Democracy in Canada and Other Lies

What is democracy? Taken directly from the Parliament of Canada's website (with the subtitle Democracy in Action!), it is described as:

"Canada’s Parliament, as conceived by the Fathers of Confederation in 1867, continues to be a vibrant example of democracy in action. In Parliament, our representatives examine the top issues of the day, decide on policies and laws, and hold the government accountable for its actions."

How does this happen, exactly?

"The House of Commons has 308 members, who are elected to represent the people in their ridings. Our Constitution states that a Parliament cannot last longer than five years, after which a general election must be held."

Wait. What was that? "ELECTED TO REPRESENT THE PEOPLE IN THEIR RIDINGS". Interesting.

What exactly is an election, then? (From The Free Dictionary online):

election [ɪˈlɛkʃən]
n
1. (Law / Parliamentary Procedure) the selection by vote of a person or persons from among candidates for a position, esp a political office
2. a public vote on an official proposition
3. the act or an instance of choosing
4. (Christianity / Protestantism) Christianity
a. the doctrine of Calvin that God chooses certain individuals for salvation without reference to their faith or works
b. the doctrine of Arminius and others that God chooses for salvation those who, by grace, persevere in faith and works

Wait. What was that? "THE SELECTION BY VOTE...A PUBLIC VOTE....THE ACT OR INSTANCE OF CHOOSING". Even more interesting.

So, if you believe in democracy, it follows that you believe in an honest, fair, and transparent electoral process. You believe that the Members of Parliament are elected by the people of Canada to represent Canadians and that they have the best interests of Canadians in mind. You believe that there are mechanisms in place to prevent your own government from committing criminal acts. You believe that in the even that said acts occur, there will be some accountability. You believe that through this process of accountability, the people have the right to democracy.


I bet these same people also believe in Santa Claus too. Come to think if it, a factitious character who knows everything about everyone probably IS a Conservative MP. On that premise, Santa Claus is more likely to be real than democracy. The most disturbing aspect of this for me is that no matter what happens, no matter how criminal, how intrusive, how greedy, how incompetent, and how untruthful this government is, they manage to have a loyal following. Doesn't that seem strange to anyone else? Seems to me that this type of government is more like this (from Encyclopedia Britannica online):

Dictatorship: form of government in which one person or a small group possesses absolute power without effective constitutional limitations. Now, that's plausible.

"It's an isolated incident".

Sure. "Let's be perfectly clear. Nothing could be farther from the truth".

An Onion Ring? Or a political statement?

A group recently popped up on facebook. No-one knows where it came from, and reading the comments the joke is that it was an immaculate conception. Can this Onion Ring get more fans than Stephen Harper? The answer, overwhelmingly, is yes. It can.

At the time I am writing this there are 108,166 fans and it is growing by the minute. It took 5 days to reach that incredible number. This page isn't just fun. And it is fun. Why, even "Stephen Harper" himself has joined. Complete with his sweater vest, lego hair and kitten. Just go read the comments for a while. It is a huge political statement if I have ever seen one.

I recently blogged about the Canadian Against Proroguing Parliament group(CAPP).
I watched as the CAPP group was dismissed as "a little facebook group", "elites", "the chattering classes". Now the Onion Group is being dismissed as silly. I wouldn't be too quick to do that. The big difference between the Onion Ring group and the CAPP group is that majority of the CAPP group is already engaged, they are older, and they vote. Oh, the CAPP group has been a major game changer. Yes, they have been a game changer. They have raised awareness of an issue that would otherwise have not even have been on the radar of most unsuspecting Canadians - a tactic that the Conservative government counts on. But this Onion Ring group could work hand in hand. This could also be a real game changer. Imagine how this could raise awareness for young voters.

If the Onion Ring group was silly, the neo-cons wouldn't be taking it so seriously. They wouldn't be there trying to disrupt the flow. And I've seen that. Trying to spread false information. In my opinion, something has to be a threat or they wouldn't be wasting their time on this. Which brings me to another point. One of my all time favorite rants that sums up how I feel about the current state of Canadian politics is told by Canada's funny man, Rick Mercer. Yes, news has become entertainment and entertainment has become news. In a minute and and a half Rick tells us that Canadians aren't aware of what goes on in their country, they don't care, the government tries to make it worse by misleading the public and that we have a right and duty to be engaged. That's a lot of information to pack into a minute and a half, but oh so critical.

So, on that note, how do we engage? When will we start to:
1)be aware of how our government operates?
2)care how our government operates?
3)be aware that they are misleading us?
4)care enough to actually take the time to try and change it?

It's simple folks. Next election exercise your right and duty and vote. It's simple really. Find out about your candidates and you mark and X on a ballot. It can change not only the future of your country, but your future and the future of your children and their children. Think of the rights that have been won by those before us. Many people have died fighting for our rights and freedoms. All you have to do is vote.

Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament - From Facebook to filling the streets to filling the ballot box

"What's that?" she asked.

"Well", I replied, "It's a group that I have been following with keen interest, and I think others should too."

"Okay. I'll join. But I don't know anything about politics and don't ask me to do anything."

And so the story goes. Exactly what our politicians count on to continue to run this country. Ignorance and apathy. When the Dominion Institute conducted their poll in 2008 and discovered that approximately half of our population had no idea how our parliament worked, that in itself was a crisis. When our government tried to make it worse by deliberately misleading the Canadian public, that should have been criminal.

For a group that was dismissed as elites and the chattering masses, it seems to be having quite an impact. The right wing pundits try to discredit the rallies, stating it means nothing. Really? When is the last time that many Canadians took to the streets to express their displeasure at the government over anything? In the middle of winter? Oh, I think you would be wise not to dismiss these rallies, Mr. Harper. Don't look now, but the chattering elites are revolting.

I think for most, prorogation isn't the issue. We've heard all the stale right wing talking points. It's the abuse of power. And in this case, it is the straw that broke the camels back. It's not just the chattering elites that are upset. Oh no. It's the "no good bastards" unemployed and the "left wing fringers" women and the list goes on. People know how the Harper government feels about Canadians, and this is just a slap in the face of democracy.

So now, I ask you. Where does this group go? The rallies were great. The flash rallies are great. The 31 days of action are great. Keep the pressure on. But my big concern is getting people who aren't currently engaged in the political process educated and involved. What we want to see is a change in government. We don't want to see "business as usual" when the House resumes on March 3. We don't want to forget that we were slapped in the face. To do that, we need to get people engaged and active. Ignorance and apathy is what they count on. They are the Harper government's secret weapons. What can CAPP do to change that?

I know there are people who are doing a great job of educating and engaging. The challenge should be - get out the vote. It's important to do what CAPP is doing, but it can't end there. The important work will be done during the next election. People who don't traditionally vote need to be educated on the issues. Do the unemployed know that their own government thinks that they are "no good bastards"? Are students aware how their government works and how the decisions made impact them? Maybe if they were engaged, some wouldn't end up with $50,000 student loans when they were finished their degree. These are issues that affect people who should be voting. Why don't they? This is something we need to ask well beyond the scope of the prorogation issue and remind ourselves that our government wants to keep people uninformed.

As part of your 31 days of action, who will you talk to about voting in the next election?

John Stossel: Right wing media puppet for anti-health reform

Here are 3 videos of interest regarding John Stossel who recently left ABC's 20/20 for Fox. Seems like a much more suitable place for him. We all know Fox is "Fair and Balanced." Just like Stossel claims to be. Right....


In this video, Stossel asserts that Canada's Health Care system is inferior to the American system and uses exaggerated wait times, false statistics, biased witnesses, and... Okay. Let's call a spade a spade. It's a bunch of outright lies and bullshit.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXJgkvF19QA

In this one he claims that it is better if people pay because there is less waste. Oh. He forgets to mention that the $20 flu shot you can buy at Walmart may not be quite as affordable for some as for others.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WnS96NVlMI

Dr. David Gratzer who appeared as an "expert witness" in the first video (20/20) and lied his face off, is taken apart in this one by Dennis Kucinich. Watch the little slime ball squirm. This one is great!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DII7v8yeRjs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMynI9Yg6jY

Are we "free thinkers" or are our minds being controlled as implied in this video? Perhaps we should think again if we think again we are in control of anything. Since birth, we are all under the manipulation of mass consciousness and most of us are well versed in the do's and dont's of culture without ever realizing that we are being controlled or conditioned. Those who don't go along with the agendas or the herd instincts are pressured and harassed into conforming. We buy into the propaganda on many levels without ever realizing it. Through social engineering our consciousness is molded along the "correct" lines, and we persist in amassing all the products that constantly bombard us in the all pervasive advertising campaigns that surround us. We are unknowingly surrounded and engulfed by consumerism and this becomes our fake reality.

Bill O'Reilly on Health Care Reform

http://www.foxnews.com/oreilly/

Fox News - "The only network that brings you fair, balanced and accurate reporting so you can make a choice." Indeed. My ass.

Right Wing Rag aka Fraser Institute?

SGEU warning on privatization lacks credibility

The StarPhoenix

February 26, 2009 3:06 AM

It's in trying to cloak its pure self-interest in sanctimonious claptrap about public safety and crime fighting that the Saskatchewan Government and General Employees' Union undermines its cause and invites derision.

The television and print advertising campaign SGEU recently began to sound the alarm against the privatization of government-run liquor stores in Saskatchewan uses scary-sounding statistics and emotional language that, upon a closer look, is manipulative at best and cynically deceptive in the extreme.

Seemingly elevating to the status of near-angels and guardians of public morality its 900 members employed at Saskatchewan Liquor Board outlets in 64 communities, the SGEU ads suggest privatizing liquor sales would translate into every evil from an increase in crime rates and social problems to profit-driven private vendors selling to underage youth.

SGEU workers at liquor stores may well be trained to deal with minors and intoxicated individuals, but that doesn't make them morally superior to private business owners whose livelihood depends on abiding by the law if they are allowed to sell liquor. As the union very well knows, there are many private vendors acting as agents of the SLB in small towns across Saskatchewan who take their responsibilities seriously and are just as diligent in checking the ID of young people and refusing to sell to drunks.

SGEU notes that the number of liquor stores in Calgary "increased by a staggering 620 per cent" by 2002 since Alberta privatized liquor vending in 1993, and that Edmonton police reported a 164-per-cent increase in alcohol-related charges between 1993 and 1999.

What it doesn't say is that the growth in the number of liquor outlets may well have been a rational market response to serve a city that may have been grossly underserved by the public sector stores and whose rapid growth in a working-age demographic over that period necessitated additional stores.

And it's possible, too, that Edmonton police began to crack down harder on alcohol-related charges and the boom in Fort McMurray translated into more young people with more cash in their pockets spending more of their free time partying at bars in the city. Without context, it's silly to blame any of that on Alberta's move to privatize its liquor stores.

This SGEU messaging is part of an ongoing union anti-privatization campaign that bespeaks of problems that have befallen Canadians, from toll-highways in New Brunswick and Ontario to the selloff of public assets in Saskatchewan in the Devine era to the Walkerton water tragedy and the listeriosis outbreak, after governments turned over to the private sector jobs formerly done by public sector workers.

Although Premier Brad Wall's Saskatchewan Party government ill-advisedly has adopted a hands-off policy on privatizing any Crown agencies including its liquor stores, the SGEU ads seem to be a shot across the bow of the government over its recent decision to allow the opening of two private wine stores that will sell specialty products not currently sold at SLB stores.

It may be the case, that as the SGEU says, public liquor stores create well-paying jobs for its members and that the wages of liquor store employees in Alberta were reduced in half since privatization. But ultimately the liquor stores ostensibly are run to serve the needs of the public, not primarily of those who work at them.

Those lower wages earned by those who work for the private vendors in Alberta translate into cheaper prices on the shelves -- a concept that many SGEU members who shop at the Wal-Marts and Superstores well understand as they go about their daily lives.

However, what's most egregious is SGEU's attempt to mislead the public on the $173.6 million in profits that accrued to the government from liquor sales. The suggestion is that privatizing the liquor stores would deprive the government of revenues that now go to fund public services such as schools and hospitals, ignoring the fact that private companies do pay taxes and that the government, which would still act as the liquor wholesaler, would continue to take its cut.

Only those who equate their self-interest with the general public's would dare to accuse their entrepreneurial neighbours of moral decrepitude and criminality that'll see minors given ready access to booze, neighbourhood safety threatened and the public treasury plundered.

It's enough to make one wonder if copious quantities of shelf products aren't being sampled when SGEU poobahs sit down to write up their ad campaigns.

"But ultimately the liquor stores ostensibly are run to serve the needs of the public, not primarily of those who work at them....Those lower wages earned by those who work for the private vendors in Alberta translate into cheaper prices on the shelves -- a concept that many SGEU members who shop at the Wal-Marts and Superstores well understand as they go about their daily lives."

Sure they do. While we're at it, let's cut all good paying jobs, knock everyone to minimum wage, let a few people in the country control all the wealth so that we can all shop at Walmart and Superstore and be subsidized by welfare. When we all end up in jail because we resort to crime to subsidize our income, we won't have to worry about booze sales because it's a controlled substance in the slammer.

Brilliant article brainiac. You sure you haven't been slipping across the border to sample copious amounts of cheap shelf wares when writing your columns?

Rush Limbaugh - again (still?)

Media Matters for America

Limbaugh misquoted Obama on home values, used it as evidence of Obama "talking down the economy"

Summary: Rush Limbaugh falsely stated that President Obama said "that we all must learn to live within our means and not expect the values of our homes to go up 10, 20 percent over our lifetimes ever again," later adding, "This is what I mean by him talking down the economy." In fact, Obama said that we should "not assume that housing prices are going to go up 20, 30, 40 percent every year" [emphasis added].

During the February 19 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh falsely stated that President Obama said "that we all must learn to live within our means and not expect the values of our homes to go up 10, 20 percent over our lifetimes ever again." Limbaugh also stated: "This is what I mean by him talking down the economy. Don't think of your house as going up in value anytime soon." However, Obama actually said during a February 18 speech in Mesa, Arizona, that we should "not assume that housing prices are going to go up 20, 30, 40 percent every year" [emphasis added], not "over our lifetimes" as Limbaugh asserted.

From the February 19 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: Obama said that we all must learn to live within our means and not expect the values of our homes to go up 10, 20 percent over our lifetimes ever again.

Jane here with a great question: then why the hell buy one? Well, the answer is you need shelter, and a home is the American dream. Yeah, but it's also the -- for most people -- their number one asset as they establish equity in it.

This is what I mean by him talking down the economy. Don't think of your house as going up in value anytime soon. Don't -- we've got -- you've got to get realistic here. The days of prosperity are over. Can I translate it for you? The days of prosperity are over, quote, the president of the United States, unquote.

What? Well, of course I say screw that, but not everybody can. Not everybody is in the position to say "screw that, I'm going to be prosperous." Some people are not self-starters. Some people need others to start businesses so they can go apply for jobs there. Fact of life. It's a reality. And we're targeting the people who start jobs. We're targeting the people who start businesses.

Et Tu CBC?

I'm back.

I was talking to a friend of mine on the weekend, and am compelled to relate this disturbing story. We tend to think of CBC, the publicly funded broadcast subsidized with our tax dollars, who we tend to think of the most fair broadcasting. Perhaps not, folks.

Last summer he was listening to a broadcast on CBC Radio about the Summer Snack Program sponsored by the Saskatoon and District Labour Council. Yes, that's right; funded 100% by donations, primarily by union members. Well, the CBC story related how these summer students were providing food to inner city residents, mostly children, a wonderful program and how they had seen an increase in the need for the program particularly for adults. They had praise for the program, for the work of the students and for the summer job opportunities provided for them. Just a great program all around, right? Right.

A little detail omitted from the story? Where did the funding come from? Oh, no mention of that. Hmmm.

My friend called CBC to speak to them about this. He was fully aware of the program, having been a CUPE member for many years, and commented that the summer snack program sounded like a wonderful program. He had just one question. Where did the funding come from?
They responded that it was funded by the Saskatoon and District Labour Council. He asked why that hadn't been mentioned in the story. Their response? They had "time contraints". My friend went on to ask why it was that they could go on and on about other things even going on to promote companies and products but when it comes to supporting unions and labour they couldn't mention the good things that unions do. He mentioned all the things that labour does in Saskatoon including the United Way Partnership, the Summer Snack program, the Labour Day Barbecue, The Day of Mourning among others. They backed down immediately and of course, passed the buck. The response was "Talk to my manager in Regina." Sure. I'll get right on that. And hear more Anti-Union rhetoric.

Do the CBC workers remember the wages and benefits they enjoy because they belong to a union? What are you afraid of? Losing your right to strike? Perhaps you are losing that anyways. After all, it is an essential service to promote companies and products in these difficult economic times under a government that hates unions.

Et tu, CBC?

Give Labour a Voice

We currently have a right wing government in Saskatchewan that has launched an all out attack on labour. I have become increasingly disgusted and appalled at the right wing hate machine - the media and their display of biased reporting of events. When does the media in this province stick to the facts of a story? When do they allow a balanced approach? The voice of labour is rarely, if ever, heard. Any stories that are published are published in a negative light.

As we all know, positive stories are rare in today's media. We hear stories of how wonderful it is when corporations make large donations to community organizations (great free advertising and a tax write off to boot - no one ever said they were stupid), yet is there ever a story about the working class men and women who keep this country and these corporations running? All the unsung heroes? Without the efforts of those that labour to make these companies and their owners, and the CEOs wealthy, these companies wouldn't be in a position to donate. And yet any efforts made by organized labour to retain what these workers have fought (and some have died for) is criticized at every turn. I would like to see these big corporations be such wonderful, community minded "people" without their workers. The workers that they see no problem exploiting. And now having a government that backs them in the exploitation and the the media to ensure the government that they are doing the right thing by exploiting the workers that are making them rich!! It has all come together and works like a well oiled machine. You know, a general strike might not be a bad idea, after all.

If you really think this through, you might agree that treating employees well is a good thing. How many times have I heard the same old BS line, "Good employees don't need unions". You know what? You are absolutely right. Good employees DON'T need unions. Bad employers do. For surely, if you are a bad employer, your company will fail because you won't have anyone left to exploit. After all, there IS a labour shortage.

Back to the bias. When someone disagrees with someone, say, oh hosting a hate radio show, such as, let's use Gormley as an example, it is unlikely that he will take your call, or post your comments on his blog, because he runs the risk of exposing the facts.

And then of course, there's the sensationalizing of everything. We want peace and love not war, but where the heck is the news story in that?

Bigotry? No explanation needed - just listen to Rush Limbaugh, John Gormley or Bill O'Reilly.

So, in the media is, in effect, a hateful tool for censorship, that feeds Joe public with one sided views encouraging corporate greed, war, bigotry, raping the earth of it's resources, and "the old boy's club".


Enough of my rant.

I am a true blue rebel. When I die, don't waste any time mourning. Organize.

Shalom brothers and sisters.

In solidarity,


Politically Incorrect

Hate Radio: Bill Moyer Special

Al Franken: Where does Rush Limbaugh get his statistics?

Deconstructing Hate Sites

Bigotry and hatred thrive on ignorance, fear, false information and half-truths. But if readers are able to deconstruct any messages of hate that come their way, much of the messages’ power is reduced. This makes critical thinking skills an indispensable part of an anti-hate tool kit.

Common Characteristics

Journalist Keith Ferrell notes that, in their efforts to draw readers' support, most hate sites:

1. Capitalize on Paranoia

Conspiracy theories abound on hate sites, which often blame the groups they target for any number of social, economic or political problems. Such theories rely on their readers’ ignorance, plus invented "evidence," to back up their claims.

One of the most infamous conspiracy theories is contained in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The book was written by agents of the Russian czar at the end of the 19th century, and falsely “documents” the existence of a Jewish conspiracy to take over the world. Although such a theory has been thoroughly debunked, hate-mongers continue to invoke the Protocols.

2. Suggest Sanction from Above

Hate sites often make use of scriptural references, religious writings and holy tracts to give the impression that their claims are sanctified by moral righteousness and guided by a higher power.

For example, the site God Hates Fags portrays gays and lesbians in a hateful and demeaning way. Embedded in its homophobic rhetoric are scriptural references to support the position that God has "given up" on gay persons.

3. Exploit Fear of Armageddon

Hate groups take advantage of people’s fears of social and economic uncertainty by blaming the woes of modern society on the particular group they target. Canadian sites like National Skinhead Front, CFAR and the Canadian Heritage Alliance focus on the “dangers” of immigration and the need to return to a “traditional European way of life.”

Common Strategies

1. Racialism

White power and white supremacy sites typically deny that they are racist organizations. Instead, they focus on the need to protect white people from assimilation and/or direct threats from non-white groups. They call this perspective "racialist" as opposed to racist.

The 14/88 Society is a good example of this dynamic. The site’s name combines two hate slogans popular in the white supremacy movement:

• 14 refers to the 14-word slogan: “We must secure the existence of our race and a future for white children”
  
• 88 represents HH (H being the eighth number in the alphabet), which stands for Heil Hitler

Overtly racist sites, like 14/88, are the easiest to identify because they conform to the mainstream image of the neo-Nazi skinhead hate group. However, Canadian researcher Matthew Lauder warns that many hate sites attempt to conceal a racist agenda behind a more moderate message.

For example, Melissa Guille of the Canadian Heritage Alliance (CHA) denies the CHA is a hate site, arguing instead that the site is concerned about “keeping Canada for Canadians” and “removing the anti-white sentiment in society.”

Racist messages are also used by non-white hate groups, such as Aztlan, a site dedicated to the establishment of a greater Hispanic empire in North America, and Libre Opinion, a Spanish-language ISP providing free hosting services to racist sites.

2. Pseudo-Science and Intellectualism

Many hate-mongers use pseudo-scientific intellectualized language and incorporate the work of university-based academics to make their views seem more credible.

Canadian professor Phillip Rushton’s work on the different intellectual and physical abilities of different “races” is a case in point. In addition, the late Dr. William Pierce operated a publishing company that released a steady stream of neo-Nazi literature. Pierce’s fictionalized account of racialist revolution in The Turner Diaries is said to have inspired the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995.

3. Historical Revisionsim

Holocaust denial is a frequently used strategy. Haters who “revise” history argue that the Holocaust either did not occur, or was less significant than the historical record indicates. The Zundelsite, for example, houses a collection of revisionist writings, including Zundel’s pamphlet Did Six Million Really Die?

4. Patriotism

A number of hate sites clothe their messages in patriotic language. For example, the High Desert Militia of Southern California includes quotes from Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin on their home page, beside the “Patriot’s Prayer” (see right).

5. Misinformation

A number of hate groups seek to embed their messages in sites that purport to exist for non-hateful purposes.

At first glance, the site martinlutherking.org appears to contain historical information about King and the civil rights movement; however, it in fact promotes racism and anti-Semitism. Similarly, the Canadian Association for Free Expression purports to advocate for civil liberties, but its founder, Paul Fromm, admits that the site was created to promote “conservative discussion especially of race and immigration.”

6. Nationalism

Sites such as the U.S.-based League of the South and the Canadian Heritage Alliance use the language of national pride and heritage to advocate for a return to white, “anglo-Celtic civilization.”

7. Hate Symbols

The hate movement continues to use well-known symbols such as the Nazi swastika and the KKK's burning cross to "brand" its message. However, it is increasingly common for hate groups to co-opt mainstream symbols such as the Celtic cross and pagan runes, re-signifying them as emblems of white supremacy.

The Anti-Defamation League argues that hate symbols are more than mere signs: “These symbols are meant to inspire a sense of fear and insecurity. [They] give haters a sense of power and belonging, and a quick way of identifying with others who share their ideology.”

Challenging Hate Radio: A guide for Activists

Challenging Hate Radio: A Guide for Activists

1. Force yourself to listen to it. We know it's tough, but someone's got to do it.

2. Document it. Sometimes only a talkshow host's loyal following hears the most outrageous thing that he says. You need to be able to document exactly what was said (and when it was said). Record the show, and be sure to label and date your tapes.

3. Keep track of the worst statements. Transcribe the most offensive comments [if possible]. Transcripts are easier and cheaper to distribute than audio tapes. Having a one-page list of quotes educates people and motivates them to action quickly. A "worst of" tape can also be very valuable.

4. Inform others who will take action. If you have a group of people interested, setting up an email list, or a quick response phone or fax tree, is a good idea.

5. Call in to the show. Call the on-air line during the show and try to challenge the racism, sexism or homophobia calmly and directly. It often doesn't take much to demonstrate the absurdity of bigoted arguments. If several people call in, it can change the entire show.

6. Write letters to station managers or owners. If the host doesn't respond to criticism, those who run the station need to know how offensive the program is. If you are part of a group or coalition, you might want to request a meeting as well.

7. Notify other outlets. Newspapers, non-commercial radio stations or other media might be interested in stories about talk radio. Send a press release including a few of the worst quotes and the dates they aired. Be prepared to offer a tape for documentation.

8. Build a coalition. Contact organizations that have a particular interest in challenging hate speech—like civil rights, religious, feminist and gay rights groups—and have organizational resources devoted to the issue.

9. Organize a demonstration. If you have an active coalition, a demonstration can draw attention to the problem and put pressure on the station at the same time. Large signs or placards and a one-page flyer with some of the worst on-air statements by the host and your coalition's demands will educate passersby.

10. Keep the pressure on. Even if the station doesn't balance the hate-jock, or allow an on-air discussion of hate speech, just publicizing bigoted statements changes the terms of debate. Hate flourishes when other views are not heard. By challenging it as often as possible, you diminish the ignorance that is necessary to racism, sexism and homophobia.

---

For more information, read FAIR's Bob Grant Success (Extra!Update, 6/96).

---

---

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

---

Right wing media encourages average citizens to hate

Published on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 by the Capital Times (Madison, Wisconsin)

Flatulent Right Wing Fills Radio with Hate

by Bill Berry

The man who does my parents' taxes in Green Bay seemed nice enough. He shook our hands and greeted us with small talk as we sat down to go over papers. But the acrid sounds coming from a stereo tuner near his ancient desk filled the office like dirty smoke. It was right-wing radio, an angry white man on his afternoon shift. I was amazed that this accountant was taking my parents' money and making us listen to this to boot, but I reminded myself I was there to help them. On this day, the topic was poor Dick Cheney and how the liberal media wouldn't leave him alone after his little hunting mishap. Soon the accountant was trying to wrench my 80-year-old mother into this angry world. He asked her if she thought such a trifling matter was grounds for Cheney's resignation. She snapped back, saying that she didn't think the hunting incident merited Cheney's resignation but that there were plenty of other reasons for it. She added that the two men with her felt just as she did. The accountant curled his lip in Cheney-esque fashion and went back to work. My skinny little mother won that battle, but the drone of the angry white men goes on day after day, and they still cling to the myth of the liberal media as some sort of overpowering beast. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who spoke at last year's Fighting Bob Fest in Baraboo, has been keeping a close watch on this. In a speech in San Francisco late last year, he noted that the notion of a liberal media is a right-wing ruse. "There is a right-wing media, and if you look where most Americans are now getting their news, that's where they're getting it. According to Pew (Research Center), 30 percent of Americans now say that their primary news source is talk radio, which is 90 percent dominated by the right." Unshackled by any meaningful oversight from the Federal Communications Commission or any sense of fairness, the right has elbowed its way into the mainstream, backed by big bucks. As Kennedy noted, "Twenty-two percent of Americans say their primary news source is Fox News, MSNBC or CNBC, all dominated by the right, and another 10 percent, Sinclair network, which is the most right wing of all." Sinclair also happens to be primarily Midwestern, a broadcast company whose owner makes news employees swear they won't criticize the war in Iraq or the Bush administration. Right-wing radio may be the most pernicious of all in the way that it sneaks its way into the workplace day after day. If one person listens, then all in earshot must, too. You hear it everywhere, in the places where people work hard for a living. There's good reason for these people to worry, but not about poor Dick Cheney. We are about one Supreme Court decision away from an end to collective bargaining for working men and women. Anyone concerned? Nearly 50 million Americans lack health care insurance, and many times that face shrinking benefits and growing premiums. Now there's something to worry about. Higher education? It's slipping out of reach for many. But on it drones, this electronic flatulence. Call it the great distraction. It makes little distinction between Muslim extremists and loyal but liberal Americans. When Al Gore recently criticized the Bush administration for trampling on civil rights, right-wing radio accused him of treason. One can only hope that they didn't sentence him to a hunting trip with Dick Cheney. The message on a daily basis seems to be that it's OK to hate, to shout other people down, to go about one's life in an angry mood. Perhaps more frightening is this: If this brand of thinking is now mainstream, what is next? What supplants the right at the far end of the spectrum? What will feed the monster in coming years? Bill Berry of Stevens Point writes a semimonthly column for The Capital Times. E-mail: billnick@charter.net Copyright © 2006 Capital Newspapers

A case for constitutional amendments - John Gormley

The title describes it all in a nutshell, but to offer a bit in the way of explanation, he's a hate-filled menace. I have never been able to figure out why right wing extremists always resort to name calling. Take a look at his blog and you will see that it is filled with people who love to call people names and these are the people who are calling other people "childish". Go figure.

Why is that almost all people who publish a blog allow people to blog freely, but Gormley has to "review your comments for moderation"? Is that because if he doesn't agree with you, he won't publish your comments, or because he is afraid that some people might actually post the truth, or because people might post how they actually feel about him, or because he posts most of the comments himself?

Rawlco radio executives must really have issues to have this guy on. I mean, he's a one man hate machine. It is likely high time that the decent people in the province rallied to take some kind of action against Rawlco just for keeping this guy on the payroll.

He allows people to post, or posts himself, that delegates at the SFL convention should have their names made public and circulated to their employers as they are an embarrassment. I raise the point that this is illegal under the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act, and that the Constitution allows all citizens freedom of opinion, expression and association.

Does he believe in censorship? I don't, or at least didn't until I started to listen to his crap. When does freedom of speech become hatred? Can you take poetic license because you are on NTR, does that allow you that freedom? Why is it okay for some people to totally disrespect others but not for others? Gormley hates the NDP and labour. When labour fights back, he calls them names and says they are disrespectful?

Gormley - do you like Saskatchewan? If you do, why don't you do us all a big favour and move to Alberta?

Hey, Sask Party are you listening?

Sure, Norris.

We are just fine with your bullshit speech. We are just going to sit and listen to you like nice little boys and girls, nod our heads and smile.

What the f*** is everyone in this province thinking? Have we lost our collective minds?

We have to RESPECT this S.O.B?
Our government is trying to strip the average working stiff of everything they work for, making it more difficult for working people to be protected from employers who may exploit them. They want to destroy everything that the labour movement has worked for, including everything that some activists have DIED for.

Sure, MR. LABOUR MINISTER, "SIR". Yes, Sir. You are doing a wonderful job. Of course you are. We all love you. Of course we should just respect you and we are childish for acting in such an awful way. We'll just sit and listen to you and kiss your ass because you are the labour minister.

If I was a Sunday school teacher and I was molesting the kids, that would be okay then and you respect me , because I was the Sunday school teacher and by the sheer power of my position I would have earned that respect?? Get a grip people. When you're screwing people, you don't deserve respect!!

I thought Mr. Hubich treated you with far more respect than you deserved. The fact that the SFL invited you in the first place, because traditionally that is what they do, was a class act. You, sir, are not a class act, nor are any of your buddies in the Sask Party.

It is about time labour started to fight back in this province. What they did to at the SFL Convention, you "poor thing" was mild.

RISE UP, RESIST, REBEL. Stop the injustice. Don't just sit idly by anymore. Enough is enough.

The Sask Party has WAY too much power.

Yours truly,

Politically Incorrect - and I don't care - because sometimes you just have to tell it like it is!