Alice Klein's nonpartisan appeal

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]You said something like I understand that the site is not an NDP site, BUT we are always under attack and being called partisan, and its not fair that these other people claim not to be aligned with any particular party, when its obvious to us that they must be affiliated to some organization, or another that is antagonistic to the NDP if not in fact, at least in practice and we can see this based on the fact that they persistently attack the NDP, and so therefore why can't we out them as Liberals or Greenies or whatever, and so on and so forth.

Basically you seemed to be saying that people should identify themselves, and if not that, others should be able to label them, based on the objective substance of their positions.

I choose not. Sorry.

I admit it was a little confused, but seemed generally to be an thinly veiled personal attack on some people who post here. It wasn't really nasty, but still not very nice. That is the way I read it.

Should have left it there so other people could have tried to take a crack at figuring it out.

[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ][/b]

---

Nobody's calling you a Liberal shill, or even a slavish talking head for the Liberal Party.

And in case anybody's wondering, it's a violation of Geneva Conventions and cub scouts of Canada honour to refer to anyone who criticizes the NDP on a daily basis as a Liberal shill, or even so much as a slavish drone of the Liberal Party of Canada, or shill for any provincial chapter of said party, just to be clear. And so as Peter Sellers once said in character, back to The Partay.

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
[b]

Glad we are on the same page then, in respect to Klein's lacks as a enlightened thinker.

Moreover, I would suggest that her deceitful strategic voting push, comes from her indwelling belief that the ROC is not entitled to vote how they want. And from this perspective it is easy to extrapolate that she actually believes non-urbanites are not even deserving of a vote, as they do not belong to "her" Canada. I guess that makes it all the easier for her to try and deceitfully deprive us/them of their/our democratic vote, doesn't it?!

Klein, through her words, appears to have a fundamental flaw of elitism, that supports her exclusionary beliefs, and which run counter to democracy, beliefs in equality and cooperation.[/b]

---

And it was that "fundamental flaw of elitism" that I was attempting to reveal in using [url=http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/1992----02.htm]manufacturing consent[/url].

quote:

---

QUESTION: When we talk about manufacturing of consent, whose consent is being manufactured?

CHOMSKY: To start with, there are two different groups, we can get into more detail, but at the first level of approximation, there's two targets for propaganda. One is what's sometimes called the political class. There's maybe twenty percent of the population which is relatively educated, more or less articulate, plays some kind of role in decision-making. They're supposed to sort of participate in social life -- either as managers, or cultural managers like teachers and writers and so on. They're supposed to vote, they're supposed to play some role in the way economic and political and cultural life goes on. Now their consent is crucial. So that's one group that has to be deeply indoctrinated. Then there's maybe eighty percent of the population whose main function is to follow orders and not think, and not to pay attention to anything -- and they're the ones who usually pay the costs.

---

Further, [i]the elite media are sort of the agenda-setting media[/i], and use what he calls "a propaganda model".

For some reason Klein appears to think that the GTA saved the rest of a Canada she envisions. I see that as myth making. Why did she not move beyond the border of the GTA, and for that matter beyond northern Ontario?

I think what Alice recognized, as well as Cueball, is that there is a "mathematical basis in regards to future agendas to "decisive leadership of this country" under a "stronger minority government."

That one would consider that under let's say,"a Health care plan," any idea of stopping "for profit healthcare is doomed" other then to consider the legal implications of this and the taking to task of the denigration of the Heath act by government lack of wanting to uphold these kinds of laws for all Canadians.

This mathematical basis would then recognize that it would "need Quebec to assert it's right" not under the plan to self determination as a distinct culture and break away, but to enforce that it's citizens as Canadians would benefit from a plan that would reach beyond all borders of distinction, and to recognize the inherent right to equality across this country beyond partisanships of a political party.

Had Ducceppe believed the same way as he does for his "culture" that he would believe in a Canadian one, then it would have seen a rise in prosperity in terms of equality across this country and his leadership. "A breaking" of that strong minority government.

Best,

This one, in particular, illustrates well why Ms. Klein is undeserving of our attention:

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
[b]Now, in respect to Klein's article, I have some serious issues with her use of "My Canada", "our dreams of Canada" and her use of 'mean girl' tactics in order to get what point across exactly. Low brow people in rural areas are destroying her Canada it appears.

Klein paints a picture of those outside urban areas and PQ, as being not part of "her" Canada, and basically infers that they have no part in the dream of Canada that she holds, and even suggests that they, those damn non-urbanites, are blocking her dream of Canada.

Her words are divisively condescending and she is at best being immaturely deceitful. Of course she meant:
If she did not mean it, she would not have included it, nor put it as a one line paragraph in her diatribe. "Mean girls" in high school do this type of immature nasty shit. Slam you, then say "just kidding", when both the victim and the perpetraitor know differently.

People in the center of the universe do not have dibbs on it being "their" Canada, nor for what their dream of Canada is. Not going to bother going into the obvious fact Toronto exists because the outlaying areas in ON and the rest of Canada, provide the means for it to exist. Which she apparently takes for granted and expects as her due.

Her attitude and others like, are what prompt those in the ROC to dislike what they see the "elitist" Canadian left, it is elitist and unfounded criticism. She is not doing anyone any favours by mouthing such anti-urban sentiments. They are divisive and mean-spirited and will do nothing to draw together a unified front against regressive politics.[/b]

---

ETA:
Okay, now I'm done.

[ 21 October 2008: Message edited by: Lard Tunderin' Jeezus ]

quote:

---

What is bugging my is this kind of thing

---

It only bothers you because you can't dispute it. Which accounts for your constant judo attacks, trying to turn your opponent's advantage against them.

The problem you have is, it isn't about me. Or Heather Mallick.

It's about Alice Klein.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bookish Agrarian:
[b]I could care less about Klein's view of the NDP, probably about a grand total of 6 people will be influenced by it.

What I am troubled by and as remind has pointed out her view of Canada, and it would seem her own province is of the intensly navel gazing type and really isn't worth the bandwidth it takes up.

As someone who has spent a good deal of their adult life fighting this kind of prejudice, found on both sides I find her snide, ill-informed rural bashing, if just by default dispiriting, but hardly surprising. It is this kind of clap trap that we find rampant in our current provincial government and is at the heart of why many rural Canadians turn their backs on progressive parties. It is not because they identify with Conservatives, but call someone a dipshit redneck a few times and they pretty much will stop listening to you.

Ms Klein like her kind doesn’t actually see what is going on around her. The GTA in fact saw close to one third of all votes cast being marked for the Conservatives. Large gains were made in Conservative vote all across the GTA.

It is time for the Ms Kleins of the ‘progressive’ side of politics to stop looking in their navel so much and have a wee little look in the mirror instead. With a good look they may find many of the answers as to why many parts of the hinterlands and their own backyards are turning away from ‘progressives’ in increasing numbers.[/b]

---

Exactly. For one, I'm quite sure that many votes in the NDP seats in northern Ontario and BC came from people not living in the major population centres. As for her claim that "cities" saved Canada? Hogwash. Yes the Liberals did well in the GTA and Montreal, but you don't need to win any seats there to form the government. Harper knows this better than Klein, and that's why Harper continually ignores Toronto's needs. It's also nonsense that the Conservatives don't appeal to people in cities, unless she's prepared to argue that places like Saint John, Fredricton, Quebec, Ottawa, Kitchener, London, Winnipeg, Saskatoon, Regina, Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver (places where Conservatives either did very well or picked up seats) aren't cities?

Toronto has a distinct reality from the rest of the country, and that's fine. What is not fine is when that reality is held up as if it speaks for the whole country when in fact it does not.

And I would not say that Klein is non-partisan, as she has a very partisan view of what her Canada should look like.

[ 21 October 2008: Message edited by: janfromthebruce ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]We're a distinct society. [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img] [/b]

---

We? [img]eek.gif" border="0[/img]

Jack Layton likes to say "I'm not from Toronto, I'm from Montreal."

And Michelle says -- or used to say -- "I'm from Kingston." [img]confused.gif" border="0[/img]

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
[b]Yes, I concur that it appears to be an attempt at myth making. That it does not pass surface tension inquiries, matters little, it is the immediate effect it has upon those in urban centers, who wish to believe they are the voice of Canada and it's saviours.

This aspect of it, is especially egregious for those in the ROC who have valid complaints about urban centers in PQ and ON deciding their fortunes and being dismissed as the great unlettered and unwashed. We saw people come on here after the election and erroneously blame the farmers for putting Harper into power again. So we can safely presume that her words will feed this regressively harmful sentiment.

Conceptual frameworks of the type that she tried to build, actually have the potential to further deploy anti-elitist mindsets, as well as western separation advocates. She in essence appears to believe, or at least is subtly indicating, that the west should separate, as it is we who are destroying "her Canada". Oops, I was too broad in that, as she only fingered out Saskatchewan and Alberta, to bash.

Alternative left media IMV, should be trying to minimize the marginalization of the left in the ROC, as opposed to fostering it. Though I suppose that depends on the actual mandate of said alternative media.[/b]

---

Just when I think I am smart, I read something like this from remind and I realize I am not even in the same league. Woozers, go go go gadget less brain of mine go. That was really interesting remind!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]

[url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=13&t=004346]C... advocates vote for Obama in swing states [/url][/b]

---

thank goodness we don't live in a 2 party state! [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img] [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]

Glad it prompted you BA! [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]

Extending on the propaganda shedding, that this article and indeed the votefortheenvironment, was able to do, I would like to point out a few things about the nature of propaganda and when it is best used.

People's ability to think critically/rationally, is directly proportionate to the state of stress they are experiencing. Scientifically it is represented by 2 bell curves, one inverse to the other, with 0 as the base line for both. As your state of stress increases, your ability to use cognative functions diminish at the same rate. People at the top end of the stress bell curve, have no ability to think critically, and would be at a state of absolute irrational behaviour. Real life example of this would be when someone who is drowning drowns their rescuer. They cannot calm themselves enough to realize that they are being rescued. At point 0 where no stress is felt, is when critical thinking is at its highest.

Going into an election, especially one where it is perceived that much is riding on the outcome, increases people's stress level, thus their level to think rationally instantly becomes impaired. What percentile it is differs amongst people, of course. The more stressors that are added in an election setting, the more people's ability to think critically becomes impaired. And they commence looking for something to decrease their stress.

This is where propaganda shedding, of the type I noted above, as well as others a bit more subtle, come into play, as control tools. Their sole function is to give people a place, or an action, where they can decrease their stress by feeling empowered that they are actually "doing" something to fix their internal stress. Not realizing the choices they allegedly are making have no basis in rational thought. They are either; accepting to do what they are told, or they are gravitating to what is "known", the 'unknown' will be pushed aside as being "too stressful" to contemplate.

Now after an election, when people are shocked, or numb, and at their most stressed, it is an opportune time to re-enforce former messaging and to further deploy divisive strategies, as people are more willing to accept them at face value, as opposed to looking for validity and truth.

Thus emotions are used, to create an internal climate/memory response where they can be used again and again at some future date. Evoke that memory response and you get the same result. It is this type of proganda shedding that needs to be blocked, or diffused, for a successful election, no matter what party it is. How the aftermath of the election is handled is an important factor for the next election.

Take for example cueball's post of Chomsky's, where he, Chomsky, is calmly deliniating the noble worth of choosing the lesser of two evils, as opposed to voting your choice, or not voting at all. It could be viewed as an oblique propaganda support of Klein's article and indeed for the whole votefortheenvironment campaign, though cueball used it to say Chomsky was advocating vote for Obama. It is the immediate perception and reaction that counts.

Such a quote, could be used a propaganda tool to sooth (decrease the stress) of those who wasted their vote by voting strategically, or for the lesser of 2 evils, as opposed to their choice. The unpleasant memory of their failure has to be turned into a positive perception in order for the same propaganda to work again.

Yes it could be, but that is where rational thought can now enter into the equation.

As one needs to consider that the strategic realities are not/were not what was being promulgated by Klein et al, up here in Canada. Nor were her column words positive messaging, they were divisive, elitist and engendering of animosity though geocentric positioning, and thereby fostered emotional and regressive processing of information.

Notwithstanding of course is the fact that US politics cannot be superimposed upon the Canadian political scene, and have it remain a credible source to base future actions upon. Strategic value is a false conceptual framework, that contains very little, if any, pertinent application, because of the very different nature of the electoral process, say nothing of the fact we have a multi-party system.

The repeated failure of strategic voting in Canada stands as testimony to that truth.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]But you assumption is based on the highly tendentious assumption that millions of people vote Liberal for "strategic" purposes, and would otherwise vote NDP. Pre-election polling have never, but once ever shown that the NDP should be able to win the governing position in Canadian parliment, and the reality is that many people just prefer the Liberal party over the NDP.[/b]

---

Then why were Dion's Liberals instructed to vote [i]with[/i] the Harpers and [i]against the NDP[/i] on as innocuous a proposal as restarting the federal study on electoral reform? The NDP wasn't proposing the rollback of billions of dollars in tax cuts to fossil fuel companies and banksters with that one.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]
Again, why does Klein's advocating for strategic voting, undermine her claim that she is an "NDP partisan"?
[/b]

---

This is one statement I can see some sense to though. Its not that an NDPer might not consider "strategic" voting for some overriding purpose, members have done it before in the municipal arena; it's the double edged sword of not even *getting* any tangeable offers from other supposedly left-of parties while getting blasted in the media by these same parties for not playing ball. By ignoring those already well known facts Klein is playing the role of agent provacateur for other parties competing for the left-of vote, and therefore is unlikely to be either serious in portraying herself as "NDP friendly", or as any sort of journalist to be taken seriously anywhere on the left.

[ 21 October 2008: Message edited by: Erik Redburn ]

Please stop trying to make everything I write as just another support for your supposed case. After all your twists and turns here its not even clear what youre trying to argue here or why exactly, except that you don't like the NDp, therefore I shall bow out of this one again and trust that others see it too.

I'll tell you rather bluntly: you are once again fabricating the motives of those you perceive as opponents. And it is getting rather sad to observe.

Frankly, I am arguing that Klein cannot be viewed as an illuminating progressive thinker/doer, because of the words and sentiment she expressed in her opinion piece here. As noted above by me.

Moreover, I would say that conflating her with Chomsky is an attempt to give her more validity, vastly more, than what she is do.

How about you cueball, find some quotes of Chomsky's whereby he dispargages vast segments of of a targeted population, uses divisive elitist terminology, and waxes on and on about HIS vision of America and how it should exclude all others? Or even one where he states that people should vote the way he determines they should, to bring about HIS dream of the USA? And then maybe I will consider your compare of the 2, as something more than utter fabrication.

False dichotomy and an inherently flawed compare, sprinkled with shifting sands of positions made, now disguarded when they were illuminated as being false and flawed.

Klein herself has been exposed as being a regressive thinker/doer, she aligned herself with a partisan person, to advocate people vote strategically according to their dictates. Basically it was an attempt to "whip" the left vote.

As such, the way it was used by Klein et al is decidedly regressive in its propaganda intent and privileged belief that they knew better than the other unwashed masses did.

Like nuclear bombs there is nothing inherently destructive in them, until they are used upon others.