Fahrenheit 9/11 filmmaker burns Harper

Mike Moore crystallized the reasons why Steve Harper and the Regressive Conservatives are a recipe for disaster if Canadians are naive enough to give them power. We do not want to present American voters with the fact that progressive Canada is willing to turn back the clock and elect our version of George Bush.

Moore, in Washington D.C. for the official American premiere of his movie Fahrenheit 9/11, said he hopes his film will convince voters to bypass Stephen Harper.
"You've got four days after it opens, to get people out to the polls to make sure that Mr. Harper doesn't become your next prime minister," he said.
"We're trying to get rid of our conservative, you know. We're going one way, you guys shouldn't be going the opposite direction," said Moore, whose documentary takes a critical look at U.S. President George W. Bush's response to the Sept. 11 attacks and the Iraq war.
"You should be saying, 'You know what, we don't want this country Canada to become like Bush's America,'" he said.
Moore said he's trying to convince Americans to be more like Canadians, and praised the country's "ethic."
(snip)
"And that ethic says: 'We're all Canadians, we're all in the same boat. If one of us gets sick, that person should get health care 'cause we're all affected.'"
"The American way is pull yourself up by your bootstraps: 'Me, me, me, me, me. It's mine. It's mine.' You know? Don't go that way. Your Conservatives are trying to take you that way."

NATURE IN FOCUS

Mars Rises - Peter Jeffery

"The Nature of Things with David Suzuki is pleased to announce the winning entries of the first annual NATURE IN FOCUS environmental photography competition. The goal of this contest was to inspire and challenge viewers to examine the effect that they have on their surroundings and to explore the interactions between humans and the environment of which we are all a part."

These are some fantastic photos.
Mars Rises was the overall winner.
Check them out.

VOTE ANYBODY BUT HARPER!

Harper would have sent us to Iraq

Harper would have sent us to Iraq
by Linda McQuaig

Jun 11, 2004 -
With things going badly in Iraq, it's getting harder and harder to find a war hawk willing to come out of the closet. Among those preferring to keep their former gung-ho support for the U.S. invasion away from the bright light of day is Conservative leader Stephen Harper.
Only last year, when warmongering filled the air, Harper harshly criticized Ottawa for refusing to send Canadians to join American troops in Iraq, telling reporters that we should "be there with them doing everything necessary to win."

Harper also blasted Ottawa in an interview with the fiercely pro-war Fox News, and in an article he wrote in the Wall Street Journal.

American conservatives were no doubt gleeful to see Canada's refusal to go to war denounced by one of Canada's own political leaders.

But now, in the midst of a tightly-fought Canadian election campaign, Harper is trying to reinvent himself — particularly for Ontario voters — as a bland, harmless, Bill Davis-style moderate. He's hoping we'll forget that, had he been in charge last year, Canadians might now be coming home in body bags or showing up in prison torture videos.

Harper now denies he would have sent troops to Iraq, explaining that "we did not have the hardware and manpower to make any commitments in Iraq."

This suggests that only the lack of troops and equipment would have held him back — a deficiency he now promises to overcome. Last week, he pledged to spend an extra $5 billion on the military over four years, pushing up troop strength and eventually purchasing aircraft carriers.

He's made clear his ultimate goal is to boost Canada's military spending to 2 per cent of GDP — an increase of about $10 billion a year.

This kind of talk thrills Canada's defence lobby — a host of retired generals, academics and military contractors — who have been trying to convince Canadians that our military is woefully underfunded.

But is this really the case?

We spend $13 billion a year on our military, which makes us the 6th biggest military spender among the 26 nations of NATO. Isn't that enough for a nation that has no aggressive intentions and is separated by huge oceans from any trouble spots?

The notion of Canada as a significant military spender probably doesn't jibe with what you've heard. That's because Harper and the defence lobby routinely portray Canada as a laggard whose military spending ranks only above little Luxembourg among NATO nations.

They manage to make Canada's military look shrivelled by measuring military spending as a share of GDP, rather than in actual dollars.


That may sound reasonable, but here's the first clue that it isn't. As we all know, the biggest military spender in the world is the United States, which spends more on its military than most of the rest of the world combined.

But, using the measuring-stick favoured by Canada's defence lobby (percentage of GDP), the biggest military spender in NATO isn't the United States. It's Turkey! And next biggest is another military powerhouse — Greece!

Turkey and Greece appear to be big military spenders because they are relatively poor. Although they don't spend nearly as much as the U.S. — or even Canada — their military spending amounts to a large per cent of their GDPs because they have such small GDPs.

Of course, as a richer country, Canada should bear a relatively higher burden — if this were some important public good we were contributing to.


Harper likes to remind us of our commitments in the great world wars.

But those wars bear little resemblance to what's going on today, despite an unconscionable attempt by George W. Bush last week to link his free-wheeling "war on terror" with the great struggle against Nazi Germany in World War II.

Beefing up Canada's military is mostly about increasing our role in the "war on terror." For instance, the Canadian Council of Chief Executives (formerly the BCNI) has argued for a stronger military that "will enable Canada to contribute more effectively to the global war on terror."

This is Harper's plan, too, according to Steven Staples, a defence analyst with the Ottawa-based Polaris Institute: "Harper's plan would make Canada's military forces more easily integrated into the war on terror."


Being a junior helper in America's open-ended war might not be what Canadians have in mind.


But, if Harper gets elected, Canada will be ready next time Washington comes looking for a troop division to help it invade — who knows? — perhaps Iran or Cuba.

Prime Minister Harper will be able to say,
"Right away, sir, and would you like an aircraft carrier with that?"

Linda McQuaig is a Toronto-based author and commentator. lmcquaig@sympatico.ca

Danger ahead: Harper's Canada does not include child care

"The Conservative platform is silent on child care. Instead, Conservative leader Stephen Harper has declared that "rather than boost spending on institutional daycare, we'll offer tax breaks to families with children, no matter how they are raised" (May 28, Saskatoon). His proposed across-the-board tax deduction of $2,000 per child would be worth a few hundred dollars for modest and middle-income families and nothing for the poorest families.

While Mr. Harper is trying to make it one, child care is not an ideological or marginal issue. Canadians agree with the experts - a well-designed early childhood program provides parenting resources as it promotes the healthy development of young children and enables parents to work or study. The presence of child care on this election reflects its importance as a popular, cost-effective response to many of our country's most pressing challenges including:"see article

Groups take out ad to support Kyoto

(Ottawa) "The Sierra Club of Canada, Greenpeace Canada and the Pembina Institute joined with 90 environment, faith and labour organizations to published a full page in today's Globe and Mail to illustrate the overwhelming support of Canadians for the Kyoto Protocol. The ad reads: “26,000,000 Canadians support the Kyoto Protocol - including us”, and lists the names of the participating organizations.

"The Sierra Club participated in the ad because Steven Harper's promise to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol represents a clear and present danger to global action to avoid catastrophic climate change," said Elizabeth May, Executive Director, Sierra Club of Canada.

Environmental, faith and labour organizations are concerned about climate change and believe Canada's participation in the Kyoto Protocol is of fundamental importance to Canada. This is puts their views in line with an overwhelming majority of Canadians.

"Stephen Harper doesn't believe in the scientific basis of the Kyoto Protocol. This flies in the face of the 17 national academies of science who specifically urged governments to implement Kyoto. When George W. Bush asked his own National Academy of Sciences to look into the scientific basis of Kyoto, they confirmed it was sound. By rejecting the science, Harper takes a position on climate change that is even more extreme than the Bush administration," said Matthew Bramley Ph.D., Director, Climate Change, The Pembina Institute.

The Conservative proposal to pull Canada out of the Kyoto Protocol eould be funny, if it were not so dangerous, according to Greenpeace Canada Campaigns Director Jo Dufay. “Mr Harper wants to jettison the only international agreement to tackle greenhouse gases”, Dufay said.
“Does he think he can wrap Canada in a bubble to protect us from global climate change” It is simply not credible that Harper is going to implement new federal legislation on a matter of provincial jurisdiction over the inevitable protestations of Ralph Klein and other provincial governments, Dufay commented."

For more information contact:
Elizabeth May 613-241-4611

Mulroney-Harper alliance bad news for Canada's workers

"Ottawa - Brian Mulroney is back and it's bad news for Canadian workers.

If any reminder were needed, apart from his close association with Conservative Leader Stephen Harper, it came late last week with the reporting of a Mulroney-related union-busting operation in the United States.
Mulroney-Harper alliance


Mulroney has emerged as one of Harper's most important advisers in the June 28 Canadian election campaign. He is also the chairman of Quebecor World of Montreal, one of the largest commercial print media services companies anywhere.
(snip)
The former Canadian prime minister has been keeping a low profile during the Canadian election, mainly because memories of his 1984-1993 government are still so raw in voters' minds that his influence would be a liability if citizens knew how close the two men have become.

Mulroney was so despised when he left politics that his Progressive Conservative party was reduced to two seats, the most humiliating defeat ever suffered by a national ruling political party in Canada. Since then, the former prime minister has worked tirelessly to restore his tattered reputation.

Now, 11 years after the fact, he is making a comeback of sorts through his association with Harper — and workers are justified in being uneasy. Harper is opposed to unions and workers on general ideological grounds. Mulroney is opposed for practical business reasons - the fewer unions there are, and the weaker they are, the better it is for the bottom line."

If Canada swings to the Right we will see the same sort of bitter divisiveness currently rotting the USA consume Canada as the fundamentalist neocon zealots unleash their American style agenda, forever changing our nation in this most crucial of historical moments.

National Aboriginal Leaders Call On Stephen Harper To Explain Position On Offensive Writings Of Tom Flanagan his National Campaign Chair

“The reality is that if Flanagan was making these kinds of statements about any other group in Canada – Jewish, Italian, French – he would not be given a senior role in a major national party and would more likely be exiled into the political wilderness,” said AFN National Chief Fontaine. “So I stand today with my fellow leaders to ask the Conservative Party leader two straightforward questions: Does the Conservative leader support or disavow the writings and positions of Tom Flanagan on Aboriginal peoples? And what role, if any, will Flanagan play in the Conservative Party’s Aboriginal policy? These are legitimate questions and the answers will illuminate how the Conservative Party plans to deal with our people and our issues.”

Flanagan has spoken against Canada’s Constitution as it relates to Aboriginal peoples and rights and has argued that the best approach for Aboriginal policy is full and outright assimilation. MNC President Chartier notes that Flanagan has focused considerable energy insulting the Métis, calling them an “economically marginal, incohesive assortment of heterogeneous groups”, and has written about strategies to “minimize the damage caused by the thoughtless elevation of the Métis to the status of a distinct ‘aboriginal’ people”.


“The fact that Mr. Flanagan is in a position of power to influence the Conservative Party is of real concern to our people and should be to all Canadians,” said MNC President Chartier. “Flanagan’s position on Aboriginal peoples is one of denial, assimilation and non-recognition of our Constitutional rights. His positions are counter to many Supreme Court of Canada decisions, including the landmark Powley decision which affirmed Métis have existing Aboriginal rights protected by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. We are calling on Mr. Harper to denounce Mr. Flanagan’s insulting and outdated positions.”

The rednecks and Religious Fundamentalists will have a big say in a Harper Regressive Conservative Alliance government. Don't let these racists win!

Letter to Hon. Stephen Harper Re: Conservative Party Policy Towards CBC

"We invite you to clarify your remarks, which seem to cast into doubt your Party’s support for the public subsidy to CBC’s English Television Network. This would have the effect of dismantling Canada’s national public broadcaster and would eliminate the vast majority of Canadian programs on television during prime-time.

Your remarks also imply that you may favour the introduction of commercials on CBC Radio Two. Finally, we note that you appear to have not made similar comments about CBC’s French-language services.

This week, Friends of Canadian Broadcasting has released data from an Ipsos-Reid survey on broadcasting issues, Canada/US relations and Canadian public opinion, which I attach. We draw to your attention that a very strong majority of current supporters of your Party, and almost all Canadians whose second choice is the Conservative Party, support funding for a strong CBC and believe that government should work to build a culture and identity distinct from the US."

Steve Harper just can't wait to give Rupert Murdoch
(and his propagandist ilk) a big, sloppy wet Neocon Kiss, demolishing Canadian content and heralding the arrival of the Media Cartels from the USA.

"Canada Should Keep its Distance from U.S. Foreign Policy"

Naomi Klein riffs out on the Harper menace. Damn Straight!

Canada Should Keep its Distance from U.S. Foreign Policy

"In Baghdad, every encounter we had was a bit like going through customs.

"American?" was the inevitable first question. "No, no, Canadian," our over-eager reply.

Sometimes our word wasn't good enough and our interrogators wanted proof.

We'd pull out our passports for inspection.

On their faces, you could often see a cloud of rage pass over. Women would sometimes let themselves smile. Kids would stop acting like mini-commandos and run off and play.

Don't get me wrong: Canadians aren't loved in Iraq; we just aren't, so far as I could tell, actively loathed.

So it's wrenching being back in Canada confronting the prospect of Stephen Harper as our next prime minister. This is a man who so longed to join George W. Bush's coalition of the willing that he called former defense minister John McCallum an "idiot" in the House of Commons, declaring we should be in Iraq with the United States, "doing everything necessary to win." This is a man who was so eager to "support the war effort" that he went on Fox and claimed that "the silent majority of Canadians is strongly supportive" of the invasion, defying the findings of every credible opinion poll.

If the Conservatives are given the chance to turn Canada into more of a card-carrying combatant in Mr. Bush's disastrous war on terrorism than we are already, the little bit of grace I encountered in Iraq will quickly disappear. When I go back, showing my passport to the ad hoc inspectors could well have a very different effect.

I was in Iraq in April, at a pivotal moment when the United States decided to wage two pre-emptive wars within a pre-emptive war, one against the resistance in Fallujah, the other against Muqtada al-Sadr in Najaf and Sadr City. The LA Times estimates that 800 Iraqis have been killed in the past two months of U.S. attacks on Sadr City, almost as many as the 900 that than are estimated to have died in the siege on Fallujah.

As mosques were desecrated, prisoners tortured and children killed, I witnessed George Bush's awesome enemy-manufacturing machine up close. Hatred of Americans soared, not just in Iraq but also in neighboring countries.

The retaliation began immediately: a wave of kidnappings of foreigners, now so common they barely make the news. The change in mood was palpable.

Anti-Americanism was no longer a sentiment; it was an uncontrollable force of nature. Being Canadian didn't let us off the hook; we were still part of an ugly invasion of foreign soldiers, contractors and journalists traipsing through the country and taking what wasn't ours: lives, jobs, oil, stories, photographs. The kidnappers didn't usually discriminate based on nationality.

But being Canadian, or more specifically, not being American, did sometimes open up a little window. It gave people who were suffering permission to glimpse the humanity behind our nationality. And the overwhelming majority of Iraqis I met -- even, miraculously, those who had just lost children and spouses to U.S. weapons -- were profoundly grateful for that reprieve, relieved not to have to hate. I, of course, was even more grateful, since being not-American kept me out of serious danger more than once.

It is a privilege not to be hated for your nationality, and we should not relinquish it lightly. George Bush has denied that privilege to his own people, and Stephen Harper would cavalierly strip it from Canadians by erasing what few small but important differences remain between Canadian and U.S. foreign policy. The danger posed by this act is not just about whether Canadians are safe when we travel to the Middle East. The hatred that Mr. Bush is manufacturing there, for the United States and its coalition partners, is already following the soldiers home.

I have felt that hatred in Iraq, and trust me: We don't want to experience it here in Canada. Or don't trust me, trust the citizens of Spain, who decided in their March elections that they are not willing to accept the blowback from George Bush's wars, that they don't want these multiplying enemies to be their enemies too. Or the citizens of the United Kingdom, who just battered Tony Blair's Labour Party in last week's local elections, furious at being dragged into a war that has made them less safe. Or the citizens of Australia, who are about to send the same message to John Howard. Or even the citizens of the United States, 55 per cent of whom now disapprove of Mr. Bush's performance in Iraq, according to a recent Los Angles Times poll.

Yet just as the rest of the world is finally saying "no more," Canadians are poised to elect a party that is saying "me too."

The hawks in Washington like to paint Canada as a freeloader, mooching off their expensive military protection, the continent's weak link on terrorism. The truth is that around the world, it is blind government complicity with U.S. foreign policy, precisely the kind of complicity advocated by Mr. Harper, that is putting civilians in the line of terror. It is the United States that is the weak link.

Before I went to Iraq, a seasoned war correspondent who had spent a year reporting from Baghdad gave me his best piece of security advice. "Stay away from Americans, they're bad for your health." He wasn't being anti-American (he's an American citizen and supported the war); he was just being practical. In Iraq, that advice means you don't want to ride in the U.S. convoys or embed with U.S. troops. You keep your distance and stay independent. At this perilous moment in history, the same principle applies at home: Canadian security depends on our ability to maintain meaningful sovereignty from the United States. Being inside the U.S. security fortress isn't a missile shield, it's a missile magnet.

As long as the United States continues to act as a global aggressor, the best way for us to stay healthy is to stay as far away as from Americans as possible.

With 8,890 kilometers of shared border, geographical distance is not an option. Fortunately, political distance still is. Let's not surrender it."

Naomi Klein is the author of 'No Logo' and Fences and Windows

Protest against Bush/Harper in Richmond,B.C.

WW II Veteran:Get Rid of Bush

"I’m a veteran of World War II writing to urge voters to vote against Bush. A teenager in the 1930s, I saw facism bloom in Europe and Asia. Hitler, Mussolini, Franco and the Japanese war party changed the world and seemed invincible. These regimes had common characteristics: extreme nationalism, militarism, a close tie between industry and government, and dictatorship—by a strong-man or a military-industrial clique.

The word isn’t fashionable now, but Bush is a front man for this type of group. Now it’s called neo-con radical nationalists. Members are Perle, From, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and others. They planned a war well before 9/11, knowing that it would boost Bush’s approval rating, be an easy military victory, look heroic in deposing a hated tyrant, and get control of Iraq’s rich oil fields.

The horror of 9/11 was the perfect excuse. It was to be a quick and easy kick-off to a program of unilateral world domination by means of our giant world-wide military machine. Combating terrorism and establishing democracy in the Middle East had little to do with it, unless we count propoganda.

This is why world opinion of the U.S., extremely sympathetic after 9/11, has rapidly turned to fear and distrust. Our friendly neighbor Canada shows this. An opinion poll there in 2003 found 36% viewed the U.S. as the greatest threat to world peace, compared to 21% for Al Qaeda.

Here in the U.S. we see growing totalitarianism: undercutting the rule of law, and a profusion of lies and Orwellian language. A "Clear Skies Program" increases pollution from one of the worst sources, coal-fired power plants. Constitutional rights are wiped out by calling a suspect an "enemy combatant," originally a term related to real military war, now a metaphor: war on drugs, war on mid-life spread, war on crab grass, etc.

In 1943, when England was under real military stress, Winston Churchill said this: "The power of the executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgement of his peers, is in the highest degree odious, and the foundation of all totalitarian government, whether Nazi or Communist."

Ernest Wright
Randolph, VT

Wow, I'll bet the 36% of Canadians who were polled in 2003 (mentioned above) have doubled in numbers by now. It must be difficult for the heroes from justified wars to watch the lies and corruption of the Bush/Cheney cartel killing and maiming thousands in the name of Military Industrial profiteering.

Just messing with the Hello program.
This is a beauty of a photo.

Well Canadiacs it is time to spatula your arses off the couch and head to the polls.
Election Day is June 28

Paul Martin is stumble bumming his way through the campaign as the sound bite wisdom of gagging redundant 24 hour rhetoric rebroadcast has the thick folks living in isolation all over this magnificent nation thinking of collectively punishing The Liberals for the bloated sins of Jean Chretiens long goodbye.

Informed anger and activism are powerful tools for focused change whereas uninformed mob anger from a superficial sound-bite perspective can cause destructive protest voting.

It seems many baby-boomers and consumers from the reality T.V. crowd are fixing to collectively punish the country by thoughtlessly throwing their vote to the
Regressive Conservatives,
(formerly the Reform, Canadian Alliance, "progressive" Conservative parties).

That is akin to killing yourself so you don't get cancer.

The bottom line about the blue-eyed, saltine Neocon, Steven Harper is the fact that he would drop all pretences
(if elected- shudder)
and go boldly spelunking up the gargantuan, Military Industrial/Corporate arse of the Bush/Cheney regime, dragging
conscious and progressive Canadians along with him, his fundamentalist zealots and gullible sucker supporters.

Tories to create new security bodies: document

Oh boy we will have an American style Fatherland security database and Canadian "Patriot Act" in no time. Steve must please his masters.

The only party in Canada to join the apologists of the mass murder for profit scheme in Iraq, this no longer progressive Conservative party profoundly projects the fundamentalist religiosity of its western separatist rural Reform roots.

Stephen Harper: In his own words - A fascist in waiting:

"I don't know all the facts on Iraq, but I think we should work closely with the Americans." (Report Newsmagazine, March 25 2002)

Yes we should squander all of our hard earned international good will and jump on the Bush/Cheney Cartels mass murder for profit bloodwagon of illegal invasion and colonial occupation. I mean really, sod off Steve-O you blood thirsty Fundamentalist Zealot.

In Their Own Words
collects quotations by and about Canada's Conservatives, as well as quotes about Canada by well-known American conservative pundits.

"Continental economic and security integration" with the U.S. as well as a "continental energy strategy" that should be broadened "to a range of other natural resources."
- Conservative leader Stephen Harper

Ya, I'll pass on tethering ourselves to a nation that would rather spend trillions of dollars murdering hundreds of thousands of people for the worlds second largest oil supply so that they do not have to consider conservation and alternative energy for another generation.

Anyone but Stephen Harper
Harper's Vision of Canada:

"Alberta and much of the rest of Canada have embarked on divergent and potentially hostile paths to defining their country...let us build a society on Alberta values. "
- December 8, 2000 National Post

Harper, a man with two asthmatic children, wants to scrap the Kyoto Protocol and let the fossil fuel and other big energy regulate their own emissions standards. His corporate whoring would lead to continued blind eyed environmental disasters in Canada as we currently require massive restraint and conservation measures for the 21st Century.
Conservative government would scrap Kyoto

Layton calls for more green cars, gives gears to Harper

Why cultivate Canadian culture when you really just want to be an American?
Tories will gut film, TV production, industry complains

Bye, bye Can-Con, Hello Rupert Murdoch and Harper deregulated wave of U.S. style propaganda.

Belinda Stronach millionaire neocon diva/wannabe Regressive Conservative leader on Feb.21st 2004:

Stephen Harper Throws Stones From a Glass House: Stronach

"Stephen Harper wrongly says that telling the truth about the sustainability of our health care system will damage the party. An interesting comment from the person who failed to win 11 by-elections as Canadian Alliance leader. More interesting is this according to Canada Online: "Harper supports...changing the Canada Health Act to allow the provinces to experiment with private health care delivery." (03/22/2002). What will damage the party are the numerous comments Harper has made that the Liberals can use against us during the next election. Here are only some of the "Harperisms" that 308 Conservative candidates will be forced to explain each day of the next campaign":

On Quebeckers:

"The only way we will ever get positive constitutional change is when these people are confronted, defeated, and then work constructively within federation." BC Report Magazine, September 29, 1997.

"The Canadian Dominion is itself safe unless ... Quebec were ever to become a 'have' province." IRPP Choices, September 2000, vol. 6, no. 6.

On Atlantic Canadians:

"There is a dependence in the region that breeds a culture of defeatism." www.cbc.ca, May 30, 2002.

On Gays:

"Regarding sexual orientation or, more accurately, what we are really talking about, sexual behaviour ..." House of Commons, September 26, 2003.

On a Judicial Conspiracy:

"Stephen Harper - the leader of the Canadian Alliance, Canada's Official Opposition - trotted out a conspiracy theory this week so loopy he risks never being taken seriously again." Globe and Mail, September 6, 2003.

Harper's words: "We aren't going to let these guys off the hook ... They wanted to introduce this through back channels. They didn't want to come to Parliament, they didn't want to go to the Canadian people and be honest. They had the courts do it for them. They put the judges in they wanted, then they failed to appeal, failed to fight the case in court."

On Human Rights:

"Human rights commissions, as they are evolving, are an attack on our fundamental freedoms and the basic existence of a democratic society," says Stephen Harper, president of the National Citizens' Coalition. "It is in fact totalitarianism. I find this is very scary stuff." BC Report, January 11, 1999

On Bilingualism:

"And make no mistake. Canada is not a bilingual country." Stephen Harper, "Official Bilingualism: The God That Failed," NCC Online",

Stephen Harper was first elected to the House of Commons in 1993. If Stephen speaks with the voice of experience, then perhaps our party needs more rookies."

Sounds like the party members know more about Steve-O than the electorate does.

Ten reasons not to vote for Stephen Harpers Conservatives
by CUPE
"Cutting public services. Interfering with a womans right to choose. Supporting for-profit health care while boosting military spending. What other reasons can Conservatives give us not to vote for them? A Conservative government would be a major step backwards for Canada.
We have come up with ten good reasons not to vote Conservative but there are plenty more. Send us your reasons not to vote Conservative and spread the word!"

Concerned Canadians should seek to expose this menace to Canadian sovereignty.
The secular and progressive nature of conscious Canada must be preserved and the vapid tide of Canadian Idol fans that will throw their woefully knee-jerk and uniformed vote to the right wing regressives must be countered.
I do not believe that these greed driven neoconservative fundamentalists will represent the gentle and curious nature of the Canada known the world over.

Tell your mom not to vote for the time machine ride back to the Nineteen Fifties!

More juicy details about the menace to Canadian sovereignty known as Steven Harper and the Regressive Consevatives coming soon.

Do you smell something?

Do you smell something?
The recent passing of Neocon Funerary puppet Ronald Reagan has all of the Republican stumpers dragging out his corpse and pledging their constancy to his obtuse ideologies and rancid legacy.
Even those like Tricky Dick Cheney, who often disagreed with Reagan and his administrations policies, could not pass up the agitprop opportunity to gather around the flag and pray for the cameras.
The Bush Family, who attempted a coup by assassination in the 80s mustered appropriate crocodile tears and ramblings.
These mass murdering elitist swine should follow this latest move of their newly minted saint and just expire.

The thick glaze of corporate influence/censorship

The thick glaze of corporate influence/censorship seems to have reduced the western media, (especially television), to a childish indoctrination tool for manufacturing public consent of unspeakable and inhumane profiteers agendas.
The cheapening of “foreign life” as the precursor to all life in general seems to be an underlying theme. The meagre sampling of the horrors of invasion, occupation and assertion of Patriarchal Colonial rule serve as singular issues to be considered briefly and then crushed under the juggernaut of incessant corporate marketing of personal fear and vanity.
The media in North America has aided the agendas of those who would manipulate truth and steer history for their personal gain.

Live well and consume mightily for all life is cheap. We don’t do body counts.
In the "War on terror” that “collateral damage” family and their funny ways are not target markets for any recent creepy, multi-million dollar N.W.O. consumer campaigns. Only their natural resources draw the "Invasion entrepreneurs".
We should not bother counting their dead and maimed as we parasitically draw their futures natural resources out from under them and burn it hard now.

Maybe once the international Cartel of energy and technology producers have finished exerting their new-found freedom in W's new realm of Arabian liberty the pacified and grateful Iraqis can bring forward their bomb mutilated children for a marathon sweeps week of “Extreme Makeovers – Colonial Edition”.
I’m sure that will make it “real” for detached Americans.