One of the reasons I’m voting for Randall Garrison, the NDP candidate in Esquimalt Juan de Fuca, is because of the stand the NDP has taken in support of wounded veterans.
The New Democrat Veterans Affairs critic Peter Stoffer (a Nova Scotia MP representing Sackville-Eastern Shore), has been going after the Veterans Affairs Minister to, among other issues, review the near-wholesale denial of disability benefits to veterans.
Rather than operating to make sure injured veterans receive the support they need and deserve, the Veterans Review and Appeal Board (VRAB)--the members of which are, according to Stoffer, “often appointed because of their political connections and have little military or medical experience”--seems to be mostly on guard against spending any funds on anything so frivolous as a disabled veteran.
Of course, the example has been set for the VRAB by the Harper Conservatives, who favour a system, which, even when disability benefits are granted, has reduced them to a paltry one-time lump sum, instead of the pension veterans used to receive and have earned.
As a party founded by, and for, workers to advance the public good, the NDP understands that those who serve in our armed forces are workers in a very special set of circumstances, who not only must be given the respect due all workers, but also the special attention their special circumstances require.
The NDP probably wouldn’t phrase things quite the way I do, but I’m voting for them because I know that the NDP understands that the backbone, limbs, belly, and brains of the Canadian Armed Forces are the men and women who serve in its ranks, overseas and at home, and that decisions regarding equipment, arms, training, deployment, strategy, tactics, and care for the wounded, should be made while keeping the needs (and input) of those who will actually be using the equipment, taking the training, risking their lives, and suffering the wounds, firmly in mind.
That’s why I’m voting for a real change; I’m voting for Randall Garrison, the NDP candidate in Esquimalt Juan de Fuca
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Who Contrived to Bring the HST to B.C.?
Troy DeSouza, as the Harper Conservative candidate in Esquimalt Juan de Fuca, has aligned himelf with the very government which connived with the B.C. Liberals to spring the HST on us (after the election, of course) by offering the debt-ridden Campbell Government a $1.6 billion bribe.
DeSouza and the Harper Conservatives will do their best to wash their hands of all responsibility, laying the blame entirely at the feet of the B.C. Liberals, but they cannot be allowed to get away with it. The fact is, that bribe by the Harper Conservatives was a deal the revenue-challenged B.C. Liberals chose not to refuse. Both the Harper Conservatives and the B.C. Liberals thought citizens in B.C. were too tame and timid to object, but the anti-HST campaign has proven how wrong their calculations were.
But if Troy DeSouza were to be elected, the Harper Conservatives will think they can get away with imposing anything they choose on us; they’ll regard us as wimps who will just roll meekly over and take whatever Troy DeSouza and the Harper Conservatives choose to dish out.
Furthermore, we can be certain that as a Harper Conservative, Troy DeSouza would never be allowed to stand up for us against government policies, if we were so unfortunate as to have him as our MP. With Stephen Harper’s hand on the throttle DeSouza would be lucky if he were allowed to say anything at all.
Since he’s running for the Harper Conservatives, Troy DeSouza is demonstrably supportive of those same Harper Conservatives’ active contempt for Parliament. As a consequence, he has proven himself to be incompetent to represent the interests of the citizens of Esquimalt Juan de Fuca.
I, for one, do not want an MP who has so little respect for the job that they would support the Harper Conservatives and their contemptible behaviour in and towards Parliament.
DeSouza and the Harper Conservatives will do their best to wash their hands of all responsibility, laying the blame entirely at the feet of the B.C. Liberals, but they cannot be allowed to get away with it. The fact is, that bribe by the Harper Conservatives was a deal the revenue-challenged B.C. Liberals chose not to refuse. Both the Harper Conservatives and the B.C. Liberals thought citizens in B.C. were too tame and timid to object, but the anti-HST campaign has proven how wrong their calculations were.
But if Troy DeSouza were to be elected, the Harper Conservatives will think they can get away with imposing anything they choose on us; they’ll regard us as wimps who will just roll meekly over and take whatever Troy DeSouza and the Harper Conservatives choose to dish out.
Furthermore, we can be certain that as a Harper Conservative, Troy DeSouza would never be allowed to stand up for us against government policies, if we were so unfortunate as to have him as our MP. With Stephen Harper’s hand on the throttle DeSouza would be lucky if he were allowed to say anything at all.
Since he’s running for the Harper Conservatives, Troy DeSouza is demonstrably supportive of those same Harper Conservatives’ active contempt for Parliament. As a consequence, he has proven himself to be incompetent to represent the interests of the citizens of Esquimalt Juan de Fuca.
I, for one, do not want an MP who has so little respect for the job that they would support the Harper Conservatives and their contemptible behaviour in and towards Parliament.
Monday, March 28, 2011
I'm Voting for Real Change (3): Why the HST is a Bad Tax
I’m voting for Randall Garrison, the NDP candidate in Esquimalt Juan de Fuca because the NDP understands what a very bad tax the HST is, especially for middle-income earners.
Economists tend to prefer consumption taxes over income taxes, because they believe that by cutting income taxes, more money will be available for investment, which will create jobs. It’s true that more money will be available to those who already have plenty, but there is absolutely no assurance that they’ll invest those savings to create jobs in Canada, and every likelihood they'll invest outside Canada to create low-wage jobs in some other country, depleting our manufacturing base even further.
Middle-income earners, in contrast, can’t save enough on income tax cuts to make up for the higher taxes they will pay on virtually every purchase they make, with the exception of food and rent and a few other items (and the purists among economists would tax even those). At the same time, the middle class makes too much money to benefit from any tax rebates, so they get whacked both ways.
In my opinion, one major reason why the rich are getting richer while the rest of us are not, is because of the shift from income to consumption taxes which enable the wealthy among us to pile up savings, while everyone else is walloped by the HST, other taxes, and an increasing number of user fees, as well as a lower level of essential social services.
Those on very low incomes, like myself, may benefit from the HST rebate (because we can’t afford to buy more than the few basic goods that aren’t taxed), but I would willingly give up the rebate to be rid of the HST, because I believe that we are all better off with a strong and stable middle-class rather than suffering the growing gap between the wealthy and everyone else.
The NDP understands this, and is in favour of a fair, and progressive tax system based on one’s ability to pay, and free of the ‘boutique’ tax cuts riddling the Harper Conservatives ‘Buy a vote here; buy a vote there’ budget.
Such targeted tax cuts (which again, benefit mostly those who already can afford to spend money on, for example, arts or sports classes) decrease revenues (a decrease exacerbated by corporate tax cuts), thereby driving up the deficit. Which the Harper Conservatives will then make us all pay for by cutting the services—health, education, transportation, and so forth—that we need for a sustainable quality of life.
For a fair and progressive tax system, and a government that would co-operate in getting rid of the HST in B.C., I’m voting for Randall Garrison, the NDP candidate in Esquimalt Juan de Fuca.
Economists tend to prefer consumption taxes over income taxes, because they believe that by cutting income taxes, more money will be available for investment, which will create jobs. It’s true that more money will be available to those who already have plenty, but there is absolutely no assurance that they’ll invest those savings to create jobs in Canada, and every likelihood they'll invest outside Canada to create low-wage jobs in some other country, depleting our manufacturing base even further.
Middle-income earners, in contrast, can’t save enough on income tax cuts to make up for the higher taxes they will pay on virtually every purchase they make, with the exception of food and rent and a few other items (and the purists among economists would tax even those). At the same time, the middle class makes too much money to benefit from any tax rebates, so they get whacked both ways.
In my opinion, one major reason why the rich are getting richer while the rest of us are not, is because of the shift from income to consumption taxes which enable the wealthy among us to pile up savings, while everyone else is walloped by the HST, other taxes, and an increasing number of user fees, as well as a lower level of essential social services.
Those on very low incomes, like myself, may benefit from the HST rebate (because we can’t afford to buy more than the few basic goods that aren’t taxed), but I would willingly give up the rebate to be rid of the HST, because I believe that we are all better off with a strong and stable middle-class rather than suffering the growing gap between the wealthy and everyone else.
The NDP understands this, and is in favour of a fair, and progressive tax system based on one’s ability to pay, and free of the ‘boutique’ tax cuts riddling the Harper Conservatives ‘Buy a vote here; buy a vote there’ budget.
Such targeted tax cuts (which again, benefit mostly those who already can afford to spend money on, for example, arts or sports classes) decrease revenues (a decrease exacerbated by corporate tax cuts), thereby driving up the deficit. Which the Harper Conservatives will then make us all pay for by cutting the services—health, education, transportation, and so forth—that we need for a sustainable quality of life.
For a fair and progressive tax system, and a government that would co-operate in getting rid of the HST in B.C., I’m voting for Randall Garrison, the NDP candidate in Esquimalt Juan de Fuca.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
A 20th Century Transportation Policy
Troy DeSouza, the Harper Conservative candidate in Esquimalt Juan de Fuca, has a very limited view of what is needed to improve transportation throughout the region. His policies spring from deep within the 20th Century car culture, being focused on HOV lanes and highway overpasses with a passing nod to buses.
“Bicycle paths and walking trails are not a solution to a massive transportation problem,” DeSouza wrote in an op-ed piece in the Times-Colonist, in 2007, addressing the Colwood Crawl. Neither his campaign website, nor Googling his name for transportation comments, have turned up any evidence that he’s changed his mind re either cycling or walking, while the E&N Railway and LRT seem not to be within the compass of his thoughts at all.
In my opinion, Troy de Souza is totally out-of-touch with our real transportation needs on the South Island, and under Stephen Harper’s autocratic control, he would be toeing the Harper Conservative line instead of addressing the riding’s concerns.
“Bicycle paths and walking trails are not a solution to a massive transportation problem,” DeSouza wrote in an op-ed piece in the Times-Colonist, in 2007, addressing the Colwood Crawl. Neither his campaign website, nor Googling his name for transportation comments, have turned up any evidence that he’s changed his mind re either cycling or walking, while the E&N Railway and LRT seem not to be within the compass of his thoughts at all.
In my opinion, Troy de Souza is totally out-of-touch with our real transportation needs on the South Island, and under Stephen Harper’s autocratic control, he would be toeing the Harper Conservative line instead of addressing the riding’s concerns.
I'm Voting for Real Change (2): Freedom of Mobility
I’m voting for a real change in government: I’m voting for Randall Garrison, the NDP candidate in Esquimalt Juan de Fuca.
I’m voting for the NDP because the Party understands that the route to true mobility of movement throughout the South Island for everyone is a first-class public transit system, combined with a number of other different transportation modes.
Instead of being bogged down in the kind of 20th Century-thinking that prefers highway over-passes to every other way of enabling people to go where they want to go, Randall Garrison and the NDP understand that only a combination of LRT, the E&N Railway, buses, boats, bicycles, walking, car-share co-ops, and private cars, will give us all real freedom of choice when it comes to moving around the region (and the province).
Only through a comprehensive strategy organized on a foundation of public transit will drivers be able to exercise real freedom of choice: To be able to drive one’s car when one wants to, not, as so often now, because one has to.
There is only one way to an open road, and building more freeway capacity—such as an expensive, land-swallowing overpass at MacKenzie and the Trans-Canada—is not it. Wasting millions of dollars to accommodate more cars will divert scarce funds from more up-to-date solutions, and keep us firmly stuck in a destructive car-first culture that severely hampers everyone’s real freedom of choice.
The NDP understands that a combination of transportation modes is needed to give each one of us the ability to move freely throughout the South Island without having to own a car, while at the same time giving drivers more open roads at all times of the day.
For real freedom of mobility and practical transportation choices, I’m voting for Randall Garrison, the NDP candidate in Esquimalt Juan de Fuca.
I’m voting for the NDP because the Party understands that the route to true mobility of movement throughout the South Island for everyone is a first-class public transit system, combined with a number of other different transportation modes.
Instead of being bogged down in the kind of 20th Century-thinking that prefers highway over-passes to every other way of enabling people to go where they want to go, Randall Garrison and the NDP understand that only a combination of LRT, the E&N Railway, buses, boats, bicycles, walking, car-share co-ops, and private cars, will give us all real freedom of choice when it comes to moving around the region (and the province).
Only through a comprehensive strategy organized on a foundation of public transit will drivers be able to exercise real freedom of choice: To be able to drive one’s car when one wants to, not, as so often now, because one has to.
There is only one way to an open road, and building more freeway capacity—such as an expensive, land-swallowing overpass at MacKenzie and the Trans-Canada—is not it. Wasting millions of dollars to accommodate more cars will divert scarce funds from more up-to-date solutions, and keep us firmly stuck in a destructive car-first culture that severely hampers everyone’s real freedom of choice.
The NDP understands that a combination of transportation modes is needed to give each one of us the ability to move freely throughout the South Island without having to own a car, while at the same time giving drivers more open roads at all times of the day.
For real freedom of mobility and practical transportation choices, I’m voting for Randall Garrison, the NDP candidate in Esquimalt Juan de Fuca.
Saturday, March 26, 2011
The Harper Conservatives: Big Crime's Best Buds
By perpetuating the war on drugs the Harper Conservatives:
1) perpetuate the black market in drugs;
2) perpetuate Big Crime's profits from that black market;
3) perpetuate Big Crime's gang wars which endanger all of us;
4) perpetuate the squandering of billions of dollars on police and prisons;
5) perpetuate the poverty and lack of treatment for mental illness
which underlie so much crime;
therefore: the Harper Conservatives are major perpetuators of
the causes of crime.
The Harper Conservatives add injury to injury by planning to spend literally untold billions of dollars on prisons we don’t need, while having the unmitigated gall to refuse to tell us exactly how much! How can anyone trust the Harper Conservatives when they treat citizens with such contempt?
I will never vote for any of that contemptible Conservative crew.
I want a government with the guts to make a major move against Big Crime by ending the war on drugs in favour of legalization, licensing, regulation, treatment, and education.
1) perpetuate the black market in drugs;
2) perpetuate Big Crime's profits from that black market;
3) perpetuate Big Crime's gang wars which endanger all of us;
4) perpetuate the squandering of billions of dollars on police and prisons;
5) perpetuate the poverty and lack of treatment for mental illness
which underlie so much crime;
therefore: the Harper Conservatives are major perpetuators of
the causes of crime.
The Harper Conservatives add injury to injury by planning to spend literally untold billions of dollars on prisons we don’t need, while having the unmitigated gall to refuse to tell us exactly how much! How can anyone trust the Harper Conservatives when they treat citizens with such contempt?
I will never vote for any of that contemptible Conservative crew.
I want a government with the guts to make a major move against Big Crime by ending the war on drugs in favour of legalization, licensing, regulation, treatment, and education.
Federal Election 2011--Voting for Real Change
I'm voting for a real change in government: I'm voting for Randall Garrison, the NDP candidate in Esquimalt Juan de Fuca.
By voting for Randall Garrison, I'm also voting for Jack Layton and the NDP. I could never vote for the Harper Conservatives because Harper is a liar, a coward, and a bully who cannot be trusted with power, nor for Ignatieff because his party's policies are inferior to those of Layton and the NDP.
I'm biased, of course; I've been a member of the NDP for 25 years. During that time, I have, on occasion, been extremely angry with some of the actions the Party has taken at both the federal and provincial level. I stick with them, however, because they are the party which agrees most closely, not only with my values, but also with the practical measures needed to express those values in everyday life.
For example, the NDP understands that investment in the care and education of young people at all ages, is the foundation of a truly sustainable economy.
The NDP also understands that, in order to deal with both the effects of climate change, and to have greater control over our economic lives, we must make a transition to many more small businesses and fewer large conglomerates. We need many more small, highly-productive, organic farms, for example, instead of massive feedlots which burden the land with wastes that, properly distributed as on small, mixed farms, would nurture it.
We also need more small local processing firms--wineries, bakeries, furniture makers, and manufacturers of machinery, and providers of technologies, suitable for small holdings--to best utilise all the land's potential.
The NDP understands and supports this kind of thinking. That's why I'm voting for Randall Garrison, the NDP candidate in Esquimalt Juan de Fuca.
In my opinion, a vote for the NDP is a vote for real change.
By voting for Randall Garrison, I'm also voting for Jack Layton and the NDP. I could never vote for the Harper Conservatives because Harper is a liar, a coward, and a bully who cannot be trusted with power, nor for Ignatieff because his party's policies are inferior to those of Layton and the NDP.
I'm biased, of course; I've been a member of the NDP for 25 years. During that time, I have, on occasion, been extremely angry with some of the actions the Party has taken at both the federal and provincial level. I stick with them, however, because they are the party which agrees most closely, not only with my values, but also with the practical measures needed to express those values in everyday life.
For example, the NDP understands that investment in the care and education of young people at all ages, is the foundation of a truly sustainable economy.
The NDP also understands that, in order to deal with both the effects of climate change, and to have greater control over our economic lives, we must make a transition to many more small businesses and fewer large conglomerates. We need many more small, highly-productive, organic farms, for example, instead of massive feedlots which burden the land with wastes that, properly distributed as on small, mixed farms, would nurture it.
We also need more small local processing firms--wineries, bakeries, furniture makers, and manufacturers of machinery, and providers of technologies, suitable for small holdings--to best utilise all the land's potential.
The NDP understands and supports this kind of thinking. That's why I'm voting for Randall Garrison, the NDP candidate in Esquimalt Juan de Fuca.
In my opinion, a vote for the NDP is a vote for real change.
Saturday, March 19, 2011
My Own Very Limited Investigation of 9/11
Another member of a listserv I belong to (on which arguments regarding what caused the Twin Towers to fall, burst into flame at irregular but frequent intervals) challenged the rest of us to read David Ray Griffins Debunking 9/11 Debunking.
To some extent I've taken up his challenge, concentrating on Chapter Three which addresses the collapse of the WTC 1, 2, and 7, because unless there is sufficient evidence (definite proof seems impossible at this late date) that the buildings were the victims of 'controlled demolitions' all the rest of his book about the timing of movements of Bush and his staff and colleagues, the non-scrambling of jets, and general and specific question of the 9/11 Commissions' report, is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned.
In my estimation, Bush et al were demonstrably capable of making evil use of 9/11 to further their plans, already in progress, to invade Iraq; so far, I find it extremely difficult to believe they engineered 9/11 as a 'false flag' incident.
I'm undertaking this investigation because I'm curious and combative. As well as various debunking sites, I've read a lot of the stuff produced by various 9/11 'truth' proponents. I find it consists primarily of rhetorical questions, and tiny snippets lifted out of context to support their contentions.
For example, Griffin snips a quote from a paper by MIT professor, Thomas Eager, who has a long career as a metallurgical expert, and Christopher Musso, a graduate research student at the time, "Why did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering and Speculation"[1] that ". . . the number of columns lost on initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure." thus apparently supporting Griffin's claim that the planes could not have caused the towers and Building 7 to collapse.
I checked the reference [2] and found that while Eagar and Musso did indeed state that, "While the aircraft impact undoubtedly destroyed several columns in the WTC perimeter wall, the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure," they then went on to write, in the very next sentence, "Of equal or even greater significance during this initial impact was the explosion when 90,000 L gallons of jet fuel, comprising nearly 1/3 of the aircraft's weight, ignited. The ensuing fire was clearly the principal cause of the collapse." Eagar and Musso's conclusion is clearly quite opposite to what Griffin purports .
If I'm still interested, I intend to post one or two other points re 9/11 at a future date, but at the moment, the impending federal election, has turned my mind to Stephen Harper, and how best to demonstrate that he is a man who cannot be trusted with even a minority government, let alone given the near-dictatorial powers of a majority.
[1] Published in JOM: Journal of the Minerals, Metals,& Materials Society, in 2001,
[2] http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
To some extent I've taken up his challenge, concentrating on Chapter Three which addresses the collapse of the WTC 1, 2, and 7, because unless there is sufficient evidence (definite proof seems impossible at this late date) that the buildings were the victims of 'controlled demolitions' all the rest of his book about the timing of movements of Bush and his staff and colleagues, the non-scrambling of jets, and general and specific question of the 9/11 Commissions' report, is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned.
In my estimation, Bush et al were demonstrably capable of making evil use of 9/11 to further their plans, already in progress, to invade Iraq; so far, I find it extremely difficult to believe they engineered 9/11 as a 'false flag' incident.
I'm undertaking this investigation because I'm curious and combative. As well as various debunking sites, I've read a lot of the stuff produced by various 9/11 'truth' proponents. I find it consists primarily of rhetorical questions, and tiny snippets lifted out of context to support their contentions.
For example, Griffin snips a quote from a paper by MIT professor, Thomas Eager, who has a long career as a metallurgical expert, and Christopher Musso, a graduate research student at the time, "Why did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering and Speculation"[1] that ". . . the number of columns lost on initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure." thus apparently supporting Griffin's claim that the planes could not have caused the towers and Building 7 to collapse.
I checked the reference [2] and found that while Eagar and Musso did indeed state that, "While the aircraft impact undoubtedly destroyed several columns in the WTC perimeter wall, the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure," they then went on to write, in the very next sentence, "Of equal or even greater significance during this initial impact was the explosion when 90,000 L gallons of jet fuel, comprising nearly 1/3 of the aircraft's weight, ignited. The ensuing fire was clearly the principal cause of the collapse." Eagar and Musso's conclusion is clearly quite opposite to what Griffin purports .
If I'm still interested, I intend to post one or two other points re 9/11 at a future date, but at the moment, the impending federal election, has turned my mind to Stephen Harper, and how best to demonstrate that he is a man who cannot be trusted with even a minority government, let alone given the near-dictatorial powers of a majority.
[1] Published in JOM: Journal of the Minerals, Metals,& Materials Society, in 2001,
[2] http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)