 |
| And people think I'M stupid! Where did Harper find her? |
The Supreme Court of Canada seems to have given health minister Rona Ambrose yet another concussive head injury. Ragin' Rona went off on a tizzy over the court's decision that medical marijuana didn't have to be smoked but could be consumed in cookies or tea or the ever popular pot brownies, giving official sanction to "wake and bake."
Health Minister Rona Ambrose, speaking to reporters, said she is “outraged” by the ruling, and she accused the Supreme Court of steering young people toward marijuana use in the same fashion as Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau, who has proposed decriminalizing the drug. She said it should not be judges but medical experts at Health Canada who set the rules.
“This expansion of a pre-existing court-imposed program to now include cookies and candies makes marijuana more attractive and accessible to youth and reflects Justin Trudeau’s campaign to legalize and normalize marijuana,” she said in a prepared statement.
Outraged, she is. You could practically hear the wiring in her skull arcing and sparking, wafts of smoke emerging from her ears, as she denounced the "pre-existing court-imposed program." Just for the record, Turd Blossom (Karl Rove doesn't deserve the title any longer), the court imposed nothing. And medical experts have weighed in on this at length, just not your trained chimps at Health Canada.
Listen up, airhead. You lost. Your government lost before the British Columbia Supreme Court. You took that loss on appeal to the British Columbia Court of Appeal and, gosh, you lost again. The Supreme Court of Canada got involved only when your government chose to try, try, try again and appealed the Court of Appeal's decision. You lost, seven-nothing. That's nothing as in zero, Rona. There's a message in that and it concerns the complete lack of merits of your government's position. Three courts handed you your ass and still you can't seem to find it with both hands.
Look, Rona, Democracy 101. There's this thing called "the rule of law." Without it there can be no viable democracy. You're supposed to respect the courts, not attack them when you don't get your way because you're wrong. You need to respect the courts because, without them, you've thrown away the last remaining shards of your own government's legitimacy. So, Rona, grow up. Try to act like an adult. Once you've mastered that you might move on to learning to act like a cabinet minister.
Look, Rona, Democracy 101. There's this thing called "the rule of law." Without it there can be no viable democracy. You're supposed to respect the courts, not attack them when you don't get your way because you're wrong. You need to respect the courts because, without them, you've thrown away the last remaining shards of your own government's legitimacy. So, Rona, grow up. Try to act like an adult. Once you've mastered that you might move on to learning to act like a cabinet minister.
It's pretty hard to imagine a woman with less integrity than this....
ReplyDeletePrior to becoming Harper's whore she actually worked for or advocated for the Status of Women and various other women's organizations that upon ascension to the Sun Throne Harper either did away with completely or defunded into oblivion.
So either she was completely dishonest and insincere prior to being elected or she's been completely dishonest and insincere since.
Or she's a dumb bitch with the intelligence of a scrub brush.
Rona Ambrose is "outraged". Who Cares! Does she really think what she has to say matters. Another Harper puppet posing as a cabinet minister.
ReplyDeleteJust to keep Ms. Ambrose's (lack of) intelligence, Ayn Rand is a personal of hero of hers. This woman's status as a cabinet minister is the very worst demonstration of how we live in the exact opposite of a meritocracy. Its depressing beyond words, and she will live a long prosperous life on a huge government pension in a big house with fancy cars etc. etc. It is enough to make one simply hang oneself.
ReplyDeleteI just came across your Blog for the first time through a Facebook link. I read your
ReplyDeleteSaturday, March 21, 2015 post and am very impressed. (Obviously I agree with you.)
It is remarkable how for the Harperites the concept of Rule of Law seems to be so alien.
Why do you think that is?
I tend to see Rona as our equivalent of Michelle Bachmann. She's a hopeless ideologue with a warped sense of the role of government. I suppose Dana sums that up by observing she has the intellect of a scrub brush.
ReplyDeleteI'm not remotely surprised that she worships at the altar of Ayn Rand. It explains her capacity for dishonesty and grotesque simplicity.
Herb, we examined the rise of illiberal democracy in a course I took put on by the war studies department of King's College, London dealing with the changing face of warfare in the 21st century. A hallmark of illiberal democracy is the dismantling of restraints on excessive government power, the sort of thing provided by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. People like Ambrose believe that the balance between the rights of the indiviual and the rights of the state are for government to set. Most of Harper's ill-fated clashes with the Supreme Court of Canada have been grounded in attempts to undermine the Charter. We have been extremely fortunate to have our court as constitutional guardians instead of what has befallen the Americans with their US Supreme Court.
The Conservative upper echelons find the rule of law annoying and outrageous for the simple obvious reason: They're fascists. Not in the informal sense often used as an insult, but in the full on literal sense. They simply don't want there to be a rule of law. These are not people who engage in election campaigns because they want to, they just haven't acquired the muscle to abolish them yet. They would be far happier with a dictatorship, secret police disappearing dissenters, the whole nine yards. Practically every move they make seems to be an attempt to bring us closer to that situation.
ReplyDeleteThank heavens the court is available to Canadians. A force with a brain at least.
ReplyDeleteThank heavens the court is available to Canadians. A force with a brain at least.
ReplyDeleteHey Mound,
ReplyDeletere: "We have been extremely fortunate to have our court as constitutional guardians instead of what has befallen the Americans with their US Supreme Court."
But for how much longer? We can't take it for granted.
Harper is surely stacking the lower level courts with little ticking-time-bombs that are supposed to grow up into senior judges then Supremes. He tried to set a precedent with an un qualified appointment (Nadon) so the senior court level is still pretty much LIB/PC appointees. Give him 4 more years and he will surely bring the justice system to heel just as he has on all other civil institutions. (The outrage is real.)
This election may be the last chance to preserve the few bits of democracy we have left here ... and to start trending the other way, hopefully.
So this brings me back to contemplating Oct. 19.
Is it possible for the Green party to actually take a bunch of seats or again just further divide the opposition vote? (Before Lizzie May's self inflicted wound, maybe but I don't see it happening this time.)
I don't see our Greens at par with Podemos (Spain) or Syriza (Greece) in terms of radical policies. And all parties find it hard to make real changes in the current situation. (ex: Syriza and ... What a spectacular disappointment was Hollande eh?) ie Is this an election to vote for the 'principled loser' and/or are the Greens really worth it? (May is the pivotal figure now but I'm sure you are aware of the mixed opinions on Green economic policy and right-leaning members etc)
Any possible new gov't (from a Red or Orange majority to a coalition with lots of green/red/orange) will be a victory in these dire circumstances and a chance to start the rebuilding of our civil society.
I will vote for the candidate most likely to defeat a CON in my riding. I will volunteer in a nearby CON held riding for the best-bet opposition party in that riding. To save our court system if nothing else.
We've been lucky that our court hasn't been politicized as America's. The United States accepts judicial partisanship which is really the essence of corruption. Combine that with a bought-and-paid-for Congress and you have a government no longer in service to the people.
ReplyDeleteThere's a Princeton study expected this fall that will chronicle this.
I understand your concerns about vote-splitting but I've washed my hands of the Libs and the NDP. I'll have nothing to do with either of them. I know it's Nader-esque of me but I really don't care. I can't forgive Layton/Mulcair for abandoning the Left and I can't vote for a Liberal party that's very deeply Conservative-Lite.
You might want to hold your judgment on the Greens until you read their platform. Unlike the three major parties, the Greens publish their platform and they don't hesitate to defend it. With the others it's just an endless dance. I put up with their nonsense for about 40-years. Ignatieff shattered my ties with the Libs. I went to the Greens as a place to park my vote until I began looking into them and what they stand for. That exercise made me confident in my choice.
It's still a democracy, of sorts, so by all means choose who you like for whatever reasons suit you.