quote:

---

an unprecedented destabilizing economic crisis - which favours the safe haven of the known), no real opponents in the race - Jack Layton’s spin notwithstanding

---

quote:

---

But outside of the Bloc, all the parties were losers. The Liberal blood-bath is obvious. 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.

---

In Manufacturing consent

quote:

---

again, highlights that since mass media news outlets are now run by large corporations, they are under the same competitive pressures as other corporations. According to the book, the pressure to create a stable, profitable business invariably distorts the kinds of news items reported, as well as the manner and emphasis in which they are reported. This occurs not as a result of conscious design but simply as a consequence of market selection: those businesses who happen to favor profits over news quality survive, while those that present a more accurate picture of the world tend to become marginalized.

---

You continue to distort Layton's success during this election as well as distorting Layton and the New Democrats during this past election. Your corporate "success" is sure a long way from you more humble beginnings in the Socialist League.
I understand that perhaps old feelings die hard, but continuing your "vendetta" from your old "waffle days" shows a lack of reflective insight and pettiness.

quote:

---

Prominent members of the Socialist League included Dowson, Harry Kopyto, Lois Bedard, Gord Doctorow, Alice Klein, Wayne Roberts, Michael Hollett and Ellie Kirzner. Klein, Roberts, Hollett and Kirzner left Forward in the late 1970s and went on to found the alternative newspaper NOW Magazine in Toronto.

---

I'm not sure what is going on with Alice Klein. No, I don't want her to be a cheerleader for the NDP, but the New Democrats are trying really hard to become the official opposition rather than just the de facto opposition. And continually dissing Layton through your editorials this past year in NOW, using liberal talking points, becomes too much.

Sending mixed signals through your editorials - putting down Layton - ended up sinking your favourite female "feminist" Toronto picks in this election. It sends mixed signals, and as a result, gets mixed-up results - ones that Klein ended up undercutting through her own play at "strategic voting".

As Michael Hollett stated in NOW NOWin Strategic voting burns T.O.,

quote:

---

Great local candidates like incumbent Peggy Nash and veteran candidate Marilyn Churley were defeated in a strategic voting panic that saw undeserving Liberal sneak back into Parliament representing Toronto.

---

Klein in her editorial the week before the election in Coalition stock rising Stephen Harper’s market cred takes a plunge, leaving options for Lib-NDP government had this to say:

quote:

---

I live in Toronto-Danforth and proudly sport a Layton sign on my front lawn. I will be heartsick if his wonderful Toronto team doesn’t include my favourite women in politics, Olivia Chow, Peggy Nash and my own former MPP, Marilyn Churley. I urge you to please vote for these incredible contributors to our federal dialogue, who have earned our support with their talent, energy, commitment and integrity.

---

And yet, the majority of the article of bashing Layton New Democrats, over cap and trade, and ended up promoting Liberals. No surprise in your mixed messaging that Peggy Nash lost to the Liberal and Marilyn Churley too, in that "strategic voting backlash".

In a very manufactured consent way, you highlighted in this article the following:

quote:

---

Denial is disaster.

And from a climate standpoint, we have been stuck in denial politics during most of this campaign – mostly from Harper, but sadly also from Jack Layton.

He has run a sterling media campaign and galvanized an effective and eloquent response to Harper’s many erosive policies and actions. But Layton’s approach of counterposing cap and trade to Dion’s carbon tax was driven by partisan political necessity rather than good environmental and economic policy.

---

Forgetting to mention that Dion Liberals were also trying to differentiate themselves for "partisan gain." Where prior to this election Dion backtracks on a carbon tax. That's important information.

quote:

---

Liberal Leader Stephane Dion retreated from his previous opposition to a carbon tax Thursday, blaming Conservative government cuts to climate change programs for forcing him to revisit his own party's environmental policies.

Dion said the proposed tax for businesses, responsible for greenhouse gas pollution linked to global warming, is among the new measures he's considering in an effort to improve his platform.

---

Or the fact that Dion’s carbon tax plan

quote:

---

Like BC’s tax, the Dion carbon tax will be more symbolic of change than anything else. After all, gas prices are up an equivalent of a $270 carbon tax relative to three years ago (actually, closer to $300, since it was a month ago that I wrote that). While the current gas tax works out to $42 per tonne (which is why it will not be affected in the early years), even if that were to double, we are talking less than ten cents a litre at the pump. In other words, expect the greed of Big Oil to do most of the heavy lifting without the offsetting benefits of using the revenues to do good things.

---

Nor the fact that Liberals in power did absolutely nothing, except sign Kyoto, and than let Greenhouse gases grow under their watch. Or the fact it was Layton New Democrats who had to push the Liberals kicking and screaming to work together and clean up the Harper Conservative's "unclean pollution act." Only the New Democrats have had success at actually getting federal legislation through to protect the environment.

And yet, in your NOW article the week before the election you did not counter balance your editorial with these KNOWN FACTS.

It is one thing to provide opinion in the debate of carbon tax and cap-and-trade, but when you did not provide balance in your article to show why the liberals (who you knew well had already given the Green shift the red shaft)a "balanced perspective" and revealing that our government needs more New Democrats to ensure "liberals" actually keep their promises." This would have provided balance. "Liberals" in office and in minority have not shown through their INACTIONS - beyond lip service - that they really, really mean it, this time. Highlighting that liberals had already flip-flopped, and had a "poor" environmental record would at least been "honest."

You might stick a Jack Layton sign on your lawn but New Democrats already have to fight for positive media in the MSM without supposed alternative media basically doing "liberal" talking points. Don't blame Jack.

That said, since your last editorial was a "self-fulfilling prophecy" you might round out your article with how the NDP did gain 8 seats and is the 2nd highest seat total. That the NDP was the big winning in building it's base of support over all the other parties. In the Pundit's guide you would have noted that in 2nd place finishes we increased our total by 14 plus way higher than any other party, where liberals, Conservatives and Bloc had negative growth in this area. Due to this growth in 2nd place finishes we also increased by 30 plus our eligibility for rebate so 244 ridings get one.

I also find it unconvincing when Liberal partisans defend carbon taxes and NDP partisans defend "cap and trade". Is it possible to list the good and bad points of such policies without betraying your favourite political party?

What if the Libs and Dips switched positions on the best approach to GHG emissions? Would the world come to an end? Musical chairs?

quote:

---

I also find it unconvincing when Liberal partisans defend carbon taxes and NDP partisans defend "cap and trade". Is it possible to list the good and bad points of such policies without betraying your favourite political party?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus:
Here I completely concur. I am far less concerned with which one than I am with doing something immediately.

---

And Campbell's B.C. has the highest rate of child poverty in Canada.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brian White:
I do not like gordon campbell one bit.
However he introduced a carbon tax while he is waiting for the details of a north american carbon trading scheme to be worked out.
You can have both at the same time.
Carbon taxes are just quicker to put in place.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
I don't agree with Alice Klein's political views either. But lengthy apologias like janfromthebruce's - where apparently the NDP can do no wrong and Jack Layton is the most popular political leader since Jesus Christ - are frankly unconvincing.

I also find it unconvincing when Liberal partisans defend carbon taxes and NDP partisans defend "cap and trade". Is it possible to list the good and bad points of such policies without betraying your favourite political party?

What if the Libs and Dips switched positions on the best approach to GHG emissions? Would the world come to an end? Musical chairs?

As for rants against Jack Layton, I have done so on this board as well as praised him for taking the right stands on various issues. If rabble ever chooses to exclude a columnist based on whether or not they get stars in their eyes and a song in their heart when Jack opens his mouth and smiles at the camera, I won't waste much more time here.

---

Actually unionist, I used this particular example Klein's writing as my point of critique and focus. However, as I just slightly mentioned, and can expand on, this past year Klein has been using her editorial position to basically bash Jack and using liberal talking points. So for example, see this article and read some of comments from 2007: Let’s pull it together A centre-left-green pact is the only way we can rid the world of Harper .

quote:

---

Without a paradigm shift in the way the Liberals, Greens and particularly the NDP conduct politics among themselves, we won’t.

There are just too many ridings in which hopeless Green and NDP campaigns will take enough votes to do each other or the Liberals in – and vice versa. That’s how we got Harper.

---

Adjectives used to describe NDP and Layton - deepest trouble, tired and excluding, self-defeating, Tinkerbell, can't deliver, Desperate, old-school, highly partisan approach, serious loss of credibility, bizarre, ultra-left, huff and pull, shame, attitude, spew, insult to intelligence, low self-esteem, alienating,

quote:

---

First, we have to be completely honest with ourselves no matter where we sit on the centre-left-green spectrum. There are only two possible choices for prime minister. Stephane Dion it must be.

---

Liberal talking point 1.

quote:

---

And no matter how Layton slings the mud, Dion’s left-leaning campaign promises focusing on poverty aren’t completely hollow in the context of the Kelowna Accord and national daycare policy we almost got before the NDP pulled the rug out from under the previous Liberal minority government.

---

Liberal talking point 2.

quote:

---

Dion is doing what’s expected right now – talking to the left about not wasting their votes on the NDP.

---

Liberal talking point 3.

quote:

---

When the deal was announced. Layton did what he thought he had to do. He huffed and he puffed: shame shame, shame. But none of that is going to change the fact that if the NDP were to join the gang-up in Central Nova, May would almost certainly defeat Peter Mackay.

---

quote:

---

So, too, must the NDP grassroots and individual campaigns in particular take responsibility for the whole of their behaviours, not just their good intentions. The change we need can’t just come from the party leader’s dictates any more.

And that is true for the Liberals and Greens as well.

---

Liberal talking point 4. - NDP are partisan (and of course, liberals are not?

quote:

---

But first, as leader, Layton needs to develop a new, less partisan style of communication than we have seen from him so far. He basically needs to rise above the “I’m the only one who’s right and everyone else is wrong and bad and should be ashamed of themselves” posturing of the past.

---

Liberal talking point 5.

quote:

---

Here’s a politically painless example of how Layton could start laying down some new inter-party architecture and go beyond the alienating partisanship we’ve seen too often. He could make it known right away that he supports May’s right to participate in the leaders’ debate. She’s earned it personally and at the polls. Democracy demands it.

The only excuse for the NDP to shut her out is narrow self-interest. Layton would gain new-school political points, and the delicate process that needs to unfold could begin. Come on, let’s get started.

---

One commenter put response to Klein's attitude the NDP in perspective, something this NDP hatchet job did not.

quote:

---

What is up with Alice Klein? My god is ever tiresome to hear yet another fellow lefty blame the NDP for the failings of our electoral system--and that is what we're talking about here. The reason no left umbrella left coalition emerged in recent years has nothing to do with Jack Layton and everything to do with the structural antagonisms built into our first-passed-the-post electoral system. In the absence of proportional representation, parties have little choice but to compete with one another. And as this structural logic plays itself over to course of time, politics invariably becomes increasingly partisan, increasingly shrill.

And even if this weren't the case, Klein's analysis is still way off the mark. I've worked enough campaigns for the NDP to know that the Liberals go after us with every bit of the partisan vehemence that Klein accuses us of. Yet we're supposed to put all of this aside whenever there is the threat of a right wing majority in the offing. The double standard is deplorable. The Liberal Party is to be forgiven of every transgression, every right wing policy, every triangulation, while the NDP is be held responsible for not just for its own actions, but also for those of the Conservative Party. And on top of that, hroughout it all the NDP is portrayed by people like Klein as some kind of almighty kingmaker. Would that the party were so powerful.

I might take Klein's lamentations more seriously when I hear her state publicly that the Liberal Party should not run candidates in ridings where there are sitting NDP MPs. When she proclaims, for instance, that Gerard Kennedy should back away from his plans (to attempt) to unseat the impressive and progressive NDP MP Peggy Nash. Or when Liberal heavyweights take their sights off of the riding of Ottawa Centre, where again, there is already able, progressive representation in the form of Paul Dewar. But you must forgive me for not holding my breath while waiting for her to do this.

---

Incidently, I picked this article up this time from a left leaning blogger where one commenter stated this:

quote:

---

Wow, no Liberal spin there.

---

quote:

---

I have a deal for Alice. If the Liberals didn't run candidates west of the Toronto city limits, and instead promised to run a proper coalition government with the NDP, the NDP might just go for it. That is not what Alice is saying. What she is saying, like all good Liberals is the NDP is in their way and would they kindly screw off. Yes, the Liberal Party has a terrible reputation for corruption and on the environment, but they have changed now. They have really, really, really changed. Trust us. Pardon me while I puke.

This is just the opening round in the undead Liberal stalking horse know as the "Think Twice Coalition". The next voices you will hear from are Buzz Hargrove, Maude Barlow and James Laxer.

---

quote:

---

Of course, VoteForEnvironment is a Liberal site
The problem of course is that VoteForEnvironment -- the site you describe as "sophisticated" -- has close ties to the Liberals. Kevin Grandia was exposed on Jogilvie's weblog for his close ties to both provincial and federal Liberals. Cornered, he said he's always been upfront about his Liberal connections -- though it's nowhere on the site -- but claimed his partner, Alice Klein, was a big-time NDP supporter. That'd be easier to swallow if she didn't write an anti-NDP screed just today for the Rabble columns. While their website is not so crass as to recommend the Liberals in every riding, in tight three-way races it goes Liberal -- even when the NDP are better-placed. You'll have to do better than this to appear non-partisan.

---

And another commenter posted in a blog this post:

quote:

---

For instance, if I have to read one more article by a left wing writer about how Jack Layton needs to support or prop up the Liberal Party I think I might have to scream.

Just today I read in the Toronto Now an article by Alice Klein calling for this very thing (http://www.nowtoronto.com/news/story.cfm?content=161031). It seems that in Canada, nothing the Liberal Party does or fails to do is ever held against it. All it need do is reposition itself (on a dime) and suddenly history itself is effaced. "Look," it says, "we have a new leader. Our record means nothing now. Our scandals, our lies, our failures to act, our institutional links to corporate Canada and to big money in general, mean absolutely nothing!"
And the most confounding part of all of it is that the public goes for it. Not just the average apoltical schmo, mind you, but New Democrats! Meanwhile, the NDP is held responsible for every mistake, real or imagined, it has ever made.

So here is what I know. I've worked in several campaigns for the NDP and I know firsthand that the Liberals are nastier and more partisan than Jack Layton will ever be. The moment writers like Alice Klein begin to call for the Liberals to not run candidates in ridings where there are sitting NDP MPs is the moment I begin to take her seriously. When she proclaims, for instance, that Gerard Kennedy should back away from his plans (to attempt) to unseat the impressive and progressive NDP MP Peggy Nash. Or when Liberal heavyweights take their sights off of the riding of Ottawa Centre, where again, there is already able, progressive representation in the form of Paul Dewar. But who among us really expects Klein, or any of the other double-standard bearers for the Canadian left, to do such a thing?

---

During this election, you are right I was a cheerleader for the NDP. Why shouldn't I be? I am a cardcarrying NDPer and during the election I support the NDP. To call me a complete cheerleader loses sight that I am not always, as this will attest.

In fact Klein is substantially to the left of the NDP on the issue of Palestinian rights. Just because the NDP is to the right of Klein on this issue, do you think the NDP should also be prevented from promoting its views on this web site?

Also, your position is based on the apriori assumption the the NDP is actually a progressive left-wing organization, much different from the Liberals. This assertion is very much in doubt. Your point basically moot.

[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
I always get the sense that you would be just fine if the papers were manufacturing NDP consent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Well, I have been aquainted with Klein for sometime, and I really don't expect a lot from her. Happily, however, she is one of the few Canadian publishers who will print material that is openly supportive of Palestinians, and their cause, though I can't always say that I am 100 percent a fan of the line that they take in its entirety.

---

Typical rhetorical shift. State that the NDP is to the right of a particular lefty author on ohh-let-say Palestine, to sidestep the fact the NDPs position is to the left of the actual writer's favourite party and very probably the particular writer in question. Anyhone have her usual positions on the middleEast? Unless Cueball answers where hes coming from himself, its probably best to ignore. Thats his standard OT.

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

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

JFTB admits as much when they make a point of eschewing content of any kind:

quote:

---

Originally posted by janfromthebruce:
The post is not about cap and trade vs taxing carbon. It is about papers who do manufactured consent.

---

We are encouraged to believe that because Liberal arguements are not NDP arguements, they are therefore not "progressive" arguements, and so therefore should be barred from this web site because the site is a "progressive" site. At no point, is there any discussion about what makes Klein's arguement "not progressive" other than the fact that they are "Liberal" views.

This is arguement by "definition", not logic.

Kleins arguement is also partisan, but in precisely the same vein as NDP arguements that oppose the Green Party for splitting the vote. Klein, without a doubt a Liberal now makes the self-same fatuous arguement about vote splitting except targetting the NDP.

If one does not maintain the consistency of the logic of an arguement, one always runs the risk of coming off as a partisan hypocrite. In fact making a "gratuitous" arguements, based solely on the party affiliation, and based on who the arguement serves.

[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

The idea of strategic voting is based on the reasonable fear of a Conservative majority, but in order to accentuate this fear an absurd Orwellian logic needs to be employed in which the Liberals are far to the left of where they really are, and the Tories are almost a mythic threat to the very nature of what it means to be a Canadian. Sometimes, to this end, the past must be almost entirely rewritten.

So what? She hurt you feelings? As far as the mainstream press is concerned, NOW is probably the only paper in Toronto which would actually bother to address the idea of voting for the NDP as if it were serious consideration.

[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Wow. I should have voted twice or something.

I never, ever believed that Peggy Nash stood a chance against Kennedy. He's been around too long and has a loyal base. He is sometimes underestimated and written off because some people don't like his personality. And Churley was up against an incumbent. The fate of that riding had little or nothing to do with so-called strategic voting.

So, whether rabble included Klein as a blogger or not, it would not have changed the outcome in my opinion. Who do you think has more readers? Rabble or NOW magazine?

All in all, the NDP ran one of their better campaigns in a long time but it is true that the NDP brain trust might want to examine why their popular vote didn't improve very much considering that the liberal vote nose dived. It's easy to blame Klein or anyone else. But then you might not learn the right lessons for the next time.

quote:

---

M. Spector:
I too was dismayed to see Klein getting regular access to rabble.ca to ply her political nonsense. But then I don't expect to agree with all the rabble columnists, and in fact there are others I'd like to see disappear along with Klein.

However, rabble is not an NDP site, and I suppose we have to live with the fact that anyone who is vaguely progressive is welcome here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Who cares? Argue the merit of the policy, not the presumed affiliation of the person.

All of this talk is really verging on Stalanist rhetoric, which asserts that because one "believes" something that does not support the "party line" they are therefore "objectively" with the enemy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erik Redburn:

That would actually apply more closely to your own position. Yer either a "revolutionary" or a Liberal/Green.

---

A Erik the red-baiter is at it again. Fax me your loyalty oath Herr inquisitor, I am tired of torture by nonsense.

Today I am being called Green! Finally, someone dared say it. LOL. And what a summary:

What are you trying to say? That Green positions are indistinguishable from "communist" ones, so you can't decide wether or not I am a Green party supporter or a Marxist-Leninist.

What a joke.

[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polunatic2:

Finally, if the Green Party was just shilling for Dion, why did they get 750,000 votes?[/QB]

---

They may have voted for her party believing that the word "Green" actually meant something to her too.

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

A Erik the red-baiter is at it again. Fax me your loyalty oath Herr inquisitor, I am tired of torture by nonsense.

Today I am being called Green! Finally, someone dared say it. LOL. And what a summary:

What are you trying to say? That Green positions are indistinguishable from "communist" ones, so you can't decide wether or not I am a Green party supporter or a Marxist-Leninist.

What a joke.

[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

---

A yes, Cueballs falls back on calling another a "red baiter", when he refuses to answer the question. How am I red baitor if your not even "red? But you did say you were going to vote Liberal or Green this time didn't you? Like just before the election, when you were like so mad at the NDP for not like being...revolutionary enough for you? And like, the arguments you and a few others constantly make places the only meaningful choices between "socialism" and "capitalism", no? I can read between the lines but I'm sure I can find examples of just that in the last week or two. Heck, Spector himself implied as much in his smear here about any "vague progressive" being allowed to publish here. (why is the NDP any different, correct?) So I'm trying to use this as an opportunuty to point out some of the real distinctions that may exist between her and others here. Care to back up what was being debated here (and too often elsewhere ) or do you want to fall back on name calling and innuendo again?

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Look man. You have just stated that you think I am either a "a "revolutionary" or a Liberal/Green", and aside from the fact that you are once again engaging in wild ad hominem smears, I am truly interested in what you mean by that statement.

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by babblerwannabe:
I guess even NOW magazine has to find a way to make a profit. I noticed they are presenting more views in line with the Liberal party lately, and they are doing it in a way that supposedly shows they are a balanced paper, what a shame.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erik Redburn:

Try rereading what I wrote, within the context and target clearly made, you know the actual meaning of that word? Or is trying to make yourself the blameless victim again your only tactic left?

---

All I can see is that you engaged in a completely off topic ad hominem smear, and then when challenged on this you then snuck back into your hidey-hole and demanded that I start talking about Alice Klein.

In what possible way to my (or M Spector's) specific party affiliations, or lack thereof have to do with this thread topic, and Alice Klein? You are trolling and trying to derail this thread, because it annoys you that not everyone is jumping on the burn Alice Klein bandwagon, in favour of your political party.

So what if I am either a "revolutionary or a Green/Liberal" or whatever you think I am. Who cares. This thread is not about me.

Nor is it about M. Spector;

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erik Redburn:

Nice drive by too Spector, bout you taking up Unionists helpful suggestion instead and offer others a point-by-point argument on how this particular partisan writer is even comparable to some of the others here you don't approve of? Choice is yours, if you really want to be taken seriously by the 2-3 million other Canadians who still believe the NDP represents a valid position between tax cutting, downsizing neo-liberalism and hardline revolutionary Marxism.

---

[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
Oh fcs, does every other thread have to be about the reverse Cueball witch hunt?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
JFTB admits as much when they make a point of eschewing content of any kind:

Originally posted by janfromthebruce:
The post is not about cap and trade vs taxing carbon. It is about papers who do manufactured consent. There is an expectation that MSM does that, and thus when alternative media do it, we don't see it for what it is. Remember this was 2007, and Klein would have been working on putting her "strategic voting machine" into place, so she was just warming up her audience

[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ][/QB]

---

[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: RevolutionPlease ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

Not at all. Try arguing the point, instead of the person.

---

Lead the way, oh so innocent one.

What was your point again?

I know JFTB had a good one in this thread.

I made the point that Klein's arguement is nothing but a rehashing of the NDP position on the Greens, but from the Liberal standpoint. It has no content, nor does the critique offered in the OP.

It is being said that Klein is a Liberal, who opposed the NDP. The NDP is by definition a "progressive". Therefore Klein is anti-progressive. If Klein is "anti-progressive" then she should not be promoted by this web site.

The root assumption, since there is no discussion regarding Klein's positions on the issue, is that the NDP is the definition of progressive, and therefore the content of this site. Opposition to it, is therefore anti-progressive.

The OP is nothing but a cheap attempt to make the NDP the benchmark standard of what should and should not be defined as "progressive" and therefore allowed on the board.

[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

Not at all. Try arguing the point, instead of the person.

---

So what if I am either a "revolutionary or a Green/Liberal" or whatever you think I am. Who cares. This thread is not about me."

Asserting this idea puts any opposition to the NDP or its leader, at this site, out of bounds, regardless of who it comes from, Alice Klein, or myself.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:

The point is that strategic voting is miscarriage of democracy - and the Liberals piss poor record on the environtment while in power for twelve years. Promoting those bunch of crooked liars and their big business and banking agenda has no place in a progressive forum. The green shift was part of that party's overall shit show which some of us here refused to and continue to refuse to buy into.

---

There is nothing "left" or "right" wing about strategic voting per se. It is an arguement about the mechanics of politics. It is not something that defines one as progressive or not. Klein is arguing for strategic voting. This does not by definition make her a Liberal, it is merely the fact that she is a Liberal that she is advocating it at this time.

There is hardly any difference between an arguement that opposes stratgic voting, and one that argue that a party is invalid because it is splitting the vote. NDP'rs often challenge the validity of the Green party, on the grounds of voting "mechanics", based on the idea that the Green split the "left" vote.

The bulk of Klein's piece is about voting mechanics, not about policy. And the same is true of the OP. This is not about what are and are not progressive ideas, and what should and should not be allowed on this site because it conforms to a certain standard of left analysis, it is about asserting a partisan preference, based on the assertion that the NDP, and no one else, is progressive.

I pointed out for example, that Kleins position on Israel, is substantially better than much of the NDP and lightyears ahead of Pat Martin.

[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by RevolutionPlease:
Are there examples of NDP columnists expressing the same disdain for other "progressive" politicians?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

I pointed out for example, that Kleins position on Israel, is substantially better than much of the NDP and lightyears ahead of Pat Martin.

[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

---

But Klein's not running for office and the party she recommends' policy for Palestine is worse than the one she pillories.

I don't get it Cueball, you're all over the place?

Asserting this idea puts any opposition to the NDP or its leader, at this site, out of bounds, regardless of who it comes from, Alice Klein, or myself."

Not near that simplistic, and not what i saw being argued If some known Liberal party of Canada hacks get featured here regularly, starting with writing the already staple corporate drivel on how its the NDPs fault again for electing Harper then I think JbtB has fair reason to be upset. This has been done to death here already, and IMO refuted many timnes already, although I suppose its possible that this new progressive geature writer hasn't even read rabble.ca.

There has been countless other critical-of NDP pieces published here without much todo, by other people who actually have the nerve to identify as left-of-NDP and noone I recall questioned there right. (though possibly their reasoning) So, the question again is how far to the right is rabble willing to stretch the already bland 'progressive' label for potential writers and on what actual basis is that already abused term judged upon now? ( I do believe that such a word is a valid description, for some) Now onto other things.

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by RevolutionPlease:
Only if you believe voting Liberal can be either "progressive" or "strategic". That urban legend's been debunked.

---

My personal view is that the idea that the NDP is a progressive party is also an urban legend.

[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

What is an "NDP columnist"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
There is no discernable difference between the NDP position on Palestine and that of the NDP. Sorry. That is another urban myth. My personal view is that the idea that the NDP is a progressive party is also an urban legend.

[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

---

Huh. Are you always this obstinate. Like Erik asked can you answer the freakin question?

So which party is progressive Mr. oh so Partisan?

It's like pulling teeth getting a real opinion from you, not blather.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erik Redburn:
[QBNot near that simplistic, and not what i saw being argued If some known Liberal party of Canada hacks get featured here regularly, starting with writing the already staple corporate drivel on how its the NDPs fault again for electing Harper then I think JbtB has fair reason to be upset. This has been done to death here already, and IMO refuted many timnes already, although I suppose its possible that this new progressive geature writer hasn't even read rabble.ca. [/QB]

---

No of course, the correct line is not that it is the NDP's fault that Harper got elected for splitting the vote against the Liberals, but the Green Parties fault for splitting the vote against the NDP.

[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

One thing you're not is helping Canadians advocate and organize for change. That's what troubles me about your behavior.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
You are rude, RP. This was a civilized conversation until you got here.

---

How so Unionist, I'm asking questions, where have I been rude?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
There is no discernable difference between the NDP position on Palestine and that of the NDP. Sorry. That is another urban myth.

My personal view is that the idea that the NDP is a progressive party is also an urban legend.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Whose advaocating for change the NDP?

---

I am and plenty others here having been asking questions. I've expressed my displeasure with this campaign but I'm not going to sit back and let them be attacked like this.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RevolutionPlease:

How so Unionist, I'm asking questions, where have I been rude?

In not accepting the non-answers?

---

What answer do you want. I have offered plenty.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RevolutionPlease:

I am and plenty others here having been asking questions. I've expressed my displeasure with this campaign but I'm not going to sit back and let them be attacked like this.

I'll take a break as it's been suggested I'm being rude. I'll rethink but I'm upset that JFTB thread was derailed long before I showed up.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
One of my favourite threads here was the one where all these NDP'rs came out to say how much different the NDP position on Palestine was from the Liberals, and all the Zionists on the site came on to say how that was ridiculous, because they are more or less the same.

---

And the Zionists have what to do with the price of tea in China? What did the Muslims have to say?

Besides, Canadians have the final choice in Canada.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RevolutionPlease:

And the Zionists have what to do with the price of tea in China? What did the Muslims have to say?

---

They know lots about this. They have been actively promoting a consensus among the mainstream Canadian political parties on this issue for years. They know precisely what they are talking about.

[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
One of my favourite threads here was the one where all these NDP'rs came out to say how much different the NDP position on Palestine was from the Liberals, and all the Zionists on the site came on to say how that was ridiculous, because they are more or less the same.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Threads like this are why moderators were invented.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erik Redburn:

Yes, I remember, and I was quite amused how easily you agree with Zionist manipulators when it suits your own purposes. Others like myself OTOH demonstrated several clear differences, but feel free to link to that old one again and I'll gladly try and point out to you again the differences between everything and nothing. I presume none of you are going to defend your suggestions that this Liberal hack is really no different than other presumed NDP hacks published here so I really must move on.

---

Off course, out with ad hominem smear. I am with terrorists, (In league with the Zionist manipulators) once again. This is a ridiculous arguement, as if an Arab agreeing with an Israeli on the geographic location Jerusalem indicates that the Arab is a collaborator.

[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

How do we meet? Klein should be attacking Harper not Layton. What means to an end is she trying to achieve?

Can anyone cite examples of similar invectice from the NDP side that carries the same weight?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erik Redburn:
Feel free to add some substantial comments then Spector, starting with the subject raised by the guy who opened the thread. I know how you like being seen as an objective authoritative commentator.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

They know lots about this. They have been actively promoting a consensus among the mainstream Canadian political parties on this issue for years. They know precisely what they are talking about.

[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RevolutionPlease:

uummmm... and I politely ask again, what do Muslims have to say?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Your hostile trolling has made a complete mess of this thread, thanks to the lack of any moderator's intervention.

I wouldn't dignify this mess with any further substantive comments. And I have already dealt with the subject raised in the OP.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Well, I don't really have a lot of direct experience of the election as it played out in the mainstream press -- I hardly read anything about it. Mostly I experienced it in relationship to this web site. It seemed to me that the NDP rank and file were not above some pretty vicious attacks.

---

C'mon Cueball. I've got a much higher opinion of you (well, I did) than that. If you felt the NDP was vicious here at this web site, I should send you some links that would make the NDP here seem like cuddly kittens, not the real cats.

Cats are good at getting dogs to do the barking.

Obviously, you're far too well-informed to claim you only frequent this site. You even know how to find cool you-tube vids.

quote:

---

Well, if you want to understand the way any society works, ours or any other, the first place to look is who is in a position to make the decisions that determine the way the society functions. Societies differ, but in ours, the major decisions over what happens in the society -- decisions over investment and production and distribution and so on -- are in the hands of a relatively concentrated network of major corporations and conglomerates and investment firms. They are also the ones who staff the major executive positions in the government. They're the ones who own the media and they're the ones who have to be in a position to make the decisions. They have an overwhelmingly dominant role in the way life happens. You know, what's done in the society. Within the economic system, by law and in principle, they dominate. The control over resources and the need to satisfy their interests imposes very sharp constraints on the political system and on the ideological system.

---

So the media becomes the position of dominate society and way of life.

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 believe that Klein operates on both these levels. Target group 1 is the "the political class." She definitely was targeting her writings to those who follow "progressive politics" through her NOW readership, as well as getting herself syndicated, so to speak, in other places, whether quotes/interviews in MSM, or at the Tyee or Georgia Straight, or a writer right here at rabble.
So what is her main message of her articles that one detects?

Group 2. 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.

The strategic voting site was setup so people would not think but just follow the sites recommendation. People were told to just follow the site. I actually remember reading blogs where people actually said that - unbelievable.

A whole string of provincial governments have taught me that, because the few truly sincere voices in those parties are routinely drowned out by the not so sincere voices who are more than happy to play footsie with the corporate machine.

[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

Off course, out with ad hominem smear. I am with terrorists, (In league with the Zionist manipulators)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Your hostile trolling has made a complete mess of this thread, thanks to the lack of any moderator's intervention.

---

Well, I figured when I saw this thread start this morning that it would probably go this way. Haven't had time to watch it carefully today, as we're racing against time to get the new site ready and planning the relaunch event and all.