the total cost we are talking about for 20 years, plus the acquisition of the airplane, is $16 billion. That amounts to $25 per Canadian per year. That is a small price to pay for the protection of Canadians’ sovereignty and Canadian values abroad.”

Laurie Hawn, House of Commons, March 10, 2011

(see: "Tories’ failure to reveal F-35’s true $25B cost before election ‘political fraud’: NDP", nationalpost.com/2012/04/05/)

Well, Hawn's estimate was upwardly challenged since we now know it is at least $25b, and counting, so it is at least $40.00 per Canadian per year. That would be covered by 2 points in the GST.

Harper and the Con's have been hiding the true costs of the F-35

But the real issue, which is being shrouded, is

Harper is hiding the true purpose he wants the 65 F-35's.

These are offensive, first strike, war planes, plane and simply

What war are is Harper is planning that he is not telling us about.

Look for Harper in Question Period looking right into the camera and with the double 'V' signs saying

"I am not a liar"

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- The First Casualty of Harper and Con'ism is Truth

Submitted: 6 Apr.'12, 9:10am (PDT)
True F-35 cost likely known by cabinet, auditor says
By Meagan Fitzpatrick, CBC News, Apr 5, 2012 10:35 PM ET http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/04/05/pol-ferguson-committee.html

There are a number of thing we must keep in mind regarding this whole affair.

Stephen Harper in the past said whatever he, and whomever it was that was advising him, whether here or in the US, thought it would take to get a majority government.

Harper treats politics as if it were war,

and adheres to the adages:

"all is fair in . . . and war"

as well as

"the first casualty of war is truth",

"to the victor go the spoils"

Flanagan has compared Harper methods to those of Ancient Rome.
(Globe and mail, “Have the Liberals gone soft? Why are they upset over attack ads?”, 13 Jul.’09, Tom Flanigan)

(see my post: 13 July, 2009
- It is very revealing that Harper and the Cons would turn to Roman politics for justification of their extremely negative attack ads)

The Roman method of politics lead to dictatorship and finally degradation and ruin. Not the best example for political instruction. As far as I can see for the last 2000 years our society has considered the Roman Republic and her politics corrupt in the extreme. Enter stage 'right' Bush and Harper.


Harper and the Con's have a majority government and just as with the Robo Calls, when it gets right down to it, this scandal is going nowhere.

In the Robo Call affair, no matter to what degree the Canadian Democratic process was interfered with, There is no way Harper will allow a by-election as a result of any finding by Elections Canada and no way he will allow an Inquiry. Harper is supported by approx 35% die hard Con and they simply don't care. That's simply the realities with Harper.

Harper and the Con's have already been found in Contempt of Parliament for not providing information regarding the purchase of the F-35's. Along with his 'Tough on Crime" agenda.

In fact Harper and the Con's were impeached Canadian style

and we went to the election on that issue.

If Harper had come clean at that time, would he have won the election. Well, he would have got the support from the Die hard Con;s who simply don't care. But, there is a real and significant chance her would have ended up out of power.


For Harper to suggest that he did not mislead Parliament on the cost of the F-35's because he was not including "operating and salary costs, the government says, which would be incurred regardless of the aircraft purchased."

is simply Harper-wash.

How could Harper say that 10 billion dollars would be spent anyway, even without the F-35's.

Here's it real simple

no F-35's = no operating and salary costs attributable to the F-35's = no $10b

Harper and the Con's have been hiding the true costs of the F-35

But the real issue, which is being shrouded, is

Harper is hiding the true purpose he wants the 65 F-w35's.

These are offensive, first strike, war planes, plane and simply

What war are is Harper is planning that he is not telling us about.

Look for Harper in Question Period looking right into the camera and with the double 'V' signs saying

"I am not a liar"

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog comments

As Sun Tzu said (or was it Confucius): When you lie with Con's you end up with bites (sound bites).

Submitted: 11:03am (PDT), re-submitted: 3:41pm (PDT) - we'll see what happens
F-35s don't meet military's requirements, documents show, Timing of statement of operational requirements for plane also questioned, CBC News, Mar 26, 2012http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/03/26/pol-f35s-fighter-jets.html

There are a few things that you can betcha are at play here.

The good people of Canada are not being told true reason for Harper, MacKay and the Con's purchasing the F-35's.

Harper simply doesn't care what anybody says he's going to purchase them.

And

You simply can't trust a word Peter MacKay says.

(When you look at this

Pete-pic from: http://www.torontosun.com/2012/03/22/mackay-boosts-f-35-hopes

you can almost see Peter MacKay morphing into Richard Nixon and saying

"I am not a liar")

If anyone has any doubts about the above, show us a clear statement of our military's intentions that the F-35 would be the only plane that meets those requirements, especially considering that it is a strike force jet (as opposed to a sovereignty protecting type of plan). The F-35 is a plane of war, plain and simple.

Canadians are not allowed to know what the military's intentions are that they would require the best plane available, with the "eye-watering technology".

But, isn't the whole purposes of the military to serve the people of Canada.

If the military set their own agenda, doesn't that make use a military dictatorship and not a Democracy

Also, Christopher Alexander is grooming himself for prime ministerial duties down the road. He may want to reconsider whom he aligns with and what issues he pushes on.

Chris wanted to defend Harper and MacKay but when he said "the F-35 does meet the requirements" that very plainly flew in the face of the document Solomon referred and for everyone to see not just at the time but for posterity.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html