Sandra Finley

Apr 032011
 

Three items: 

1.  RICK MERCER   Good one!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYgwUQTSC3I&feature=channel_video_title

 

2.  HOW TO REGISTER WITH ELECTIONS CANADA TO VOTE.   EASY AS A PHONE CALL TODAY!  1-800-463-6868

(If you are not already registered.)

Federal  Election May 2, 2011  (or vote in advance polls before May 2.) 

STUDENTS CAN VOTE IN ONE OF TWO ELECTORAL DISTRICTS:

You  vote “at home”.  You, the student, make the determination –  where is home?  where are you going to vote?:

  1. “At home” is where you are currently living,  or
  2. “At home”  is where your family lives.

The rule is the same provincially and federally.

ELIGIBILITY TO VOTE:    Canadian Citizen, 18 years old or older on Election day, your home is in the electoral district. 

IN ORDER TO VOTE:    The rule is the same federally and provincially (Sask).

BASICALLY:    

  • You must be on the voters’ list for your polling station.
  • You must take identification with proof of current address when you go to vote. 
  • Take your Voter’s Card if you have one.   It’s not necessary but it can be helpful.
  • ***IMPORTANT:   If you’re not registered in advance, you can always register at the poll when you go to vote. 

WARNING:  If you go this latter route,  know the requirements if you want to avoid difficulties.  See Elections Canada website below. 

TO GET ON the VOTERS’ LIST:   “REGISTRATION” (FEDERAL) and ENUMERATION” (PROVINCIAL)

Basically,  (but there are DETAILS –  see More Information below) 

FEDERAL: 

  • Register now, phone Elections Canada 1-800-463-6868 (can only be done by phone).  EXTREMELY IMPORTANT.  Please help spread the word.

PROVINCIAL:  You get on the list by being “enumerated”. 

WHEN AND WHERE CAN YOU VOTE ?

Three main ways:      

–  ADVANCE POLLS

–  ON ELECTION DAY  at your polling station

–  FEDERAL – referred to as “vote by special voting rules”.   Provincial – referred to as ABSENTEE BALLOT.   

MORE INFORMATION:

ELECTIONS CANADA    www.elections.ca

ELECTIONS SASKATCHEWAN    http://www.elections.sk.ca         

The trouble-free way to vote:  get on the Voters’ List early  and 

receive your Voter’s Card in the mail, as confirmation.   

Thanks!   And vote Green!  

www.greenparty.ca  facebook   twitter         

www.greensask.ca   info@saskgreen.ca  facebook  twitter 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – –  – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –  – – – – – – – – –

3.  THANKS TO JANET, MERCER PLUS QUOTATIONS FOR TODAY: 

MERCER:   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYgwUQTSC3I&feature=channel_video_title 

Quotations for Today [April 3/11.] 

  • “Bad officials are elected by good citizens who do not vote.” – George Jean Nathan, 1882-1958
  • Tommy Douglas on Fascism: “Once more let me remind you what fascism is. It need not wear a brown shirt or a green shirt – it may even wear a dress shirt. Fascism begins the moment a ruling class, fearing the people may use their political democracy to gain economic democracy, begins to destroy political democracy in order to retain its power of exploitation and special privilege.”
  • “A politician is required to listen to humbug, talk humbug, condone humbug. The most we can hope for is that we don’t actually believe it.” – Character in P.D. James’ A Taste for Death
  • “Life is a passion of activity, or it is nothing. Genuine democracy rests, not upon an attitude of pleased expectation of receiving, not upon an irresponsible sense of liberty to work one’s will, but upon unflinching self-surrender, unceasing activity in behalf of the common good. Services must be voluntarily rendered, often more strenuous than those exacted by superiors under the old feudal order. For democracy is a stern and lofty creed of willing self-denial, of responsibilities staunchly borne, or it is a chaos and a failure, a stampede of the masses for power or for gain.” – Margaret Sherwood, 1918
  • “First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.” – Pastor Martin Niemoeller (1892-1964), a Nazi victim who was imprisoned at Sachsenhausen & Dachau
  • “A society of sheep must in time beget a government of wolves.” – Bertrand De Jouvenel
  • “Evil thrives on apathy and cannot exist without it.” – Hannah Arendt
  • “The greatest threat to world peace is American foreign policy.” – from Blowback – The Costs & Consequences of American Empire, by Chalmers Johnson
  • “It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong.” – Thomas Sowell
  • “The modern conservative…is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy. That is the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” – John Kenneth Galbraith quoted in Blessed Unrest – How the Largest Movement in the World Came into Being & Why No One Saw it Coming, by Paul Hawken <Pg. 115>
  • “There is not a problem with the system. The system is the problem.” – Source unknown
  • Talk – Action = Zero ……… ad in Jan/Feb. 2009 ‘Watershed Sentinel’ magazine http://www.watershedsentinel.ca/
  • “Truth is the only safe ground to stand on.” – Elizabeth Cady Stanton
  • “Each day we are born again to start our life anew.  What we do today is what matters most.” ~ Buddha
  • “Hoard each joyous moment that comes to you.
    No one knows how it will all end.”
     – Háfiz

    Check out my blog
    http://janetsplanet.ca
Apr 032011
 

“Our decision is final and the decision is unanimous. It will not be reconsidered.”

Hopefully there will be time today to send an email to Broadcast consortium chairman Troy Reeb.   I am going to love doing it!  He doesn’t seem to understand:

  • The airwaves belong to the public.
  • He and his buddies can broadcast their tripe only by our agreement. 
  • Television has the ability to make a positive contribution to our society.
  • The manner in which the Media Consortium uses the airwaves to line their pockets is a large DISSERVICE to Canadians.
  • They pump out large volumes of violence and sex, appealing to the lowest common denominator.
  • They insert more and more advertising (propaganda) into programming.
  • It’s time for Canadians to do the telling of what will or will not be.

Take back the airwaves.  Boot these guys out.  They don’t seem to understand by whose agreement they are allowed to use the airwaves.

See  2011-03-30  for contact information for the Consortium who think they are our Lords.  

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/why-the-tv-consortium-excluded-elizabeth-may/article1966583/

Why the TV consortium excluded Elizabeth May

STEVE LADURANTAYE

Globe and Mail Update
Published Friday, Apr. 01, 2011 4:54AM EDT
Last updated Friday, Apr. 01, 2011 9:48AM EDT

Broadcast consortium chairman Troy Reeb discusses how the decision was reached to bar Elizabeth May from participating in the televised leaders debates.

How do the negotiations work? How does the consortium set up debates?

The negotiations take place behind closed doors because when you’re negotiating with political parties there has to be some closed-door session to come to an agreement.

What about the criticism that it’s too secretive?

So here’s the reality: The consortium has no legal standing; it does not exist as a legal entity. It is simply an ad hoc gathering of the five major conventional networks in Canada, all of which have substantial news divisions and a substantial interest in covering the political comings and goings.

How did the consortium start?

The real genesis was that there was a time when all the networks and print and radio would put together their own proposals for debates. The parties would have to pick and choose between which outlets they wanted to work with and which set of rules. It just became a mess. It was then agreed the networks would get together because in the end they all knew if one of them hosted a debate, the rest of them would all want to broadcast as well. They would get together, they would work together and defray the substantial costs – they are substantial, and they are borne by us – probably about $200,000 to do a production.

Is that the only cost?

The sacrificed cost of prime-time revenue is a huge hit to all the broadcasters. It’s massive. This is worth pointing out. People will say debate is earlier in the campaign than it has been in other years, but what starts on April 13? The hockey playoffs on CBC. That’s hugely important to them. That’s in negotiation long before political parties are brought in – what time frame works best to not have a huge financial impact on the business.

How do you get on the consortium?

I was not voted into this position. I was just the longest-serving member after the retirement of a colleague at CTV. We bring other delegates, but the requirement for being there is to be the chief editorial decision maker for the network.

How do you decide to keep Elizabeth May out?

It is an editorial decision. The process for coming to a decision on format and participation is no different from what happens around the newsroom table of a newspaper. There’s always a vigorous discussion, oftentimes a really good argument. There was a really vigorous discussion this time as well, but on the Green Party question we very quickly came to unanimity.

But you let her on last time.

That has complicated the PR issue. But the difference, of course, was last time she had a sitting MP.

What about the criticism that you have a public responsibility to let her voice be heard?

We do include her voice. If you look at all of the English newscasts Wednesday night, Elizabeth May was front and centre in all of them. There are other avenues available and the debate is only one of many avenues. As part of our commitment of providing equitable – absolutely not equal –coverage but equitable coverage to the parties, of course we’ll cover the Greens.

But the debate is the big show.

The biggest platform of all for a political leader to debate is not once during a campaign but is on an in-and-out daily basis in the House of Commons. That’s where a political leader engages in the debates of the nation outside a election campaign. Because she has not been able to participate in those debates and has not had a member who has been able to participate in those debates, that weighed heavily on our decision making on whether she should participate.

Do you have the ultimate say, or do you need to trot it back to your executives?

I can’t speak for the colleagues, I keep my president informed as to what is going on. But for us, editorial and the rest of the organization have some separation.

So what about the format of this debate?

Agreed to by four parties. There is a change – should say, the format is changed and tweaked every debate. Different participants, different technology. Tweaked to provide more head-to-head debate time between two individual leaders at given times. I wouldn’t say it’s a concession to one-on-one, it was championed by the consortium and agreed to by parties. There will be less of everyone jumping in, and more opportunity for two leaders to go head to head before everyone jumps in on a given issue.

Rather than starting discussion with one leader giving viewpoint, a question will be offered where two leaders can debate without the other two participating and then opened to broader group. It’ll be done by draw – every leader will face off against the other. We reserve the right to determine which questions to which leaders of course – we are trying to make good television here after all.

If the program is dull, if the program doesn’t deliver insight people won’t watch. Then what is the point of us sacrificing all of that revenue by turning over that air time in what we believe is a public service if the public isn’t being served.

Does this system work?

Some have referred to the non-partisan commission in the U.S. as a model. Well, that’s not non-partisan. I was a White House correspondent for a number of years. It’s bipartisan, done by Republicans and Democrats. Anyone who thinks that model would work in Canada and improve things and increase chances of small parties getting in – that would eliminate the chance.

So, is the door closed for Elizabeth May?

Our decision is final and the decision is unanimous. It will not be reconsidered.

Apr 012011
 

It  took three short years for Stephen Harper to add back all the debt, after we spent years paying it down.

– – – – – –  – – – – – – – – – – – – – – —

I don’t get it John.   I remember the years that Canadians spent digging ourselves out of Government debt.  Fully a third  and more of our tax dollars were for nothing more than paying interest on debt.   Just think of how much money that was, the tax dollars collected from the whole nation, take a third and hand it to the banks.  I pay taxes to contribute to public programmes, not so the wealthy have access to a cash cow.

Preston Manning blew the whistle:  he took on Government debt on a single-issue basis.   Thank goodness.  It’s hard to believe we’ve forgotten so quickly.  We need a whistle-blower again.

Somehow the Conservatives manage to pass off the idea that they’ve managed the economy well.  That’s what I don’t get.  Harper has taken us to an ALL-TIME high debt and here you have this woman blessing him!   He’s been prime minister for only 5 years; the spending has been reckless, with no regard for ability to pay.

THE FACTS ON GOVERNMENT DEBT IN CANADA UNDER THE CONSERVATIVES:

http://www.debtclock.ca/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=45&Itemid=42

After 11 straight years of federal government surpluses and debt reduction, 2008-09 saw the Canadian government return to spending more than it earns – deficit financing.  In 2011 the government will have added back to the debt in just three years, more than the $105 billion it paid off during years of surpluses. Deficits are projected through the year 2014-15.

Deficit spending of the past led to a trillion dollars in interest payments since 1961. This won’t help our economy or the families that have to pay for it.

In 1990, 38 cents out of every dollar sent to Ottawa was used to pay the annual interest on our federal debt.  Today, that is down to 14 cents.  Why would we want to go back?

RE:  At least Harper has a degree in economics – perhaps that is why our country survived this recession better than the entire G8.

The recession was caused by Wall Street – greed and corruption as never before known.   Reference the 2010 film narrated by Matt Damon, “Inside Job”  at http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=825 .

One reason Canada fared better is because at the height of the merger and acquisitions era (buy-outs), the activists fought like hell to stop an attempt by Canadian banks to merge.   Thank goodness someone was smart enough to understand the perils of large, consolidated financial institutions.  We citizens prevented SOME of what happened in the U.S.  from happening in Canada, by refusing to let Canadian banks merge.

Another reason that we did better is because we are the “hinterland” in a colonial relationship.  Bluntly said:  we have the natural resources.   Specifically the tar sands.  The manufacturing sector in Ontario has suffered, same as in the US because corporations have gone “offshore” where labour and environmental regulation are not a factor.   The money moved into the tar sands, which largely saved our bacon as far as “economic growth” is concerned.   We are a third world country now, our environmental regulations are “de-regulated”.   The state of the Canadian economy has nothing to do with Harper’s economics degree.   IN SPITE OF the money in the tar sands, he managed to sink us deep into the debt bucket.

The other “economist” besides Stephen Harper that comes to mind is former Saskatchewan Conservative premier Grant Devine.  Another guy who racked up record debt for tax-payers to then pay off.

What I don’t get is that Conservative Governments are applauded for their sound fiscal management – – when the record shows beyond doubt that they are the worst financial managers we’ve had.   Unless, of course, you like paying interest to the banks?   The proportion of our tax dollars that did nothing more than service debt was preposterous then, and it’s becoming the same again.  Premier Brad Wall is doing the same thing as Devine did before him.  Harper is doing that same thing, too.  We could use the voice of Preston Manning again.

A little background on Government accounting for debt.  It might have something to do with why the soaring debt falls below the radar screen:

In the era of business acquisitions and mergers (1980’s-1990’s), corporations took on large debt.    The traditional way of accounting for debt, “full disclosure”, was bad for investor relations.  So they changed the accounting rules to downplay the debt.   Which I only learned about because one year (it was in the first half of the 1990’s) I noticed on Budget Day that Government of Saskatchewan debt did not appear in the pie graph of Government expenditures, in the newspaper.  I went to the Deputy Minister of Finance to ask what was going on?  The Government not showing this significant expenditure?   Citizens are supposed to know where their money is going.

What did the Deputy Minister say?  The accounting rules were changed for the Government, too, not only corporations.   The Government had debt that it would like to make less obvious because debt servicing charges were running at a third of government expenditures.   Looks pretty bad on a pie chart.    It’s like waving a red flag in voters’ faces.   They changed the definition of “Programme spending” to exclude the cost of servicing the debt.    Money we spend on servicing debt is not available for programme spending (water, healthcare, highways, etc.).    Removing it from programme spending is VERY misleading to citizens.   Would it not be nice if integrity could be restored?    In a corporatocracy, it will not be.

Harper and sound financial management?  , , ,   t makes me mad that we are going back into paying taxes for nothing more than servicing debt;  the wealthy are the beneficiaries.   And the debt is going to escalate because we are getting into war.  The price tag on the F-35 stealth bombers is somewhere between 24 and 30 BILLION dollars.   Spread the word.  Don’t let it happen.  Government debt should be an election issue, along with the F-35’s.

In the email, the sticker “assholes” is being placed on the wrong behinds.   WE ARE actually the silly ones – – we do it to ourselves.   Rally the troops – – we don’t have to be repeatedly silly!   You do not re-elect people who mis-manage the finances.

Apr 012011
 

The political system is an adversarial one.  You can’t find solutions if you are working against each other.   

Nor will there ever be solutions if the Government is working toward putting the gift of water into corporate hands, the same as has been done with oil and gas, our energy supply.

The Green Party is searching for the Common Ground. 

So, for example on the topic of water, I am asking the other candidates:  can we agree that Canada needs a National Water Policy?   This is a very serious matter for people in Saskatchewan.  

(Town of Biggar, not in my Electoral District – – I believe that the pipeline from the South Sask River was built to take water to Biggar.   I phoned the Biggar Town Ofc to confirm, but it closed at 4:00.  306-948-3317    In my ED, Humboldt people need to be drawn into awareness of the precariousness of their water supply (South Sask River) – – many of them don’t know that their water comes from the River.  And the seriousness of what the Wall Govt is now doing by aggressive expansion of the withdrawls of water from the River.)

The South Sask River is the MOST ENDANGERED RIVER in all of Canada.  If you are a kayaker you will know that the River is wide but shallow.  

  • Please  see 2010-10-20  South Sask River, the scientific reports. ILO’s will run the River dry in the name of “open for business”.  
  • Or, for more comprehensive information that includes the situation with the Colorado River,  under “Categories” in the right-hand side bar, click on “water”. 

The amount of water in the River was at 20% of the 1912 volume just a few years ago.  It is now down to 16% of the 1912 volume.  

There is a clear, steady, downward trendline that ends at zero.  It’s obvious:  we should be doing everything in our power to stabilize the volumes of water in the River.   It is not necessary to repeat what the Americans are doing to the Colorado River! 

What industries do we need to develop?  ONES THAT ARE NOT WATER INTENSIVE.  If we add high-volume water users to the River, we are going to end up fighting over who gets the water.  Usually, it’s the guys with the most money who win, in that scenario.   There is litigation over water rights on every river in the U.S. and a national association of lawyers that do nothing but litigation over water rights.  Can we not take common sense action and avoid tensions?

Canada does not have a National Water Policy.   We need to stop the downward trend-line in the volume of water in the South Sask River.   The science is clear:  we are running the River out of water.   The Provincial Government is adding more water intensive industries to accelerate the process.  (The first of a number of intensive livestock operations in the Outlook area is to have 36,000 cattle alone.) 

If the political parties can establish Common Ground, we can work together.   Can we agree that Canada is in need of a National Water Policy?   If the answer is “yes”, then we can move forward to actually getting one.

Apr 012011
 

The Conservative candidate in Algoma-Manitoulin-Kapuskasing (map) was a lobbyist for Lockheed Martin Corporation.  

It is an EXTREME conflict-of-interest that is not allowed in democratic governance.   

Don’t whine about failing democracy!  Let’s just spread the word.  If I don’t know someone in Algoma-Manitoulin-Kapuskasing, someone else will.  Raymond Sturgeon should not receive one vote.   For very legitimate reasons.

The election of a Lockheed Martin lobbyist would further undermine democracy.  He would be in an ideal position to influence the Government.  I wonder who would become Minister of Defence if he was elected? 

The untendered contracts for Lockheed Martin’s F-35 stealth bombers are going to take us much further into debt and war.  The Conservatives have already piled up the largest deficit ever.   Electing a lobbyist for Lockheed Martin to the Canadian Parliament will help ensure we continue down that path.  

Throw the word into your networks.   Among us, we will have thousands of connections to people in Algoma-Manitoulin-Kapuskasing . 

UPDATE:  I was worried and called Steve Staples from Ceasefire.ca.  Love that guy!  I’ll be able to sleep tonite.  The riding doesn’t vote Conservative.  Talked a bit about conflict-of-interest legislation.  It needs tightening.  MP’s can’t immediately become lobbyists, but nothing to prevent lobbyists from becoming MP’s.  

THE FACTS ON GOVERNMENT DEBT IN CANADA UNDER THE CONSERVATIVES:

http://www.debtclock.ca/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=45&Itemid=42    

After 11 straight years of federal government surpluses and debt reduction, 2008-09 saw the Canadian government return to spending more than it earns – deficit financing.  In 2011 the government will have added back to the debt in just three years, more than the $105 billion it paid off during years of surpluses. Deficits are projected through the year 2014-15.

Deficit spending of the past led to a trillion dollars in interest payments since 1961. This won’t help our economy or the families that have to pay for it.

In 1990, 38 cents out of every dollar sent to Ottawa was used to pay the annual interest on our federal debt.  Today, that is down to 14 cents.  Why would we want to go back?

BTW:   Electoral District Maps:  www.electionscanada.ca    Go to Voter Information,  Find your Electoral District.   Click on “Map” at the top of that page.

Cheers!

Sandra

Apr 012011
 

From: Peter      Subject: Information on Democratic Reform 

. . .   it would be great to have some suggestions of how to fix and improve our system as an antidote against cynicism.  

REPLY:

A topic dear to my heart, Peter!  

Important to put out ideas that lead, but can’t be too far ahead of awareness. 

Please feel free to use from following.  I prepared earlier for Provincial Green Party Annual Convention coming up in May.   There’s more that can be done.  As I think of things I’ll try to jot them down and forward to you.  

HOW TO FIX DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE IN CANADA, STARTERS: 

  •  fix things at the Municipal (including rural) and Provincial levels.  If democracy is healthy in the Provinces it can become healthy in the Nation.
  •  CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST RULES MUST BE STRONG AND ENFORCED :   Whereas there is a need to reassure the public and reinforce that elected officials recognize their positions of trust: 

The Green Party of Saskatchewan will initiate amendments to The Members’ Conflict of Interest Act and the enforcement mechanisms.   The proposed amendments will, among other things:

–   Broaden the scope of the Members’ Conflict of Interest Act to become  Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Office Holders    (Scroll down to Initial Resources.)  

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –  – –

  • ABSOLUTE MUST:  CHANGE THE ELECTORAL SYSTEM AND ADVERSARIAL NATURE OF POLITICS   (an adversarial system is lousy at finding solutions)  

Whereas the first-past-the-post electoral system in Saskatchewan produces unrepresentative results;

Whereas there are efforts across Canada to modernize our electoral systems; 

Be it resolved

The Green Party of Saskatchewan will do on-line development of draft legislation to create a Government-funded SASKATCHEWAN CITIZENS’ ASSEMBLY.

PURPOSE of the Assembly is to work out, with citizens, an electoral system that will strengthen representative and participatory democracy.  The system will move away from an adversarial model to one that fosters co-operation among the persons elected to represent citizens in the Legislature.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –  – –

  •  IN SASKATCHEWAN:  RESTRICT CONTRIBUTIONS TO POLITICAL PARTIES AND CANDIDATES:    ONLY INDIVIDUAL VOTERS MAY CONTRIBUTE

 Submitted by Sandra Finley: 

Be it resolved:
               –   The Green Party of Saskatchewan develop amendments to The Election Act, 1996,  PART VII, “Registration and Election Financing”, “Contributions”, Item (6) (etc.)  “If a … corporation or trust fund makes a contribution to a registered political party or candidate …” 

–        The purpose of the amendments is to limit contributions to Political Parties to individual voters.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

  • The RULE OF LAW is critical to democracy.  It must apply to corporations as well as to citizens.   Scroll down to the “BE IT RESOLVED”.  There are surely more creative avenues that can be pursued in addition or instead of what I wrote.  It’s a starter piece for the brain-storming.  I think a critical part of restoring the RULE OF LAW is to talk directly with police officers.   Get to know them.  Establish relationships.  Once in a while I send an email on the topic to some detachments.  Lord knows if anyone reads them.  But I figure a few might. Doesn’t cost anything other than time.  As citizens I think we have to support the Police, it is otherwise impossible for them to do their job.  Would YOU  arrest people of status, the Geo Bush example, if you did not have public support behind you?

I wonder whether tomorrow’s “citizens” learn in school about why we have the rule of  law and what happens if it is lost.  And whose responsibility it is in a democracy to see  that the rule of law is upheld.    See  2009-10-08.  

“All persons and entities, regardless of wealth, status, or the political power wielded by them, are to be treated the same before the law. 

“The rule of law means that the law is above everyone, every entity and it applies to everyone, every entity. Whether governors or governed, rulers or ruled, corporation or not,  no one and no entity is above the law, no one and no entity is exempted from the law, and no one can grant exemption to the application of the law. 

“The rules must apply to those who lay them down and those who apply them – that is, to the government and to corporations as well as to the governed.  Nobody has the power to grant exceptions.”

People must, of course, KNOW WHAT THE LAW IS, if the rule of law is to be upheld.

WHEREAS

–        The rule of law is essential to democracy

–        The rule of law means that the laws are applied fairly to all, regardless of wealth or stature or office or organization

–        People are more likely to comply with the law if they see that is it fairly and equally applied.

–        You can have a measure of PEACE in the community if the Rule of Law is upheld.

–        Persons should not be able to escape the rule of law through their association with a corporation or other entity

–        Unfair or unequal application of the law leads to the break-down of the rule of law

–        Without the rule of law the likelihood of violence increases

–        In pre-war Germany, people did not stand up and insist that law-breakers be arrested and tried in courts of true justice.

–        As bad people amassed power, they were allowed to break the laws with no fear of prosecution.

–        The Government of Saskatchewan and Western Economic Development have contributed tax dollars in partnership with Lockheed Martin Corporation

–        Lockheed Martin Corporation has a lengthy record of court convictions and fines and was influential in the decision of the Bush Administration to launch an illegal war of aggression on Iraq with devastating consequences.

–        George Bush came to Saskatoon and was not arrested for crimes against humanity in spite of the evidence and laws submitted to the Chief of Police, the RCMP in Saskatchewan and Canadian Border Services.  George Bush and others of his administration are named in documents that record the crimes against humanity that accompanied the illegal war of aggression on Iraq.

 THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:

–        The Green Party of Saskatchewan explore creative ways to legislate a requirement that corporate or commercial entities that are in contract with Government agencies (tax-payer money is involved) must have a thorough background check.  The check should be posted on-line, available to the public.  The purpose of the background check is to determine whether there are such things as outstanding liabilities owed to the Government, court convictions in any jurisdiction in the world, court cases settled out-of-court, the amounts paid in fines, and so on.  If the commercial entity cannot pass the background check, then the Government may not enter into contract with it.  The officers of the commercial enterprise are to be held accountable. 

–        The Green Party of Saskatchewan work on draft legislation that bars any commercial enterprise that produces goods or services or is involved in activities that are illegal in Canada or under International Law from participation in Government contracts.  The laws that apply to individuals apply equally to the individuals who represent the commercial enterprise – –  parent or subsidiary.

–        The Green Party of Saskatchewan request an audience with the head of Division F (Saskatchewan) of the RCMP to discuss what will happen in the event that George Bush or others of his administration visit Saskatchewan again. 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

RESOURCES:   (for my own use)

http://www.sasklawcourts.ca/default.asp?pg=pc_about_judicial_independence

One of the cornerstones of the Canadian legal system is the rule of law. This is the ideal that all people are equal before the law without discrimination. For example, the rich do not have more power than the poor and women have the same rights as men. The rule of law also means that no one is above the law. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is also very important. This document enshrines the rule of law and protects individual rights and freedoms.

“The clearest way to show what the rule of law means to us in everyday life is to recall what has happened when there is no rule of law.”  (Eisenhower)

“The rule of law can be wiped out in one misguided, however well-intentioned, generation.”
    William T. Gossett quotes

      “It is the law of love that rules mankind. Had violence, i.e. hate, ruled us we should have become extinct long ago. And yet, the tragedy of it is that the so-called civilized men and nations conduct themselves as if the basis of society was violence.”
 Mohandas Gandhi quotes
 
   
      “As long as I have any choice, I will stay only in a country where political liberty, toleration, and equality of all citizens before the law arethe rule.”

    Albert Einstein quotes

 

http://www.merx.com/English/NonMember.asp?WCE=Show&TAB=1&PORTAL=MERX&State=1&hcode=tAF08b5PaGBuUkl43CRDCg%3d%3d

Are you interested in doing business with the Canadian public sector?
 

MERX Canadian Public Tenders is an easy, fast and efficient prospecting tool to help your business grow. New opportunities are listed daily from all levels of government including the Federal and Provincial Governments as well as the MASH sector (Municipal, Academic, School Boards and Hospitals) from across Canada.

= = x=x == x= x= = = == = = = = = = = =

INITIAL RESOURCES:

The Members’ Conflict of Interest Act, Govt of Sask.

http://www.justice.gov.sk.ca/Members-Conflict-of-Interest-Act 

Conflict of interest Act,  Government of Canada.  Date Modified: 2008-08-06

http://ciec-ccie.gc.ca/Default.aspx?pid=12&lang=en 

http://right2info.org/information-of-high-public-interest/asset-declarations/asset-declarations#_ftn10 

[10] The Canadian Federal Courts of Appeal have clarified that the conflict of interest provisions prohibit any apparent conflict of interest.  See Threader v. Canada (Treasury Board), [1987] 1 F.C. 41, 43 (Can.).

RESOURCES: 

http://ubcm.fileprosite.com/content/pdfstorage/2492610345252005113829AM27993.pdf

Mar 312011
 

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/canada-watches-its-democracy-erode/story-e6frg6ux-1226030310248 

Ramesh Thakur   From: The Australian

QUOTE:  “As Canadians head for the polls in early May, it remains to be seen whether Liberal Party charges of the Harper government being obsessed with secrecy, control, spin and attack ads will resonate with voters. Until then, Oh Canada, we cry our hearts for thee.”

– – – – –

ON Friday, the minority Stephen Harper government fell on a confidence motion by a 156-145 vote. Speaking to the motion, Opposition Leader Michael Ignatieff attacked the government for disrespecting Canadian democracy and treating parliament with contempt.

The myth of Canada being dull is captured in the apocryphal story that in an international competition for the most boring news headline of the year, the winning entry was “Yet another worthy Canadian initiative”.

Edmund Burke noted that all that was necessary for evil to triumph was for good men to do nothing. Canadians are certainly good and worthy folks, but they suffer an excess of civil obedience, politeness and lack of civic rage that could be harnessed to combat political atrophy. At a time when Arabs risk life and limb for political freedoms, Canadians seem largely apathetic about the erosion of their democracy.

The centralisation of power in the hands of the prime minister and political staffers – with the resulting diminution of the role and status of cabinet, parliaments and parliamentarians – is common to Anglo-Saxon democracies in Australia, Britain, Canada and the US, but the extent to which constitutional conventions, parliamentary etiquette and civil institutions of good governance have been worn away in Canada is cause for concern.

Related Coverage

A minister told parliament she did not know who had altered a document that cut funding to a foreign aid group. Later, she admitted to ordering the changes, but did not know who had carried out the order. Lying to parliament, a cardinal sin of Westminster-style democracy, has become a political tactic.

Following rulings by Speaker Peter Milliken, for the first time in Canadian history, the government and a minister have been found to be in contempt of parliament for withholding information and misleading the house.

The Integrity Commissioner was so inept that she failed to uphold a single one of more than 200 whistle-blowing complaints.

Forced out of office by the ensuing public outcry, she was awarded a $C500,000 severance package on condition that neither she nor the government talk about it.

That is, a public servant paid by the taxpayer was financially gagged by yet more taxpayer money to stop taxpayers finding out what was going on.

When a foreign service officer blew the whistle on the Canadian military handing over detainees to Afghan security forces, in likely violation of international humanitarian law, the government tried to destroy him and refused to give documents to a parliamentary inquiry. The Speaker reminded the government parliament controlled cabinet, not the other way round.

After the last elections, when the opposition parties were close to agreement on a coalition majority government, rather than face the house in a vote of confidence, Harper talked the governor-general into shuttering parliament for a month until he shored up his own support.

When the time came to choose a new governor-general, Harper opted for someone who had carefully drawn up terms of an inquiry commission to exclude the potentially most damaging aspects of a scandal involving a former conservative prime minister.

Four conservatives have been charged with exceeding campaign spending limits in the 2006 election that put Harper into power. A minister used public office and material to pursue party-political goals of courting ethnic vote banks for the conservatives.

Having come into office on campaign promises of greater transparency and accountability, Harper has silenced civil servants and diplomats, cynically published guidelines on how to disrupt hostile parliamentary committees, and suppressed research that contradicts ideologically-driven policy, for example data that show crime rates to be falling.

Judges who rule against the pet causes of the government’s ideological base are not immune to attacks from cabinet ministers.

Civil society groups that criticise any government policy or ideology risk loss of funding and hostile takeovers by boards stacked with pro-government ciphers.

Little wonder Globe and Mail columnist Lawrence Martin describes the government’s “arc of duplicity” as “remarkable to behold”. What remains unclear is whether this adds up to an indictment of Canadians’ indifference to democratic rights being curtailed or of the opposition parties, which have failed to harness the silent majority’s outrage.

MORE: 

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/canada-watches-its-democracy-erode/story-e6frg6ux-1226030310248

Ramesh Thakur is professor of political science at the University of Waterloo and adjunct professor, Institute of Governance, Ethics and Law, Griffith University

Mar 302011
 

This initiative to take down the global currency markets as currently structured, because they create havoc in the lives of innocent people, is probably an historic effort in the democracy movement that is sweeping the world. 

And a bunch of people are going to jump down my neck for speaking positively about anything that involves George Soros!  He speaks of “state capitalism” and “free market capitalism”.    My uncle denounces “socialism” because his definition of socialism is the USSR prior to Gorbachev.  Sometimes words get in the way of evaluation because they mean different things to different people.    

“… Soros warns, all this (a new global market system) needs to happen because “the alternative is frightening.” The Bush-hating billionaire says America is scary “because a declining superpower losing both political and economic dominance but still preserving military supremacy is a dangerous mix.”

I have followed some of what Soros does and read a book he wrote.   People are not all good or all bad; and they evolve.   Their work can be influenced.  Joseph Stiglitz is part of this effort.  See the Comments at the bottom of the page regarding him.

George Soros is a billionaire because he understands how to make money from global currency fluctuations.  If he did not understand how that system works he would not be in a position to bring about a complete overhaul of the system.  He believes that people’s lives should not be devastated because the system allows for their currency to take a tumble while profiteers make a killing.

Read the article and then ask why you aren’t learning of this  through the mainstream media?  It is definitely significant.  Let the debate rage on!   Many thanks to journalist Dan Gainor for informing us.   

Soros,  excerpts from our earlier work:

  • 2006-04-12   Real-life experience. . . . (I re-read this.  It is lengthy but revealing.)    From letter to the University of Saskatchewan: 

  . .   I request that you re-evaluate the University’s partnerships with business.   …   The outcome is predictable:  corruption.  A list of quotes from authorities that make the connection (Galbraith, Soros, Jacobs, Ralston-Saul, Krever, Ho) appears below.  You may also find the well foot-noted article “Science under Siege” helpful – about the undermining of “science” through corporate funding of research. 

. . .  George Soros, “the best fund manager in history, a stateless statesman, and an original thinker”, turned philanthropist.  From his book, “Open Society  [Reforming Global Capitalism]”, published in 2000 by PublicAffairs. 

p. xi,  … Perhaps the greatest threat to freedom and democracy in the world today comes from the formation of unholy alliances between government and business.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – — — –

  •  2008-07-23   Letter to Dalhousie University  

…  There are alternatives to the agenda offered by Lockheed Martin.  George Soros, self-made billionaire, author of “Open Society” brings freedom fighters from different countries to the U.S. for training.  They return to their countries with support.  (INSERT:  the “Orange Revolution”.)  Gandhi brought the British Empire to its knees.  East Germans, clothed in the symbolic white tunic of Gandhi, joined hands on village greens and stood silent. They brought down an oppressive regime.

The ways of non-violent resistance require ingenuity.  Traditional warfare, in the ways of bombs and destruction, is obsolete and for good reason. It doesn’t work. 

A world moulded in the image of Lockheed Martin, war-monger and profiteer, in the interests of what is profitable in the short term, is a sell-out of the soul and of our grandchildren.

Please re-consider your decision to take money from Lockheed Martin. …

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – — — –

  •  …   They return to their countries to help overthrow oppressive regimes.  Soros works with local people “on-the-ground”.  It is about empowerment, the best weapon.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – — — –

  •  (From 6/22/2006,  not yet posted)   …   What I find really helpful: don’t take your credentialling too seriously.

George Soros “Open Society [Reforming Global Capitalism]”, PublicAffairs, New York, 2000, has established a Principle that has yet to be refuted: the principle of Fallibility. The history of our existence is one of making mistakes. “Recognition of our fallibility is the key to progress.” (p. 27).

We are allowing the perpetuation of a BIG mistake: killing each other with chemicals.”   

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – — — –

  •   (from 6/2/2006, not yet posted).   .. is Risk Management an appropriate model for HEALTH care ( as opposed to MEDI care).  From Soros. Page 47, “The behaviour of people – exactly because it is not governed by reality – is easily influenced by theories.  In the field of natural phenomenon, scientific method is effective only when theories are valid;  but in social, political, and economic matters, theories can be effective without being valid. …” 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – — — –

  •  I believe we circulated an email with some information on Soros’ proposal for a new international currency system that eliminates the profiteering opportunities and protects the citizens of a nation.   I can’t find it.  You can imagine the Wall Street forces that will unite to ensure a new system does not happen.   I think we need to carefully evaluate the situation to ensure that we don’t help kill something that might have potential.  I do not want to end up supporting the efforts of Wall Street!
  • 

Now, on to the latest news regarding George Soros.   He will have assembled key players, people who he thinks will be helpful at the table, if the overhaul is to have a chance.

Unreported Soros Event Aims to Remake Entire Global Economy

Left-wing billionaire’s own experts dominate quiet push for ‘a grand bargain that rearranges the entire financial order.’   By Dan Gainor

Wednesday, March 23, 2011 4:48 PM EDT

Two years ago, George Soros said he wanted to reorganize the entire global economic system. In two short weeks, he is going to start – and no one seems to have noticed.

On April 8, a group he’s funded with $50 million is holding a major economic conference and Soros’s goal for such an event is to “establish new international rules” and “reform the currency system.” It’s all according to a plan laid out in a Nov. 4, 2009, Soros op-ed calling for “a grand bargain that rearranges the entire financial order.”

The event is bringing together “more than 200 academic, business and government policy thought leaders’ to repeat the famed 1944 Bretton Woods gathering that helped create the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. Soros wants a new ‘multilateral system,” or an economic system where America isn’t so dominant.

More than two-thirds of the slated speakers have direct ties to Soros. The billionaire who thinks “the main enemy of the open society, I believe, is no longer the communist but the capitalist threat” is taking no chances.

Thus far, this global gathering has generated less publicity than a spelling bee. And that’s with at least four journalists on the speakers list, including a managing editor for the Financial Times and editors for both Reuters and The Times. Given Soros’s warnings of what might happen without an agreement, this should be a big deal. But it’s not.

What is a big deal is that Soros is doing exactly what he wanted to do. His 2009 commentary pushed for “a new Bretton Woods conference, like the one that established the post-WWII international financial architecture.” And he had already set the wheels in motion.

Just a week before that op-ed was published, Soros had founded the New York City-based Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET), the group hosting the conference set at the Mount Washington Resort, the very same hotel that hosted the first gathering. The most recent INET conference was held at Central European University, in Budapest. CEU received $206 million from Soros in 2005 and has $880 million in its endowment now, according to The Chronicle of Higher Education.

This, too, is a gathering of Soros supporters. INET is bringing together prominent people like former U.K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown, former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker and Soros, to produce “a lot of high-quality, breakthrough thinking.”

While INET claims more than 200 will attend, only 79 speakers are listed on its site – and it already looks like a Soros convention. Twenty-two are on Soros-funded INET’s board and three more are INET grantees. Nineteen are listed as contributors for another Soros operation – Project Syndicate, which calls itself “the world’s pre-eminent source of original op-ed commentaries” reaching “456 leading newspapers in 150 countries.” It’s financed by Soros’s Open Society Institute. That’s just the beginning.

The speakers include:

• Volcker is chairman of President Obama’s Economic Advisory Board. He wrote the forward for Soros’s best-known book, ‘The Alchemy of Finance’ and praised Soros as “an enormously successful speculator” who wrote “with insight and passion” about the problems of globalization.

• Economist Jeffrey Sachs, director of The Earth Institute and longtime recipient of Soros charity cash. Sachs received $50 million from Soros for the U.N. Millennium Project, which he also directs. Sachs is world-renown for his liberal economics. In 2009, for example, he complained about low U.S. taxes, saying the “U.S. will have to raise taxes in order to pay for new spending initiatives, especially in the areas of sustainable energy, climate change, education, and relief for the poor.”

• Soros friend Joseph E. Stiglitz, a former senior vice president and chief economist for the World Bank and Nobel Prize winner in Economics. Stiglitz shares similar views to Soros and has criticized free-market economists whom he calls “free market fundamentalists.” Naturally, he’s on the INET board and is a contributor to Project Syndicate.

• INET Executive Director Rob Johnson, a former managing director at Soros Fund Management, who is on the Board of Directors for the Soros-funded Economic Policy Institute. Johnson has complained that government intervention in the fiscal crisis hasn’t been enough and wanted “restructuring,” including asking “for letters of resignation from the top executives of all the major banks.”

Have no doubt about it: This is a Soros event from top to bottom. Even Soros admits his ties to INET are a problem, saying, “there is a conflict there which I fully recognize.” He claims he stays out of operations. That’s impossible. The whole event is his operation.

INET isn’t subtle about its aims for the conference. Johnson interviewed fellow INET board member Robert Skidelsky about “The Need for a New Bretton Woods” in a recent video. The introductory slide to the video is subtitled: “How currency issues and tension between the US and China are renewing calls for a global financial overhaul.” Skidelsky called for a new agreement and said in the video that the conflict between the United States and China was “at the center of any monetary deal that may be struck, that needs to be struck.”

Soros described in the 2009 op-ed that U.S.-China conflict as “another stark choice between two fundamentally different forms of organization: international capitalism and state capitalism.” He concluded that “a new multilateral system based on sounder principles must be invented.” As he explained it in 2010, “we need a global sheriff.”

In the 2000 version of his book “Open Society: Reforming Global Capitalism,” Soros wrote how the Bretton Woods institutions “failed spectacularly” during the economic crisis of the late 1990s. When he called for a new Bretton Woods in 2009, he wanted it to “reconstitute the International Monetary Fund,” and while he’s at it, restructure the United Nations, too, boosting China and other countries at our expense.

“Reorganizing the world order will need to extend beyond the financial system and involve the United Nations, especially membership of the Security Council,’ he wrote. ‘That process needs to be initiated by the US, but China and other developing countries ought to participate as equals.”

Soros emphasized that point, that this needs to be a global solution, making America one among many. “The rising powers must be present at the creation of this new system in order to ensure that they will be active supporters.”

And that’s exactly the kind of event INET is delivering, with the event website emphasizing “today’s reconstruction must engage the larger European Union, as well as the emerging economies of Eastern Europe, Latin America, and Asia.” China figures prominently, including a senior economist for the World Bank in Beijing, the director of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, the chief adviser for the China Banking Regulatory Commission and the Director of the Center on U.S.-China Relations.

This is all easy to do when you have the reach of George Soros who funds more than 1,200 organizations. Except, any one of those 1,200 would shout such an event from the highest mountain. Groups like MoveOn.org or the Center for American Progress didn’t make their names being quiet. The same holds true globally, where Soros has given more than $7 billion to Open Society Foundations – including many media-savvy organizations just a phone call away. Why hasn’t the Soros network spread the word?

Especially since Soros warns, all this needs to happen because “the alternative is frightening.” The Bush-hating billionaire says America is scary “because a declining superpower losing both political and economic dominance but still preserving military supremacy is a dangerous mix.”

The Soros empire is silent about this new Bretton Woods conference because it isn’t just designed to change global economic rules. It also is designed to put America in its place – part of a multilateral world the way Soros wants it. He wrote that the U.S. “could lead a cooperative effort to involve both the developed and the developing world, thereby reestablishing American leadership in an acceptable form.”

That’s what this conference is all about – changing the global economy and the United States to make them “acceptable” to George Soros.

– Iris Somberg contributed to this commentary

Dan Gainor is the Boone Pickens Fellow and the Media Research Center’s Vice President for Business and Culture. His column appears each week on The Fox Forum. He can also be contacted on FaceBook and Twitter as dangainor.

Mar 302011
 

I can’t believe we have to fight this battle all over again.  It’s feudal – the lords of the manor don’t want women in.

… okay  …  let’s ramp it up and give ‘em hell.  Nellie McClung (Elizabeth May) – – lead the charge!   

 
The Old Boys’ Club is at it again. Elizabeth May has been denied entry into the televised leaders’ debates.

Instead of speaking up to defend true democracy, other party leaders seem relieved—perhaps due to the glowing reviews Elizabeth received after her first appearance in the 2008 debates.

What kind of democracy excludes a party with the support of one million of its citizens?

What kind of democracy allows a handful of TV executives to decide that a party that only runs candidates in one province has more right to be in a national leaders’ debate than a party with candidates in every riding?

In the last election, your voices won Elizabeth her rightful place in the debates. We can’t believe that we have to ask you to rally on her behalf yet again. But we do.

Here’s what you can do:

With your help, Elizabeth will show Canadians why Greens belong in the House of Commons. And why there’s no debate that she belongs in the debates.

Thank you for taking part in our fight for true democracy in Canada.

Mar 292011
 

You may want to forward this to people you know in Saanich-Gulf Islands.  Map:   http://www.elections.ca/res/cir/maps/images/atlas/59024.gif  

http://www.vancouversun.com/opinion/hope+wins/4519223/story.html 

Are we going to put Gary Lunn back into office by splitting the  left again ? Let’s put a bit of spark back in politics.

 

Let’s hope May wins

 

she would ring new ideas to a tired game; If the leader of the Green party wins a seat in Parliament, we might get debate that matters

BY STEPHEN HUME, VANCOUVER SUN MARCH 29, 2011

 Let’s hope that Saanich-Gulf Islands voters rock the boat while they have the chance and put Elizabeth May of the Green party into parliament.

She’s feisty, she’s female, she’s fearless, and she’s a fresh voice. May and the Greens actually hold some promise of shaking up the dismal status quo in Ottawa that’s produced four elections in eight years, four minority governments, and political leaders who seem bereft of, well, leadership qualities.

Stephen Harper drones on robotically with his big-lie talking point for this campaign -the Liberal-NDP-Bloc Quebecois coalition conspiracy is plotting a coup unless he’s crowned with a majority.

Michael Ignatieff delivers dry-as-a-stick history lessons -Harper was once hot for a Conservative-NDP-Bloc Quebecois coalition, if only it could have made him king for a day.

Jack Layton flogs the Harmonized Sales Tax in hope of beating a few more British Columbia votes out of that dying horse.

Gilles Duceppe moans about the raw deal Quebec gets from Canada despite billions in equalization transfers. He demands more, of course, then he’ll flounce out of Confederation.

Good Lord, 30 more days on the thin gruel of leftovers and same old, same old?

May has been criticized for running against powerful Conservative defence minister Peter MacKay in 2008. But isn’t that what good leaders do -take on the tough fights? Under May’s leadership, the Green party earned a million votes across Canada.

Now she’s challenging Conservative Gary Lunn in Saanich-Gulf Islands. Lunn’s been a political non-entity during his decade in Ottawa. He had his 15 minutes of fame as minister of natural resources -he sacked the head of the Nuclear Safety Commission in a tiff over certifying a reactor. He was shuffled off to minister of state for sport, whatever that entails besides piling up pension points.

Oh, I know, this invites the inevitable fusillade from partisans that their leaders deserve the throne, it’s the others who should be deposed. Sorry. I hear plenty of bankrupt ideologies but few stirring new ideas emanating from the House of Commons. The ideas oozing from this already mean-spirited campaign seem drearier than ever.

Look, can we please have a public debate among our leaders that actually touches upon things that are important to voters and not just the re-election strategies devised by pollobsessed policy wonks?

What’s Canada’s strategic long-term energy policy, for example? Are we going to tie ourselves to synthetic crude produced from Alberta’s oilsands and hope for a naturalgas bonanza from the Arctic, which, by the way, we’re already committed to share with wasteful Americans?

Or, as May proposes, are we finally going to get real about implementing sustainable green supplements to the energy supply so that we don’t have to burn through Alberta’s petroleum reserves like there is no tomorrow, put up with nuclear disasters, or pay through the nose for our own natural gas at prices set by American profligates?

Can we talk about the economic impact of green jobs – a recent U.S. study found that simply upgrading buildings to environmental standards generated $173 billion in GDP, supported more than 2.4 million jobs and paid $123 billion in wages. It forecasts $554 billion in GDP, 7.9 million jobs and $396 billion in wages by 2013.

As that train pulls out, do we want to be standing in the station listening to the same tired old ideologically driven ideas?

This election is probably costing $10 million US a day. We’ve spent more than a billion on federal elections since 2004. For what? This level of debate? We need new ideas. Give May the platform she wants and that we deserve.

shume@islandnet.com