CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS? 

I am a Canadian but he is my President Photo and Message i Came Across

This one really has to be seen to be believed...so look up. I'm still learning how to use the free hosting service for pictures that comes with blogger so for the moment it won't be in the post. It will be above it.

I really can't believe i came across this.Its beyond me. And actually i can't cut and paste it in all its glory because i don't have translucent effects on my computer.I have an old computer. It copied well enough except for the translucent and animation. If you want to see it in its full glory go here. I don't know if he made it or someone else did. I don't take praise for what i didn't do (i'm sure you notice if i quote i quote. Mind you in my circles this wouldn't get praise. The guy has it up as his where we put our pictures (or other things). from what i can see. And i got this one on a search of the following words: left wing Canada. Guess it depends on the day it was recent and had a topic that was related. Its on a blog engime i'm still getting used to and i'm not sure i like much.

So look up!

Politicagrll

Wal-Mart to Pay $11 million (US) over Immigrant Case--an exploration

Well Wal-Mart has made it into the news again over labour policies. The main story can be found in the Washington Post in two articles:

Wal-Mart Settles Immigrant Case
and
Wal-Mart to Pay $11 Million.

The short article from the Washington Post has less information than the AP article which i got out of The Toronto Star Wal-Mart settles illegal immigrant case for $11M.

The longer article (likely much father into the Washington Post has more information and is better balance. All in all just more evidence of why you should think of shopping somewhere other than Wal-Mart. Sure other chains aren't great on these issues, but few have as many problems as Wal-Mart appears to have. In Canada Zellers has its own problems but it is generally recognized as treating its workers better.

Wal-Mart Settles Immigrant Case

By Michael Barbaro
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, March 18, 2005; 3:59 PM

Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the nation's largest retailer, agreed to pay $11 million to settle a federal investigation that found it used hundreds of illegal immigrants to clean its stores, government and company officials said today.

U.S. officials described the settlement's dollar figure as the largest of its kind.

In addition, 12 businesses that provided contract janitor services to Wal-Mart will pay $4 million in fines and plead guilty to criminal immigration charges, officials said.

"This is a milestone for corporate responsibility," said Michael J. Garcia, assistant secretary for immigration and customs enforcement at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

Wal-Mart admitted no wrongdoing in the case, but promised to train store managers to comply with immigration laws. The $11 million payment to the government will be spent on federal programs to enforce immigration law.

"We acknowledge that we should have had better safeguards in place to ensure our contractors were hiring only legal workers," said Mona Williams, a Wal-Mart spokeswoman.emphasis mine

Since the raids, the company has ended its practice of hiring outside contractors to clean its stores. It now relies on Wal-Mart employees.

The federal inquiry began after a series of pre-dawn raids on Oct. 23, 2003, during which agents descended on 61 Wal-Mart store in 21 states. The raids included eight stores in Virginia -- in Sterling, Culpeper, Richmond, Winchester, Harrisonburg, Lynchburg, Lexington and Madison Heights -- and two in Maryland, in Catonsville and Mount Airy.

A short article. The only mention that their staff may have done something wrong is the emphasized text. Doesn't say anybody knew they were ever doing anything wrong except maybe the subcontractor.

The Toronto Star AP text is similar

Wal-Mart settles illegal immigrant case for $11M

LARA JAKES JORDAN
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Mar. 18, 2005. 11:56 AM

WASHINGTON — Wal-Mart Stores Inc. has agreed to pay $11 million (all figures U.S.) to settle federal allegations it used illegal immigrants to clean its stores, attorneys in the case said today.

The landmark settlement was expected to be announced by federal immigration officials at a news conference this morning.

Since 1997, federal authorities have uncovered the cases of at least 250 illegal immigrants who were employed by janitor contracting services and hired by the giant retailing chain in 21 states. Many of the janitors — from Mexico, Russia, Mongolia, Poland and a host of other nations — worked seven days or nights a week without overtime pay or injury compensation, said attorney James L. Linsey. Those who worked nights were often locked in the store until the morning, Linsey said.

"We're happy that Wal-Mart may finally be putting this shameful chapter to rest with the federal authorities and we expect them not to focus on the people who were shamefully exploited from around the world," said Linsey, who is representing the workers in a civil suit against the company that is still pending in New Jersey.

The $11 million settlement clears Wal-Mart of federal charges for hiring the illegal immigrants. Federal officials refused immediate comment this morning, as did Wal-Mart officials.

Hmm so as the story goes on it appears that Wal-Mart isn't just being a real nice citizen in paying their money, they are avoiding going to court. And they used a company that not only used illegal immigrants but locked them in the store at night when they were cleaning and made them work seven days a week. Suddenly this is starting to sound worse. And this is AP so a lot of US citizens will read it, but its a pretty small story. Not likely to be noticed a lot.

The next US story is more lengthy, the Washington Post view and reporting on the case:

Wal-Mart to Pay $11 Million

Chain Settles Illegal-Worker Investigation

By Michael Barbaro
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, March 19, 2005; Page E01

Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the nation's largest retailer, agreed to pay $11 million to settle a federal investigation that found hundreds of illegal immigrants were hired to clean its stores, government and company officials said yesterday.....

....The settlement prompted an outcry from some labor experts, who said $11 million is insignificant to a company with $285 billion in sales, and is unlikely to deter other corporations from employing illegal workers.....

....Authorities said that between 1998 and 2003, an estimated 345 illegal immigrants worked as contract janitors in Wal-Mart stores but that the chain's management was unaware of the problem.....

....As part of the federal investigation, 12 businesses that provided contract janitor services to Wal-Mart will pay an additional $4 million in fines and plead guilty to criminal immigration charges, officials said....

....Wal-Mart yesterday said it has adopted wide-ranging changes to prevent the future use of illegal workers. It requires executives to approve all store-level labor contracts over $10,000 and train managers to comply with labor law.

Even with the federal probe behind it, the chain still faces a class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of undocumented contract workers who say they were underpaid while working for the chain. The case was filed in November 2003 in a U.S. District Court in New Jersey....

....The federal investigation into Wal-Mart labor practices began with a hit-and-run car accident in Pennsylvania [In 2001]....

....A second investigation culminated in a series of dramatic pre-dawn raids on Oct. 23, 2003, during which agents descended on 61 Wal-Mart store in 21 states.... Law enforcement officials called it Operation Rollback, a play on Wal-Mart's shorthand for lowering prices.....

....But several labor experts said the settlement appeared to be low. "For a company of this size, this is really no significant deterrent," said Robert Bruno, a professor of labor and industrial relations at the University of Illinois.

Beth Shulman, a former union leader and author of "The Betrayal of Work," called the dollar figure a "drop in the bucket," adding, "There needs to be a clear message that treating immigrants the way Wal-Mart did is unacceptable. I don't think this sent that message."....

....Wal-Mart, which employs 1.3 million people in the United States, faces several lawsuits alleging sex discrimination and wage violations, and last month the company launched a wide-ranging campaign to repair its image.

But analysts said the settlement announced yesterday will bring more unwelcome attention.

"This gives a lot of ammunition to critics," said Adam Hanft, chief executive of Hanft Unlimited Inc., a consulting and branding company.

The chain's use of illegal immigrants "makes them seem like a financial company purely driven by numbers verses a neighborhood company that cares about the community."

The longer article (likely much father into the Washington Post has more information and is better balance. All in all just more evidence of why you should think of shopping somewhere other than Wal-Mart. Sure other chains aren't great on these issues, but few have as many problems as Wal-Mart appears to have. In Canada Zellers has its own problems but it is generally recognized as treating its workers better. Something to think about perhaps?P

Personal Accounts (regarding pensions), Loans from China to pay for them, and part of the Republican Dictionary (section 4)

I really like this story a good part of which is editorial (the first part). Its about pensions in the US officially and the (not so new but it seems to be coming around again idea of personal accounts). I say not so new because they've been trying to sell them up here for health care for a while in the right wing groups, so the US likely heard of them. But it also looks at more interesting aspects (such as most of your new debt and a lot of your old debt is held by China which produces some interesting effects). Its on retirement, which is the thing this time of year (in Canada people have already finished the period where they can pay into taxes for last years earnings. Can anyone tell me when that period is in the US. I'm curious for coverage, but not enough to look it up).

So the first part of the article is on pensions under Bush (from a Republican Dictionary). The second part includes other definitions that are interesting and i think quite accurate. If you like it visit the link, there are three previous entries on Republican Dictionary. P

The Republican Dictionary, IV

02/08/2005 @ 4:42pm
Katrina Vanden Heuvel
The Nation

In Bush's State of the Union address, he mentioned personal accounts seven times but private accounts zero times, which is interesting because only a few months ago he was using both terms interchangeably. But fear not, this was no mistake. The Republicans tested the phrase private accounts and found public support was much lower than when the same, exact, identical concept was called personal accounts. (Personally, I like caring accounts, but they didn't ask me.)

So the White House and its paid spin doctors, many of whom play journalists on TV, have taken to the airwaves to push the phrase personal accounts and chastise anyone in the media who employs the banished words to characterize their Administration's Social Security agenda. Proof, if more was needed, that language is power and debates are won or lost based on definitions.

But here is the really funny thing about the personal/private accounts debate. Not only are they not personal accounts, they're not private accounts either. They are in fact US government loans. (Bear with me now, because this will only hurt for a moment.) You see, your payroll taxes will still be used to cover the benefits of current retirees, but under Bush's scheme the government will place a certain "diverted" amount into an account in your name. It sounds like a personal retirement account, but it's not. It's a loan. Because if your account does really well (above 3 percent), when you retire the government will deduct the money it lent you (plus 3 percent interest) from your monthly Social Security check leaving you with almost the same amount you would have received under the current system. If your account does really poorly (below 3 percent), you are out of luck. According to Congressional Budget Office, the expected average return will be 3.3 percent, so the net gain will be zero.

But wait, it gets better. These personal accounts aren't exactly US government loans either, because our government under the fiscal stewardship of George W. Bush no longer is running a surplus and therefore does not have the $4 trillion or so needed to cover the transition costs, and Bush refuses to raise taxes on his base (BUSH'S BASE, n. the wealthy).

So our government will have to borrow that cash. And if the last three years are any guide, our largest single loan officer will likely be the Central Bank of China. And who runs China's Central Bank, China, and the Chinese people with an iron fist? Why, it's our old friends, the democracy-loving, freedom-marching Chinese Communist Party. So Bush's personal retirement accounts=private retirement accounts=US government loans=US government borrowing=Chinese government lending=Chinese Communist Party loans.

Or as we like to say in Republican Dictionary land:

PERSONAL RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS, n. Chinese Communist Party loans.

We've had a grassroots groundswell of submissions from our readers after soliciting ideas for the Republican Dictionary project, which first debuted in this space last November.

Bush's "ownership society" was a big hit, "God" made a return, and Justin Rezzonico delivered the best definition of "Fox News" yet. I've included a sampling of the latest batch below. Please keep them coming in. (Click here to submit your ideas.) We are going to be collecting our favorites and publishing them as a book in the next few months.

ACCOUNTABILITY, n. Buck? What buck? (Martin Richard, Belgrade, MT)

BIPARTISANSHIP, adj. When Democrats compromise. (Justin Rezzonico, Keene, NH)

CHECKS & BALANCES, pl. n. An antiquated concept of the Founding Fathers that impedes autocratic efficiency; see also REFORM. (Robert B. Fuld, Unionville, CT)

FOX NEWS, n. Faux news. (Justin Rezzonico, Keena, NH)

GOD, n. Senior presidential advisor. (Martin Richard, Belgrade, MT)
I found this to be interesting alternative reading. If you go to the page its one you can find older versions of the GOP dictionary. While i'm not American it sounds like they have and idea of what is going on with these accounts and from talks of having similar "accounts" in Canada for health or retirement i know they are bad news for other reasons (such as the rich and those that don't get sick usually benefit while the other group gets even less support than before.

Verdict in Air India Case - Comment that not guilty is a legal standard that (sometimes unfortunately) can be too high to meet but overall protects u

The verdict in the Air India Case has been in for a couple of days now. In case you don't know it was the largest mass murder in Canada and happened over 20 years ago. It also killed the same percentage of our population based on population as 9/11 did.

The verdict was not guilty which has caused a lot of talk.If you google you can find them no problem. Or go to CBC.CA or the Toronto Star to see some (thestar.com). I'm not putting the articles up today, i'm just putting a comment in.

Because a not-guilty in a criminal proceeding does not mean the men who were on trial did not commit the crime (of course it doesn't mean they did either). But in Canada like the US you need to have proof in a criminal case "beyond a reasonable doubt" and the judge that was in charge of giving a ruling in this case seems to have mostly looked a this area and not gotten into if it was likely or unlikely they did the bombing, which legally is the correct thing to do. There were some major problems, maybe later i'll put up some articles about it.

I do sympathize with the families that are still not seeing justice. I just think that from the coverage i'm seeing in the city (including the headlines on newspapers i can't get free on the internet) everyone seems to want to make the case into a big failure because it was not guilty. I've heard it said somewhere (i would quote where if i knew where) that having a criminal justice system like our where you need to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt has a price, and part of that price is letting some people who likely committed a crime off. But it is also a law that protects all of us from being prosecuted or being found guilty of something we didn't do where if less of a standard was required (balance of probabilities...just over 50% and used often in civil trials) more would be found guilty, but there would also be more found guilty where there wasn't solid evidence they committed the crime.

There is talk of an inquiry. I don't know how much useful information you can get after all these years. I am sorry that there is no cut and dried resolution to the families of those who died and to Canadians but i can see where the judge made his decisions just by going through a short CBC article where he said why there were problems in finding guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.P

Windsor Union looses Wal Mart Vote

I had meant to get around to putting up the results of the vote to unionize the Wal-Mart earlier but i'm getting to it a little late .The second piece is a response of the union to loosing the vote.

The articles discussed in this post regarding Wal-Mart are:

• Windsor Wal-Mart workers vote 74% against union bid


• Democracy loses to Wal-Mart intimidation

Well first there is the news on the vote for the union in Windos. It isn't good if you are for unionizing Wal-Mart. However it is being appealed and i have a second piece here by the union on why they feel they lost the union drive.

Windsor Wal-Mart workers vote 74% against union bid

Last Updated Wed, 09 Mar 2005 13:21:19 EST
CBC News

The employees voted Tuesday on whether to become the third unionized Wal-Mart outlet in North America.

The tally was 167 to 59 against joining the United Food and Commercial Workers Union.

The rejection "follows a clear pattern of Wal-Mart Canada associates voting against union representation when given the chance to express their views in a democratic, secret-ballot process," the company said in a statement.

But UFCW Canada blamed the loss on intimidation by Wal-Mart.

"We're disappointed for the workers but we're not surprised," said Michael Fraser, national director of UFCW Canada, in a statement.
WINDSOR, ONT. - More than 200 employees at a Wal-Mart store in Windsor, Ont., have voted against a union certification bid by a margin of almost three-to-one.

"The vote demonstrated Wal-Mart's fear tactics worked," he said.

Allegations surfaced recently that both the retail giant and the union engaged in unfair labour practices.....

This piece is from the United Food and Commercial Workers Union on the vote they lost. Its from their website:

Democracy loses to Wal-Mart intimidation

Thursday March 17/05

WINDSOR, ON - The Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) has been asked to consider a second certification vote at a Windsor, Ontario Wal-Mart following charges that Wal-Mart conducted a campaign of intimidation leading to a up to a certification vote held at the store on Tuesday.

The vote was conducted by the OLRB with ballots being cast at the store throughout the day concluding at 9:30 p.m. When the ballots were tallied the OLRB determined that a majority of the ballots cast declined for now to form a union.

“We’re disappointed for the workers but we’re not surprised,” said Michael J. Fraser, national director of UFCW Canada. ”The vote demonstrated Wal-Mart’s fear tactics worked.”

“A month ago Wal-Mart posted a notice on the Windsor lunchroom bulletin board announcing they would be closing a store in Jonquière that recently unionized. And throughout this week department managers were taking employees one by one out to the parking lot to sign anti-union petitions,” explained Fraser.

“Wal-Mart only talks about workplace democracy when the workers are trying to join a union so they can intimidate them. The rest of the time it’s ‘do what you’re told or get out’. Today democracy lost out to Wal-Mart’s intimidation,” said Fraser, “but our support for these workers isn’t over yet.”

On Monday UFCW Canada filed unfair labour practice charges against Wal-Mart. Those charges detail a pattern of worker intimidation and harassment at the Windsor store in the months leading up to today’s vote.

Additional charges, substantiated by former and current Wal-Mart employees, also detail a campaign to sabotage a previous union at the store that left a paper trail leading back to the office of then Ontario Premier Mike Harris.

“Wal-Mart Canada has been found guilty four times of intimidating employees during a union campaign, twice just in the last four months in Quebec,“ said Fraser. “The first time was in Windsor in 1994. Ten years later they are at it again because the only rules that Wal-Mart goes by are its own.”

The new charges against Wal-Mart will be heard by the OLRB at hearings scheduled March 30, April 4 and 5, 2005.

So its not clear what the ending will be. Canada has stronger laws regarding intimidation of workers, but for now its been lost in the Windsor Wal-Mart. Which is unfortunate. But i wanted to put a post on the blog regarding the end decision of the vote. I've also come across some other US pieces on Wal-Mart but i'm going to leave that for another day. P

Bush and Democracy in the Middle East--- Are they compatible?

I thought a selection from the two most recent pieces by Naomi Klein in "The Nation" would be a nice selection for today. I'm trying to bring some variety to the blog, but also draw attention to both writers. Naomi Klein is both. I actually found her reading the Guardian but it said she wrote at The Nation and i found the stories were the same but larger and better. Naomi is also a Canadian by birth...so i knew i'd recognized her name somewhere (she writes a column for the Globe and Mail as well). These deals with Democracy in the Arab world, and they are both within the last couple of weeks. I encourage folks to go take a look at The Nation its got wonderful alternative coverage and opinion pieces. And you don't need a subscription to read it!P


Column: lookout by Naomi Klein, The Nation

Getting the Purple Finger

[from the February 28, 2005 issue]
Naomi Klein

"The Iraqi people gave America the biggest 'thank you' in the best way we could have hoped for." Reading this election analysis from Betsy Hart, a columnist for the Scripps Howard News Service, I found myself thinking about my late grandmother. Half blind and a menace behind the wheel of her Chevrolet, she adamantly refused to surrender her car keys. She was convinced that everywhere she drove (flattening the house pets of Philadelphia along the way) people were waving and smiling at her. "They are so friendly!" We had to break the bad news. "They aren't waving with their whole hand, Grandma--just with their middle finger."

So it is with Betsy Hart and the other near-sighted election observers: They think the Iraqi people have finally sent America those long-awaited flowers and candies, when Iraq's voters just gave them the (purple) finger.

The election results are in: Iraqis voted overwhelmingly to throw out the US-installed government of Iyad Allawi, who refused to ask the United States to leave. A decisive majority voted for the United Iraqi Alliance; the second plank in the UIA platform calls for "a timetable for the withdrawal of the multinational forces from Iraq."

There are more single-digit messages embedded in the winning coalition's platform. Some highlights:
"Adopting a social security system under which the state guarantees a job for every fit Iraqi...and offers facilities to citizens to build homes."
"to write off Iraq's debts, cancel reparations and use the oil wealth for economic development projects."....

....So will the people who got all choked up watching Iraqis flock to the polls support these democratically chosen demands? Please. "You don't set timetables," George W. Bush said four days after Iraqis voted for exactly that. Likewise, British Prime Minister Tony Blair called the elections "magnificent" but dismissed a firm timetable out of hand.....

....Iraq's elections were delayed time and time again, while the occupation and resistance grew ever more deadly. Now it seems that two years of bloodshed, bribery and backroom arm-twisting were leading up to this: a deal in which the ayatollahs get control over the family, Texaco gets the oil, and Washington gets its enduring military bases (call it the "oil for women program"). Everyone wins except the voters, who risked their lives to cast their ballots for a very different set of policies.....

....Apparently, the elections' true purpose was to prove to Americans that, as George Bush put it, "the Iraqi people value their own liberty." Stunningly, this appears to come as news. Chicago Sun-Times columnist Mark Brown said the vote was "the first clear sign that freedom really may mean something to the Iraqi people."....

This is some tough crowd. The Shiite uprising against Saddam in 1991 was clearly not enough to convince them that Iraqis were willing to "do stuff" to be free. Nor was the demonstration of 100,000 people held one year ago demanding immediate elections, or the spontaneous local elections organized by Iraqis in the early months of the occupation--both summarily shot down by Bremer. It turns out that on American TV, the entire occupation has been one long episode of Fear Factor, in which Iraqis overcome ever-more-challenging obstacles to demonstrate the depths of their desire to win their country back. Having their cities leveled, being tortured in Abu Ghraib, getting shot at checkpoints, having their journalists censored and their water and electricity cut off--all of it was just a prelude to the ultimate endurance test: dodging bombs and bullets to get to the polling station. At last, Americans were persuaded that Iraqis really, really want to be free.

So what's the prize? An end to occupation, as the voters demanded? Don't be silly--the US government won't submit to any "artificial timetable." Jobs for everyone, as the UIA promised? You can't vote for socialist nonsense like that. No, they get Geraldo Rivera's tears ("I felt like such a sap"), Laura Bush's motherly pride ("It was so moving for the President and me to watch people come out with purple fingers") and Betsy Hart's sincere apology for ever doubting them ("Wow--do I stand corrected").

And that should be enough. Because if it weren't for the invasion, Iraqis would not even have the freedom to vote for their liberation, and then to have that vote completely ignored. And that's the real prize: the freedom to be occupied. Wow--do I stand corrected.

Can Democracy Survive Bush's Embrace?

Naomi Klein
[from the March 28, 2005 issue]

It started off as a joke and has now become vaguely serious: the idea that Bono might be named president of the World Bank. US Treasury Secretary John Snow recently described Bono as "a rock star of the development world," adding, "He's somebody I admire."

....Bono talks to Republicans as they like to see themselves: not as administrators of a diminishing public sphere they despise but as CEOs of a powerful private corporation called America. "Brand USA is in trouble...it's a problem for business," Bono warned at the World Economic Forum in Davos. The solution is "to re-describe ourselves to a world that is unsure of our values."

The Bush Administration wholeheartedly agrees, as evidenced by the orgy of redescription that now passes for American foreign policy. Faced with an Arab world enraged by its occupation of Iraq and its blind support for Israel, the US solution is not to change these brutal policies; it is, in the pseudo-academic language of corporate branding, to "change the story."

Brand USA's latest story was launched on January 30, the day of the Iraqi elections, complete with a catchy tag line ("purple power"), instantly iconic imagery (purple fingers) and, of course, a new narrative about America's role in the world, helpfully told and retold by the White House's unofficial brand manager, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman. "Iraq has been reframed from a story about Iraqi 'insurgents' trying to liberate their country from American occupiers and their Iraqi 'stooges' to a story of the overwhelming Iraqi majority trying to build a democracy, with U.S. help, against the wishes of Iraqi Baathist-fascists and jihadists." This new story is so contagious, we are told, that it has set off a domino effect akin to the fall of the Berlin wall and the collapse of Communism. (Although in the "Arabian Spring," the only wall in sight--Israel's apartheid wall--pointedly stays up.)

....Even so, with Bush now claiming that "Iran and other nations have an example in Iraq," it seems worth focusing at least briefly on the reality of the Iraqi example. The state of emergency was just renewed for its fifth month, and the United Iraqi Alliance, despite winning a clear majority, still can't form a government. The problem is not that Iraqis have lost faith in the democracy for which they risked their lives on January 30; it's that the electoral system imposed on them by Washington is profoundly undemocratic.

Terrified at the prospect of an Iraq ruled by Iraqis, former chief US Envoy Paul Bremer designed elections that gave the US-friendly Kurds 27 percent of the seats in the National Assembly even though they make up as little as 15 percent of the population.....

....Kurdish Iraqis have a legitimate claim to independence, as well as understandable fears of being ethnically targeted. But the US-Kurdish alliance has handed Washington a backdoor veto over Iraq's democracy. And with Kirkuk as part of Iraqi Kurdistan, if Iraq does break apart Washington will still end up with a dependent, oil-rich regime--even if it's somewhat smaller than the one originally envisioned.

....By linking Lebanon's independence movements to American designs for the region, the Bush Administration is weakening Lebanon's secularists and religious moderates and increasing the power of Hezbollah. Which is precisely what Bremer did in Iraq: Whenever he needed a good news hit, he had his picture taken at a newly opened women's center, a trick that set the feminist movement back decades. (The centers are now mostly closed, and hundreds of secular Iraqis who worked with the coalition in local councils have been murdered.)

The problem is not just guilt by association. It's also that the Bush definition of liberation robs democratic forces of their most potent tools. The only idea that has ever stood up to kings, tyrants and mullahs in the Middle East is the promise of economic justice, brought about through nationalist and socialist policies of agrarian reform and state control over oil. But there is no room for such ideas in the Bush narrative, in which free people are only free to choose so-called free trade.....[my emphasis]

....Allowing the Bush Administration to fold the liberation struggles of Lebanon, Egypt and Palestine into its own "story" is a gift to authoritarians and fundamentalists. Freedom and democracy need to be liberated from Bush's deadly embrace and returned to the movements of the Middle East that have been struggling for these goals for decades. They have a story of their own to finish.

The New Moderate Hillary Clinton AND Why McQuaig thinks the Premier of Ontario is right in trying to get more Federal $, but it's still a problem

Well this is a story i found particularly interesting. Having been written in the British Press i find it has more substance than a lot of what you read in the US or even Canadian Press...So i figured i'd put some of it up here and link to the story so you could read it if it interested you a different way of approaching things than you usually find in the press of our two countries, but i find it often makes you think and is good. This is an example of that (they also have much better coverage IMHO of the Iraq War...the best i found in English language). This piece is from the Observer. Its a Sunday newspaper that is a sister to the Guardian--a daily. The Guardian and the Observer are both published on Sunday. To get to the Guardian follow the link under news sources. If you want to read through the observer you will see it listed in the menu (above the picture) as an option. You click on that and then you are in the Observer exclusively. Of course they aren't representative of all UK newspapers. They are left wing UK newspapers. The Independent has similar coverage but it charges for some stories. However it has less ads. I have two ad killers that pretty much take care of it all and i like the free idea (even if i get a few ads). Also the Guardian keeps archives since it started online and they are free to access...Meaning the link to this article will always work! I never read enough of the Independent to know but if they charge for some articles i doubt this is the case.

The paper has a fair amount of very good left wing coverage of stuff in the United States. And just generally. I could often get a clearer picture of what was going on during the US election from them than from the Washington Post (the US paper i'll read if i need to, or sometime the New York Times). Mind you the Washington Post had the whole presidential debates the next day along with sections where it would go about whether the claim being made was true or not!'

This piece comes at things from a different perspective. It all seems kinda definitive of a new way of looking at things (if you aren't used to it and i read this paper all the time and found it particularly good and thus more new info). So i'm including the full story on this one. I originally really liked the idea of her running for President. If she's going to turn more to the right i will still likely support her over whoever the Republican is who runs, but it won't be the same. Of course i vote in Canada so i won't vote in that election:

New moderate Hillary is in for the long run

Paul Harris in New York reports on the transformation of Senator Clinton, as she tries to appeal to the lost Democrat middle ground in her quest for the White House
Sunday March 13, 2005
The Observer

They made an odd couple. Hillary Clinton, former Democrat First Lady and icon of the liberal left, and Rick Santorum, firebrand of the anti-abortion religious right.

Yet a beaming Senator Clinton seemed delighted to be sharing a stage in Washington last week with the ultra-conservative Santorum as the pair introduced a law to study the impact of TV and the internet on children. Clinton hammered away at familiar conservative bugbears, calling sexual and violent images in the media a 'silent epidemic' that threatened America's youth.

It was a strange sight that made national headlines. Which was exactly the intended effect. For this is a new-look Clinton who has her eyes focused far beyond just better policing of the internet. Her goal is nothing less than the White House itself.

There is now no doubt that she will run for the presidency in 2008. It is more a question of whether she can win. Her advisers are already conducting informal interview with campaign staff and she is raising money.

Most significantly of all, she has embarked on a transformation of her public image from liberal feminist to conservative Democrat, strong on defence, espousing homespun values and with a fondness for prayer.

For a public audience who see Clinton as a pillar of the left-leaning Democrat establishment, this is nothing short of a revolution. But she and her advisers believe it has to be done if the Democrats are to reach out to America's middle ground and take back the White House.[my emphasis]

The joint press conference with Santorum was just another step on that long road. 'Her stomach must have been turning over,' said Trevor Parry-Giles, a communications expert at the University of Maryland and author of a book on her husband Bill's presidency, 'but she is doing the right thing.'

The change began on 19 January in Boston. Clinton visited a youth charity run by the Reverend Eugene Rivers, a vocal opponent of gay marriage. That in itself would be strange enough. But Clinton also spoke of the role religious groups could play in social work, echoing President George Bush's controversial ideas on giving government cash to faith-based initiatives.

Then the senator stunned her audience by talking of her own religious faith. 'I was lucky enough to be raised in a praying family and learnt to say my prayers as a very young child,' she said.

Clinton again struck a conservative note five days later in a speech in Albany, New York state, this time about abortion. Calling it 'a sad, even tragic, choice to many many women' she moved away from seeing abortion as solely an issue about a woman's right to choose.

The idea of 'Hillary the conservative Democrat' was born. That speech sparked a media frenzy that shows no signs of abating. A recent cover of New York magazine had Clinton mocked up to look as if she was taking an oath of office as her husband looked on. 'President and Mr Clinton,' said its headline.

In fact she has never been as liberal as the media has painted her in recent years. As a senator she has strived to appear strong on national security. She sits on the powerful Armed Services Committee and is noted for her hawkish foreign policies and fighting for veterans' benefits. Derided by many Republicans when she arrived in the Senate, Clinton has won over many enemies. 'It is really not that surprising,' said Larry Haas, a former Clinton official. 'She's very personable and incredibly bright. People are attracted to her.'

Her list of conservative credentials is growing. A vocal supporter of Israel, she voted for the war in Iraq and, unlike the ill-fated Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, Clinton also voted for the $87 billion needed to fund the war. She has spoken up for the death penalty and condemned Syria in speeches no different in tone from those of many Republican hawks.

Many Democratic strategists, initially sceptical of the idea of a successful Clinton run, are starting to tot up the advantages. Name recognition is no problem. She still commands fanatical support among many Democrat activists, and her fundraising abilities are likely to dwarf those of Kerry, who himself raised almost a quarter of a billion dollars to fight in 2004.

She knows the ins and outs of a presidential campaign, having fought two of them alongside her husband. Her marriage also gives her 24-hour, seven-days-a-week access to one of the best campaigners in recent Democrat history. 'Not just one of the best. The best,' said Haas.

There are strong signs her centrist path may be the right one. Polls of possible Republican opponents reveal strong support, not for the religious right, but for moderates. The two Republican frontrunners are John McCain and Rudy Giuliani, both firm centrists far from their party's Bush wing. For Clinton that reveals a potential path to victory. A national poll on Friday put her just one point behind Giuliani in a presidential race and two points behind McCain.

She is already easily the favourite to win the Democratic nomination, intimidating many possible rivals. 'She's the elephant in the living room,' Joe Biden, a Democratic senator and possible 2008 hopeful himself, admitted. Haas summed it up: 'She's a rock star.'

But some Republicans are licking their lips at the idea of a Clinton run. They command a masterful and brutally effective media operation fresh from two successive presidential victories. They see Clinton as an easy target allowing them to resurrect all those effective Nineties ghosts: Whitewater, Monica Lewinsky and the healthcare fiasco.

Bill Clinton is still a hate figure for many Republicans. It is by no means certain that the prospect of putting 'Bubba' back in the White House, albeit as First Husband, would appeal to many conservatives or moderates. A Clinton run would also allow the Republicans to play the 'liberal north-easterner' card they used against Kerry last year and Michael Dukakis in 1988. That is familiar territory to Bush's political guru, Karl Rove, who is likely to play as big a role in 2008 as he did last time.

What is less clear is the effect that Clinton's gender will have. 'I don't think America is ready for a woman president,' said Parry-Giles. On the Republican side a grass roots campaign to draft Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice into the 2008 fray has sprung up. That has raised the startling prospect of an all-female fight for the White House. Some Republicans have warned that the party could also fall into the trap of underestimating Clinton, especially in the light of potential world events that could wreck their own chances over the next three years. 'We can't be complacent. That would be a terrible mistake,' said one.

Clinton still has enemies in her own ranks too. Kerry is signalling that he will run again. So is his former running mate, John Edwards, and a host of other lesser-known candidates who may represent a safer, easier choice than a former First Lady. Clinton also faces the fact that Howard Dean, whose firebrand campaign for the nomination collapsed spectacularly last year, is now the powerful head of the Democratic National Committee. Dean's liberal wing of the party is unlikely to support Clinton's recent conservative makeover. Before Clinton can tilt for the ultimate prize, she may still have a lot work to do in her own party.

That was evident enough a week ago. Last Sunday saw two key appointments in New York that exposed Clinton's dilemma. First was a speech to a Jewish community group on the Upper East Side. She spoke emotionally of meeting US soldiers, 'heroes', in the Middle East.

A few hours later, and a short cab ride downtown, Clinton addressed a very different audience at a New York University women's rights conference. There, to a hall of United Nations workers, students and feminists, Clinton struck a much more familiar tone. She briskly attacked Bush's policy on abortion and said women's reproductive health 'lies at the very heart of women's empowerment'. It was an old-fashioned pro-choice kind of speech. Her audience loved it.

Clinton's problem will be which version of herself becomes the accepted mainstream. If it turns out to be the spiky progressive, liberal on social issues, her strategists believe she will lose a presidential campaign.

But if it is the 'new Hillary', a muscular moderate who is tough abroad and church-going on Sundays, they just might start to believe she could end up in the White House in her own right. Hillary Clinton, after eight years away, will have returned home.

As today is Sunday the post includes part of this weeks opinion piece by Linda McQuaig which is also linked back to the original article (if you want to read it in full). It has to do with Federal and Provincial politics in Canada something that can take forever to go over...but i think a good part of the idea gets through regardless. While states are different from provinces in how they interact with the federal government there are some similarities (to any confederation type country for that matter...and lots of differences too).

The article raises some important points because i'm already reading stories about how the Parti Quebecois (a seperatist party in Quebec) says that McGuinty is making the case as to why provinces don't get a good deal out of federalism...one joked that he hoped he didn't see the day when some other province became independent or reach "souverainete-association" before Quebec.

"Souverainete-Association loosely translated means sovereignty association with a very loose federal structure...looser than in the US by quite a bit. Outside of Quebec mostly viewed as separation. It isn't but its still pretty close to seperatism (how much depends on your viewpoint...i don't think it matters for the blog, many Quebecois see its as building a new federation that will work better, most from other provinces see it as unworkable and the end result being independence [as do some Quebecios}. I happen to straddle the middle.). NOTE:I don't know the key for an accent on the last E and in soverainete although at some point i may look it up, but not today! If the topic interests you you should be able to look it up without it if you want to read more. The dash between the two is how i've seen it, but then i read things in French...they may have generally separated the terms in English into two words. But if you googled it with both words in "" it would probably come out ok too Of course if you are Canadian you probably already know what i'm talking about, even if you disagree with me and for that matter the article!

Linda McQuaig believes premier is right but he's gambling with unity

Dalton McGuinty is right to try to pry an extra $5 billion from Ottawa. It's too bad he's doing it by suggesting the rest of the country is getting fat feeding off the Ontario goose.

It's a good way to pump up anger levels in Ontario, but it's not really true.

McGuinty notes that Ontarians have been sending far more tax dollars to Ottawa than we've been getting back in federal transfers and that the gap has grown in the last decade — from $2 billion in 1995 to $23 billion today.

That helps explain why rich Ontario has threadbare schools and hospitals, pot-holed roads and inadequate public transit....

Although there are some problems with equalization, it's been an integral part of our federal fiscal system since Confederation and essential to making Canada a more equitable country. What's been going on in the last decade is something new: Ottawa has drastically cut its social transfer payments to the provinces, starting in 1995.....

...Although the cuts were implemented in the name of reducing the federal deficit, they've mostly remained in place even though the deficit disappeared in 1998[note we have a surplus in the operating budget of billions of dollars each year now although the debt is still being paid down] . McGuinty knows Ottawa's spending cuts are the main source of the problem. But he also knows it's easier to mobilize us by suggesting generous Ontario is being hosed by those lazy have-not provinces.....

....Would Grunwald have been so supportive if the premier had told the truth: that the gap between what Ontarians pay and what they receive has much less to do with equalization payments than with Paul Martin's brutal social spending cuts?

So, yes, Martin should give $5 billion back to Ontario for badly-needed social investment here. And McGuinty should stop using cheap political tricks that have the potential to whip up resentment toward poorer provinces.

He's playing fast and loose with the unity of the country.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linda McQuaig is a Toronto-based author and commentator. lmcquaig@sympatico.ca.

That is the news for today on the blog. One final thing: dealing with the spel checker on this program is painful...but so is running it through my wordprosser after i've coded it. If anyone knows if there is a British Dictionary available for the spell check and you let me know? I'll likely write google soon as i went through all the help and didn't find mention of it. Canadians (generally) use British spelling although it depends on the individual. When i started university we were told we had better choose and then buy a good dictionary. I'd already been using British (well Canadian for that matter) for quite a while and i knew it wouldn't get me in spelling trouble, American might. So i got a nice dictionary. But every time i need to train a new American spell checker its hell. On top of that it doesn't recognize any French. Which means i'm looking stuff up in not one but two dictioanries at times. I know it will get better with training, but i'd just as soon teach a British dictionary the few US words i use (and articles from the US would use them). It would be a lot less work and it would be easier to catch my typos (every British spelling is currently a typo by the spell checker!P

How to deal with a problem if you were editing your template OR I Can't see my stuff anymore what do i do?

I guess this is rather off topic...but then i never promise to be on topic. It took me a while to figure this one out so i thought i'd put it down in case someone googles (i just got off the computer calmed down and thought my idea might work...luckily it did).

I had just put several hours into editing the template in small ways that all together add up to a large change. Yes it is still the scribe template, but its my version of it and i changed quite a bit. A lot of it is subtle so isn't: the text on the template was too small for me to read comfortable. Now i know i'm more picky than most on this, but i wanted something comfortable (and yes i have the right glasses...i just tend to like it larger. Also my screen is likely older its a .27 dot pitch)

So having I've spent all this time editing it and then all of a sudden my text will not go above the list of articles (ie there is a huge space in the middle). In the end this worked pretty well and maybe it will help you if you found this blog for this reason

1. I saved what i had as the template on my notebook. If its too big for your notebook put it in a word processor (i have a program that extends the notepad and i don't know if this matters or not in this case.
2. I double save it...just in case
3. I waited until i'd slept to kinda calm down on it
4. I created a new blog (which i'm going to erase when i get around to it). I asked for the same template in that one that i'd chosen originally
5. I opened my browser twice and opened one on the current template, one on the "new" template that was fresh. I then started comparing every line [well some areas i knew i hadn't touched i hadn't bothered with yet...i would have come back to them.
6. I found a difference between the templates in an area i didn't remember doing anything with (remember i've got a back up on my disk just in case)

I changed it back to what was on the template that was fresh and i got lucky. First try it worked. Why put it up here...well there is no discussion area that i can find yet and it was simple and worked for me so why not. It didn't require all that much brains stuff, so i'm not trying to show off....its just got to occur to you. So i'm hoping if it doesn't occur to someone else in the same situation you might find this. If the first one hadn't worked i would have likely put it back to where it was before and looked for the next difference, especially one's i didn't understand as well.

The solution is not to change templates and have to do all the work again (if it can be avoided). Its to set up a blog with a duplicate template and then compare them (i did it litterally line by line by not putting the browser at full and putting them above and below each other on the screen).

I'm likely not done yet with my fiddling and in the future i will be more careful about saving more backups. But this might help in an emergency, before you need to think of changing templates and starting again (i had put about 3-4 hours work into changes and seeing if they looked right...i didn't want to start again.)

For any regular readers i have (i'm still pretty new here). Expect me to continue off and on to fiddle with the template. It takes a while until you find what you like exactly and i'm not used to CCS although i know about it. I'm used to the older html (some of my fiddling has been done in the CCS part and some in the sections with older html if you are curious). If my blog goes down or looks strange come back in the next day or so. It should be working....and certainly by a week (but something really bad would have had to have happened for that).

I'll be putting up some news later today. I guess there could still be problems i haven't noticed but i think its readable now. Feedback on what you think of the changes is welcome (while i like it generally i'd like to know how others feel about it.).

I know this might not help anyone but hey if it helps someone its worth it. It was a very painless way of solving the problem vs. changing the template, going back to the old one and starting my modifications again. P