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.”