You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Rant’ tag.
Enough. Just enough.
You people have been dominating media coverage for the last week or so, you’ve had your time in the sun, now off with 
thee. Why people celebrate monarchy is beyond me. Royalty is emblematic of the rot that infested humanity for hundreds of years and does not deserve the fawning we lavish upon it now. At one time, these people believed that they were chosen by god to rule people and hold absolute power over them. Why we exalt these inbred autocrats for touring Canada baffles me.
If people gave a little more thought to history and what monarchy represents, I think the welcome the royals received would be slightly different.
This is the extended weather forecast for my region.
High Monday -15°
Tuesday -10° | -18°
Wednesday -3° | -17°
Thursday 1° | -4°
Friday 4° | -3°
Saturday 1° | -6°
It feels like we are a hapless bird in a wonky convection oven that regularly decided to blast warm and cold air for days at at time. This weekend was highlighted by positive temperatures and freezing rain mixed with snow.
Who needs to go to the gym?
Yes, for those of us who used the nice weather (3 days in a row above zero) to finally scrape and clean their sidewalks and driveway down to the concrete, that work was undone over the course of 24 hours as everything was recoated in snow and ice for my convenience.
So after work today, I once again have my winter recreational activities cut out for me. I really do not mind winter, but the weather really needs to decide to be either cold or warm and not fluctuate wildly between the two.
In the fiefdom known as the province of Alberta, the current right-wing King is stepping down. Ed Stelmach for glancing once to often toward the center has been ousted by the more radical elements(?) of Alberta’s Progressive Conservative Party. But really, does it matter? Certainly the fracture between the PC’s (right) and the Wild Rose Party (further right) will allow some electoral fresh air into the next election.
Doubtful at best.
Thanks to an amazing job of jerrymandering the rural/urban ridings and a political climate laced with near terminal apathy, Alberta is in line for yet another Oil pandering, business friendly (read raping the public-trust friendly) conservative premier. Full marks to the CBC for attempting to make people care about the upcoming election, going through the motions has never sounded so exciting.
“Ted Morton’s appeal to supporters of the Wildrose Alliance could lead to split loyalties for the province’s federal Tories The province’s former finance minister, who resigned from cabinet in order to seek the leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party, said he plans to bring Wildrose Alliance members back into the Progressive Conservative fold.”
Isn’t that cute! They are arguing who gets to wear the boot that continues to stomp on the face of ordinary Albertans. I mean there is the serious consideration of who is going to run the province for the benefit of the oil conglomerates and business, plus differing influence peddling price structures are in place to ensure the correct business policy becomes Alberta Government Policy.
“There isn’t going to be any chance at all that the Wildrose is simply going to fold into the PC Party,” Smith said in an interview broadcast Saturday on CBC Radio’s The House. “People, myself included, were very hopeful that Ted would be able to lead a movement from within the PC Party to get them back on track. And I think that what we’ve seen is he’s not been effective doing that.
This could spell trouble for federal Tories in the province, some of whom have been quietly supporting Wildrose to the detriment of the provincial PCs. But now that Morton hopes to lead the PC Party, those federal Conservatives may have to pick a side.”
Oh the Drama! Which brand of proto-fascism will make it into the Great Leaders Chair? I can only bitterly contemplate this poisonous choice and wonder when if, ever, the population of Alberta will finally have enough of one party rule.
Rick Salutin should not have been dismissed as an op-ed writer at the Canada’s ‘national’ newspaper the Globe and Mail. His spot taken by religious apologist Irshad Manji has left a gaping hole in coverage of news and events from the perspective of the working class. However, one and awhile they allow Jim Standford to add a bit of reality to the generally rightward op-eds that are par for the course in the Globe and Mail.
Jim lays the smack down in an article that tells about how our society is being (has been) structured to benefit the wealthy and their interests and how new movements such as the Tea Party seemed to have missed the target when it comes to where they lay their righteous anger. This post will be quote heavy as I intend to reference it as a basis for economic discussions in the future, so please bear with the meticulous quoting as to what Mr. Standford had to say.
“American economist Emmanuel Saez has painstakingly assembled a century-long statistical series on U.S. income distribution. On two occasions, the share of income captured by the richest 1 per cent reached about a quarter of the national total. The first time was in 1928, the second in 2007. As we all know, both peaks in wealth concentration were followed by financial catastrophe and depression. Indeed, maldistribution clearly contributed to both meltdowns.”
Not to harp on a point but progressive taxation addresses this problem well and at one point in time was actually in the tax code of the US.
“But there’s a startling difference in the political reverberations that followed the two conflagrations. In the 1930s, outrage at the pre-Depression extravagance of the rich, contrasting with the dislocation experienced by masses of Americans, sparked a decade of left-leaning foment. Government expanded income security, directly hired millions of unemployed, and actively supported a new generation of unions to fight for the common folk. Meantime, it reined in business excess through tough financial rules, anti-trust policies, and high taxes on the rich.”
So what is different this time around? Why are we not getting the limitations put back on the business class?
“This time around, there’s been plenty of populist anger – but (so far) it’s been steered in exactly the opposite direction. Social supports and public employment are being cut dramatically (especially by U.S. state and local governments). Barack Obama’s election promise to modernize labour laws and rebuild unions was dead – even before he lost Congress. And several state governments are now preparing a full assault on union rights: Recent proposals in Ohio and Wisconsin would virtually outlaw collective bargaining across broad swaths of the public sector.”
It seems like this is the road that has brought us to ruin, let’s go faster! The important questions to keep in mind is economic disaster and ruin for whom and which segments of society are not being as dramatically effected.
“The richest 1 per cent almost tripled their share of U.S. national income since 1978, gobbling two-thirds of the income gains generated in the whole economy over the past decade. With numbers like these, highlighting the incomes of the ultra-rich is no longer an idle, envious pastime. The concentration of wealth at the top has become macroeconomically significant.”
Two thirds of all the income gains, to the top 1%. This is not equitable, rational or even reasonable. Why does emergent political policy look the way it does? Political influence of this nascent oligarchy is the answer.
‘Recession or no recession, the gravy train at the top hasn’t paused for breath: Executive bonuses keep rising, and the
top 25 hedge-fund managers made a staggering $1-billion each in 2009. Nevertheless, the trend in U.S. politics is not to challenge the contrast between the top and the bottom, but to reinforce it. The Tea Party portrays government itself as the problem. And rather than empowering average workers to improve their lot (like the Wagner Act did in 1935), America’s rightward lurch in labour relations will reinforce the stagnation at the bottom.”
I would speculate that measures that increase social and economic equality such as Universal Healthcare were derailed precisely because of this misplaced furor of the Tea party and other people, who wrongly blame the government rather than elites for their current economic situation. It certainly was not the government that took 2/3 of all the economic income gains from 1978. Indeed it is pretty bad in the US, but does Canada fare any better?
“Canada is a kinder, gentler, fairer place. So the numbers aren’t as extreme. Or are they? Here, the richest 1 per cent (less than 250,000 tax filers) capture 17 per cent of total income, and that share has merely doubled (not trebled) since the egalitarian 1970s. A full third of all income gains across Canada since 1987 have gone to that lucky group. For the ultra-ultra-rich (the top 0.1 per cent of families, 25,000 in total, with average income of $1.5-million), their share of national income has trebled to 6.5 per cent.”
Erm. Well… Yeah, we are a little better of as the egalitarian principles in Canada are eroding at a slower rate than those of the US.
“Despite this largesse, in Canada, too, the political bandwagon lurches to the right. There’s been infinitely more hot air expended since the financial meltdown over the salaries of unionized garbage collectors than those of high-flying financiers. Our home-grown plutocracy, meanwhile, keeps raking it in. Bonuses at the Big Six banks alone reached $8.9-billion in 2010, the highest ever. The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives recently documented that the typical Canadian CEO made as much by 2:30 p.m. on Jan. 3 as the average worker makes all year long.“
It is not rational for this sort of imbalance to exist in an economy. This is not the market determining a fair price for work done, this is naked avarice strutting though Canadian society as if nothing was wrong.
“Imagine a city the size of Saskatoon hogging a third of all the new income generated by the entire country. Imagine folks who earn as much in a few hours as the rest of us do in a year – yet still lecture us on the need to tighten our belts. Imagine 25,000 families earning as much as the bottom seven million tax filers put together. How long will these excesses fly under the public’s radar, while we bicker over wage gaps between unionized garbage collectors and non-union fast-food workers? Not long, I hope.”
The belt tightening needs to start at the top, competent leaders, lead by example and from the front. Did we see during this latest recession the business classes calling for more social programs and higher taxes on their cohort? Not even a faint whisper. Why? Because when rapacious avarice is the name of the game, sharing the pain and helping others is not even in the playbook.
Feathering the nests and nest eggs on the backs of the rest of society is par for the course of North American elites. Witness the wage stagnation that is still with us since the 1970’s. And who (are we told to) do we blame for this? The penuriousness of the burgeoning plutocracy? Of course not. The blame goes to the Government and the Unions, two public institutions that have mandates to actually protect, rather than exploit, people. A tip of the hat for the propaganda program that has set the people against themselves rather than those who are actually running the show.
The people of Europe can see the neo-liberal cavalcade of crap coming a mile away. While we here in North America shrug our shoulders, remain disengaged and accept the dictates of our wealthy classes with a heavy sigh.
“Austerity is the other name for it. Confronting massive deficits and fearful of losing investor confidence, European governments are pulverising budgets and shutting down public services. The plan by England’s new Tory government is considered among the most painful, if not draconian. It is justified as being absolutely necessary.
This view is being challenged in the realm of ideas and with a growing spasm of street protests rocking European cities.”
People challenging what is “good for the market” with the idea of what is “good for the people”? It is a meme virtually unheard of on this side of the Atlantic. Our thoughts have been thoroughly disciplined.
“At a time when most people are saying the path out of the financial crisis and European debt problem is for individuals and governments around the world to cut back, the American economist Paul Krugman wants us to spend, spend, spend.
What is behind the fervour for austerity, he asks? “The answer is” he writes, “to reassure the markets – because the markets supposedly won’t believe in the willingness of governments to engage in long-run fiscal reform unless they inflict pointless pain right now.”
This argument has moved off the op-ed pages and into the streets. These protests conjuring up a revival of the class war confrontations of the 1930’s are erupting as the Eurozone is fracturing. The marches are becoming more militant and bitter, as clashes between the police and angry protesters grow in intensity marked by scattered violence.”
I’m tired of reassuring the markets. The markets are a part of any nation, but should not be the only concern of the people. Although, we need to look no farther than the US to see how economic compromise works, if it is more socialism for the rich, then it is a go, otherwise forget it.
“In the United States, a Republican-dominated Congress– swept into power on the backs of right wing Tea Party activism spurred by Fox News and other fear-driven conservative media– promises to roll back government programs even as it “compromises” with Democrats to keep tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires.
So far, there has been little street activism in the United States. Perhaps it is because of the Christmas shopping season, the inundation of entertainment shows and sporting events or just so little oppositional leadership, especially among Democrats unwilling to challenge a Democratic President who has just negotiated a compromise deal with Republican tax cutters.”
The hope and change I feel emanating from down south is truly inspiring. So again, we have to look to Europe to see what democracy really looks like, to see people fight for their interests, to actually see people be involved in society past the feckless auspices of mere consumption. Ahh, let us revel in our atomized state of and bemoan our politicians for being corrupt and ineffective. Just do not actually do anything, for that might actually bring change and according to those who run our society we are doing great right now.
Approaching contentious topics in conversation is always a touchy proposition considering my stance on most issues. The War in Afghanistan, Prison Policy, Educational Policy and Patriarchy are all minefields that are necessarily carefully navigated through as disagreeing too much with the dominant point of view only leads to consternation and frustration on both sides of the conversation.
Sadly, we end up talking about ‘other’ topics and any sort of give or take is eliminated because of the calcified nature of conservatism in Alberta. Take for instance the Oilsands, a blight in Northern Alberta that is poisoning the environment and the people who live near them. The counter argument, jobs and the economy of course. We are making money and that takes precedence over all. Once the Athabasca river is thoroughly contaminated and the people living near it have moved away or died, things will be fine I imagine.
Similarly in Afghanistan, I’m sure once we kill enough of the Taliban peace and prosperity will firmly take hold and we can make a gracious exit and commend ourselves on a job well done. The alternate picture, perpetual war against a embittered, radicalized population does not to have much traction, although it is a narrative much closer to the reality of the situation in Afghanistan at present. I imagine though that we’ll eventually end up blaming the Afghan people for being too backward, too corrupt and too sectarian for our benevolent efforts (bombing the crap out of everything) and disengage while calling it mendaciously, a victory for our side. Consider the magic woven in Vietnam where America came out of the war eventually demanding reparations from the Vietnamese for their actions… Imperial hubris is wonderful.
Hubris aside, the mentality of some conservatives can be somewhat trying, especially with regards to crime and prisons. The verdict is in, and the evidence points to one clear concept. Punishing people does not ‘fix’ them. More punishment is not the solution. Here is where I get accused of being “soft” on crime. Quite bluntly, dealing with the precursors to crime and criminality – poverty, discrimination, and inequality- is a much more efficient and effective way to deal with crime in a society. I assert with certainty we will still need prisons because necessarily, there exists in any population a percentage of people who simply do not fit in and need to be segregated from the general population. The focus though needs to be on the precursors and getting people the skills they need to become a member of society that does not need to commit crime.
Educational policy dovetails into the discussion of the justice system as it has been noted that in punishment heavy modes of operation, educational policy can act as a feeder system for the criminal justice system. Again, the idea that we can punish (people) children into becoming what we want is deleteriously wrong notion that needs to be dispelled from the schools. The fear of punishment works for many, but not all children. For those who do not have the skills to behave correctly punishing them more only pushes them further away from our goal of nurturing and educating people to become contributing members of our society.
Like the unreality of the punishment point of view the view that Feminism is over and women have achieved equality in our society is a persistent meme that needs to be corrected. The Patriarchy is not dead, our culture is a rape culture and women are still second class citizens at their very best. Is the work of eradicating the massive inequality built into our culture even close to being done, heck no. Not acknowledging that the work needs to be done retards progress significantly, as again, the case must be made, defended and writ large so the proper context can be established and the idea that feminism is not “over” can be vanquished (again).
The theme of this post has been pretty much “waaaa! it sucks having to constatantly contradict the dominant cultural and historical narrative, look how much work it is!!!!”. I realize that, but I write to educate those who wonder why when they talk about certain topics with their progressive friends they all of a sudden get that tired 1000 kilometer stare.
Extra points if you can spot what is wrong with this picture.
The Globe and Mail has a stinky carcass of an article entitled “Are men being robbed of their masculinity?” Zosia Bielski the author in this homage to misogyny tackles the tough issue of Men and the Emasculating Culture they face.
“The movie [Mr.Munday] is just the latest in a string of emasculating offerings in popular culture.”
The War on Maleness is a rising crescendo of hateful messages that Men have to deal with. How can the dominant segment of culture ever survive?
“With the “mancession” hitting men hard during the economic downturn and traditional gender roles mutating, there is rabid concern that men are being robbed of their essential masculinity. The debate heated up after the Pew Research Center reported in January that women have outpaced men in education and earnings growth: 22 per cent of husbands have wives whose income now exceeds theirs, compared to 4 per cent in 1970. The rise in women’s earnings corresponds with an upsurge in their education. (The women were quickly dubbed “alpha wives.”)”
Oh my FSM! We are being robbed of our ‘essential masculinity’? What the hell is essential masculinity? The term is never defined in the article but boy, it seems like this is turning into an apologists piece for patriarchy and the male privilege it grants to men in our culture. Like the the religiously deluded christians who cry ‘persecution’ while in majority status this piece reeks of persecution of the minority with regards to the privileged status men hold in our society.
What is the best way to prove Masculinity is in decline? Mention an Asian outlier subculture:
“An extreme illustration of the slide away from masculinity may be the asexual “herbivores” of Japan, young heterosexual men who are wholly uninterested in pursuing women, material goods or careers. Multiplying after the recession, herbivores live reclusive, uncompetitive lives dominated by the Internet.”
Yes menfolk run! Beware! The World of Warcraft is coming to steal your testicles and carve an indelible mangina into your psyche. The horror!
We do need to give the author some credit as he does mention some facts that are at least loosely connected with reality.
“Boys who resist macho behaviours such as aggression and “emotional stoicism” have better mental health and social relationships, according to Carlos Santos, an Arizona State University researcher who studied 426 middle school boys and presented his findings at the American Psychological Association’s convention in August.”
You mean not acting like completely privileged douche is good for your mental health and ability to work well with others. Go Figure.
“Men have more to gain than lose from the “down with macho” movement, says Jennifer Berdahl, an associate professor of organizational behaviour at the University of Toronto’s Rotman School of Management.”
Another kernel of wisdom in this otherwise putrid article. It is amazing after so many years that people still deny the existence of the Patriarchy and Male Privilege. If people could actually be bothered to read a little about feminism we could avoid some the atrocious pap that regularly appears in the “life” section of newspaper.
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…