Deconstructing "Progressive " thought

[a_majoor]

Here is another look at how things are working out at ground level in Wisconsin:

http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2011/04/07/union-thuggery-playing-hardball-in-wisconsin/

Union Thuggery: Playing Hardball in Wisconsin
By Gary Larson, on April 7th, 2011
Tooth-'n-nail battle of public unions to save self-proclaimed "rights" that are privileges is a struggle against fiscal sanity and against ordinary tax-paying Americans.

If anyone wondered why the Mafia-like motives of some public union employees assert themselves in Wisconsin, wonder no more. Theirs is a battle royale to save "rights" that are really privileges granted by "kept" legislators beholden, in many cases, to the public employee unions which feed and keep them.

Make no mistake: The knock-down, drag-out battle in Wisconsin is based on total self-interest, pushing for past privileges, recast as workers' "rights" that ultimately could bankrupt that state. One would think "collective bargaining rights" are immutable, found in the Bill of Rights, or in The Universal Rights of Man, to hear the public union officials and their lackeys in the Legislature. It is simply not so.

No matter how often the Orwellian construction of "rights" is flung to describe collective bargaining, it does not make it so. A lie, a mantra repeated incessantly, is not truth, no matter how fervently held.

The battle in Wisconsin, a war now spreading to other states, casts a dark shadow over efforts to balance state budgets fairly, not on the backs of any class -- say, regular taxpayers. Not to favor one class of workers, public employees, over the private sector employees, is only fair. Somehow ordinary back-home folks have figured out that someone -- namely, private sector taxpayers -- were paying 100% of public employees' pension plans and about 94% of their generous health plan costs in Wisconsin.

Not a square deal at all, truth be told. But tell that to the union bosses.

Largess to public employees is a budget breaker -- in Wisconsin's case, $3.6 billion in the near term. (It's even more in other states -- over $5 billion budget shortfall next-door in big-spending Minnesota.)

During the protests in Madison, and the virtual takeover of the Capitol by chanting protesters, the drop-dead ethos of pro-union crowds was glimpsed for what it was -- an unruly, irrational mob preaching the righteousness of a wrong cause of the privileged prevailing over, well, prevailing over common economic sense.

On Madison's State Street, the frenzy is reflected in this exchange, recorded practically word-for-word by a retired Army officer, overhead at the Expresso Royale Cafe. One white male is talking animatedly to another. They are about 50 years old, believed by the observer to be university (public) employees on lunch break:

    Man 1: "Governor Scott Walker must be stopped, he's a NAZI."

    Man 2: "That might be a strong comparison."

    #1: "No, he must be stopped. They are calling our protesters union thugs. Walker will destroy democracy and freedom."

    #2: "What should we do?"

    #1: "I hope he's shot. But we should take them out of government to save the future. We will have to save the people from Republicans. Our small group will have to change the makeup of the government."

    #2: "Isn't that why we have elections?"

    #1: "Elections have obviously failed. We need to have democracy by other means. We can save the people by getting rid of the Republicans. We know best what to do for the future . . ."

Clearly the democratic process isn't important to Man 1. Public unions' reaction to the Republicans' effort -- well, to the people's effort -- to take control of a runaway state budget, to put a lid on massive unfunded liabilities, descends to hysteric depths, full of sound and fury. Pathetic, it is a display of willful ignorance.

Intimidation plays a key role in public unions playing hardball. One example is clear in this letter received by independent business owners in -- ironically -- Union Grove, Wisconsin. Their crime? Failure to bow abjectly, obediently, in the style of POWs to their captors, to the union's demand to put posters in their shop windows:

    Dear Union Grove Area Business Owner/Manager,

    It is unfortunate that you have chosen 'not' [sic] to support public workers rights in Wisconsin. In recent past [sic] weeks you have been offered a sign(s) by a public employee(s) who works in one of the state facilities in the Union Grove area. These signs simply said 'This Business Supports Workers Rights,' a simple, subtle and we feel non-controversial statement...

    With that we'd ask that you reconsider taking a sign and stance to support public employees in this community. Failure to do so will leave us no choice but to do a public boycott of your business [emphasis supplied]. And sorry, neutral means 'no' to those who work for the largest employer in the area and are union members.

    -- Jim Parrett, Field Rep, Council 24 of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME)

Such an tawdry act shows the depths union bosses will go to get their way. Shut 'em down if anyone dares disagree with you. If they want to stay "neutral," well, to hell with them. Put another way, it's the old-fashioned hit-'em-in-the-kneecaps thuggery, ripping up a business if its owners don't do your bidding.

It gives a whole new meaning to the term "closed shop." Democracy in action? Hardly. Try raw extortion, the thugs' clenched fist being the threat of boycott.

Worse still, here's a letter from police and fire unions, plus others, threatening a boycott of Madison-area businesses. Excerpts from the brow-beating letter:

    [To business owner by name]

    The undersigned groups would like your company to publicly oppose Governor Walker's efforts to virtually eliminate collective bargaining for public employees in Wisconsin. While we appreciate that you may need some time to consider this request, we ask for your response by March 17. In the event that you do not respond to this request by that date, we will assume [sic] that you stand with Governor Walker and against the teachers, nurses, police officers, fire fighters, and other dedicated public employees who serve our communities.

    In the event that you cannot support this effort to save collective bargaining, please be advised that the undersigned will publicly and formally boycott the goods and services provided by your company [emphasis supplied]. However, if you join us, we will do everything in our power to publicly celebrate your partnership in the fight to preserve the right [sic] of public employees to be heard at the bargaining table.

Shamelessly, it is signed by top dogs at a "professional police association" and of the "professional fire fighters." They offer carrots ("celebrate your partnership") for those obeying their clenched-fist Ultimatum. Other notable signatories to the above letter are heads of the Madison Teachers, Inc., and (get this!) the local Dane County Sheriffs' Association.

Let's see now: If a business doesn't "publicly oppose" the law passed by a duly-elected Legislature, signed by Gov. Walker, then police and fire services people, if they choose, will "formally boycott the goods and services provided by your company." Is it the PATCO air traffic controllers all over again?

Let's devoutly hope that their boycott does not include answering police and fire calls at these tax-paying places of business. Okay, that's stretching it a bit. Or is it?

A hand-scrawled note shoved under a Republican senator's office door when union protesters overran the Capitol says reams about protesters:

    "The only good Republican is a dead Republican."

Shouted point-blank at a Republican by a Democrat lawmaker after the deciding vote on the budget-fix bill was this, for all to hear: "You're f------ dead!" (Later he apologized to the female GOP senator for his boorishness, saying he was caught up in the moment. Indeed.)

Darkness descends Iago-like over the labor landscape in Wisconsin. Liberal mainstream media, true to form, decide not to cover it fully, in detail. Why? It's silence of the liberals, selecting which news will be presented, and how. Reporting the ugliness of what's happening in Wisconsin would cast disfavor on the public unions' thuggery. So it becomes cover-up time.

Why are we not surprised? Then it dawns: News leaders cover up for their allies, also union-made, thugs or not. Major news outlets are staffed by Guild (union) members. Call it solidarity: All for one, one for all.

Incurious editors let their reporters get away with it, reciting the mantra about the flap being about "collective bargaining rights" when it's about privileged workers lording it over others. So news from the battlefront is muted, filtered though the liberal prism reporters bring to their jobs from their college days, not from real life.

One of the death threats reported by mainstream media, probably because its sender was charged with terroristic threats by the Wisconsin Dept. of Justice, was this one sent to all Republican state senators:

    "Please put your things in order because you will be killed and your familes [sic] will also be killed due to your actions in the last 8 weeks. Please explain to them that this is because if we get rid of you and your families then it will save the rights of 300,000 people and also be able to close the deficit that you have created. I hope you have a good time in hell. Read below for more information on possible scenarios in which you will die."

Such union-induced hate is trotted out with a total lack of shame, or remorse, it seems, among nearly all perpetrators. You'd think, but you'd be wrong, many would hang their heads in shame. No, many are proud of their thuggery.

Taking down democratic functions by tantrum-throwing somehow seems "normal" to wild-eyed folks, caught up in it, not all of them young. Some long-of-tooth protesters call for the "nuclear option," a general strike to close down the state, to get their way.

What a horrible thank you that would be to other tax-paying citizens for anteing up tax money for the union's pension funds 100%, and 94% of their health care premiums.

Private sector folks are beginning to "get it," saying "NO" to public unions raiding their pocketbooks. It took time, but somehow, the message is getting through. Like toothpaste, it will NOT go back into the tube. Public unions and their benefactors, their Democrat allies, will just have to deal with that issue and admit to some form of fiscal sanity. (Tax the guy behind the tree?)

Union thuggery will not carry the day, nor emotions rule. Because facts still matter. Let's hope fiscal sanity prevails over the public unions' totally selfish motives, leading to state budget fixes. In a rational society, basic fairness has a way of asserting itself, like natural law to author C.S. Lewis and the Tao (or "Dao") to the Chinese, to inure to the benefit to all the people, not just some of the people. Otherwise tyranny reigns.

Gary Larson is a retired association executive and former weekly newspaper and business magazine editor. He is not the cartoonist of the same name. He is a USAF veteran (PIO) and former war correspondent for Stars & Stripes in Southeast Asia. He is a graduate of the School of Journalism at the University of Minnesota. Gary Larson | outing@earthlink.net | Gary Larson | Category: Politics: General, Econ. & Public Policy, Science, Technology, Energy | Print

 

[Nemo888]

Sadly, Liberalism may be a genetic predisposition or physiological brain disorder.

Brain structure differs in liberals, conservatives: study

By Agence France-Presse
Thursday, April 7th, 2011 -- 3:55 pm
Share482  15.6K  629 Share883 Share20 Share90

WASHINGTON — Everyone knows that liberals and conservatives butt heads when it comes to world views, but scientists have now shown that their brains are actually built differently.

Liberals have more gray matter in a part of the brain associated with understanding complexity, while the conservative brain is bigger in the section related to processing fear, said the study on Thursday in Current Biology.

"We found that greater liberalism was associated with increased gray matter volume in the anterior cingulate cortex, whereas greater conservatism was associated with increased volume of the right amygdala," the study said.

Other research has shown greater brain activity in those areas, according to which political views a person holds, but this is the first study to show a physical difference in size in the same regions.

"Previously, some psychological traits were known to be predictive of an individual's political orientation," said Ryota Kanai of the University College London, where the research took place.

"Our study now links such personality traits with specific brain structure."

The study was based on 90 "healthy young adults" who reported their political views on a scale of one to five from very liberal to very conservative, then agreed to have their brains scanned.

People with a large amygdala are "more sensitive to disgust" and tend to "respond to threatening situations with more aggression than do liberals and are more sensitive to threatening facial expressions," the study said.

Liberals are linked to larger anterior cingulate cortexes, a region that "monitor(s) uncertainty and conflicts," it said.

"Thus, it is conceivable that individuals with a larger ACC have a higher capacity to tolerate uncertainty and conflicts, allowing them to accept more liberal views."

It remains unclear whether the structural differences cause the divergence in political views, or are the effect of them.

But the central issue in determining political views appears to revolve around fear and how it affects a person.

"Our findings are consistent with the proposal that political orientation is associated with psychological processes for managing fear and uncertainty," the study said.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/04/07/brain-structure-differs-in-liberals-conservatives-study/

 

[Sgt_McWatt]

Sadly, Liberalism may be a genetic predisposition or physiological brain disorder.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/04/07/brain-structure-differs-in-liberals-conservatives-study/

Without getting to academic I feel obligated to point out that one might question the reliability and validity of a one time study that only had a sample size of 90.

Additionally, after reading the article three times I found no reference to one "side" being equated with a brain disorder, just differant brain structure. If you're going to participate in meaningful debate an open mind and fairness are required. Otherwise this will just become question period in the House of Commons where everyone yells louder to show how right they are.

 

[a_majoor]

When "progressive" ideas meet the real world, the results are never as they expect:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/wal-mart-goes-back-to-basics-a-cautionary-tale-for-the-left/?print=1

Wal-Mart Goes ‘Back to Basics’: A Cautionary Tale for the Left

Posted By Richard Pollock On April 11, 2011 @ 10:16 am In Uncategorized | 62 Comments

After suffering seven straight quarters of losses, today the merchandise giant Wal-Mart will announce [1] that it is “going back to basics,” ending its era of high-end organic foods, going “green,” [2] and the remainder of its appeal to the upscale market. Next month the company will launch an “It’s Back” campaign to woo the millions of customers who have fled the store. They will be bringing back “heritage” products, like inexpensive jeans and sweatpants.

Few may recognize it as such, but this episode should be seen as a cautionary tale about “progressives” and social engineering experiments on low-income Americans. This morning’s Wall Street Journal [1] article is blunt:

    That strategy failed, and the Bentonville, Ark., retail giant now is pursuing a back-to-basics strategy to reverse the company’s fortunes.

The failure, in large part, can be pinned to Leslie Dach: a well-known progressive and former senior aide to Vice President Al Gore. In July 2006, Dach was installed as the public relations chief for Wal-Mart. He drafted a number of other progressives into the company, seeking to change the company’s way of doing business: its culture, its politics, and most importantly its products.

Out went drab, inexpensive merchandise so dear to low-income Americans. In came upscale organic foods, “green” products, trendy jeans, and political correctness. In other words, Dach sought to expose poor working Americans to the “good life” of the wealthy, environmentally conscious Prius driver.

Dach’s failure should be a cautionary tale for President Obama: last week [3] he scolded a blue collar man in Pennsylvania for driving an SUV, and he has previously admonished Americans to get out of their gas-guzzlers and into electric cars. Dach’s failure should also put Michelle Obama on notice; she has been pushing her White House organic vegetable garden as a model for working Americans.

Like other real-world experiments, the Wal-Mart story exposes the failure of progressivism in the marketplace, as the Dach strategy has been a fiasco: the merchandising turned off low-income (and largely Democratic-leaning) customers. Says former Wal-Mart executive Jimmy Wright [4]:

    The basic Wal-Mart customer didn’t leave Wal-Mart. What happened is that Wal-Mart left the customer.

Dach convinced the company to steer away from founder Sam Walton’s core values. At the core of Dach’s campaign was to prove that Wal-Mart was “going green.” He brought in Vice President Gore [5] to speak about environmental issues: they actually screened his global warming film, An Inconvenient Truth, at a quarterly meeting of Wal-Mart empl0yees and invited environmental groups. Expensive organic foods [2] were showcased in their produce section. Trendy and pricey environmentally safe products were put on the shelves.

Richard Edelman of Edelman Public Relations — who had once hired Dach — noted that Dach constantly pushed Democratic Party health care and environmental agendas inside the giant company. Writes the New Yorker [6]:

    Richard Edelman suggested that he is seeing Dach’s influence on the company. Edelman called Dach an “idealist” who has carried to Wal-Mart his fervor for such traditional Democratic causes as universal health care and environmentalism.

The Sierra Club’s Carl Pope seemed pleased that Dach was inside the enemy camp, confiding [7]to the New Yorker:

    One of the remarkable things about the environmental movement is how rarely people from our side end up on the other side, and Leslie is on the other side.

But Dach’s fervor only sunk the company. Andy Barron, a Wal-Mart executive vice president, told an investor meeting [4]:

    Clearly, we’ve lost some of our focus on what I would call the core customer. … You might say, in short, that we were trying to be something that maybe we’re not.

George Siemon, CEO of Organic Valley — the nation’s largest organics cooperative — said to the WSJ [4]:

    Is the Wal-Mart customer ready to embrace a full set of organics products? The answer is no, not yet.

This is probably not what Michelle Obama wants to hear.

For leading the failed experiment, Dach was awarded [8] three million dollars in stock and a hundred and sixty-eight thousand stock options, in addition to an undisclosed base salary.

Summing up the mess, mechanic Mike Craig told the WSJ [4]:

    Wal-Mart just went and broke it.

Article printed from Pajamas Media: http://pajamasmedia.com

URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/wal-mart-goes-back-to-basics-a-cautionary-tale-for-the-left/

URLs in this post:

[1] will announce: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704776304576253252673697210.html?KEYWORDS=walmart

[2] going “green,”: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/wal-mart-plans-green-labels-for-products-wsj

[3] last week: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42468366/

[4] Jimmy Wright: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703803904576152753111788930.html

[5] brought in Vice President Gore: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06341/744353-28.stm#ixzz1JDuJIAQO

[6] New Yorker: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/04/02/070402fa_fact_goldberg?currentPage=4

[7] confiding : http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/04/02/070402fa_fact_goldberg#ixzz1JEHQDkJx

[8] was awarded: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/04/02/070402fa_fact_goldberg#ixzz1JDruAJwC

 

[ModlrMike]

An interesting take on "tax the rich". To his credit, he makes no secret of his place on the political right. Still, the math boggles the mind, and I think puts paid to core liberal/socialist idea that the "rich" actually do have all the money. Even if you discount his data by 50%, he still makes a good point.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ&feature=player_embedded

PS: make sure you have a bucket nearby, Michael Moore makes an appearance.

 

[a_majoor]

Attitudes at Bowdoin today:

http://www.mindingthecampus.com/forum/2011/04/us_history_as_taught_at_bowdoi.html

U.S. History as Taught at Bowdoin (Ugh)

Posted by John Leo

“There are any number of courses that deal with some group aspect of America, but virtually none that deals with America as a whole. For example, there is African-American history from 1619 to 1865 and from 1865 to the present, but there is no comparable sequence on America. Every course is social or cultural history that looks at the world through the prism of race, class, and gender. Even a course on the environment (offered in the history department) examines the links between ecology and race, class, and gender.” Do Bowdoin alumni know their alma mater offers not one history course in American political, military, diplomatic, constitutional, or intellectual history, and nothing at all on the American Founding or the Constitution; that the one Civil War course is essentially African-American history (it is offered also in African Studies); and that there are more courses on gay and lesbian subjects than on American history? Is it possible this is one reason why some conservatives are disinclined to send their children to Bowdoin? Mr. (Barry) Mills (president of Bowdoin) did not inquire."

and as imagined by one of its most famous instructors (later president of the college and Governor of Maine):

[/quote]
Many of us volunteered to fight for the Union. Some came mainly because we were bored at home and this looked like it might be fun. Some came because we were ashamed not to. Many came because it was the right thing to do.

This is a different kind of army. If you look at history you'll see men fight for pay, or women, or some other kind of loot. They fight for land, or because a king makes them, or just because they like killing. But we're here for something new. This hasn't happened much in the history of the world. We are an army out to set other men free. America should be free ground, from here to the Pacific Ocean. No man has to bow, no man born to royalty. Here we judge you by what you do, not by who your father was. Here you can be something. Here you can build a home. But it's not the land. There's always more land. It's the idea that we all have value, you and me. What we're fighting for, in the end, is each other.
[/quote]

Colonel Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain

From Micheal Sharra's "The Killer Angels"

 

[a_majoor]

Brownshirts vs free speech:

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2011/04/14-year-old-girl-speaks-at-tea-party.html

A 14-year-old girl speaks at the Tea Party rally in Madison and is drowned out by chants, boos, and cowbells.

This video — shot by Meade and edited by me — begins with a little boy banging on a plastic bucket "drum." A man with a guitar is performing — amplified — on the stage, but we can barely hear him over the crowd noise. There is incessant ringing of cowbells. Then, we can hear that a young woman is speaking from the stage to the Tea Party crowd as the protesters do what they can to drown her out. She finishes — "God bless America" — and the tea partiers cheer but the protesters overwhelm them with boos. The emcee comes to the mike and we hear that the speaker was only 14 years old.

ADDED: One of the chants during her speech is "Go home! Go home! Go home!"

UPDATE: Another angle on the heckling of this girl, at 1:07 in a montage of video that I shot yesterday.

And before you say "isolated incident":

http://www.icarizona.com/2011/04/protesters-and-anarchists-harass.html

http://www.breitbart.tv/leftist-thugs-taunt-harass-and-insult-black-tea-party-member/

http://www.jsonline.com/news/119988099.html

The New Civility is breaking out across America!

 

[a_majoor]

The speaker at the TEA party event in Madison speaks out:

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2011/04/email-from-tricia-willoughby-14-year.html

Email from Tricia Willoughby, the 14-year-old girl who spoke at Saturday's Tea Party rally.

As I've shown in other posts — here, here, and here — there were anti-Tea Party protesters who were shouting and noisemaking throughout her speech. She writes:

    First off, I’d like to thank Ms. Althouse for giving me the opportunity to write about my experience at the tea party. Also, before another word is spoken, I’d like to clarify that I was most certainly NOT forced to speak at the tea party by my parents or anyone else. My parents would never force me to do that. I did it completely out of my own free will and wouldn’t have wanted to be anywhere else, doing anything else that day.

    Here are my (“14 year old, Tricia Willoughby”) views and opinions of what occurred on that extraordinary day…



    Little did I know that throughout my entire speech, an immature, grown man, was shouting profanities at me, nor that I was getting booed and yelled at by many other opposers. The leftists, you see, were just getting warmed up, and had not yet made their big push to try to completely drown out the speakers.

    The next couple speakers spoke, and it wasn’t until they spoke, that I began to actually hear the union protesters and their annoying shouting. I also saw a heckler come to the front of the crowd and yell throughout the majority of the speeches.

    However, despite all of those incidents that I saw that day, the rest of that day was an INCREDIBLE experience. From meeting THE Sarah Palin, to speaking to my fellow Tea Party patriots, to showing the Unionistas what Democracy really looks like, last Saturday was a day that I will hold in my memory forever.

  It wasn’t until the next day (Sunday, the 19th) that I watched the video of some particularly hate- filled people. (You know who I’m talking about) When I first watched the video of that particularly distasteful man, my first reaction was actually to laugh! I couldn’t believe it! This grown man was soo immature and so small to be calling me those things. I was thinking “That is what you want to say to me? Really? You’re not even listening to what I’m saying, or criticizing my actual logic. You are simply just calling me names because I am on the opposite side.”

    I can truly say that I am not offended in the least by that man’s comments. He obviously was not saying what he said to my speech (since he wasn’t listening at all to it), nor was he saying it to me. He was saying it to a member of the opposing side and couldn’t even string together an intelligent piece of criticism.

    I wish I could say this man surprised me, but I cannot. I do not reject or hold prejudice toward their rude and mean protesting, in fact I welcome it. I am actually thankful towards this man and his distasteful comments. He, along with the other protesters, just makes us (the Tea Partiers/Conservatives) look even better.

    During the weeks of union protests, did you see any conservatives, tea partiers, or Republicans down at our capitol heckling and trying to drown out the other side? I was actually there, at our Wisconsin Capitol throughout that whole first week of protest. I was there taking a week long class on government with a wonderful organization called TeenPact (check it out at www.teenpact.com), and the unionistas were so loud, and so bothersome with their drums, symbols, bagpipes, and constant chanting, that by the end of the class we were extremely annoyed. However, not once, NOT ONCE, did I see any conservative person harassing, or heckling, or yelling violently at any protester. In fact, I only saw the opposite being done, and the conservatives in the capitol got the same special treatment that was given to me by that particular man.

    Be proud, my fellow conservatives, tea partiers, and Republicans. We believe in persuasion, not intimidation!

    Even in the face of adversity we must stay strong no matter how hard our urge is to yell and harass back. We must remain the kinder and gentler party, who represents the morals and principals that this great nation was founded on.

    However, just because we let our gentleness be evident to all, that does not mean that we are weak. Because when it comes to protecting and defending our morals, values, freedoms and rights, we are strong. Let us keep our position as the kind giant and keep on fighting for America.

    Thank you for reading this and God bless!

    Keep loving and defending this land of the free and home of the brave,
    ~A Fellow Patriot-Tricia Willoughby

 

[littleprairie]

Put a single mom on welfare for the amount of 800 dollars together with subsidized apartment and believe me, they would not attempt to find work despite being able. I know of one. Ladies who get married early and start having themselves impregnated with two or three children would circumvent responsible behaviour by filing legal separation or divorce to take advantage of the government's single mom welfare privileges. Bob Raei and the New Democrats were respoonsible for such legislation by buying votes through being suckers by way giving doles. Result? We are 900 billion dollars in debt..In some countries there are laws on economic sabotage. We too have. The only way to indict and convict them is to establish criminal intent. They were successful in the FBI by finding too many with Obama...I am sorry to say this but the man whom many have adored is a candidate for lethal injection..

 

[Good2Golf]

Put a single mom on welfare for the amount of 800 dollars together with subsidized apartment and believe me, they would not attempt to find work despite being able. I know of one. Ladies who get married early and start having themselves impregnated with two or three children would circumvent responsible behaviour by filing legal separation or divorce to take advantage of the government's single mom welfare privileges. Bob Raei and the New Democrats were respoonsible for such legislation by buying votes through being suckers by way giving doles. Result? We are 900 billion dollars in debt..In some countries there are laws on economic sabotage. We too have. The only way to indict and convict them is to establish criminal intent. They were successful in the FBI by finding too many with Obama...I am sorry to say this but the man whom many have adored is a candidate for lethal injection..

littleprairie, having an opinion on any number of issues is one thing, espousing harm to someone, whomever they may be, is against the Milnet.ca Conduct Guidelines.

Consider this you one and only free warning to align your conduct with the site guidelines.  Subsequent warning will be through the site's formal Warning System.


Milnet.ca Staff

 

[littleprairie]

I am not espousing harm to someone. That is the truth and solely but the truth. He can condone people who threw pies at Ann Coulter's face or condone those libelous cartoons on Bush and Harper, why cannot I tell the truth. The man would be facing so many counts of treason...Egypt, attempting to overthrow foreigne governments, like Tunisia..Stalling the defensive attacks on Libya or delaying counterattacks on countries who coddle terrorists or are bias to the Left..Plus so many counts of Cuban and Soviet espionage..This might be my last post. I can easily accept defeat in a debate. But this time I am not going to get banned without saying a word. I have been banned so many times due some posters' provocation..Why, I am the only one singled out as one who cannot participate in heated debates while the rest can..Ban me if youi like but I tell the truth..

 

[Fishbone Jones]

So, we've banned you before and you admit it. Then you come back doing the same shit?

Guess what.

Milnet.ca Staff

 

[Michael OLeary]

I am not espousing harm to someone. That is the truth and solely but the truth. He can condone people who threw pies at Ann Coulter's face or condone those libelous cartoons on Bush and Harper, why cannot I tell the truth. The man would be facing so many counts of treason...Egypt, attempting to overthrow foreigne governments, like Tunisia..Stalling the defensive attacks on Libya or delaying counterattacks on countries who coddle terrorists or are bias to the Left..Plus so many counts of Cuban and Soviet espionage..This might be my last post. I can easily accept defeat in a debate. But this time I am not going to get banned without saying a word. I have been banned so many times due some posters' provocation..Why, I am the only one singled out as one who cannot participate in heated debates while the rest can..Ban me if youi like but I tell the truth..

No, it is your opinion.  And this forum has been quite clear with its members that promoting an opinion suggesting someone be killed is not acceptable. If you are incapable of existing within the site guidelines, and refuse to cease such commentary, you will be banned.

Milnet.ca Staff

 

[a_majoor]

The National Post unearths the NDP's "members only" Constitution and looks at their hidden and not so hidden agenda. Better late than never:

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/04/29/terence-corcoran-jack-layton’s-hidden-agenda/

Terence Corcoran: Jack Layton’s hidden agenda
Comments Twitter LinkedIn Email 
Terence Corcoran  Apr 29, 2011 – 8:28 PM ET | Last Updated: Apr 29, 2011 8:35 PM ET

NDP’s hidden constitution opposes profits, backs ‘social ownership’

With the NDP’s public election platform already packed with more than 200 extreme, unworkable, radical and mostly undesirable promises, it might surprise some to learn that Jack Layton’s current power trip packs at lot more baggage under the floorboards.

How much more can there be? They’ve got plans for what amounts to a 10¢-a-litre cap-and-trade tax on gasoline, doubled pension plan contributions, corporate tax increases, plus a long list of plans and schemes to newly regulate pharmaceuticals, banking, oil, food, telecom, railways and many other industries. As for monetary policy, not mentioned in the platform but recently the subject of comment, Mr. Layton says that he wants to maintain an “arm’s length” relationship with the Bank of Canada, although he apparently at the same time intends to jawbone the bank over interest rates and the value of the dollar.

This is all bad enough, but now let’s have a rummage through the baggage rack and under the floorboards. We’re looking for plans Mr. Layton didn’t mention in the platform, long-standing NDP agenda items, ideological positions they don’t talk much about but which underlie everything the party does. Does the NDP have any “hidden agendas”?

The CBC’s Leslie MacKinnon recently reported on the NDP’s official constitution, a 2003 document that specifies why the NDP exists. It turns out the NDP constitution is itself a hidden agenda.

First, here’s a core statement from the preamble outlining the “principles of democratic socialism” that guide the party:

That the production and distribution of goods and services shall be directed to meeting the social and individual needs of people within a sustainable environment and economy and not to the making of profit;

To modify and control the operations of the monopolistic productive and distributive organizations through economic and social planning. Towards these ends and where necessary, the extension of the principle of social ownership….

The New Democratic Party is proud to be associated with the democratic socialist parties of the world and to share the struggle for peace, international co-operation and the abolition of poverty.

The above NDP constitutional extract is unfortunately not available on the NDP website. Ms MacKinnon asked about this omission and was told that the party’s constitution is an “internal” document that is only available to members, not to voters who might be interested in NDP principles. Other questions raised appropriately by Ms. MacKinnon: “Does the NDP have a problem with the making of profits? Does social ownership mean the nationalization of certain industries? And does the NDP still deeply believe in these precepts, or has it repudiated them?”

Or does the NDP have a hidden agenda well beyond the fat agenda in the election platform?

That the NDP has larger ideological and political aspirations can be found in the party’s busy legislative effort under Mr. Layton. Most of these bills, not mentioned in the platform, are part of the NDP’s active policy agenda. This is stuff they would do, even if not part of the official election campaign.

Bill C-311 A pet project through the last session of Parliament, and long a part of the NDP agenda. It’s an act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing “dangerous” climate change under United Nations agreements. The word “dangerous” is code for a UN trigger clause that would jumpstart massive global government regulation. Mr. Layton personally backed C-311, a bill loaded with regulatory process and expanded government control over all carbon-generating economic activity. In essence, it would formally lock Canada into following UN-based dictates, even if those dictates were contrary to Canadian interests and even contrary to common sense.

Bill C-502 An act to block oil tankers from entering waters off the British Columbia coast, a move that would prevent the export of oil and gas.

Bill C-337 A union crowd-pleaser that aims to prevent federally regulated industries from hiring replacement workers in the event of a strike. Sounds innocuous, although it would do little more than give unions at airlines, railways and other firms more power and make it more difficult for companies to compete and make profits (see constitution above).

Bill C-469 An Act to establish a Canadian Environmental Bill of Rights would, in practice, bog businesses down in legal and regulatory thickets every time they are seen to be doing some “harm” to the environment.

Other bills make up the hidden agenda list: C-518 would shut down aquaculture; C-474 would move to subject agricultural seeds to review for “potential harm” before “any new genetically modified seed is permitted;” C-298 would impose “corporate social responsibility” on Canadian mining companies operating abroad.

That last bill is also known as the bill to encourage mining companies to set up head offices in other countries — composed, as such companies are, of profit-seeking enterprises currently outside the grasp of NDP “social ownership.”

All the above failed to become law. But the NDP is full of many more such ideas fashioned out of the socialist ideology that’s at the official core of the party’s constitutional agenda, a hidden agenda that it seems voters are not supposed to know about.

 

[Kirkhill]

Further to Thuc's post above and also the subject of internal tensions within parties I present the following:

The New Democratic Party Socialist Caucus.  Their website and manifesto.

Conveniently summarized at Wikipedia

Some bon mots from the Manifesto (Adopted 1999):

Manifesto for a Socialist Canada
SOCIALISTS AROUND THE WORLD believe in the establishment of a society where the exploitation of one class by another will no longer exist. Our aim and ongoing struggle as New Democrats must be to establish a Socialist Canada. We believe that the achievement of this goal requires a socialist party that, together with the self-organized mass struggles of working people, can win government for the purpose of transforming Canada into a socialist society. Our objective as members of the New Democratic Party (NDP) is to make our party into one that fights for government, and when in government, actually implements socialist policies


.....


By a socialist system we mean the replacement of the private ownership of the major means of production, distribution, banking and exchange with social ownership under workers' self-management and democratic government. A socialist NDP government would as a first order of priority institute a system of economic planning with the objective of satisfying human needs rather than private profit. Democratic government will take on a new and profoundly richer meaning -- to include a genuine accountability of the senior civil bureaucracy, subject to election and recall by the population.

Given that this appears to me to be a fairly uncompromising hard left stance and that Jack seeks to protray himself and his party as a moderate centrist party I believe a fair question to him would be whether or not he supports the NDP Socialist Caucus and their manifesto. 


Whose side are you on Jack?


Bring on the Property Rights debate.

 

[a_majoor]

If they want to be socialists, that s OK. Just be open about what you seek and what you stand for.

Personally, I'd feel a lot more comfortable is the NDP were to follow the principles of the Euston Manifesto[/quote] than see stuff like [url=http://www.ndpsocialists.ca/]The New Democratic Party Socialist Caucus.[/co;or] popping out of the woodwork.

 

[Nemo888]

I just want to tax rich people more.* Does that make me socialist?

*By rich I mean those who own homes over 2 million dollars. Roughly the top 3.5% of Canadians.

 

[Infanteer]

Why should they pay more relative to you or me?  It seems to me that if a citizen is entitled to one vote, has equal rights and responsibilities and has equal access to services than he shouldn't be responsible to pay more or less than another citizen.

 

[Rifleman62]

Nemo888, not every "rich" person was born with a silver spoon in their mouth.

A person who works very hard, invents a product etc, or whatever should not pay more tax just because they became successful. You cannot penalize the successful just because they or their family are successful. A kid grows up, finds out his mom was rich, so you tax the kid turned adult?

Why not tax all the successful entertainers, actors, sports people who head down south to enhance their career and fortunes? There are lots of those people. I mean, after all, they used the Canadian "system" until they moved.

Start with Iggy. He owes for the thirty years he was just visiting the US and GB.

 

[Dissident]

I just want to tax rich people more.* Does that make me socialist?

*By rich I mean those who own homes over 2 million dollars. Roughly the top 3.5% of Canadians.

I vaguely remember reading about how income taxes came about in the states. Something about people agreeing to tax the rich to pay for WWI or WWII. Then the "rich" found a way to shelter their income, they are good with money that's why they got rich in the first place. The government still needed the money and kept lowering the tax threshold to keep the money coming in. All the people that clamored to "tax the rich" little by little found themselves in the "rich" category, according to the government.

People who want to tax the rich invariably think money is evil. They think it is evil because they hate it. They hate it because they see it (or more accurately the lack of it) as the source of their problems. So they despise people who accumulate it (and profits).