John Chuckman

EXPANSION OF COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN CBC NEWS

 

“Canada calls for an independent criminal investigation into Flight PS752 crash

“Foreign Minister Champagne is in London today meeting with Ukraine, Sweden, Afghanistan and U.K. representatives”

 

Calling for an independent “criminal” investigation here is totally inappropriate.

We didn’t call for that in the many other cases involving militaries and the loss of civilian airliners, including several by the United States’ military and one by Israel’s.

This represents rather shameful service to Trump’s war-like White House, but then that has been a notable and consistent feature of Trudeau’s government, supporting the Trump White House in foreign affairs.

Iran very much is sorry for what happened and is taking all reasonable steps. It has given the black-box data to other interested parties, including Canada.

It would be nice to see some understanding here instead of an effort to whip-up the mob.

It sure ain’t Iran who started all the hostilities in the region.

And this event serves nicely to detract from the fact that the United States publicly murdered 35 people in Iraq, including Iran’s General Soleimani, in the weeks previous. Talk about criminal acts.

_____________________

THIS ADDITIONAL COMMENT WAS REMOVED BY AN EDITOR

Here is something readers should find extremely interesting.

It is written by a former CIA senior analyst.

https://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/who-targeted-ukraine-airlines-flight-752-iran-shot-it-down-but-there-may-be-more-to-the-story/#comment-3664167

John Chuckman

COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN CBC NEWS

 

“Former Quebec premier Jean Charest considering run for Conservative leadership”

 

This is encouraging. Very encouraging.

An active intelligence, a good personality, not at all identified as an ideologue, and some appeal in Quebec.

As well, he is a man who has demonstrated, at his own political risk, dedication to the idea of Canada.

Jean Charest has many appealing qualities and possess a storehouse of hard political experience.

He might well represent the best chance the Conservatives have for getting rid of Trudeau’s government, a government which for me, with its many failings and embarrassments – and I am not a Conservative – simply leaves a bad taste in the mouth.

John Chuckman

COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN CBC NEWS

 

“Pierre Trudeau was a remarkable man, but not Canada’s national saviour

“100 years after former prime minister’s birth, fact and fiction about his legacy collide”

 

“Pierre Trudeau was a remarkable man, but not Canada’s national saviour”

 

Yes, Pierre Trudeau was a remarkable man, and a man of many large accomplishments.

One of our greatest leaders, for sure.

But who ever claimed he was “a national saviour”?

I’ve not even seen the expression used before.

What we have here is essentially what logicians call “a straw man argument.”

It succeeds in knocking down something that had no substance in the first place.

John Chuckman

COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN CBC NEWS

 

“How Pierre Trudeau survived a minority government – and how Justin Trudeau can do the same”

 

I’m sorry but that is a superficial parallel that does not take account of major differences.

Pierre Trudeau was a highly intelligent, tough, and independent-minded leader with something real to offer Canada.

His final list of accomplishments is impressive and historic. One of our greatest, for sure.

Justin has, in my view, not only embarrassed us, both at home and abroad, but he has no real substantial accomplishments. None.

He has demonstrated no real force of mind or spirit. He not only broke important promises, the whole tone of his government resembled something from an insipid television sitcom. Millennialist mush with no solid thought or dedication.

His frequent appearance in rolled-up sleeves of an expensive, well-pressed dress shirt almost perfectly symbolize the emptiness of his government for me.

That is, when his government is not dealing with the really serious matter of American Neocon policies abroad, ugly stuff which he and his foreign minister have completely embraced.

Justin Trudeau was a truly failed prime minister who did not deserve to be re-elected.

But the other parties didn’t do their jobs and offered weak alternatives, and good old “first past the post” voting – something Trudeau had strongly promised to reform but failed to act on – gave him back a government even with fewer votes than his main opponent. Shabby.

John Chuckman

COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN SOUTH FRONT

 

“BRAND TRUDEAU WINS A SECOND TERM”

 

Trudeau’s party actually ended up receiving significantly fewer votes (33.1 % of total) than the opposition Conservatives under Andrew Scheer (34.4 %).

It’s an unhappy, anti-democratic outcome of the voting system used for Parliament.

Just as is the fact that a government can rule with an unshakable “majority” of seats in Parliament with the kind of the numbers Trudeau attracted in 2015 (39.5% of total popular vote).

Similar results prevail for Britain’s parliament. A “majority” government there typically represents well under 40% of the total votes cast.

And, of course, in the United States, with its antiquated Electoral College system on top of still other important issues, minority presidents are not an unusual election outcome. Trump is one of them (46.1% of votes cast versus 48.2% for Hillary Clinton).

Such are the glorious results of “Western democracy” so often glibly praised by press and politicians.

The irony is Trudeau had campaigned strongly four years ago in support of election reform, of getting rid of our “first past the post” vote counting and using instead something yielding proportionate representation.

But, as in so many things, Trudeau completely failed to make good on his promise. It was a serious disappointment, but for this 2019 election his failure kept him in power.

Trudeau has failed in a number of extremely important national matters, and he is, additionally, someone known for a number of embarrassing personal follies and scandals.

It genuinely is disheartening to see him back on the job.

Lack of significant voter choice in candidates is the immediate explanation for the election result, something which is sadly all too common in our “Western democracies.”

The other parties – especially the ones with some chance of gaining power, the Conservatives and the New Democratic Party – simply did not offer candidates strong and appealing enough to vote Trudeau out under the existing voting system.

Lack of attractive alternatives can reflect, as I think is the case here, poorly functioning political party organizations. But, in some “Western democracies,” as in the United States, it represents a mechanism by the official parties (only two of them and each equally dominated by establishment interests) to limit voter choice by design.

Good God, look at the two candidates America offered its voters in 2016. Frightening, each of them in his or her own way. Simply an unbelievable choice offered.

 

https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2018/07/22/john-chuckman-comment-how-american-politics-really-work-why-there-are-terrible-candidates-and-constant-wars-and-peoples-problems-are-ignored-why-heroes-like-julian-assange-are-persecuted-and-r/

 

John Chuckman

COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY AARON WHERRY IN CBC NEWS

 

“Andrew Scheer’s mid-campaign identity crisis

“From citizenship to same-sex marriage to pre-politics resumés, Scheer is struggling to define his own image”

 

Canada now has a genuine Monty Python skit instead of a national election.

For the two major parties, the only ones with a serious chance of doing anything, we have…

A man with a widely unacknowledged second citizenship and a man who is even susceptible to American conscription if Trump manages to ignite one of the wars he works so hard at [revelations that Conservative Party leader, Andrew Scheer, is a dual American-Canadian citizen by virtue of his father’s American citizenship, an artifact second citizenship common for thousands of Canadians, but also that Scheer has complied, as an adult, with American law to register for conscription].

Talk about embarrassing and demeaning.

And this man even harshly criticized the appointment of a dual citizen as Governor-General some years go, Michaëlle Jean [Ms. Jean later gave up her French citizenship]. So, add a huge, huge serving of hypocrisy to the mix.

Why the hell didn’t the Conservative Party get that all sorted a long time ago? Could it be incompetence?

Our other choice from a major party, Canada’s Liberals, is a man, Justin Trudeau, who has failed at almost every major task he has undertaken for four years – from election reform to relations with China. It’s almost insulting that he is asking to be returned to office.

A man who has embarrassed us with childish behavior abroad.

And now a man we know has had an irresistible compulsion to dress up in blackface for a major portion of his life. We have three occasions documented, and on the last one he was nearly thirty years old.

Oh, but he tells us that he knows in his own heart that he is not prejudiced, even though making fun of a group’s looks has been a significant theme in his life! Simply unbelievable.

Given the weakest NDP candidate in living memory, a decent man but ineffective, and good old Elizabeth May’s Green Party plans to turn Canada into a theme park dedicated to Greta Thunberg, I think I’ll sit this one out. My first time ever doing so.

 

 

John Chuckman

COMMENTS POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY LUCAS POWERS IN CBC NEWS

 

“Trudeau’s municipal handgun ban promise leaves key questions unanswered [proposal to permit each city to legislate as it wishes]

“Liberal proposal would create a patchwork of handgun prohibitions”

 

Absolutely.

His is a worthless proposal. Perhaps worse than worthless because it makes some people think something is being done, when it is not.

As I’ve noted before, the city of Chicago has very strict gun laws, but they are totally ineffective because the city is like an island in a sea of guns. There are other American cities which are examples of the same thing.

No effective control can exist, and in hot summer months, Chicago has had many weekends with sixty or more people shot.

You need controls at a national level, the level which controls national entry and exit, the level which controls postal inspection and shipping, the level with good intelligence sources, plus the level with the needed information systems.

I’m sorry, but Trudeau’s proposal is a weasel effort, but then that’s true of so many things he does and has done.

We might just as well vote for someone we know will do nothing as for someone who pretends he’s doing something with a big smile.

His proposal reminds me a good deal of the tone and content of his foreign policy, which effectively supports Trump while pretending to do something else.

_________________

Response to a comment about” controls sure worked for drugs”

There’s quite a difference between the two commodities, drugs and guns. Size. Weight. Shape. Identifiability (guns have serial numbers). Properties (as in setting off metal detectors).

In fact, guns are quite controllable. There are very, very few guns in England. The police only rarely deal with them in the hands of criminals.

Drugs are not controllable. They can be hidden or disguised countless ways. And the profits are so high that there’s lots of money to corrupt authorities and police, which is just what happens.

___________________________

Response to a comment about the pathetic nature of Trudeau’s interview on the subject:

All of his interviews are pathetic, or close to it.

This not a leader, and he never has been one.

He’s more of a national male cheerleader figure, and cheerleaders are not renowned for thinking.

John Chuckman

COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN CBC NEWS

 

“What we know about Justin Trudeau’s blackface photos — and what happens next

“From resignations to reactions, here are the questions being asked about the bombshell photos”

 

Some points I think very important.

First, we have three recorded events, not just one, and given Trudeau’s reluctance to say whether there were still more, I think it likely there were.

Whether there were more or not, this tasteless dress-up was a recurring theme for Trudeau, something he obviously thought quite funny, so, to get a laugh, he repeated it and repeated it still again. And the last time he did it, he was almost 30 years old, not an adolescent.

Second, the last event, the one from the school where he taught, happened in 2001, a good thirty years or so after society had already given its verdict on this kind of behavior.

Third, Trudeau, close to instantly, dropped a thoroughly decent man, Hassan Guillet, as a candidate when an influential service organization made an accusation against him.

Trudeau did not investigate nor did he give the accused man a proper opportunity to discuss the matter, and he left the poor candidate shocked by the surprise action.

Why does Trudeau’s own behavior allow such completely different treatment? And behavior where we have photographic evidence.

Fourth, how can he possibly represent Canada now at international gatherings such as the UN or the G20 without arousing derision and sarcasm and perhaps some anger? He cannot.

 

 

 

John Chuckman

COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY AARON WHERRY IN CBC NEWS

 

Champion of diversity or high-profile hypocrite? Who is Justin Trudeau, anyway?

All human beings contain contradictions – but when politicians undermine their own images, they pay a price

 

Trudeau is worth no additional discussion. How many words should be written and read about such a disappointing man?

For me, it is his basic performance in office that most counts, and that has not only been awful, it has, in foreign affairs, shut the door on all of our best Liberal 20th century traditions. Just slammed it shut.

Failed important promises such as vote reform? Ignored major national problems such as our oil industry’s plight? Childish antics on trips abroad several times? Letting down conscientious ministers in a scandal?

Those are all important, but flying down to plead with Donald Trump to help him in difficulties with China, difficulties caused entirely by his own decisions and those of his Foreign Minister, Chrystia Freeland, is more than I can stomach.

Not having the judgment even to understand that Donald Trump is, literally, the last man on earth with any influence over China, or even much regard for Canada, is almost beyond understanding.

Trudeau is hopelessly disappointing when it comes to statesmanship or leadership.

The discovery that, for a major part of his years, the man regarded black-face routines as funny and worth repeating is “icing on the cake,” as it were.

Here is complete lack of judgment repeatedly displayed, combined with the arrogance to still ask for your vote.

He should resign. Instead we get another “apology” to add to the stack he has already freely distributed on a dozen subjects.

 

 

John Chuckman

COMMENTS POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY AARON WHERRY IN THE CBC NEWS

 

“Why Justin Trudeau’s main foe in 2019 is the Justin Trudeau of 2015

“A leader who frames every issue around ideals can expect blowback when he can’t – or won’t – live up to them”

 

That’s certainly true, but “ideals” can be much over-rated.

After all, some of the worst actors in world history had strong ideals.

What’s needed in an admirable leader is not so much “ideals” as a sense of decency, sound pragmatic judgment, commitment to fairness and justice, and dedication to principles of human and democratic rights.

Those are qualities where Trudeau has often failed despite having “ideals.”

I am very sad the other major parties have not offered us good alternatives. It is a truly barren election.

But I just would never cast a vote for this man who effectively has supported all the major policies of Trump and Company – from support for bloody Saudi Arabia and trying to overturn an elected government in Venezuela to Russophobia and insanely-destructive activities around China.

A very foolish man, I think.

____________________

Response to a comment about Trudeau’s carbon tax:

I very much care about our environment, but I tend to agree with you that the carbon tax is something of a scam.

We know there is climate change for sure, but we do not yet know just what is driving it.

There are a number of scientific theories, from a changed level of solar radiation to small changes in our orbit.

Pretty hard to do convincing controlled experiments on a matter so huge as the entire planet, and controlled experiments are one of the hallmarks of genuine science.

Creating big, costly programs for something you do not understand is not my idea of good leadership. I just do not see it as even very smart. It’s a bit like Gwyneth Paltrow selling her Goop products.

And it is stylish, like giant corporations putting images of pink bows for breast cancer on their packaging.

There are many other important environmental matters on which we could focus until we do understand climate change better, including ones we largely ignore.

And even if we discover to a certainty that carbon is the driver of climate change, a solution may well be beyond us. Adaptation is how our ancestors for two hundred thousand years dealt with climate changes, of which there have been many.

Of course, such taxes are very attractive to deficit-prone politicians like Trudeau, ones with “ideals” to brag about too.

___________________

Response to a comment:

I won’t go so far as you do in claiming a prediction, but I very much sensed and feared Trudeau’s lack of depth and ability. It was long apparent.

His father was a great national leader. Gifted. Justin simply did not inherit that set of qualities. Such is the throw of the genetic dice.

And I suspect Justin, the drama teacher and snowboard coach, long knew that, which explains his early reluctance to enter politics, but it becomes hard to say no when important people keep begging you to do something. We all have egos and like being flattered.

They did win, the Trudeau name and smile defeating a much-disliked Stephen Harper, but in a larger sense they lost.

They lost something precious for a Liberal Party which has given us a number of fine leaders.

Our cringing service to Trump and Company under Trudeau marks a terrible loss of 20th century Liberal traditions, things for which the world admired us, and especially those of Justin’s own father.

 

John Chuckman

EXPANSION OF COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN CBC NEWS (AND REMOVED BY AN EDITOR)

 

“Dumped by Liberals over anti-Semitism allegations, Hassan Guillet explores options

“Montreal candidate says he was ‘shocked’ by party’s decision”

 

Hassan Guillet, a former Muslim Imam turned politician, seems from his pictures and words a very decent and sympathetic man, one without hate.

Just because a special-interest service organization has characterized something he said or wrote in the past as anti-Semitic definitely does not make it so.

Keep in mind that over the last couple of years, an intense campaign has been waged in Britain by just such service organizations against Labour Party leader, Jeremy Corbyn, one of the fairest and most decent men in politics. He is as far from being prejudiced as you can get.

But he has a history of also being fair and balanced towards Palestinian interests, and that undoubtedly earned him a long and ferocious attack using never-proved assertions of anti-Semitism. The attacks at a couple of points even had Israeli politicians, including the Prime Minister, butting into the internal political affairs of Britain with their comments. Corbyn had a determined enemy.

Well, Jeremy Corbyn was able to withstand the assault. He had to fight for months, but he had lots of support and an admirable personal record of standing for principles.

Hassan Guillet was not able to withstand the assault made against him.

Hassan Guillet’s political party leader, Justin Trudeau, appears to have made no effort concerning charges against a man who had been his personal choice as candidate in a particular constituency. He simply dropped Guillet upon hearing from a prominent service organization, surprising even the candidate.

We do know from his behavior as Prime Minister that Justin Trudeau is a rather squishy kind of man when it comes to standing up for anything against the powerful. His support for every major aspect of Donald Trump’s ugly, chaotic foreign policy is a very disheartening case in point.

And we had revelations about Trudeau, who likes advertising himself as a supporter of transparency in government, and his behind-the-scenes efforts for the legal difficulties of a certain large Canadian engineering company, a set of events which saw him drop an honest minister who spoke out about her concerns and treatment during those events. Canada’s Ethics Commissioner has ruled Trudeau clearly violated the Conflict of Interest Act.

So, with that quality of leadership behind him, Hassan Guillet stood little chance. He was out almost immediately, leaving him embarrassed and disappointed. We have no knowledge about the exact nature of the charges against him because CBC chose not to explain them.

That seems unfair both to Hassan Guillet and to readers who really want to understand something like that, when recent history, the case of Jeremy Corbyn, tells us clearly that such charges can be made without real substance in an effort to destroy a politician.

There’s an awful lot of Islamophobia in politics today. America’s current President actually bellows ugly remarks directly from the White House, a place where he is supposed to represent all the people.

Just look at the vicious charges and name-calling in the United States against two new Muslim women politicians, Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib.

Already there are plans afoot to work against them in the next election. These women have expressed legitimate criticism of Israel’s often shocking behavior. I’ve read nothing we could call hate, but they are accused of it almost daily.

John Chuckman

COMMENT ON MIKE POMPEO’S VISIT TO CANADA IN AN OSTENSIBLE EFFORT TO HELP THE TRUDEAU GOVERNMENT OVER ITS PROBLEMS WITH CHINA

 

North Korea’s Foreign Minister recently described Secretary of State Mike Pompeo as “the toxin of American diplomacy,” calling for him to be replaced in denuclearization talks “with someone who can communicate more cautiously.”

Even though people in North America tend to discredit all things North Korean, I do think this high official’s words, concerning negotiations of interest to the entire world, must be credited.

The Foreign Minister said that “all things into which Pompeo thrusts himself go wrong and end up in failure though they had showed signs of promise.” That is exactly what has happened with the denuclearization talks Pompeo took charge of and aggressively upended like a table full of chess pieces. The talks are essentially over.

Yet here’s Canada’s sad team on international affairs, Prime Minister Trudeau and Foreign Minister Freeland, inviting Pompeo to Ottawa, inviting him to speak about China, and giving him a platform for his extreme and prejudiced views.

Trudeau did his usual “smile and shake hands and look benign and well-dressed” routine. Chrystia Freeland, who scowls far more than she smiles, sometimes even her efforts at smiling being mistaken for scowls, joined right in with Pompeo, the local selected back-up singer for his bravura guest performance.

She is, after all, we know from released confidential State Department documents, this awful Washington government’s friendly contact person in Ottawa.

Pompeo’s empty words about detained Canadians in China were public relations crumbs tossed for the benefit of the Trudeau government.

That unpleasant, dishonest man, Pompeo, knows perfectly well that he and Donald Trump have about as much credibility and influence in China as a pair of escaped convicts.

He can help Canada not at all (other than by withdrawing an arrest warrant which should never have been issued, something these harsh ideologues are certainly not about to do). One might expect Trudeau to understand those obvious facts, but he does not seem to do so.

Trudeau plays a game of “our American friends are trying to help us” while ignoring the key to the entire set of problems between China and Canada, Canada’s unwarranted arrest, at America’s request, of a senior executive of a Chinese world-scale technological company.

Trudeau is too timid and weak to take any decisive action – oh, can you just imagine his ferocious father Pierre’s approach in such a matter? – and he has assumed the passive role of victim patiently waiting for rescue by the forces of justice. It’s extremely off-putting, but it seems to be the best he can summon to help get him through an upcoming October election.

Of course, Washington can only support the charade, so Pompeo’s visit, which had other purposes, was stretched to include words of sympathy for Trudeau. A Secretary of State flying in specially to help poor little Canada against big mean old China. A scene with clouds parting for a descending warrior angel. Good stage show, and it fits right in with all Washington’s many attacks on China, even if it is just a trifle obvious.

That arrest by Canada of a senior Chinese executive, Ms. Meng Wanzhou, of course should have been avoided at all cost, as any competent leader would know and would have managed, by one means or another, if nothing else beyond quietly warning her not to come or not to land.

But not Canada’s Trudeau and Freeland. They stand by their dull and destructive decision to enforce a warrant from Washington which also could easily have been shot full of holes as an illegitimate use of criminal justice procedures in Trump’s trade war with the world’s second largest economy. Extradition warrants are not diktats. They must comply with a number of requirements, the fulfillment of any of which is subject to judgment.

Their decision to exercise no imagination and no real effort has caused colossal problems for Canada and undoubtedly damaged future prospects with China, a nation with whom we’ve long had excellent relations.

Just pure incompetence, although that’s a charge likely more applicable to Trudeau than to Freeland, a Canadian Neocon-Lite who could be expected to go out of her way to stress the utmost importance of any request coming from Washington. In that sense, Trudeau really may be something of a victim, but it’s self-inflicted state for a head of government with ultimate authority in such matters.

Can you just imagine what the extremely belligerent Pompeo would be saying had, at some point, unrelated to these matters, China arrested the Chief Financial Officer of Microsoft or Apple on trumped-up charges? Not just saying, but doing?

Undoubtedly, the real reasons for Pompeo’s visit – the task of tossing a few public relations crumbs for Trudeau, who does look to lose the upcoming election, being a gracious add-on – included telling Freeland what he expected from her on her forthcoming visit to Cuba concerning Venezuela. Also, undoubtedly, what was expected from Canada at the upcoming G7 in Biarritz, France.

Such is the reality of foreign policy in Canada today.

 

John Chuckman

COMMENTS POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN CBC NEWS

 

“China warns Canada not to be ‘naive’ in thinking allies can help fix issues”

 

“I am confident that the Americans brought up the issue and President Trump brought up the issue of the detained Canadians in China.”  – Justin Trudeau

What naivete in those words. but more than naivete, there is a quality of dependency that I find quite saddening and unpleasant from a national leader.

When I say that, I’m also taking into account that Trudeau appealed to the very man who is almost certainly the most disliked person in China, and one utterly without any influence.

Just imagine, even in Canada, Trump is not widely liked, and I believe commands no great respect for the many unpleasant things he has said and the way he has said them.

How much more so must be the case in China?

And no one should have to point that out to the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister of a country. If they were in command of the positions they hold, they would know it instinctively.

Why do they not? I won’t venture to say, but while we have had many examples from our government of simply not being up to the job, this one for me is the ultimate.

Note further, that only within days, Trudeau and Freeland had a Canadian warship steaming through the Taiwan Strait. Surely everyone on the planet understands how China feels about that kind of activity. It is a rather strong public insult. Why?

_______________________

Response to a comment about Trudeau and Freeland being out of their league in world affairs:

Way out their league, indeed.

They resemble a couple of school kids doing a day of “Let’s pretend we’re the government.”

_________________________

Response to a comment about Canada having been obligated by treaty to respond to America’s extradition request for China’s Meng:

That’s inaccurate, though a widely held and promoted view.

There is always a matter of discretion and judgment with extraditions. Always.

Our brain trust has failed to use it.

Again, absent a number of other things that could be done, Meng could have been quietly warned not to land.

Problem solved, actually, never created.

Trudeau and Freeland are simply inadequate and embarrassing.

_______________________

Response to a comment saying Canada should respond to China with trade restrictions:

Increasing the trade wars Trump has started is simply terrible advice.

Trump has proved such a master diplomat, hasn’t he?

If he keeps in the direction he’s going, there can be no question but he’s going to pitch us into a vast global recession.

________________________________

Response to a comment saying, “It’s ironic that China is fighting with Hong Kong to put in an extradition law, but wants Canada to ignore theirs”:

Oh please, it is tiresome.

Extradition treaties are not diktats. Not automatic pilots.

They are always open to judgment and discretion and interpretation in individual cases.

John Chuckman

COMMENTS POSTED TO AN ARTICLE ON CBC NEWS [FIRST PORTION REMOVED BY EDITORS]

 

“Ken Pereira, union whistleblower turned conspiracy theorist, joins forces with Maxime Bernier

“Charbonneau Commission’s star witness now co-hosts a YouTube show about conspiracies”

 

Calling him a “conspiracy theorist” over 9/11, represents an effort put him down. When you use such terms, you are not conveying facts but prejudice. Name-calling is not journalism. You certainly can and should discuss what it is that he believes, but you cannot fairly dismiss him with such a term.

Millions and millions believe that that event was not what the official investigation said that it was.

Here are a few basic questions, never answered:

https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2016/09/11/john-chuckman-comment-a-survivor-says-even-the-simplest-questions-around-911-have-not-been-answered-by-government-yes-and-some-disturbing-truths-around-those-events-the-saudi-arabian-nonsense/

And the FBI has just released some documents around an intriguing aspect of 9/11 that in the past they denied:

https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2019/05/18/john-chuckman-comment-important-new-fbi-documents-about-9-11-are-released-an-excellent-article-on-them-will-they-just-go-ignored-much-as-that-last-most-revealing-document-released-on-the-kennedy/

______________________

By the way, the term “conspiracy theorist” was coined by the boys at CIA in the 1960s to be used to discredit the great many people who questioned the absurdly inadequate Warren Commission.

The press, always hand-and-glove with government and other large corporate interests – people often forgetting that that is where its interests really lie and not in some holy mission to find truth – has used the demeaning term countless times since, and I think it has become very tiresome.

The Warren Commission Report over the decades has indeed been shown to be literally full of holes, but the assassination is receding far into history, and it no longer grabs the public’s imagination. The many dishonesties and contradictions of its investigation now arouse no widespread concern.

The ugly truth is that when you run a big brutal empire, you have to do all kinds of unsavory things to sustain or expand it, and they are generally not things you want publicized. The United States has been engaged almost continuously in such activity during our lifetime, hence there have been a great many deceptions and lies around its dark work, just as we see with Iran or Russia or Venezuela today.

And just think back on the few cases that we do know something about. The phony Gulf of Tonkin Incident that would ignite a war that would eventually kill 3 million Vietnamese. The non-existent weapons of mass destruction in Iraq used to start another war, one that would kill a million people. Iraqi troops seizing baby incubators in Kuwait and tossing out the babies – good God, we learned that that one was created by a paid PR firm. It was a sad re-telling of the WWI British tale about Germans busy bayoneting babies, a claim made with deadly earnest looks in 1914.

No, the attempt to use that old CIA term, “conspiracy theory,” I regard as a red flag for what is to follow.

Of course, there are loony theories in many things, but you don’t use that broad fact against someone who may have valid reasons for his speculations. I don’t know anything about this particular man or his views, but I don’t like the writer’s approach.

________________________

Response to a comment saying, “We have moved into the digital dark ages, from the age of information into the age of disinformation”:

What information?

The Gulf of Tonkin Incident? Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction? Kuwaiti babies ripped from their respirators? Iran’s atomic weapons? Syria’s use of poison gas on its own people?

It just ain’t so. Where the stakes are great, governments tell lies. And some citizens do grow suspicious, which does not automatically make them kooks or anything else.

Scepticism, as the David Hume told us, is a healthy approach.

John Chuckman

COMMENT POSTED TO A COLUMN IN THE NATIONAL POST

Christie Blatchford seems to have become The Conservatives’ chief apologist.

Her apology here though seems totally unneeded.

I believe in these two cases of dropped candidates, the bone-headed people involved would have made perfect Conservative candidates.

Pranks? Isn’t this the party of robo-calls and frat-boy negative advertising?

Isn’t this the party of never telling the truth to people?

Of never giving a straight answer?

The party of not complying with officials attempting to investigate misdeeds?

The party of hiding the many stupid things it has done?

The party of Mike Duffy, Pamela Wallin, Nigel Wright, and other charmers?

The party of slavishly catering to special interests?

The party of giving the finger to many of the world’s serious concerns?

The party of John Baird who resembles nothing so much as a mad dog when he argues with people?

The party of Peter MacKay, a man who had an affair with a subordinate, later harassed her and called her a dog in public, and then lied about it as well as a man who has demonstrated incompetence in almost every portfolio in the cabinet?

The party of the absolute thug, Patrick Brazeau?

The party of Maxime Bernier, who left top secret NATO papers at his biker girlfriend’s house for weeks?

The party of Pierre Poilievre, perhaps the most seriously twisted sister ever in Parliament?

I just cannot believe what an opportunity the party has missed with these two new fellows, each surely potential minister material.

It’s a shame, I guess that’s the price you pay for political correctness.

John Chuckman

COMMENT POSTED TO A COLUMN IN THE NATIONAL POST

Laureen Harper does at least know how to smile, years of marriage still not having transferred that ability to hubby.

But of a woman who married this creepy man – he is reclusive, largely humorless, often tyrannical, and given to furious bouts of anger (many having testified) – I think it fair to say something important just has to be missing.

Not only are Stephen Harper’s personality and character unattractive, but I’m sure a great many women would agree, the man is not even good-looking. And his body is just as unattractive as his face, having a rear end I’ve heard described by a woman as a “bucket ass.” His stomach too periodically bulges so that you can see his belly button in sweaters, a fact which reminds us that he’s also a mighty poor dresser. Glamorous or attractive, he’s not.

So what possibly could be Laureen’s attraction? Power? Ideology? Masochism? All of the above?

Creepy husbands generally do attract creepy wives – as we see in the Bill Clinton or Tony Blair cases – but Laureen gets very little exposure (deliberately?) most of the time, so we can’t really know what she is about.

John Chuckman

COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN THE NATIONAL POST

I like Justin, but he keeps making serious errors, almost certainly under the advice of advisers he should have dumped.

You cannot be viewed as fresh and promising if you keep say some of the things he says, such as this about coalitions being back-room deals.

First, there was the disastrous press conference with Eve Adams, a genuinely unpleasant person whose past service-station idiocy was in a video online even as Justin spoke with her.

Then, he supported Harper’s ghastly Bill C-51. You don’t support stupid and oppressive legislation just to differentiate yourself from the party to your left, but that is what Justin did.  Just dumb.

And now, he describes coalitions as “back room deals.”

This last one is just ignorant. Half the parliamentary governments of the world rule by coalitions. The last government of Britain, the government of Germany, the government of Israel – and that’s just for starters.

“Back room deals” is a pejorative phrase used to characterize something which is a normal and open in parliamentary democracies.

And that is precisely the kind of misleading expression which might well have been written by a Harper speechwriter.

I truly dislike that kind of language, which is part of the reason I find Stephen Harper so repellent a politician.

Sorry, Justin, but if you keep going down the road you are going down, people simply have no reason to vote for you. It makes you sound ideological, narrow, old-fashioned, and, yes, boring.

John Chuckman

COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN THE NATIONAL POST

The article is technically well done, but it seems to me there is such an important set of facts understated in, or missing from, the article that, taken as a whole, it becomes inaccurate and misleading.

I might call it polished propaganda.

There is only one source for the election phenomenon we see now in Canada, and that source is Stephen Harper. It has little to do with “competition run amok.”

Harper is on record for admiring the American system, a system which is so dominated by big money that many astute and knowledgeable observers have said America is no longer a democracy but a plutocratic oligarchy.

Harper is also on record as hating many of Canada’s traditions in politics. His past assertions are so unpleasant and “Canadian self-hating” one wonders why he did not long ago seek a career in the United States. His total set of views and attitudes would have done him well in a place like Texas. They are in perfect keeping with politicians of the quality of Dick Armey or Phil Gramm or Tom Delay.

His major obsession in his entire political career has been to destroy the Liberal Party, the institution he holds largely responsible for the Canada he dislikes so intensely.

His basic method has been simple. Remove as much government funding as possible. Remove as much quasi-judicial oversight and rules as possible. Bend national policy in the direction big contributors want to see. Collect as much money from these special interests as possible. Lengthen the election period so that you can spend more than ever under laws you yourself have created.

Added to those structural changes are changes in practice completely learned from America’s example. Throw lots of dirt through advertising, knowing that if you throw enough, some will stick. Use third-party organizations to fund these whenever possible. Avoid direct contacts with press and interviewers as much as possible, and never answer a question in an honest and straightforward way. Use any costly frat-boy trick – such as robo-calls to misdirect voters – which might make gains for you in a swing area. Afterward, sandbag government officials investigating such matters. These approaches take full advantage of having a treasure chest full of private funds with which to play.

It is a formula guaranteed over time to badly damage Canadian democracy, and it is a formula favored by no other party.

JOHN CHUCKMAN

POSTED RESPONSE TO A COLUMN IN TORONTO’S GLOBE AND MAIL

Propaganda – and this kind of attack-advertising is just a form of propaganda – generally is effective when there is an accepted truth incorporated in the muck.

Thus, America blubbered about the plight of women while attacking Afghanistan (killing thousands of them along the way, too). Thus, past attacks on Ignatieff only said something we all believed already about that ineffective and disingenuous man.

These new ads cannot work against Trudeau because most Canadians rightly perceive him as a decent, earnest young man. And Trudeau is doing exactly the right thing in quietly explaining the ads’ dishonesty.

The ads will serve to confirm Harper as the most hateful person ever to have been prime minister.

JOHN CHUCKMAN

POSTED RESPONSE TO A COLUMN IN TORONTO’S GLOBE AND MAIL

While Chretien’s observation is already shared by most citizens genuinely concerned with international affairs, his testimony still is welcome.

Chretien is one of our most respected former prime ministers, a man who is admired by a number of world statesmen as an ethical statesman and a remarkable politician.

The grotesque and clownish stunts of Peter Kent, Maxime Bernier, John Baird, Helena Guergis, Peter MacKay, Rahim Jaffer, and the bloodless, narrow ideology of their leader do not go unnoticed in the world.

There is an inherent lack of commitment by this government to openness, honest communication, genuine democratic principles, and balanced human rights.

Everything from cheap stunts like pernicious robo-calls, ceaseless negative advertising, ugly outbursts, and blatant catering to special interests reduces our stature.

There is also – and quite in conflict with the historic role of Conservative Parties in Canada – a marked spirit of following America’s lead in almost all matters of international consequence – almost a visibly servile posture.

Informed people in countries around the world – politicians, members of international organizations, and private citizens – note these things and their goodwill towards our country must inevitably be reduced.

And this has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with core traditional conservative principles.

It is strictly a reflection of the ugly ideological bent of this government.

A bent demonstrated in everything from contempt for Parliament, contempt for important international forums and organizations, unbalanced and almost viciously partisan statements on the Middle East, and its cheap way of expressing itself on many solemn occasions, such as the recent death of the widely-liked President of Venezuela.
____________________

“Talking to other leftists and anti-american socialists is obviously going to get the desired result of Canada being disliked. I fully expect nothing being done by our current governemnt to be gain acceptance with the worldwide pro terrorist socialist alliance. Nothing to read here….and to think a criminal thug like Chretien should be given any further respectability is beyond me.”

You are too uninformed to comment with any meaning.

A number of prominent world leaders have in the past made public statements of admiration for Chretien.

No one but Mr. Netanyahu – a genuine thug who has committed murder, piracy, and theft – expresses admiration for Harper.

JOHN CHUCKMAN

POSTED RESPONSE TO AN EDITORIAL IN TORONTO’S GLOBE AND MAIL

Jack Layton’s genuine legacy is as Canada’s last honest national politician.

He spoke to truth, virtually the opposite to the practices of the man now serving as prime minister.

And when you add his innate sense of humanity and decency, it is easy to understand why so many miss him.

He is likely the last of his kind.

I’m sorry to say Canada’s politics have decayed so badly, coming to resemble increasingly the sad dumb show to the South, there is no more room for a Clark, a Stanfield, a Pearson, or a Layton.

 

 

 

JOHN CHUCKMAN

POSTED RESPONSES TO A COLUMN BY MICHAEL IGNATIEFF IN TORONTO’S GLOBE AND MAIL

No, Michael Ignatieff, you have not “allowed” your enemies to caricature you.

It is you who have caricatured a politician.

And it is you who have caricatured being a thoughtful and honest man.

You gave the nasty bunch of frat boys in Harper’s government the ammunition: They just loaded it into a big gun and fired.

And, please, will you stop your tiresome post-losing apologias?

They are almost as annoying as you were as appointed leader, and they are so poorly constructed in logic and force of argument, they make all people wonder how you ever were once regarded as a serious intellectual.
_____________________________

I’m not a betting man, but I would bet on this.

Were Harvard to come up with a new offer of cushy sinecure with a high-blown title, I’d bet good old Ignatieff would grab at it before a full heartbeat passed.

Just think, he would be relieved of the embarrassment and shame of his political catastrophe in Canada. He could quit writing pap like this piece.

And he could go back and be received with open arms to serve in the role he long played at Harvard, pseudo-liberal speaking out on behalf of imperial America’s brutal mass murder and interference in the lives of countless others – in other words, a high-price political prostitute.

JOHN CHUCKMAN

POSTED RESPONSES TO A COLUMN BY PRESTON MANNING IN TORONTO’S GLOBE AND MAIL

Political gravity has shifted in the country?

Harper through years of work has increased his support from about 30% to 39.6%.

Almost two-thirds of Canadians still reject this man and his party.

The only real lessons from the election are three.

One, we have a serious democratic deficit in Canada when less than 40% of votes turns into a majority.

Honest and conscientious men concerned with our affairs would work towards correcting the situation, not crow about it.

Two, dirty and unethical tactics do achieve some success in politics. The United States is rife with them. Now Harper has introduced them to Canada, debasing the decency of our politics.

As an interesting sidelight here, we get a hint here of how little a role religion – both Harper and Manning being religious – actually plays in genuine ethics.

Three, leadership matters, and the Liberals did not have any.

They appointed a weak man who missed almost every opportunity to respond forcefully to Harper’s half-truths, evasions, and outright dishonesty.

This weak man also sneered at a coalition which would have long ago stopped Harper, and he was inept enough to end up being accused of plotting to have one. Pathetic.
___________________________

“Preston just keeps looking better and younger every time his photo appears…”

Preston had a complete make-over at some point, maybe as part of his initiation as president and CEO of the one-man institute founded by himself.

Hair dyed.

Eyebrows skillfully dyed to match.

Dumped the granny glasses and fit-up with contact lens

New wardrobe.

Possibly a few needle-loads of botox.

Coaching on how to look at the camera without making people laugh at the results.

I do think he missed the chance to turn up the back collar of his jacket, a la 1959 rockers. That would be in keeping with his newly-learned smile, rather suggestive of an early Elvis snarl.

Bet with his self-appointed institute job he has a shiny car, maybe something sporty like a pink and black convertible.

The guy’s clearly now a regular chick-magnet.

But when he opens his mouth or takes his quill pen from the inkstand, we hear or read the same old crotchety noises.

What was it Obama said during the campaign about putting lipstick on a pig…?

JOHN CHUCKMAN

POSTED RESPONSES TO A COLUMN BY JOHN IBBITSON IN TORONTO’S GLOBE AND MAIL

Speaking of being a “master of delivery,” consider Ignatieff’s ridiculous ad running over and over on CBC Radio, the one about his mother – yes, you heard right, his mother – and health care.

It is absolutely off-putting.

Instead of talking hard and seriously about a major issue, this so-called master of delivery talks about mom.

Who in his right mind is going to pay attention to that?

It’s a pathetic effort to play on emotions associated with motherhood to gain support. Yuck.

And it is clearly also a weak further attempt to cement the idea that he is, after all, a local boy.

Ignatieff has always been overrated as an intellectual, as a speaker, and as a man concerned with human rights.

Many people clearly see all this, and it’s why Ignatieff is falling on his face.

Again, what “master of delivery” plays Pa Kettle on a long cross-country bus trip and thinks he is doing anything worthwhile?

Playing Pa Kettle was already an admission of failure.

People aren’t listening because they know the Ignatieff Show is boring, and his season is about to be cancelled.

He will win only a bitter legacy of being responsible for Stephen Harper’s winning a five year term, free to tear apart the Canada so many of us love.

Ignatieff is the perfect example of hubris – a man of no political talents and not having the character to resist taking what was handed to him by some sorry backroom politicians.
_______________________
From another reader:

“Freedom of choice, Harper and, his Evangelical Christian Theo-Cons if successful at a Majority Government dream of a roll back of same-sex marriage laws plus enshrine fetal rights on the citizens of Canada”

Harper represents a far more pervasive threat than that, an act which would be next to impossible.

Harper will eliminate federal subsidies to parties, thus opening the gates to complete special-interest campaign contributions. You want to see what a set of disasters this can open up? Look at the United States where this is the way it’s done.

Supreme Court appointments represent the some kind of long-term danger as campaign-finance changes.

Harper will continue marching in lock-step with the United States on a huge range of issues, from purchasing the clunker F-35 which costs the GNP of a small nation to sending more Canadians on America’s now regular crusades against those with whom it disagrees and to a perimeter treaty and to giving the US a special place in our Arctic.

Of course, we will continue for years to hear intellectual trash about criticism of Israel is anti-Semitism. Maybe we’ll even get a law in that police-state direction.

He will build his new gulag of prisons, no matter what the cost.

The Foreign Service – Pearson’s beloved Foreign Service – will continue to be told that there are no such things as child soldiers.

Our reputation internationally goes from being another Sweden to being another Pinochet’s Chile.

Program cuts to end the deficit. You ain’t seen nothing yet.

JOHN CHUCKMAN

POSTED RESPONSES TO A COLUMN BY JEFFREY SIMPSON IN TORONTO’S GLOBE AND MAIL

“The NDP platform seldom gets a costed look. It’s a pastiche of guesses and conjectures.”

Please, it is exactly the same for all parties, only in the case of Conservatives, we’re not talking about election platform items, we’re talking about actual policy.

We have no idea, and Parliament has no idea, of the cost of current Conservative policies and proposed legislation. None.

The complete lack of costing of government proposals and policies and campaign policies is one of the greatest flaws in our democracy – a hole big enough to drive a fleet of trucks through.

An ignorant vote is no vote at all.
__________________________

“Steal the election?”

Enough, please, of such complete ignorance. Reading this kind of line makes one think we live in Orwell’s 1984.

Coalitions are, and always have been, a completely legitimate part of parliamentary government.

Just because Canada has not used the tool to any extent does not make it an inappropriate one.

Dozens of parliamentary democracies have been governed this way, including at this moment Britain and Israel.

The mindless repetition of Harper’s thoughtless slogans about coalition sadly demonstrates the poor knowledge of a large part of our electorate.

An ignorant democracy really is not much of a democracy, but this kind of sad ignorance is at the very foundation of all Harper’s efforts.

Indeed, Mr. Simpson, I think Harper’s use of this slogan is more dangerous than anything else being said by anyone.

If he fails to get his majority, he is setting up people in the West for deep resentment about the East.

It reminds me quite sadly of Hitler’s “stab in the back” line about why Germany lost World War I.

This kind of intellectual and ethical filth works.

But it works only at the peril of civil society and democratic values.
__________________________

Our democracy is in genuine trouble.

Mr. Ignatieff is an appointed leader in the 21st century.

Mr. Harper is a control-freak who feels free to bend every rule and tradition of Parliament to keep his place and promote his agenda.

No one seems to care and no one seems to be able to do anything about a man who stands in contempt of Parliament and a man who has abused democratic values in countless situations in committees and in appointments.

Everyone points to the Bloc in Quebec as being against our values when in fact the Bloc’s existence and our tolerance of it represent the finest part of Canadian civil and ethical values.

Indeed, it is a sad thing to have to say, but Mr. Duceppe, in a number of ways, represents democratic values and statesmanship better than the current leaders of our two major parties.

This whole election is meaningless. Harper plays the tiresome and anti-democratic game of seeking out a limited number of “swing” ridings and in those ridings blasts his horn on narrow wedge issues of little interest to anyone else.

Nowhere, absolutely nowhere, does Mr. Harper offer us a set of cohesive policies around which we can unite as Canadians.

And Ignatieff is not much better, a man of surprisingly mediocre political talents considering his noted background.

And Harper spews the anti-democratic venom of “the stab in the back” if he doesn’t get his way.

Harper represents the most poisonous individual ever to hold high office in Canada and he will leave a legacy of hateful ads, secrecy, no tolerance, poorly-considered comments, pandering to certain groups, and a whole lot more.

Texas-style hateful politics.