Archive for February, 2008

Off The Record?

This Chuck Cadman Bribe Affair is becoming rather telling. I mean that here you have his Daughter confirming what her Mother said, about the ‘alleged‘ bribe by the Conservative Party to her husband, and you even have Stephen Harper admitting that financial incentives were offered. Of course, he also asks if it is off the record, THEN back peddles to make it sound less like a bribe.

“The insurance policy for a million dollars, do you know anything about that?” Zytaruk asks.

“I don’t know the details. I know that there were discussions,” Harper replies on the tape. “This is not for publication?” (source – CBC)

Okay, so Stephen Harper has denied any such offer was made, yet in an audio tape of his interview, he claims he knows there was a ‘discussion‘ but not the details. Let me see, does it matter if the details were for a million, half a million or even a dollar? The truth is, if you offer someone A SUM OF MONEY, in return FOR A VOTE, isn’t that called OFFERING A BRIBE?

And this is the man who promises us ACCOUNTABILITY? Who campaigned for AN END TO THE CORRUPTION OF THE Liberals? Which Member of Parliament did they try to bribe?

I am sorry, but this just is wrong. To make any type of offer, of renumeration or repayment of lost income due to a switch in Parties, smacks of BRIBERY. Spin it anyway you want, but you can’t spin the truth out of this. In his own words, Stephen Harper KNEW AN OFFER WAS MADE.

And this is VERY DIFFERENT from the Sponsorship Scandal. To begin with, that wasn’t about BRINGING DOWN A DULY ELECTED GOVERNMENT. If anything is was a misplaced effort to keep a nation together, done stupidly, and wrong. It was about paying off supporters, NOT BRIBING A MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT.


Let’s see, we have AIRBUS and Brian Mulroney, we have Mulroney lobbying for a Telecom Giant, and we have Stephen Harper defending him. Now we have both Dona Cadman and her Daughter confirming that Stephen Harper & His Party tried to bribe Chuck Cadman, and in both cases, Stephen Harper has defended his party, taunting and threatening the Opposition for even daring to discuss it. I mean, remember how he taunted the Liberals about Mulroney, and then Mulroney ADMITS TO TAKING THE MONEY?

What angers me the most, is that to offer a dying man a way to look after his family, after his death, is the cruelest possible bribe to offer. If he takes it, he dies feeling guilty, if he doesn’t take it, he feels remorse for not looking after his family. This is the Ethical Dilemma that Stephen Harper & His Party put before Chuck Cadman.

Why do I believe it is true? Because Stephen Harper admits to knowing of the insurance offer, based on the audio tape of his interview for the book.

Another Bribe?

I am perplexed. I really do not understand Stephen Harper, or his Party anymore. To begin with, all the crap about Mulroney, the sting of corruption is just way too much. You have him staying silent, you have an aide calling it a Jihad against him, and now we have the Cadman Affair.

In a forthcoming book, Like A Rock: The Chuck Cadman Story, Dona Cadman claims her husband was offered a million-dollar life insurance policy two days before the crucial vote. (source – CBC)

I suppose my problem with all this, including Stephen Harper’s denial, is why would Chuck Cadman’s wife, a conservative candidate, say it? That is the part that has me confused. How can it have been investigated, yet not be retracted in the book, where she is quoted? It also makes me wonder, was her nomination, a payoff?

This whole nonsense, is just mind blowing. To offer a guy a million dollar policy, to bring down a government? Now if this is BS, why would the WIFE say it, to begin with? I mean what benefit does she gain from saying it, specially if she is running for the Conservatives? So again, it just seems so contradictory, and while hard to believe, it does sound plausible. Specially if you factor in the whole Mulroney Affair, and Airbus.

On Wednesday, the Prime Minister’s Office said Harper never directed anyone to make a financial deal with Cadman, and that when he first heard the story from Dona Cadman, he had it investigated but nothing was ever confirmed. (source – CBC)

Now this also perturbs me. I mean it is obvious he was told about it, says he investigated and found nothing to substantiate it. Okay, so was this before she sought the Conservative Nomination or after she won it? Then too, how long ago did he get told of this, and what kind of investigation did he do? Did he simply call a few people, or did he try to really find out?

I mean it all seems like the denial Harper gave of how Schreiber contacted him, about the allegations against Mulroney, that somehow got held back from him. Like that really is believable, and now he admits, he was told of this by the person making the allegations? If she lied to the book’s author, for what reason? There are lots of possibilities here, not all very nice for either side. Plus, if true, could be a criminal offense.

The simple truth is that due to all the apparent cover ups by Stephen Harper, his defense of Brian Mulroney, his inability to be forthright, transparent, has created doubts. His taunts, his later recanting, all creates a perception that something is being hidden, whether it is or not. This is the stench left over from Brian Mulroney, from the George Bush style of politics.

So when will this inquiry begin?

Ralph Nader a Spoiler?

Oh but for a real candidate.

There is no doubt in my mind, a good solid Third Party Candidate for President is needed, though finding one is not so easy, given the rules to get listed on all Fifty States. So frankly, while being President is nice, a good Third Party itself is needed. One that can field Senators, Congressional Candidates, and not just a Presidential Candidate.

Ralph Nader and Ross Perot came the closest.

However, I have a simple philosophy. It is that the only wasted vote, is the one you don’t cast. To assume that Ralph Nader’s run in 2000 cost Al Gore the election is simply, whining and poor sportsmanship. Ralph Nader didn’t cost Al Gore, AL GORE COST HIMSELF THE ELECTION.

Nader is completely unrepentant. He totally rejects and is insulted by the label “spoiler.” (source)

And why should he feel rependent? Okay the winner was George W. Bush, but come on, who is to say Al Gore would have been any better? Would he have been pushed into a war with Iraq? Maybe not, but then how would he have handled 9/11? How would he have handled the exploding Illegal Immigration problem, or the Sub Prime Mortgage debacle?

Now Ralph Nader is interesting. Is he a good choice for President? I doubt it, but then you never know. I mean look at Woodrow Wilson. He kept America out of WWI, until the Luisitania, and then he refused to partition Germany afterwards. Now how’d that work out? And let us not forget his League of Nations, that even the US Congress rejected?

So while it is interesting to have Ralph Nader running, he isn’t the spoiler. The real spoiler in any Election, is those who stay home, who fail to mark a choice. Those who vote by party line, refusing to accept that it should be about the issues, and which candidate best represents THEIR view on them. Party lines isn’t what will cut it, I mean come on look at the House of Representative & Senate today?

Most polls show that 70% of Americans oppose Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants. So how come it was a handful of Republicans & Democrats that prevented it? The Majority were sure for it, including Georgie Boy. So maybe the real issue for 2008 shouldn’t be which party deserves your vote, but WHICH CANDIDATE DOES.

And maybe if you want Obama or McCain, look at the Green Party for a choice for Senator, for Congress Person. Now imagine what it would be like, if they had seats, in the Senate & Congress. Now that would really be an interesting session to watch, where both Republican & Democrat would NEED THEIR SUPPORT. Be rather nice to have power brokers who had an interest in what the PEOPLE WANTED, for a change, wouldn’t it?

Ralph Nader is 74, and I really don’t think a serious threat. However, it would be nice if it helped galvanize people to become politically active, to generate interest in other political parties, and who knows, maybe elect a few lesser politicians instead of the same old political retreads that represent the two parties today. Course, if you want Obama, or Clinton, if she wins, then the answer is simple. GET OUT & VOTE.

So again, it wasn’t Ralph Nader that cost Al Gore. It was the over 50% of American Voters that stayed home that cost Al Gore the election. It was the ‘usual politics‘ that cost him, just as it is costing Hilary Rodham Clinton today. Stay at home, get another George W. Bush, go out and vote for who you want, Green Party, Reform Party, American Party, Democrat Party, Republican Party, it doesn’t matter.


Which Hilary do you Believe?

As much as Senator Hilary Rodham Clinton would like to be the Democratic version of Mitt Romney, the Flip Flop King, her constant switching of positions seems difficult to fathom, or to explain. While she struck out strong against Senator Obama in her last debate before the vote next Tuesday, it seems it only highlighted her flip flopping.

She claims she isn’t in favor of NAFTA, never was, and yet it is her supposed experience as more than just First Lady that makes her a better choice for President. Doesn’t quite jive considering now she opposes NAFTA, while in Ohio, but it was introduced, championed and made effective under Bill Clinton’s Presidency.

Clinton said Tuesday night that she had always opposed NAFTA, which Obama said was news to him. He pointed out that she praised the deal as good for New York during her senatorial campaign (source)

Now John Edwards was the most eloquent on Trade, and was ridiculed the most by Hilary Clinton for it, yet now here she is, championing his Trade Policies, as hers. Kind of a big switch, specially when running for the US Senate, she praised NAFTA, and then while campaigning for President in Texas, she also praised it.  Only in Ohio has she come out opposed to it.

So kind of makes you wonder, if she isn’t just like any tired old political hack, promising the moon, or the sun, depending on where she is at the time. It isn’t a good policy, and while in Texas, Obama spoke on his plan for the border, where it wasn’t popular, but it was the same plan he proposed elsewhere. Now that says he does have a policy, while Senator Clinton simply flops around, telling people what she thinks they want to hear, so they will vote for her.

How is that Leadership? Hell it isn’t even showing Experience.

Is her health care plan isn’t simply passing a law to force people to buy insurance, then how will it work? She can whine about how he is misrepresenting her plan, she can complain that it is more than just passing a law requiring all to buy insurance, but if she won’t tell anyone HOW PEOPLE WILL AFFORD IT, kind of seems like Obama is right, no matter how much she whines, stomps her foot, and says he isn’t.

And that is Leadership?

Then there is her whimsical musing that she wishes she could take back her Vote authorizing the War in Iraq. Well, geez, who wouldn’t wish to take back a stupid move, or a stupid action done in the past? Specially when it harms your current drive for power. I don’t think there isn’t anyone who doesn’t have something they did in the past they wished they could do over, but this is real life, you don’t get ado over‘.

The issue isn’t that I wish I didn’t date this person twenty years ago or not, this is about authorizing a nation to go to war. It is a little bit more important to get those kind of things right the first time, don’t you think?

Suggesting that it could defuse one of the hottest issues throughout the campaign, supporters of both candidates pointed to Clinton’s explicit admission — apparently for the first time — that she wished she could “take back” her original vote in 2002 to authorize the war in Iraq. (source)

To want it back, is nice. It at least shows that she knows she was wrong to listen to George Bush and give him his blank check to go to war. And that too brings up her mantra of being the only real candidate that is fit and able to hit the deck running, to be Presidential the moment she takes the Oath of Office.  How can anyone who can’t figure out that a tissue of lies, that going to war over unfounded rumor, unfounded, unsubstantiated evidence, is somehow ready to assume the office, is beyond me.

Then too, her attack claiming that Obama is nothing but words. That words are nice, but it is doing that counts. Well, I don’t know, but it was words that got her to Vote for the War in Iraq. It was words that has her supporting naming the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as terrorists.  I mean, she may mock words, but she has fallen for them each and every time, when real lives have been at stake.

How is that a quality that makes you ready to be President?

Consumer Protection A Myth

It is rather scary these days. The recall of over 143 Million Pounds of Beef is just perhaps a tip of the Iceberg. Before getting into the latest recalls for February, I want to revisit the huge Beef Recall.

It made the news, briefly, before it disappeared, but here is little discussed fact. How much of that beef was used by other producers, in their own products? Seriously, think hard on this, because as much as I hate to think, this is worth the smell of burning rubber. The issue is that lots of items use beef in their ingredients, such as canned chili, sphaghetti sauces, and other products.

These items have a much longer shelf life, and yet with the largest Beef Recall in History taking place, where are the subsidiary recalls? The cans of Sauces, of Chili?  Is the CPSC telling us that NO OTHER PRODUCER used this firm’s Beef? While we know it was used by the Federal Lunch Program, and mostly consumed BEFORE THE RECALL, where else was this product used en masse?  Did Hormel use it, how about Kraft?

Are we that trusting?

I suppose we are, because you know, it never dawned on me about this side risk. And you know, this could be the worst part of the recalls, because frankly I don’t see other by products being listed for recall, that used tainted Beef. Go back, to when there were similar recalls, then look for other product recalls.


So just how safe is our Food Supply? Makes you really wonder doesn’t it, specially as you have a head of a Government Agency who defends foreign governments that are poisoning Children, that defends corporate executives who are willing partners to poisoning Children, at putting Children at Risk.

Follow the link for more recall notices.

Read the rest of this entry