I can produce many polls . . . if you are interested . . .
Here is what neither AP nor Ipsos want Canadians, in this case, to know and assiduously avoid saying: Ipsos is a French polling firm." -- "When France Polls America..." Nov. 29, 05.
A closer look at Ipsos polling data, however, gives reason to pause -- regarding the company's
methods.
While that excerpt concerns US voters, this
concerns Canadians, as well:
On June 27, 1939, Prime Minister Eduard Daladier went before the French Chamber of Deputies and alluded gravely to the evidence of German preparations for war. "While all these events are occurring on our borders," Daladier continued,
at the interior of our country we are witness to an active campaign of propaganda, the links of which to foreign influences have now been demonstrated. The point of the campaign is to break the unity of France and to open a breach in the combined energies of the French nation, through which all sorts of intrigues and maneuvers will be able to pass.
Hardly anyone today would question the perspicacity of the French prime minister's words. Americans might be well advised to recall them the next time they read the results of an AP-Ipsos poll.
John Rosenthal's writings on international politics have appeared in Policy Review, the Opinion Journal, Les Temps Modernes and Merkur. He is the editor of the Transatlantic Intelligencer (www.trans-int.com).
Canadian Pravda's Pitt Bulls Pushing
CBC is in full distortion mode -- of
what Conservatives stand for and everything Stephen Harper says -- so frantically are they distorting-'reporting' inadequately and / or mendaciously, in full
Propping PM mode. CBC has fallen so far from being a credible news source as to have become the renewed . . . energized . . .
Pravda Pitt Bulls Pushing Paul & the PetsBud Talkinghorn on CBC 'Balance'
'Reporter' Julie Van Dusan has been assigned to cover the Harper campaign. (The nickname,
Julie Van Medusa, has been earned, not just for her incredible hairdo, which sprouts snake-like in all directions, but, especially, for
her stony-eyed hatred of Harper sprouting from every pore and report. She once actually hissed at him during an interview -- I saw her performance and that was my assessment, Calgary, TV).
Canadians can expect that same vaunted 'balance' from her reports. She will slag him at every opportunity.
The Liberals give the CBC about a billion dollars a year; the CBC gives the Liberals good press. It is that simple. Also there are
the infamous CBC polls. Their national poll this week gave the Liberals 34% approval, the Conservatives 29%. However,
CBC failed to mention that 25% of those polled were from Quebec. Take the Quebecois out of the poll and it would probably be a dead heat in the rest of Canada or even higher for the Opposition Conservatives. That analysis was, of course, excluded from their coverage. They also failed to mention that outside parts of Montreal, the Liberals are dead in the water, as the BQ is resurgent across the province.
Anyway, the Gomery report slimed the Liberals in general, and an
Ipsos-Reid poll shows that 73% of Canadians do not believe Gomery's exoneration of Martin.
Furthermore, in unscientific polls of people who care enough to vote at sites like the National Post and CNEWS, the Conservatives are doing just fine.
End of Bud Talkinghorn's post Related: 'Culture of defeat' taken out of context: Harper CP, Nov. 30, 05
[. . . . ]At the time, Harper told an interviewer the region's entrenched voting patterns are not as troublesome for his party as Atlantic Canada's sense of political impotence.
"I think in Atlantic Canada, because of what happened in the decades following Confederation . . . there is a culture of defeat that we have to overcome,'' Harper said.
"It's the idea that we just have to go along, we can't change it, things won't change. I think that's a sad part, a sad reality the traditional parties have bred in parts of Atlantic Canada.'' [. . . . ]
Link for the rest. There is also a post on FHTR on this somewhere.
FHTR CommentsThe mere fact that Stephen Harper might change how things are done in Ottawa has brought out the ones who profit from the system as it is.
See today's post:
CAW, unite; you have nothing to lose but the vendors -&- Scrap Metals China Bound? -- Buzz Hargrove has told his Canadian Auto Workers Union to vote Liberal.
Did I mention that
NB Premier Bernard Lord wrote to Paul Martin & Team with a list of reasons for
more federal money: infrastructure, economic investment, etc.
Behind his request for funding is the same kind of asymmetrical plan that has been so successful for Quebec, but Lord neglected to threaten separation so his letter remained unanswered as of Dec. 2 news. The
Minister for NB pork through ACOA/AIF, the general payer out of largesse from federal coffers,
Andy Scott, came up with
an offer of somewhat less . . . not vote buying, of course. Anyway, in case the Conservatives win, Bernie has submitted his list; he's checked it twice and Santa had better deliver . . . some time.
Don't people ever get it?
Let's stop the pork for votes. Change the way the system works in Ottawa and have all money requests subjected to votes based on the needs of the whole country and what is best for Canada's future. [Spending of taxpayer money should be voted on by MP's, one item at a time, not through omnibus bills covering a little of this and lot of that . . . pork.
Isn't it time to take seriously the reports presented after much investigation by Parliamentarian committees -- for where spending must occur? Committee work must count for something, not just as a tank to keep citizens' and MP's ideas and demands on hold until a report can be generated . . . and then be ignored or discounted by the real power above Parliament.] MP's must stop placating every noisy group with OPM just to keep their butts on those seats in the House.
The Citizens, too, Have Duties...if Canadians want responsible spending and governanceLet's, as citizens, start giving credit and respect to politicians who are forced by realities to respond to requests for money with realistic answers, not bafflegab. Politicians, too, must make the responses public. Maybe then we would not be subject to
pre-election MP mail-outs, at taxpayer expense,
touting all that the MP's have spent in their ridings and with whom they have schmoozed. . . including photos of the MP with those he/she wants to court.
Some examples of what Canadians should expect from a Member of Parliament in responses to requests:* We can't afford this. Here are what I believe need money first. . . . Shall we discuss this?
* I have to learn more about this and about competing claims on taxpayer money from across the country. You understand that this money is not loot for me to spread and call 'investments', but the fruit of the labour of citizens who have worked hard for it. They and you a deserve considered response on spending. My reasons for voting for A instead of B or C, instead of D are or will be on the government and my websites.
* I don't want to get your hopes up only to have to vote against this when I know what else is competing for money and why -- if I am to make decisions based on the good of the whole country. Maybe your/our area will get what you ask but I cannot promise until I know more.
* If I make a positive decision on this for this area, what about that area? that need?
* Which is more important to Canada? To your area? What would you do in this circumstance? How would you weigh the merits of these competing needs?
* I don't know yet whether what you want is a good idea or not; I have to find out more and to run it by Parliament.
* Let me get together with the members of the Opposition from this area and others, in committee, not as enemies nor adversaries, but as people who want to make the best decisions with what are limited resources. We'll consider what you want.
Politicians are not intended by the citizenry to be purveyors of pork; they are stewards of the country and its resources.Suggestion: These
committee discussions would be available on the government and opposition websites, in text and in video, and
not be
subject to government editing nor removal of the sensitive bits. [Exceptions would have to do with security -- and no hiding the pork under that, either] Furthermore,
as part of learning how government works, how citizens / students actually fit in, that governing is not something for 'those guys off in Ottawa',
students in school would be assigned to read, analyse and discuss the arguments and the decisions -- instead of being fed predigested bits by those with the hands on educational and / or media power levers. It might replace the social engineering that is going on too often now, using other people's money, by those with access to the tap.The above was not intended to be exhaustive, just an idea, but many of us are so
tired of hot air and no substance, of Question Period without answers, of lies/mishandling of the truth from and about politicians of whatever stripe and whatever they say. We just want the whole
charade of democracy which is buttressed by the same old groups ended.
As for the CBC,
I would be a candidate for a public broadcaster--Canadian programming such as nature programs, exposure to music, drama, art, discussion, the kind of thing that appeals to one who hates regular programming with its so-called comedy, soap operas, ads, the usual--
but my public broadcaster has been co-opted by one (left / Liberal) political party and pushes the NDP as the alternative. Enough! Give us reasoned, thoughtful commentary, analysis backed by journalistic research, a range of thought and no more "Let's get a negative sound bite" in the service of maintaining the guys who keep the CBC in business.Related: Christopher Waddell, "Media should ignore the static, stick to the facts" The Globe and Mail, Dec. 3, 05, A8 -- excellent The only way we are going to get balanced, informed reporting and analysis is if we
divorce news and funding. As it is, all taxpayers pay for broadcasting that supports--nay, encourages--
tie-ins and networking among government and groups -- among:
* the Parliament, Senate, civil service and the following:
* the mainstream media: radio, TV, newspapers, magazines, advertising, etc. and the new media: ISP's not independent of the CRTC and government, and any other information disseminating and advertising businesses connected to them
* NGO's of which citizens know too little, crown corporations, agencies, foundations, councils, congresses, whatever groupings get, live, and survive even partially on taxpayer money outside the scrutiny of those who work to make this money [No more hiding the amounts, how used and the purpose]
* government suppliers and lobbyists: lobbying for, grants, loans, anything--even publicity--which favours one business over another, contracts about which the taxpayers can learn little -- including free services now and government contracts later, political favours delivered via business trips which help out those in that group, but not others, and special business-other country or area councils which can be covers for much more . . . etc.
* all the rest that goes with the above: media access to the favoured few, high cost taxpayer-funded social occasions--parties, dinners and the like [Limit it!]--social affairs funded by lobbyists and those who are after something, all those special affairs to which are invited favoured media and/or political donors
How will Canadians end this incestuous, corruption-breeding relationship? Many Canadians are thinking.
For example,
would it be feasible to separate the decision to buy or do anything that involves awarding contracts and spending taxpayer money from the choice of purveyor? Could the process be broken into more than one phase:
* The Parliamentary decision to move forward on something;
* Then another sub-group--an all-party committee--of Parliament would prepare a list of the specifications and requirements necessary --which may call for knowledgeable individuals and groups to present their information to them.
* Then, once the specs are written, posted and bidding occurs, there would be an entirely different group make the decision on the awarding of a contract(s).
* No committee would be involved in every phase; rotation of membership would be routine and spending money would be taken out of the hands of those who have decided to start the process of buying or contracting.
Fortunately for Canada, I shall never be an MP. I suspect I would tie everything up in minutiae and too little would be accomplished. I might even learn that a little of the old political pork grease is necessary to even get people interested in tendering . . . if the system were honest, but,
as things are, there is so much secrecy that we can't even learn that political patronage might be a necessary reality.At present, citizens feel cheated by the way the process works. It would be reassuring to the citizenry if some new way--a more open and honest way--of working were tried, an attempt to address what is obviously a very broken system.Someone wrote that, since
the last two Governors General were chosen from the very Liberal/leftist
CBC, it is time, and it would be fair to
choose by lottery our next GG from the general populace. Alternatively, at least
rotate the position for a two or three year stint among the three mainstream
political parties who could suggest any citizens as candidates.
The final choice should be a decision of Parliament, not again of the tired and corrupt governing party and its power-hungry leader(s), the party and government which have set the rules and/or the process to favour itself -- whether appointing GG's, justices and SCOC members, elections--who pay and how Canadians will pay for the whole democratic process, when elections occur, and so much else. Particularly,
no political party should have its hands on the media levers that this one has had and with which it has so abused Canadians' trust in the news. No Prime Minister and his closest advisors should be able to make decisions on hiring, buying, spending and all the rest in a flurry just before the writ is dropped; the obvious buying of votes is so tacky -- and this government has pushed it beyond the usual level of unseemliness so that it and its predecessors for a number of years have revealed to us just how sick our system is.
For now,
give us smaller, responsible, transparent, accountable governance without the array of hidden networks, backers and those who grow rich from the system and those who then feed us government propaganda, predigested, as our news.
