quote:

---

And the majority of Canadians are interested in programs and policies that we will not be seeing from Harper. In the next few months, cooperation between the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc could promote some of these policies and programs that the majority have supported.

And should they hammer out a coalition platform based on the many planks they agree on, from arts and culture to climate change, they have the opportunity, after a non-confidence motion, to offer themselves as an alternative government to the governor general.

Thankfully, a new grassroots movement has started laying the foundation for this unprecedented path. It is still a long shot, but this movement has tremendous energy and, now that we aren't competing for votes in an election, a tremendous opportunity to reach out and gather in those from all four opposition parties. We are entering an extremely unpredictable and volatile era. It is no time to give up. We may yet make our dreams for Canada come true.

---

Quebec and cities save our Canada

[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

I don't feel like coming back tomorrow morning to find another free-for-all, and the thread title doesn't really seem to have anything to do with the opening post.

[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]

I think the record should be corrected. It is hardly a wholesale attack upon the NDP.

[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

It is great that the NDP picked up extra seats, but the party failed to increase its popular vote, making Layton's bluster about running for prime minister just embarrassing to anyone but those passionately inside the party fold already.

---

What is this? This is useless. The Harpers received 22 percent of eligible vote. The one big money power party of big business and banking with half a chance of winning a phony-majority, couldn't pull it off.

In particular, in a non-partisan manner she expressed the idea that the environmental movement is a non-partisan affair, which she does not associate with any one political party.

quote:

---

Thankfully, a new grassroots movement has started laying the foundation for this unprecedented path. It is still a long shot, but this movement has tremendous energy and, now that we aren't competing for votes in an election, a tremendous opportunity to reach out and gather in those from all four opposition parties. We are entering an extremely unpredictable and volatile era. It is no time to give up. We may yet make our dreams for Canada come true.

---

[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

"Too bad we will lose Elizabeth May's refreshing voice in national affairs now that the election is over and she has no seat.."

oh boo hoo

May: "Decency in politics is a rare thing," she said. "There are few people I've ever met in political life I admire as much as Stephane Dion. He's been treated shabbily. I think replaying re-asked questions in a second language over the national media is despicable.

"Mr. Dion reminds me very much of Robert Stanfield and I think we may well decide in the future to describe him as the best prime minister we never had."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Yes, I understand, if you connect all the little quotes together, and link them togther in a join the dots drawing we can see that because Klein speaks positively about May and May likes Dion, and compared him positively with Robert Stanfield we can easily see that Alice Klein is really Darth Vader.

But, on an point of policy if Klein is a Liberal, and therefore likes May and Dion and Robert Stanfield, but advocates for Coalition, something which Jack Layton also seems open too, does that not mean that coalition is actually the Death Star, and Jack Layton really emperor Sith?

---

That's cute, but I don't think many people are buying the idea that she is not partisan. Clearly, she believes a liberal government is ideal, with NDP and others playing a supporting role, and they can do that because the liberls and th NDP have so many "planks they agree on..."

[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: Erik Redburn ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by babblerwannabe:

That's cute, but I don't think many people are buying the idea that she is not partisan. Clearly, she believes a liberal government is ideal, with NDP and others playing a supporting role, and they can do that because the liberls and th NDP have so many "planks they agree on..."

except, of course, the liberals would not really carry out the planks they agree on once they form the gov't..

---

Are you sure, because:

quote:

---

Asked on CTV's Canada AM if he would "entertain even the notion of entering into a coalition with the Liberals in order to get the Conservatives out of power," the New Democrat stressed he's never allowed partisanship to trump the greater public good.

"Well, you know what, I've worked with any other party. I think people have seen that if they look back to my days on a municipal council," said Layton, a former Toronto councillor and one-time president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities.

"You roll up your sleeves and you try to solve a problem," he said.

---

Sounds earily like what Klein says when she says:

quote:

---

And should they hammer out a coalition platform based on the many planks they agree on, from arts and culture to climate change, they have the opportunity, after a non-confidence motion, to offer themselves as an alternative government to the governor general.

---

[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
Ha! That's the best babble post EVER. Okay, well, maybe not ever. But it's right up there.

---

[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: babblerwannabe ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Asked on CTV's Canada AM if he would "entertain even the notion of entering into a coalition with the Liberals in order to get the Conservatives out of power," the New Democrat stressed he's never allowed partisanship to trump the greater public good.
"Well, you know what, I've worked with any other party. I think people have seen that if they look back to my days on a municipal council," said Layton, a former Toronto councillor and one-time president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities.

"You roll up your sleeves and you try to solve a problem," he said.

[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

---

Geez, Jack has always been saying he is willing to work with any party to "get things done". So i don't really know what is the news here...

[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: babblerwannabe ]

quote:

---

. . . as Fair Vote Canada points out, the 940,000 votes cast for the Green party sent no one to Parliament, while 813,000 Conservative voters in Alberta alone were able to elect 27 MPs. The need for electoral reform and cross-party collaboration may well become the sleeper issues of this election.

. . . our Toronto deserves a special nod for really holding back the blue line. Yay us! . . my Canada does not include Alberta or Saskatchewan. (Just kidding.)

---

Oh, by the way, 54% of the voters in Saskatchewan elected 13 of the 14 MPs. The Liberal 15% of the voters elected Ralph Goodale, while the NDP 26% elected no one. Don't blame Saskatchewan for our skewed voting system.

A lot of people have noticed, or remembered, that our voting system produces weird results. They are starting out by saying this explains why the Liberals didn't get more seats, and that's true in some places. Not in Alice Klein's Toronto, though. In the 69 Ontario seats outside Toronto, Peel and York, there were enough Liberal votes to elect 20 MPs, but they elected only eight. The fact is, Toronto Liberals don't need PR. Alberta Liberals do. And Quebec Liberals, BC Liberals, Saskatchewan Liberals, Manitoba Liberals, and Ontario-outside-Toronto Liberals.

quote:

---

Originally posted by babblerwannabe:

Geez, Jack has always been saying he is willing to work with any party to "get things done". So i don't really know what is the news here...

[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: babblerwannabe ]

---

Well then, since Klein is really just a Liberal as evidenced by Klein's support for May, and May admiring comments about Dion's similarity to Stanflied we can say that since Jack and Klein agree on this point then Jack must be a Liberal schill planted in the NDP party just to put the Liberals in power when the time came through coalition, if the strategy of splitting the left failed to put the inheritors of Robert Stanfield's Tory legacy in power.

We all know what Tommy Douglas said about "coalition."

[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wilf Day:
Alice Klein:

If that was a non-partisan appeal for electoral reform, she would have pointed out that 245,000 Conservative voters in Toronto elected no one, and in fact the majority of votes cast last week elected no one. Electoral reform can never succeed if it is painted as a partisan trick. Liberal voters in Toronto deserved to elect 10 MPs, and elected 20. Yay for First-Past-The-Post! Umm, what was I saying???

Oh, by the way, 54% of the voters in Saskatchewan elected 13 of the 14 MPs. The Liberal 15% of the voters elected Ralph Goodale, while the NDP 26% elected no one. Don't blame Saskatchewan for our skewed voting system.

A lot of people have noticed, or remembered, that our voting system produces weird results. They are starting out by saying this explains why the Liberals didn't get more seats, and that's true in some places. Not in Alice Klein's Toronto, though. In the 69 Ontario seats outside Toronto, Peel and York, there were enough Liberal votes to elect 20 MPs, but they elected only eight. The fact is, Toronto Liberals don't need PR. Alberta Liberals do. And Quebec Liberals, BC Liberals, Saskatchewan Liberals, Manitoba Liberals, and Ontario-outside-Toronto Liberals.

I look forward to Alice Klein's next analysis. Clearly her heart is in right place, from a broad-based-reform point of view. So is Hugh Segal's. But she hasn't thought about these issues half as much as Hugh Segal or Judy Rebick have. Nor have 99% of Canadians. There's work to be done.

---

[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: Erik Redburn ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wilf Day:
Alice Klein:

If that was a non-partisan appeal for electoral reform, she would have pointed out that 245,000 Conservative voters in Toronto elected no one, and in fact the majority of votes cast last week elected no one. Electoral reform can never succeed if it is painted as a partisan trick. Liberal voters in Toronto deserved to elect 10 MPs, and elected 20. Yay for First-Past-The-Post! Umm, what was I saying???

---

[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: babblerwannabe ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

And what precisely is non-partisan about your appeals for electoral reform. This is probably the first time I have ever seen you mention a vote share disparity that was unfavourable to the Tories, or is it just convenient to bring this up now, when people from other parties are putting forward their sour grapes as a reason for supporting PR?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by babblerwannabe:

Geez, Jack has always been saying he is willing to work with any party to "get things done". So i don't really know what is the news here...

---

Layton made a very nice speech at the end of it all saying he's still willing to work with others -if They too are willing to work with him, but I doubt that was reported much here either.

[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: Erik Redburn ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
This is probably the first time I have ever seen you mention a vote share disparity that was unfavourable to the Tories . .

---

quote:

---

Urban Conservatives: Similar to the last election, a quarter-million Conservative voters in Toronto elected no one and neither did Conservative voters in Montreal.

---

quote:

---

In 2006, a quarter of a million Toronto Conservative voters elected no Conservative MPs. They got no representation in Ottawa. And 220,000 Alberta Liberal voters elected no one either.

We did not get the House of Commons we voted for.

No matter your own opinion on voting systems, can't we agree that citizens should choose the best voting system through a national referendum? Or should the politicians in Parliament make that choice for us?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erik Redburn:
Once again Cueball asks all the questions from his high horse yet refuises to answerr others. Once again for the slow of wit, did the kleader of the Liberal party, Stephane Dion support the notion of any coalition larger than his and emaus switch, or did he actively repudiate it? If so (and it is, as reported here earlier) then why is "Layton" the one always the Main target for criticism.

---

Did I say anything bad about Jack and Klein's idea?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wilf Day:
[QB][/QB]

---

Klein points this out indirectly when she makes the observation as part of her conclusion: "now that we aren't competing for votes in an election, a tremendous opportunity to reach out and gather in those from all four opposition parties."

[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erik Redburn:
Youre right LTJ, I'll just edit my first right out, and leave my second to sum up. No reason for anything but bare statements and questions here.

---

You mean you'll take out the one where you rebutt the statement of the local authorities and then attack me? How courageous. I'll have to remember to use full quotes when replying to you in the future, so your statements don't go down the memory hole.

[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

You mean you'll take out the one where you rebutt the statement of the local authorities and then attack me? How courageous. I'll have to remember to use full quotes when replying to you in the future, so your statements don't go down the memory hole.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erik Redburn:

Youre getting delirious, what local authorities?

---

Basically you seemed to be saying that people should identify themselves, and if not that, others should be able to label them, based on the objective substance of their positions.

I choose not. Sorry.

I admit it was a little confused, but seemed generally to be an thinly veiled personal attack on some people who post here. It wasn't really nasty, but still not very nice. That is the way I read it.

Should have left it there so other people could have tried to take a crack at figuring it out.

[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: remind ]

[ 21 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

[ 21 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

[ 21 October 2008: Message edited by: remind ]

[ 21 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Klein paints a picture of those outside urban areas and PQ, as being not part of "her" Canada, and basically infers that they have no part in the dream of Canada that she holds, and even suggests that they, those damn non-urbanites, are blocking her dream of Canada.

Her words are divisively condescending and she is at best being immaturely deceitful. Of course she meant:

quote:

---

On the subject of cities, my Canada does not include Alberta or Saskatchewan. (Just kidding.)

---

People in the center of the universe do not have dibbs on it being "their" Canada, nor for what their dream of Canada is. Not going to bother going into the obvious fact Toronto exists because the outlaying areas in ON and the rest of Canada, provide the means for it to exist. Which she apparently takes for granted and expects as her due.

Her attitude and others like, are what prompt those in the ROC to dislike what they see the "elitist" Canadian left, it is elitist and unfounded criticism. She is not doing anyone any favours by mouthing such anti-urban sentiments. They are divisive and mean-spirited and will do nothing to draw together a unified front against regressive politics.

[ 21 October 2008: Message edited by: remind ]

[ 21 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Well I certainly would not use the word "enlightened" to describe Klein's ideas. Is Alice Klein elitest? Most certainly.

---

Glad we are on the same page then, in respect to Klein's lacks as a enlightened thinker.

Moreover, I would suggest that her deceitful strategic voting push, comes from her indwelling belief that the ROC is not entitled to vote how they want. And from this perspective it is easy to extrapolate that she actually believes non-urbanites are not even deserving of a vote, as they do not belong to "her" Canada. I guess that makes it all the easier for her to try and deceitfully deprive us/them of their/our democratic vote, doesn't it?!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
You said something like I understand that the site is not an NDP site, BUT we are always under attack and being called partisan, and its not fair that these other people claim not to be aligned with any particular party, when its obvious to us that they must be affiliated to some organization, or another that is antagonistic to the NDP if not in fact, at least in practice and we can see this based on the fact that they persistently attack the NDP, and so therefore why can't we out them as Liberals or Greenies or whatever, and so on and so forth.

Basically you seemed to be saying that people should identify themselves, and if not that, others should be able to label them, based on the objective substance of their positions.

I choose not. Sorry.

I admit it was a little confused, but seemed generally to be an thinly veiled personal attack on some people who post here. It wasn't really nasty, but still not very nice. That is the way I read it.

Should have left it there so other people could have tried to take a crack at figuring it out.

[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

---

Nobody's calling you a Liberal shill, or even a slavish talking head for the Liberal Party.

Talk of a coalition runs directly opposite to the prevailing received wisdom in NDP that Liberals are nothing but Conservatives in sheeps' clothing. Anyone who seriously proposes to coalesce these two parties is somehow going to have to get around the fact that the NDP are sworn blood enemies of the Liberals and have been since the days of the CCF. When the right united they didn't have that kind of history to overcome.

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:

Glad we are on the same page then, in respect to Klein's lacks as a enlightened thinker.

Moreover, I would suggest that her deceitful strategic voting push, comes from her indwelling belief that the ROC is not entitled to vote how they want. And from this perspective it is easy to extrapolate that she actually believes non-urbanites are not even deserving of a vote, as they do not belong to "her" Canada. I guess that makes it all the easier for her to try and deceitfully deprive us/them of their/our democratic vote, doesn't it?!

Klein, through her words, appears to have a fundamental flaw of elitism, that supports her exclusionary beliefs, and which run counter to democracy, beliefs in equality and cooperation.

---

And it was that "fundamental flaw of elitism" that I was attempting to reveal in using manufacturing consent.

quote:

---

QUESTION: When we talk about manufacturing of consent, whose consent is being manufactured?

CHOMSKY: To start with, there are two different groups, we can get into more detail, but at the first level of approximation, there's two targets for propaganda. One is what's sometimes called the political class. There's maybe twenty percent of the population which is relatively educated, more or less articulate, plays some kind of role in decision-making. They're supposed to sort of participate in social life -- either as managers, or cultural managers like teachers and writers and so on. They're supposed to vote, they're supposed to play some role in the way economic and political and cultural life goes on. Now their consent is crucial. So that's one group that has to be deeply indoctrinated. Then there's maybe eighty percent of the population whose main function is to follow orders and not think, and not to pay attention to anything -- and they're the ones who usually pay the costs.

---

Further, the elite media are sort of the agenda-setting media, and use what he calls "a propaganda model".

quote:

---

in respect to Klein's lacks as a enlightened thinker.

---

That one would consider that under let's say,"a Health care plan," any idea of stopping "for profit healthcare is doomed" other then to consider the legal implications of this and the taking to task of the denigration of the Heath act by government lack of wanting to uphold these kinds of laws for all Canadians.

This mathematical basis would then recognize that it would "need Quebec to assert it's right" not under the plan to self determination as a distinct culture and break away, but to enforce that it's citizens as Canadians would benefit from a plan that would reach beyond all borders of distinction, and to recognize the inherent right to equality across this country beyond partisanships of a political party.

Had Ducceppe believed the same way as he does for his "culture" that he would believe in a Canadian one, then it would have seen a rise in prosperity in terms of equality across this country and his leadership. "A breaking" of that strong minority government.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polunatic2:
In other words, she's not an NDP partisan, therefore she's unenlightened (or just plain stupid).

---

In this I think she shares a lot in common with a large number of NDP voters. The NDP is filled with a lot of Liberals like that. Perhaps the problem people are having is that she is not Partisans Partisan.

quote:

---

What seems to be being asserted is one must absolutely and unswearvingly show absolute devotion to the NDP at all times to avoid being slammed as a Liberal by the true progressives in the NDP, who will variously call for you to be banned from progressive discourse if you fail to argue the correct line on electoral mechanics.

---

[ 21 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus:
And BTW, it's Alice herself who claims to be an NDP partisan - which serves as "Exhibit A" for my case.

---

It seems to me pretty evident that exhibit "A" in your case is that advocating "strategic voting" is enough to bring into question ones support for the NDP. Others have even argued that this is enough to bring into question ones "progressive" values.

[ 21 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Now, in respect to Klein's article, I have some serious issues with her use of "My Canada", "our dreams of Canada" and her use of 'mean girl' tactics in order to get what point across exactly. Low brow people in rural areas are destroying her Canada it appears.

Klein paints a picture of those outside urban areas and PQ, as being not part of "her" Canada, and basically infers that they have no part in the dream of Canada that she holds, and even suggests that they, those damn non-urbanites, are blocking her dream of Canada.

Her words are divisively condescending and she is at best being immaturely deceitful. Of course she meant:
If she did not mean it, she would not have included it, nor put it as a one line paragraph in her diatribe. "Mean girls" in high school do this type of immature nasty shit. Slam you, then say "just kidding", when both the victim and the perpetraitor know differently.

People in the center of the universe do not have dibbs on it being "their" Canada, nor for what their dream of Canada is. Not going to bother going into the obvious fact Toronto exists because the outlaying areas in ON and the rest of Canada, provide the means for it to exist. Which she apparently takes for granted and expects as her due.

Her attitude and others like, are what prompt those in the ROC to dislike what they see the "elitist" Canadian left, it is elitist and unfounded criticism. She is not doing anyone any favours by mouthing such anti-urban sentiments. They are divisive and mean-spirited and will do nothing to draw together a unified front against regressive politics.

---

[ 21 October 2008: Message edited by: Lard Tunderin' Jeezus ]

What is bugging my is this kind of thing:

quote:

---

And BTW, it's Alice herself who claims to be an NDP partisan - which serves as "Exhibit A" for my case.

---

It appears that not conforming to the mainline tactic espoused by some NDP'rs is enough to bring into question your support for the NDP, and by exstension your progressive politics.

Heather Malick is also pretty much an elitest too, but there has been no call for her removal from the rolls of Rabble writers by NDP Babblers. In fact she she was solidly defended by many. No this particular treatement is reserved for Klein because she advocated strategic voting: it is exhibit "A".

[ 21 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

What is bugging my is this kind of thing

---

The problem you have is, it isn't about me. Or Heather Mallick.

What I am troubled by and as remind has pointed out her view of Canada, and it would seem her own province is of the intensly navel gazing type and really isn't worth the bandwidth it takes up.

As someone who has spent a good deal of their adult life fighting this kind of prejudice, found on both sides I find her snide, ill-informed rural bashing, if just by default dispiriting, but hardly surprising. It is this kind of clap trap that we find rampant in our current provincial government and is at the heart of why many rural Canadians turn their backs on progressive parties. It is not because they identify with Conservatives, but call someone a dipshit redneck a few times and they pretty much will stop listening to you.

Ms Klein like her kind doesn’t actually see what is going on around her. The GTA in fact saw close to one third of all votes cast being marked for the Conservatives. Large gains were made in Conservative vote all across the GTA.

It is time for the Ms Kleins of the ‘progressive’ side of politics to stop looking in their navel so much and have a wee little look in the mirror instead. With a good look they may find many of the answers as to why many parts of the hinterlands and their own backyards are turning away from ‘progressives’ in increasing numbers.

[ 21 October 2008: Message edited by: Bookish Agrarian ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus:
It only bothers you because you can't dispute it. Which accounts for your constant judo attacks, trying to turn your opponent's advantage against them.

---

Huh? What I can not dispute is that Klein is an elitist. And guess what? I did not. I agreed immediatly. You are merely deflecting attention away from the attempt at asserting the NDP as the norm of what defines progressive. That is all.

Again, you have yet to explain this comment.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus:
And BTW, it's Alice herself who claims to be an NDP partisan - which serves as "Exhibit A" for my case.

---

Even suggesting that one disagree on something as miniscule as political tactics is enough to have ones progressive credentials questioned. I disagree. I disagree for a lot of reasons. One reason I disagree is that happen to think that supporting the NDP is a political tactic, which supposedly has political ends.

Just because I don't necessarily see supporting the NDP as it stands today as a useful political tactic, that does not mean that I think being in the NDP makes one not progressive. That judgement, should be made on the basis of the beliefs of people on an issue by issue basis, not their tactical accumen.

Again, why does Klein's advocating for strategic voting, undermine her claim that she is an "NDP partisan"?

[ 21 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by janfromthebruce:
Further, the elite media are sort of the agenda-setting media, and use what he calls "a propaganda model".

---

Had her article remained in her little center of the universe magazine, it would have had little or no impact, in the antional world. However, she was able to reach a broader audience through having it published on Rabble. Thus it "now" serves as chill for those across the ROC, who are not urbanites in the larger sense of the word. Who knows, if it was intentionally geared to be a wedge for further polarization, as opposed to being just short-sighted geocentric elitist tripe.

quote:

---

For some reason Klein appears to think that the GTA saved the rest of a Canada she envisions. I see that as myth making. Why did she not move beyond the border of the GTA, and for that matter beyond northern Ontario?

---

This aspect of it, is especially egregious for those in the ROC who have valid complaints about urban centers in PQ and ON deciding their fortunes and being dismissed as the great unlettered and unwashed. We saw people come on here after the election and erroneously blame the farmers for putting Harper into power again. So we can safely presume that her words will feed this regressively harmful sentiment.

Conceptual frameworks of the type that she tried to build, actually have the potential to further deploy anti-elitist mindsets, as well as western separation advocates. She in essence appears to believe, or at least is subtly indicating, that the west should separate, as it is we who are destroying "her Canada". Oops, I was too broad in that, as she only fingered out Saskatchewan and Alberta, to bash.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bookish Agrarian:
I could care less about Klein's view of the NDP, probably about a grand total of 6 people will be influenced by it.

What I am troubled by and as remind has pointed out her view of Canada, and it would seem her own province is of the intensly navel gazing type and really isn't worth the bandwidth it takes up.

As someone who has spent a good deal of their adult life fighting this kind of prejudice, found on both sides I find her snide, ill-informed rural bashing, if just by default dispiriting, but hardly surprising. It is this kind of clap trap that we find rampant in our current provincial government and is at the heart of why many rural Canadians turn their backs on progressive parties. It is not because they identify with Conservatives, but call someone a dipshit redneck a few times and they pretty much will stop listening to you.

Ms Klein like her kind doesn’t actually see what is going on around her. The GTA in fact saw close to one third of all votes cast being marked for the Conservatives. Large gains were made in Conservative vote all across the GTA.

It is time for the Ms Kleins of the ‘progressive’ side of politics to stop looking in their navel so much and have a wee little look in the mirror instead. With a good look they may find many of the answers as to why many parts of the hinterlands and their own backyards are turning away from ‘progressives’ in increasing numbers.

---

Exactly. For one, I'm quite sure that many votes in the NDP seats in northern Ontario and BC came from people not living in the major population centres. As for her claim that "cities" saved Canada? Hogwash. Yes the Liberals did well in the GTA and Montreal, but you don't need to win any seats there to form the government. Harper knows this better than Klein, and that's why Harper continually ignores Toronto's needs. It's also nonsense that the Conservatives don't appeal to people in cities, unless she's prepared to argue that places like Saint John, Fredricton, Quebec, Ottawa, Kitchener, London, Winnipeg, Saskatoon, Regina, Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver (places where Conservatives either did very well or picked up seats) aren't cities?

quote:

---

QUESTION: When we talk about manufacturing of consent, whose consent is being manufactured?

CHOMSKY: To start with, there are two different groups, we can get into more detail, but at the first level of approximation, there's two targets for propaganda. One is what's sometimes called the political class. There's maybe twenty percent of the population which is relatively educated, more or less articulate, plays some kind of role in decision-making. They're supposed to sort of participate in social life -- either as managers, or cultural managers like teachers and writers and so on. They're supposed to vote, they're supposed to play some role in the way economic and political and cultural life goes on. Now their consent is crucial. So that's one group that has to be deeply indoctrinated. Then there's maybe eighty percent of the population whose main function is to follow orders and not think, and not to pay attention to anything -- and they're the ones who usually pay the costs.

---

I remember actually hearing people who were blogging or leaving messages on the site in different riding forums, telling viewers to "follow the recommendations" provided by the site. This way Alice and whoever she is representing get "her/their dream of Canada."

The reality for me was that this votefortheenvironment site actually reached more than 2 or 3%. It ended being platformed in the MSM and alternative media. So it may have had it's origin with the corporate owner of NOW but became virile.

[ 21 October 2008: Message edited by: janfromthebruce ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotleded24:
Toronto has a distinct reality from the rest of the country, and that's fine.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
We're a distinct society.

---

Jack Layton likes to say "I'm not from Toronto, I'm from Montreal."

quote:

---

Originally posted by janfromthebruce:
I just this question and answer page from Chomsky because it appeared "to fit" with that supposed "left" elitism.

---

More from Chomsky:

quote:

---

CHOMSKY: Well, to say it doesn't make any difference who wins is simply to express your contempt for the general population, 'cause it does make a difference. A lot of what they say is correct: the two parties are effectively factions of one party, the business party, but the factions are somewhat different. And as I mentioned, over time the differences show up in benefits, working conditions, wages, things that really matter to people. So yes, there's a difference. It's a narrow difference, and the spectrum within the political system is well to the right of popular opinion, and certainly the public is well aware of it. So 80 percent of the population say that the government is run by, I'm quoting, "a few big interests looking out for themselves, not the population." And they can argue about the details, but the picture's essentially correct, and they don't like it. Nevertheless, there is some difference and you have to make a choice. If you're in a swing state, you have to ask: is this difference enough for me to pick the lesser of the two evils? And there's nothing wrong with picking the lesser of the two evils. The cliché makes it sound like you're doing something bad, but no, you're doing something good if you pick the lesser of two evils. So is it worth doing that? Or is it worth trying to act to create a potential alternative? For example, should I vote Green because maybe someday their party will be a real alternative? Should I express my disdain for the right-wing orientation of both parties by not voting, let's say? Or should I pick the lesser of the two evils, thereby helping people? Okay. That's a decision people have to make.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Yes, I concur that it appears to be an attempt at myth making. That it does not pass surface tension inquiries, matters little, it is the immediate effect it has upon those in urban centers, who wish to believe they are the voice of Canada and it's saviours.

This aspect of it, is especially egregious for those in the ROC who have valid complaints about urban centers in PQ and ON deciding their fortunes and being dismissed as the great unlettered and unwashed. We saw people come on here after the election and erroneously blame the farmers for putting Harper into power again. So we can safely presume that her words will feed this regressively harmful sentiment.

Conceptual frameworks of the type that she tried to build, actually have the potential to further deploy anti-elitist mindsets, as well as western separation advocates. She in essence appears to believe, or at least is subtly indicating, that the west should separate, as it is we who are destroying "her Canada". Oops, I was too broad in that, as she only fingered out Saskatchewan and Alberta, to bash.

Alternative left media IMV, should be trying to minimize the marginalization of the left in the ROC, as opposed to fostering it. Though I suppose that depends on the actual mandate of said alternative media.

---

I actually think that she is very smart and uses her editorial position to move "readers" to certain positions that they might question if it was written in a MSM forum.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

Chomsky advocates vote for Obama in swing states

---

Extending on the propaganda shedding, that this article and indeed the votefortheenvironment, was able to do, I would like to point out a few things about the nature of propaganda and when it is best used.

People's ability to think critically/rationally, is directly proportionate to the state of stress they are experiencing. Scientifically it is represented by 2 bell curves, one inverse to the other, with 0 as the base line for both. As your state of stress increases, your ability to use cognative functions diminish at the same rate. People at the top end of the stress bell curve, have no ability to think critically, and would be at a state of absolute irrational behaviour. Real life example of this would be when someone who is drowning drowns their rescuer. They cannot calm themselves enough to realize that they are being rescued. At point 0 where no stress is felt, is when critical thinking is at its highest.

Going into an election, especially one where it is perceived that much is riding on the outcome, increases people's stress level, thus their level to think rationally instantly becomes impaired. What percentile it is differs amongst people, of course. The more stressors that are added in an election setting, the more people's ability to think critically becomes impaired. And they commence looking for something to decrease their stress.

This is where propaganda shedding, of the type I noted above, as well as others a bit more subtle, come into play, as control tools. Their sole function is to give people a place, or an action, where they can decrease their stress by feeling empowered that they are actually "doing" something to fix their internal stress. Not realizing the choices they allegedly are making have no basis in rational thought. They are either; accepting to do what they are told, or they are gravitating to what is "known", the 'unknown' will be pushed aside as being "too stressful" to contemplate.

Now after an election, when people are shocked, or numb, and at their most stressed, it is an opportune time to re-enforce former messaging and to further deploy divisive strategies, as people are more willing to accept them at face value, as opposed to looking for validity and truth.

Thus emotions are used, to create an internal climate/memory response where they can be used again and again at some future date. Evoke that memory response and you get the same result. It is this type of proganda shedding that needs to be blocked, or diffused, for a successful election, no matter what party it is. How the aftermath of the election is handled is an important factor for the next election.

Take for example cueball's post of Chomsky's, where he, Chomsky, is calmly deliniating the noble worth of choosing the lesser of two evils, as opposed to voting your choice, or not voting at all. It could be viewed as an oblique propaganda support of Klein's article and indeed for the whole votefortheenvironment campaign, though cueball used it to say Chomsky was advocating vote for Obama. It is the immediate perception and reaction that counts.

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Glad it prompted you BA!
Take for example cueball's post of Chomsky's, where he, Chomsky, is calmly deliniating the noble worth of choosing the lesser of two evils, as opposed to voting your choice, or not voting at all. It could be viewed as an oblique propaganda support of Klein's article and indeed for the whole votefortheenvironment campaign, though cueball used it to say Chomsky was advocating vote for Obama. It is the immediate perception and reaction that counts.

Such a quote, could be used a propaganda tool to sooth (decrease the stress) of those who wasted their vote by voting strategically, or for the lesser of 2 evils, as opposed to their choice. The unpleasant memory of their failure has to be turned into a positive perception in order for the same propaganda to work again.

---

As one needs to consider that the strategic realities are not/were not what was being promulgated by Klein et al, up here in Canada. Nor were her column words positive messaging, they were divisive, elitist and engendering of animosity though geocentric positioning, and thereby fostered emotional and regressive processing of information.

Notwithstanding of course is the fact that US politics cannot be superimposed upon the Canadian political scene, and have it remain a credible source to base future actions upon. Strategic value is a false conceptual framework, that contains very little, if any, pertinent application, because of the very different nature of the electoral process, say nothing of the fact we have a multi-party system.

At best, strategic voting has been shown to shave off 2 o 3 percentage points off the NDP vote totals at the end of election night, when that is compared to campaign polling.

Perhaps the failure lies in the NDP, and not in the voters Remind. Just a thought.

[ 21 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
But you assumption is based on the highly tendentious assumption that millions of people vote Liberal for "strategic" purposes, and would otherwise vote NDP. Pre-election polling have never, but once ever shown that the NDP should be able to win the governing position in Canadian parliment, and the reality is that many people just prefer the Liberal party over the NDP.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Funny, I thought we were discussing Klein's words and their impact. In fact, I looked back over my posts and saw nary a word about the NDP. As such, I am not going to participate in a bait and switch of my words now being used by you in a partisan way. I am specifically addressing Klein's words and actions, both during and post election and how propaganda plays out and is used in the public voting world.

---

I'm getting the distinct impression now that what Klein wrote or didn't has nothing to do with it anymore.

ETA: And pardon me Remind, that wasn't meant as a subtle jab towards you, if that's what it looked like. You've made some interesting points here.

[ 21 October 2008: Message edited by: Erik Redburn ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

Again, why does Klein's advocating for strategic voting, undermine her claim that she is an "NDP partisan"?

---

This is one statement I can see some sense to though. Its not that an NDPer might not consider "strategic" voting for some overriding purpose, members have done it before in the municipal arena; it's the double edged sword of not even *getting* any tangeable offers from other supposedly left-of parties while getting blasted in the media by these same parties for not playing ball. By ignoring those already well known facts Klein is playing the role of agent provacateur for other parties competing for the left-of vote, and therefore is unlikely to be either serious in portraying herself as "NDP friendly", or as any sort of journalist to be taken seriously anywhere on the left.

[ 21 October 2008: Message edited by: Erik Redburn ]

I see no reason that any one group in the left should be able to assert that conforming to the tactic they espouse is the benchmark of admitance to a cause. Basically it is an attempt to "whip" the left.

[ 21 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

The campaign by the NDP to oppose "strategic voting" is not about ideas. It is about tactics. The NDP can advocate against strategic voting, and so could the Reform Party. Just because the Reform Party might have opposed strategic voting, because it was not in its best interests, does not mean that they were inherently "progressive".

The NDP does not have a sanctified monopoly on what is and is not progressive, sorry. Nor does it have the right to demand basically that all progressives must vote for it, or find themselves excluded from what we call broadly "the left."

[ 21 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Moreover, I would say that conflating her with Chomsky is an attempt to give her more validity, vastly more, than what she is do.

Klein herself has been exposed as being a regressive thinker/doer, she aligned herself with a partisan person, to advocate people vote strategically according to their dictates. Basically it was an attempt to "whip" the left vote.

As such, the way it was used by Klein et al is decidedly regressive in its propaganda intent and privileged belief that they knew better than the other unwashed masses did.

quote:

---

oblique dropping of divisive propaganda elitism

---

Removing all names/political parties aside, I think if one did not deal with the "real issues" at the forefront of one's "Canadian Constitutional right" and no thought given to examine it under the light of "no borders," I do not know if this is thought to be, as per your above quote?

Is a "democracy index" a value assumption when held to "certain categories( of course these have to be examined)" and could be thought of as divisive, when it should be considered to be "a marker" for tools used to examine the rights of it citizens( "another choice" to a one world Government) across this globe??

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Such a quote, could be used a propaganda tool to sooth (decrease the stress) of those who wasted their vote by voting strategically, or for the lesser of 2 evils, as opposed to their choice. The unpleasant memory of their failure has to be turned into a positive perception in order for the same propaganda to work again.

---

So all those who faithfully voted NDP, even those in ridings where their actions handed the seat to the Harper candidate, must take pride and comfort in their great success? They should never question their tactics?

Again: all this is founded on the supposition that Liberals under Dion would be no less destructive than Conservatives under Harper, and also, that minority governments are not better than majority governments.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
False dichotomy and an inherently flawed compare, sprinkled with shifting sands of positions made, now disguarded when they were illuminated as being false and flawed.

Klein herself has been exposed as being a regressive thinker/doer, she aligned herself with a partisan person, to advocate people vote strategically according to their dictates. Basically it was an attempt to "whip" the left vote.

As such, the way it was used by Klein et al is decidedly regressive in its propaganda intent and privileged belief that they knew better than the other unwashed masses did.

Like nuclear bombs there is nothing inherently destructive in them, until they are used upon others.

---

Klein actually was the creator/maker of the site and her corporation's 20 grand of "investment" that created the "internet template." In order for it to have "national relevance", she needed to partner with "others with a like-minded vision" to gain broad-based support from "sea to sea" for "their vision of their Canada."

This look at the rise of NOW from its lowly beginnings to a "corporation" also provides some insight. I found this comment by Klein about herself in the past "blissful ignorance" that they could actually change the world, and perhaps how she may perceive a lot of her "readers" now: blissfully ignorant, like she once was.
That was then, and this is Now

quote:

---

"We had a huge sense of our whole generation and our culture being underrepresented, and we were outrageous enough to think that we were the ones who were going to do it," says Klein nostalgically. "We had that sort of blissful ignorance."

---

Although the dateline is 2003, this nugget may provide the expanse of readership since this time:

quote:

---

A private company, Now isn't required to disclose its revenues, but it's possible to estimate its size. Richard Karpel is executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based Association of Alternative Newsweeklies (AAN), whose 118 publications across North America generate approximately U.S. $500 million annually. Karpel says Now sits between the 12th and 20th of the association's top earners. Klein's view is less modest: "I think Now is, in terms of size and revenue and readership, definitely well up in the top 10? maybe in the top five."

---