Posts from our progressive community

Monday Morning Links

accidentaldeliberations - Mon, 11/17/2014 - 07:00
Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Richard Wike notes that inequality is properly being recognized as a higher priority around the globe. But Steven Rattner observes that recognition of the issue isn't doing anything to resolve it, as income and wealth concentration are only getting worse. And Linda McQuaig discusses the need for far more political attention to the gap in Canada:
Apart from the obvious issue of fairness, this diversion of money to the top raises other issues that should be central to meaningful public debate.

For instance, there is growing evidence that a high level of inequality hurts economic growth -- presumably something voters might want to know. A staff report released earlier this year by economists at the International Monetary Fund noted: "Recent empirical work finds that high levels of inequality are harmful for the pace and sustainability of growth."

Even more worrisome is the impact on democracy, as Canada's 70 billionaires and hundreds of multi-millionaires become ever more dominant in the political sphere, with an effective veto over a range of economic policies.

It's hard to imagine a development more crucial to the future of Canadian democracy. Just don't expect to hear much about it during the coming election campaign.- Meanwhile, Yves Smith highlights another obvious (and dangerous) trend as corporate profits continue to grow at the expense of wages.

- Chris Dillow points out that it's utter folly to expect "innovation" in the private sector to accomplish anything other than to further enrich the wealthy - and that if we want to see new financial instruments developed for the public good, we'll only get them through public control:
(W)hy do we get so much "dark" innovation and so little "bright"? Banks are guilty not just of sins of commission - mis-selling and rigging markets - but of sins of omission, not developing good products sufficiently.

The answer lies in the basic economics of innovation - that the social benefits (or costs!) of it often differ from the private benefits. (There is, of course, nothing unusual about financial innovation in this regard.) The type of innovation that occurs will depend not upon its social utility, but upon whether its proceeds can be appropriated privately. And this incentivizes dark innovation. "Crap" and "shitty" CDOs which can be sold to fools - sometimes in a different division of the same bank - will be produced, whereas products with big external social benefits need not be. It might be no accident that a big chunk of the good innovation we've had in recent decades - such as index funds or venture capital trusts - has received nice tax breaks.
Herein, I suspect, lies an under-rated argument for intelligent state control (or even ownership) of banks. Such control might be necessary to rejig incentives towards bright innovation and away from dark. Mariana Mazzucato's argument (pdf) that the state can be entrepreneurial might be especially valid for the financial sector.- Susan Prentice and Holly McCracken follow up on this weekend's child care convention by reminding us how much good could be done for the cost of just one of the Cons' tax giveaways. And Aaron Wherry muses about the budget debate we might have seen if the Cons were willing to allow Parliament to discuss their latest fiscal update, rather than presenting it in an isolation chamber to stifle any response.

- Finally, Michael Harris writes that after a decade of relying on campaigns designed to win over just enough swing voters at election time to overcome general public unpopularity, Stephen Harper is now losing even his party's base.

Say what you will

Dawg's Blawg - Mon, 11/17/2014 - 06:53
Sometimes Henry Kissinger does tell it like it is: SPIEGEL: But we cannot tell the Ukrainians that they are not free to decide their own future. Kissinger: Why not?... Mandos http://politblogo.typepad.com/

Just a Little Reminder

Politics and its Discontents - Mon, 11/17/2014 - 05:57
While the right enthuses about Dear Leader's performance on the G20 world stage, here's something to bring everyone back down to earth:



And letter writers also have some thoughts to share on the issue.

This from The Globe:
Yes, the U.S.-China climate deal is a really, really, really big deal (Yes, This Is A Really, Really Big Deal – editorial, Nov. 13). Climate change is not just one of the greatest threats facing humanity, it is the greatest threat. With a carbon fee and dividend, we can have a carbon-reducing mechanism, plus more jobs. Since B.C. introduced its revenue-neutral carbon tax, its clean technology industry has been flourishing and emissions per capita are down sharply.

I have conservative values, but Stephen Harper’s closed-minded approach to this issue does not resonate with these values. One hopes the China-U.S. emissions agreement will force him to do something.

Sharon Howarth, TorontoAnd from The Star:
Before he became prime minister, Stephen Harper famously said that climate change was a “socialist plot.” Now that we have the new U.S.-Chinese climate agreement, perhaps our Petro State leader will say, “This is just another plot. Canada sells oil. Let others worry about the planet’s future.”

Anthony Ketchum, TorontoRecommend this Post

Time For a Walk In The Snow?

Northern Reflections - Mon, 11/17/2014 - 05:49

                                            http://www.dailymail.co.uk/

Conrad Black observed last week that the Harper government had "run out of steam." And Stephen Mahar suggested that Jason Kenny was ready and willing to fill the prime minister's shoes. Michael Harris writes that the Conservative base has tired of Stephen Harper for several reasons -- but, most particularly, two. The first is his lack of integrity:

Harper came to power promising to do things differently than the Liberals of the Ad Sponsorship era. The base expected a new integrity reflecting the best conservative values — integrity, frugality and respect for Canadians. Instead, Canadians have been fed a steady dose of behaviour out of the prime minister’s own office that redefines unethical and, in some cases, verges into the criminal.

Harper’s former parliamentary secretary, Dean Del Mastro, has been convicted of election fraud, including exceeding spending limits, failing to report a personal contribution of $21,000, and knowingly submitting a falsified document. This came on the heels of an earlier election-related sleight of hand — the in/out scandal — that saw the party plead guilty to election fraud.

Then there’s Arthur Porter, the man Harper appointed to oversee Canada’s spy agency, who is in jail in Panama fighting extradition to this country, where he faces a bevy of criminal charges. Finally, one of Harper’s closest former aides, Bruce Carson, is facing influence peddling charges. Carson was hired by Harper despite the PM knowing of his previous criminal record for fraud.

And lest we forget, there’s the whole Wright/Duffy mess and the murky robocalls business and self-serving rejigging of Elections Canada’s abilities to promote voter engagement and prosecute wrong-doing.
Harper also sold himself as a frugal manager of the nation's pocketbook:

This prime minister blew close to a billion dollars on the G8 and G20 meetings in Toronto and Muskoka. He blamed the debacle on “thugs.” He wasted $28 million on commemorating the War of 1812 when he was closing veterans centres to save a paltry $3.8 million. And he has doubled the cost of the PM’s personal security to a whopping $20 million and climbing. The once ostensibly cost-conscious politician now thinks nothing of spending a cool million to fly his own limousine to India for a state visit or burning $45,000 of taxpayers’ money to attend a Yankee game.

When it comes to matters that go directly to the Conservative soul, Harper's most fervent supporters have found him wanting. And they are encouraging him to take a walk in the snow.


The Day Thousands Took to the Streets to Defend the CBC

Montreal Simon - Mon, 11/17/2014 - 03:25


It was a stirring sight. And for the beleaguered CBC it couldn't have come at a better time, or be more welcome.

Thousands of people marching in streets of Montreal and other places, to demand that the Harper regime stop killing the corporation.

CBC/Radio-Canada supporters gathered in Montreal, Matane, Sept-Îles, Quebec City, Saguenay, Sherbrooke, Trois-Rivières, Rimouski, Gaspé and Moncton in New Brunswick to protest against deep cuts and job losses at the Crown corporation.

And all I can say is it's about time.
Read more »

Can War Be Made to Look Too Beautiful?

Montreal Simon - Mon, 11/17/2014 - 01:03


It was the most stunning and beautiful tribute to those who died in the First World War I have ever seen.

A sea of ceramic poppies at the Tower of London, one for every British or Commonwealth soldier killed in that war.

But now the poppies are being uprooted.

The Christmas lights are going on.

And when Sainsbury's, a big supermarket chain, tried to mix war and Christmas, it was accused of making war look too BEAUTIFUL...
Read more »

The G20 Summit and the Day of Reckoning

Montreal Simon - Sun, 11/16/2014 - 22:39


It's hard to believe that it's been more than four years since the G20 Summit in Toronto, and my neighbourhood became a police state.

A dark sinister place where more than a thousand people were arrested, and caged like animals.



For no good reason.

And yes, the wheels of justice grind slowly.
Read more »

Fromm Picks Up Levant's Islamaphobic Batton and Runs With It

Anti-Racist Canada - Sun, 11/16/2014 - 22:18
On November 11, Ezra wrote an article accusing the Essex Board of Education in Ontario of exempting Muslims from participating in Remembrance Day and questioned the patriotism of Muslim Canadians. He suggested people who he outraged sign a petition that condemned the board's decision on a website his article linked to (Canada: Love It Or Leave) and, while there, to maybe purchase a charming t-shirt.


The problem with all of this is that none of it was true. Yes, there was a memo that went out from the school board which suggested alternative Remembrance Day commemorations, but the memo was directed at those schools where parents might have safety concerns as it had only been a couple of weeks since the murder of an honor guard at the Canadian War Memorial. The story was debunked as the product mainly of Levant's fevered, Islamaphobic, imagination, though he did do quite a good job of appealing to his xenophobic base of support.

One of those xenophobes though likely hats him as much as any Muslim though:

  
Yep, Paulie:


Really, it's not as if we should be surprised. Paulie might be an anti-Semite in addition to a racist, but he is also an opportunist and if there's any opening for him to inject his particular brand of Nativism and bigotry into the public sphere, he'll be in like Flynn.

Now, after a lot (and we mean a hell of a lot) of criticism, Levant backed down and even.... begrudgingly,... admitted he was wrong in the passive-aggressive way we have come to know and love from him. He also changed the website to omit mention of Muslims, though he still takes a crack at the school board:


He also noted that no parent in the entire Essex County School Board area had asked for an exemption for their child. In short, everyone participated.

So, the story ended in a bit of a whimper.

Except if you're Paulie Fromm and you want to continue to flog a dead horse:


Paulie posted the following video Sunday, a full 5 days after the original story Levant published was thoroughly discredited:

Read more »

Sunday Afternoon Links

accidentaldeliberations - Sun, 11/16/2014 - 11:27
Assorted content for your Sunday reading.

- Eric Reguly opines that the best way to ensure that banks (and other businesses) operate under the law is to make sure that individual executives are held accountable for failing to do so:
(I)f fines and the odd firing are no deterrent to bad bank behaviour, what is? The obvious answer is shareholder rage. The trouble is, shareholders are not enraged. They have not grabbed pitchforks and torches and stormed CEOs’ houses when the multibillion-dollar fines are paid to secure settlements. Instead, they meekly accept the fines as if they are a cost of doing business, a sleaze tax, if you like.

In some cases, the bank shares actually rise when the fines are announced. The reason? Because in each of the settlements, the fines could have been far worse and, in no case, have the penalties threatened to put the banks out of business. The era of destroying terminally vice-ridden companies is, apparently, long gone. The last time that happened was in 2002, when Arthur Andersen, one of the Big Five accounting firms, was convicted of obstruction of justice for shredding documents in the Enron case. Some 85,000 employees eventually lost their jobs. Regulators and the governments that employ them no longer have the appetite for collateral damage in the form of massive job destruction.
...
Unless senior executives are put on criminal trial or, at a minimum, marched out the door in shame, shorn of their lavish bonuses and corporate golf-club memberships, the rotten culture of the banks will not change. Why would it? The traders in the currency scandal who worked for HSBC, Citi, UBS and other biggies decided that the chances of them getting caught were minimal and kept going. And if they were to get caught, it would be the bank – that is, the shareholders – not them, who would be on the hook for fines worth fortunes.

The bank fines are getting so big and frequent that you can be forgiven for suspecting a mutually beneficial racket is in progress. The banks pay big fines for settlements that leave their businesses and executive ranks largely intact. The regulators typically pocket some of the fines and pad out government treasuries. Shareholders are the main losers. To break this absurd cycle, and to encourage banks to operate morally, a little prison time would do the trick.- And Bessma Momani reports on both the unfortunate reality that governments haven't made the effort to cooperate in ensuring that corporate income is taxed at all, and the tentative steps being taken by the G20 to correct that gross loophole.

- Josh Bivens highlights the fact that tax cuts and other giveaways to employers haven't done - and can't be expected to do - anything to improve wages:
Mr. Leonhardt pointed out the dismal wage trends for the vast majority of American workers in recent decades and how it would be a heavy policy lift to reverse them. This seems right to me. But then he wrote:

“Washington could definitely do more to help growth: better infrastructure, a less burdensome tax code, a less wasteful health care system, more bargaining power for workers and, above all, stronger schools and colleges, to lift the skills of the nation’s work force.”

As they might say on “Seinfeld,” you can’t “yada yada“ more bargaining power for workers. It’s the most important part of the story.

The root of the U.S. wage problem (which is, in turn, the root of America’s inequality problem) is that most workers aren’t seeing their wages keep pace with overall productivity growth. The policies on Mr. Leonhardt’s list are worthy, but most would not reliably close this gap between productivity and pay. Boosting the bargaining power of workers would.- Meanwhile, Andrew Jackson suggests that employers need to bear the cost of building their future workforce rather than letting hundreds of billions of dollars sit idle. And Chuck Collins proposes a combination of inheritance tax revenue, and an educational opportunity fund to ensure greater equality both between and within generations.

- The Hamilton Spectator laments the woeful state of child care in Canada.

- And finally, David Miller writes that refusing to do anything about climate change is no longer an option.

Arms Race Update - US to Spend a Trillion Dollars on Upgrading Nukes

The Disaffected Lib - Sun, 11/16/2014 - 11:23
US Defense Secretary, Chuck Hagel, put it bluntly.  "No other mission we have is more important."

The mission Hagel was referring to was a trillion-dollar, 30-year programme to upgrade America's nuclear weapon arsenal.  A trillion dollars.  Even today that's serious money.

According to the Associated Press, Hagel told the Pentagon on Friday that the decision to upgrade the US nuclear weapons arsenal came after a series of reviews. He said that the internal and external reviews revealed "a consistent lack of investment and support for our nuclear forces over far too many years has left us with too little margin to cope with mounting stresses".
The embarrassing state of the US arsenal was underlined by the review finding that some of the aircraft used by the US military date from 1969 and had seen action in the Vietnam War.
Hagel admitted: "The root cause has been a lack of sustained focus, attention, and resources, resulting in a pervasive sense that a career in the nuclear enterprise offers too few opportunities for growth and advancement."
The US annual spending on its nuclear forces is $16bn and it is expected to increase on average by 10% annually for the next five years.
The programme conflicts with Obama's previous campaign promise to create "a nuclear-free world".
However, with the rise in tensions between the White House and the Kremlin over Ukraine, and the longstanding threat of North Korea, Obama's nuclear upgrade will do little to help international relations.
Russia announced last week that it would be boycotting an international nuclear security summit, scheduled to be hosted by Obama in 2016.

And there it is, kids, we're back.  Cold War II is underway.  Russia and the US are building new warheads.  Russia is developing new intermediate- and intercontinental-range missiles.  Russia is developing new submarines.  Russia and the US are developing new strategic bombers.  And that's to say nothing about what's underway in Pakistan, India and China.  France won't cut its nuclear force and Britain is upgrading hers.

It takes enormous courage to end one of these things and just a cold wind on the back of the neck to start it up again.

The Humiliation of Tony Abbott

The Disaffected Lib - Sun, 11/16/2014 - 10:41
Hosting a G20 summit is supposed to be prestigious.  You get the leaders of the world's largest economies to come to your country, to gather in your town, to discuss the great problems of the day.   As host you even get to set the agenda for the summit.  You get to steer all those big wigs and they're supposed to follow your lead.

Now, following the G20 pow wow in Australia, we may have come away with the "Brisbane Rule."  This applies in the situation where the host is a total dick. It operates to override the host's prerogative on setting the summit agenda.  It's sort of like saying, "Look, we didn't come here to put up with childishness."

Case in point.  Tony Abbott, inveterate fossil fueler that he is, struggled and strained mightily to thwart any discussion of climate change.  He resisted every request to place climate change on his agenda.  He had the backing of Canada and Saudi Arabia.  Three peas in a pod.  Nice one, Canada.

And so the grownups at the summit introduced the Brisbane Rule and discussed the climate change issue anyway.  To avoid completely humiliating their host they agreed their discussions would be behind closed doors.  All of this set the tone for the leaders' communique, a process one official described as "trench warfare."

Over the objections of Australia, Canada and Saudi Arabia, the communique calls for phasing out of "inefficient fossil fuel subsidies."

The communique included references to taking practical measures to combat global warming and an explicit endorsement of the climate fund.
As revealed by Fairfax Media, the communique includes a line: "We reaffirm our support for mobilising finance for adaptation and mitigation such as the Green Climate Fund."
The inclusion of a detailed passage on climate change comes despite the issue not being on the formal agenda of the G20 summit and Mr Abbott's insistence that the focus of discussions should be on economic reform.
Mr Abbott has said previously he opposed any financial contribution to the climate fund, which was reportedly described in a Cabinet document as a measure that amounted to "socialism masquerading as environmentalism".
The Green Climate Fund aims to assist poor nations combat climate change and relies primarily on funding from governments and private firms in industrialised countries. US president Barack Obama announced the US would devote $US3 billion to the fund, before he made a rallying call on Saturday for global action to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
Japan pledged it would contribute $US1.5 billion to the climate fund on Sunday, taking the total commitment of nations so far to about $US8 billion. The fund wants to raise $US10-15 billion by the end of the month. 
What a novel idea, "polluter pays."  Yet even the paltry amount proposed for the Green Climate Fund sends miscreants like Abbott and Harper reeling.

It's a safe bet that Tony Abbott wasn't sad to see his visitors leave Australia.  The writing's on the wall.  It's not just environmentalists and the young any more. Now even their peers see Abbott and Harper as pariahs.

Let's call off the lynch mob

Dawg's Blawg - Sun, 11/16/2014 - 10:14
We don’t know what motivated Outaouais resident Franck Gervais to play dress-up on Remembrance Day, showing up at the Cenotaph posing as a decorated member of the Canadian Forces. But there are things that we do know. Gervais seems clearly... Dr.Dawg http://drdawgsblawg.ca/

Why I will NOT vote NDP in the next Election. . .

kirbycairo - Sun, 11/16/2014 - 09:14
If the NDP was looking to create reasons for us not for vote for them then their past year has been a resounding success both provincially here in Ontario and Federally. If you want to know what is wrong with the contemporary NDP you need look no further than this weekend's Ontario NDP convention. Despite Andrea Horwath's miserable failure as NDP leader, yesterday at their convention she underwent an obligatory leadership review and received more support than she did last year. If you are having trouble letting that sink in, I will repeat it for you. She received more support than she did last year. Andrea Horwath is an embarrassment to the NDP that extends well beyond Ontario's borders and a poster-girl for hypocrisy. As you will recall, after supporting the minority Liberal Government for years, in their last budget round she suddenly decided to pull that support and force Ontario into an election. This election held serious problems beyond Ms. Horwath's crass and crude style. The plain truth is that the Liberal budget was arguably left of any budget that Horwath herself would have presented if she had been premier and at the very least if an NDP government had presented this budget Horwath would have been the first to champion it as a great leap forward. This is just hypocrisy. There is no other word for it.

But aside from this act of unabashed hypocrisy, it was the political style of the Horwath campaign that progressives should find most troubling. Whether or not Horwath has taken the party to the right is something many people have argued about. But regardless of the veracity of the claim, many traditional NDP supporters were concerned during the election and this concern prompted 34 NDP heavyweights to write an open letter to Horwath saying that they she was "rushing to the centre." The people who wrote this letter, like Judy Rebbick for example, surely did not take this step lightly and the very fact that it emerged demonstrated that there was a serious breach taking place in the Party's core. Did Horwath or her team take these issues seriously the way anyone committed to democracy should do? Of course not. Instead they accused thee NDP 34 of being "hacks" and "has-beens" and NDP strategist Kathleen Monk even went so far as to suggest that they were working for the another political party and intentionally sabotaging the Horwath campaign. That accusation in and of itself is reason enough to never vote NDP again.

This Karl Rove/Stephen Harper strategy-style has not only infected the Ontario NDP, it has become the stock-in-trade of the federal NDP under the leadership of Tom Mulcair. Let's take two important events in recent NDP history. First, the NDP's prevention of the nomination of Paul Manley. The NDP clearly blocked Mr. Manley's nomination because of his (and his father's) stance on Israel, particularly on the Israeli naval blockade of Gaza. Not only did the NDP deny that this was the reason for blocking Manley's nomination (a denial that is universally suspected to be false) but, more importantly they  adopted the Harper political strategy and proceeded to smear him publicly. Manley claims that in private the NDP admitted that Palestine was the reason that they denied him a nomination. The NDP denied that claim, but when Manley asked for a written reason for the blocking of his nomination, the NDP, in true UN-Democratic style flatly refused. But the wording of this refusal was deeply problematic. Andrew Mitrovica wrote about it on ipolitics in an article well-titled, "Is Mulcair just another Harper with a Beard?" Mitrovica wrote -

"To blunt the blowback, McGrath (The NDP's National Director) wrote concerned and outraged NDP supporters, telling them "I can assure you the issue being cited in stories and social media about Manely's rejected application is not accurate. The rejection is not related to the NDP's position on the Middle East." That just poured gasoline on an already out of control fire. Not surprisingly, Paul Manley saw this as a "smear" because it leaves open the possibility that he was guilty of some immoral, illegal, or unethical act."

Mr. Manley rightly pointed out that this was not a job application but was supposed to be part of a democratic process. It is one thing for a Party to block nominations, but to fail to give reasons for that is an entirely different matter and is blatantly untransparent and smells distinctly undemocratic. Mr. Manley is correct to see what Anne McGrath said as a blatant smear because the vocal refusal to explain the blocking of the nomination coupled with a denial that it is Manley's stance on Gaza suggests to anyone who is paying attention that the nomination prevention is rooted in something nefarious of which Mr. Manley is guilty.

But worse than their treatment of Paul Manley was the NDP's treatment of MP Sana Hassainia. Ms. Hassainia ostensibly quit the NDP over their overt support of Israel and their failure to defend the rights of Palestinians. Though the Party did attempt to defend its position in the days following Ms. Hassainia's resignation,  (a defence which in my opinion was sorely wanting) they quickly reverted to their Harperesque default position which was to attack and smear Mr. Hassainia. Party spokespersons quickly suggested that Ms. Hassainia had a terrible attendance record in the House and that she was too busy being a new mother to be an effective MP. The entire affair was nauseatingly reminiscent of  the Harper regime's attitude toward anyone who disagrees with them.

The fact is that there are many significant policy reasons for progressives to stop supporting the NDP. But increasingly there are also many other reasons to reject the poison politics of the NDP and the provincial and federal levels alike. There is no question that the Harper regime has poisoned Canadian politics. But the NDP can choose to follow the Harper example or to operate with integrity, transparency, and honesty. It is increasingly clear that they have rejected the path of good and opted for the path of poison.


Apparently, Nothing Is Sacred To These People

Politics and its Discontents - Sun, 11/16/2014 - 09:05
Thanks to Ed Tanas for this:



Ed asks in a tweet why the mainstream media aren't covering this. A good question.Recommend this Post

The Consequences Of His Inaction

Northern Reflections - Sun, 11/16/2014 - 06:00
                                  http://www.spiritscienceandmetaphysics.com/

There are some who believe that the deal which the United States and China reached on greenhouse gas emissions will force Stephen Harper to act on climate change. But Jeffrey Simpson warns that such optimism is misplaced. To begin with, the Republican dominated congress will act immediately to nullify the agreement. And, of course, Harper is philosophically a Republican:

When a leader such as Mr. Harper spends the better part of a decade not even speaking about the issue, let alone the rest of what political leadership entails, there is almost no chance the general public will be alerted to its importance. This is especially true of the leader’s natural political followers.

Leadership means a willingness to spend political capital on an issue, and in Canada’s case, there is no such leadership at the top. That this absence would suddenly shift as a result of a China-U.S. understanding is improbable in the extreme.
There are several reasons for Mr. Harper's refusal to act:

First, Mr. Harper doesn’t like the issue of climate change. He avoids it wherever possible and looks distinctly uncomfortable when forced to discuss it. He considers it a political and economic loser.

Second, the core of his party doesn’t like the issue either, believing climate change to be unrelated to human activities, too expensive to worry about, or a plot by lefty enviros to nail: a) Alberta; b) jobs; and c) “hard-working taxpayers.” Canadians who want more action won’t be voting Conservative anyway.

Third, Mr. Harper dislikes being pressured. When it happens, he prefers to push back rather than yield. Call it stubbornness. Call it principled. It’s how he is. The idea that he would be pressured by a “deal” whose impact won’t be felt for decades belies everything we know about the man.
What some call stubborn others would call pig headed. As for principles, we've seen Mr. Harper shred his principles in the pursuit of power. If power depended on limiting greenhouse gas emissions, he would move.

But the Prime Minister calculated long ago that power lay in the other direction. He is quite content to let the planet suffer the consequences of his inaction.

Juxtaposition

accidentaldeliberations - Sun, 11/16/2014 - 05:35
The minister responsible for the plight of Saskatchewan's homeless people:
In response to a CBC iTeam question about the waiting list for social housing faced by homeless people Harpauer said, “you’re assuming that there’s these desperate homeless people.”The plight of Saskatchewan's homeless people:
Saskatoon police have confirmed that a 42-year-old homeless man was found dead inside the cab of a an abandoned semi-trailer in an alley off Avenue K. ... There is no confirmation on the cause (of) Peequaquat’s death, but police said it did not appear suspicious.

Severight said he did have addictions issues and he had been homeless since being cut off social assistance.I do hope Harpauer will clarify how much more desperate someone like Jerry Peequaquat needs to become in order to receive some help.

Joe Oliver's Dangerously Reckless Budget Scam

Montreal Simon - Sun, 11/16/2014 - 04:58


Well as you know, I wasn't exactly impressed by Joe Oliver's totally political fiscal update, and by the way he is recklessly blowing the surplus.

To try to buy votes and leave no money in the cupboard, so the opposition can't make their own spending promises.

While also leaving no money for a rainy day should the economy take a dive, and oil prices keep tanking.

So I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one who thinks that Ol' Joe, and his equally incompetent master Stephen Harper, could be leading us to DISASTER.
Read more »

Pages

Subscribe to canadianprogressives.ca aggregator - Posts from our progressive community