The oh-so Liberal Toronto Star brings sad tidings. The paper's pollsters quizzed 6,000 Canadians and the results - Harper 39%, Ignatieff 26%, Layton 18%.
The Libs, it seems, keep chasing things that don't matter to the people who do - the voters. The Oda scandal seems to be a total yawner with the electorate.
The 13 point spread holds up in Ontario where the Conservatives garnered a depressing yet impressive 43% to just 30% for the Libs. The only demo where the Libs held a lead was with university-educated voters. Unfortunately, in these days of universal suffrage, that doesn't mean very much at all.
In gender, Harper is 20 points ahead of Iggy with men, 44-24% and the Cons lead the women's vote 34% to 28%.
Showing posts with label Harper-Ignatieff. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Harper-Ignatieff. Show all posts
Friday, February 25, 2011
Friday, February 18, 2011
Getting Oda Right
I have avoided writing anything about the Bev Oda scandal because of this unsettling feeling that the opposition criticism was off mark. Finally I stumbled across Gerald Caplan's assessment and he's right on mark. This isn't about Oda or her lies. It's all about Stephen Harper.
...Ms. Oda, like Messrs. Kenney and Clement, is just the organ grinder’s monkey. Any CIDA minister would have been in the same boat. She just follows orders. And it’s those orders in the Kairos case that remind us of the real Harper agenda.
The issue here is the reversal, by Stephen Harper, of a 60-year consensus shared by all previous governments about the central role of civil society in Canada. Every previous government has funded civil society groups and NGOs even when they espoused policies that contradicted the government’s own. Governments might have done so grudgingly and not as generously as some of us hoped. But it has been one of the quiet glories of Canadian democracy that our governments have often backed groups that criticized them or had competing priorities.
No more. With Stephen Harper, you either buy the party line or you get slapped down. That’s what happened to Kairos (now ironically receiving proper recognition for its terrific work over the years – eat your heart out, Jason Kenney). That’s what happened to the Canadian Council For International Co-operation and Match International. That’s what happened, with little media attention, to an astonishing number – in the many, many dozens – of other worthy organizations. (An exact figure will soon be posted by Voices, an important virtual coalition of organizations and individuals formed precisely in reaction to the Harper government’s attacks on civil society organizations. I am an enthusiastic supporter.)
Never mind that, politics aside, most of these groups were also doing crucial humanitarian work. Never mind that Kairos was working with violated women in the Congo. Never mind that many de-funded organizations were promoting maternal and child health, ostensibly Mr. Harper's big personal cause. Yet because they also pursue issues that Stephen Harper will not abide – human rights for Palestinians, women’s equality, climate change – they are anathema in his eyes.
...Mr. Harper's devotion to the Israeli government not only dictates what groups he chooses to fund. It dictates much of his foreign policy. Canadians were shamed in recent weeks by the Prime Minister’s refusal to demand the ouster of Hosni Mubarak, mindlessly mimicking the position of the Israeli government. There they were, standing outside history, that tiny gaggle of governments who failed to embrace one of the liberating moments of our era: Saudi Arabia, Libya, Syria, Algeria, Israel – and Canada.
Caplan is exactly right. Read the entire article, top to bottom, and then, Liberals, ask yourself why the Harvard schoolboy isn't taking Caplan's fight to Harper? Maybe then you'll realize just why you've been stuck in that ditch these past years.
...Ms. Oda, like Messrs. Kenney and Clement, is just the organ grinder’s monkey. Any CIDA minister would have been in the same boat. She just follows orders. And it’s those orders in the Kairos case that remind us of the real Harper agenda.
The issue here is the reversal, by Stephen Harper, of a 60-year consensus shared by all previous governments about the central role of civil society in Canada. Every previous government has funded civil society groups and NGOs even when they espoused policies that contradicted the government’s own. Governments might have done so grudgingly and not as generously as some of us hoped. But it has been one of the quiet glories of Canadian democracy that our governments have often backed groups that criticized them or had competing priorities.
No more. With Stephen Harper, you either buy the party line or you get slapped down. That’s what happened to Kairos (now ironically receiving proper recognition for its terrific work over the years – eat your heart out, Jason Kenney). That’s what happened to the Canadian Council For International Co-operation and Match International. That’s what happened, with little media attention, to an astonishing number – in the many, many dozens – of other worthy organizations. (An exact figure will soon be posted by Voices, an important virtual coalition of organizations and individuals formed precisely in reaction to the Harper government’s attacks on civil society organizations. I am an enthusiastic supporter.)
Never mind that, politics aside, most of these groups were also doing crucial humanitarian work. Never mind that Kairos was working with violated women in the Congo. Never mind that many de-funded organizations were promoting maternal and child health, ostensibly Mr. Harper's big personal cause. Yet because they also pursue issues that Stephen Harper will not abide – human rights for Palestinians, women’s equality, climate change – they are anathema in his eyes.
...Mr. Harper's devotion to the Israeli government not only dictates what groups he chooses to fund. It dictates much of his foreign policy. Canadians were shamed in recent weeks by the Prime Minister’s refusal to demand the ouster of Hosni Mubarak, mindlessly mimicking the position of the Israeli government. There they were, standing outside history, that tiny gaggle of governments who failed to embrace one of the liberating moments of our era: Saudi Arabia, Libya, Syria, Algeria, Israel – and Canada.
Caplan is exactly right. Read the entire article, top to bottom, and then, Liberals, ask yourself why the Harvard schoolboy isn't taking Caplan's fight to Harper? Maybe then you'll realize just why you've been stuck in that ditch these past years.
Monday, October 18, 2010
HarperLand - Is It Too Late to Save Canadian Democracy?
Just how much damage has Stephen Harper caused the PMO and Canadian democracy and can we really expect his successor to undo the damage? This dark question is posed by Crawford Kilian writing in The Tyee. What begins as a review of Lawrence Martin's Harperland turns into speculation of whether Harper's successor will simply continue Furious Leader's excesses:
"...the really depressing aspect of Martin's book is this: After all these years of watching [Harper] in action, a third of us still support him.
Think about that. Anyone can see how he's attacked the values and institutions of 20th-century Canada. He promised "transparency" and delivered an information clampdown Stalin would have admired. He sent Canadians into harm's way in Afghanistan, and then smeared Richard Colvin for saying our troops were handing prisoners over to torturers. He sacked, or drove from office, the brilliant people who ran AECL and StatsCan, because they told inconvenient truths.
This is the kind of culture-war wedge politics that Nixon exploited in the 1960s and 70s. It has become routine in the U.S. since then because some American cultures intensely dislike other American cultures.
Similarly Harper has attracted plenty of Canadians who despise other Canadians. Many are willing to run as Conservatives for a seat in his emasculated Parliament. His senior public servants have decided their careers are more important than their country, and go along with him. Canadian reporters let him frame the issues. So do the opposition parties."
Kilian warns there's no reason to accept on blind faith that even someone like Ignatieff might not find Harper's abuses of democracy quite convenient or far easier to continue than to dismantle. I think it's a legitimate point, one that needs to be addressed before, not after, we have a change of government. The Liberal rank and file need to do a little soul searching and obtain concrete commitments from their man that he won't settle in to Harper's status quo but will break the shackles Harper has used to bind our democracy.
"...the really depressing aspect of Martin's book is this: After all these years of watching [Harper] in action, a third of us still support him.
Think about that. Anyone can see how he's attacked the values and institutions of 20th-century Canada. He promised "transparency" and delivered an information clampdown Stalin would have admired. He sent Canadians into harm's way in Afghanistan, and then smeared Richard Colvin for saying our troops were handing prisoners over to torturers. He sacked, or drove from office, the brilliant people who ran AECL and StatsCan, because they told inconvenient truths.
This is the kind of culture-war wedge politics that Nixon exploited in the 1960s and 70s. It has become routine in the U.S. since then because some American cultures intensely dislike other American cultures.
Similarly Harper has attracted plenty of Canadians who despise other Canadians. Many are willing to run as Conservatives for a seat in his emasculated Parliament. His senior public servants have decided their careers are more important than their country, and go along with him. Canadian reporters let him frame the issues. So do the opposition parties."
Kilian warns there's no reason to accept on blind faith that even someone like Ignatieff might not find Harper's abuses of democracy quite convenient or far easier to continue than to dismantle. I think it's a legitimate point, one that needs to be addressed before, not after, we have a change of government. The Liberal rank and file need to do a little soul searching and obtain concrete commitments from their man that he won't settle in to Harper's status quo but will break the shackles Harper has used to bind our democracy.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Look, This Is Beyond Undemocratic, It's Tyrannical. Now, Please, Tell Your Political Representatives to Say "Enough"!
 |
| We had a coup for this? |
There, now do you get it?
Even the Montreal Gazette gets it. They've figured out that a genuine tyrant has abused his office to gag the public service to advance his own political agenda:
"The Harper government has tightened the muzzle on federal scientists, going so far as to control when and what they can say about floods at the end of the last ice age.
Natural Resources Canada scientists were told this spring they need “pre-approval” from Minister Christian Paradis’ office to speak with national and international journalists. Their “media lines” also need ministerial approval, say documents obtained by Postmedia News through access-to-information legislation.
The documents say the “new” rules went into force in March and reveal how they apply to not only to contentious issues including the oilsands, but benign subjects such as floods that occurred 13,000 years ago.
They also give a glimpse of how Canadians are being cut off from scientists whose work is financed by taxpayers, critics say, and is often of significant public interest — be it about fish stocks, genetically modified crops or mercury pollution in the Athabasca River.
“It’s Orwellian,” says Andrew Weaver, a climatologist at University of Victoria. The public, he says, has a right to know what federal scientists are discovering and learning.
So exactly where is that gutless wonder who pretends to be heir to the Liberal tradition when the democratic rights of the Canadian people are being so blatantly trampelled? The beer'n burger season has run its course. This poseur should have been all over this abusive usurpation of unconstitutional power long ago but, as far as I can tell, he's played mute.
“Departmental officials speaking on behalf of the department are to consult the minister’s office in preparing responses,” Joanisse says. “While this may have been misinterpreted as being a new policy, it has been in place for years.”
The documents show several communications managers, policy advisers, political staff and senior officials were involved drafting and vetting “media lines.”
And Harper gets away with it thanks to a hapessly impotent opposition leader. When did the Liberal Party sink this low? If Ignatieff can't figure out that his job is to defend Canadian democracy against the excesses of Stephen Harper, you Liberals had better spell it out for him. And, by the way, screw arts funding.
Thursday, August 05, 2010
Good News. Tories Almost as Weak as Liberals
Ekos has the Conservatives down 3, the Libs up 3, for a statistical tie. Tories still lead everywhere except the Maritimes, Quebec and BC (where they're tied with the NDP). Maybe keeping Mikey sequestered on a bus isn't such a bad idea. Maybe it has something to do with Harper's protracted absence from the public eye and Canadians having to watch the lunacy dished out by Peter MacKay and Stockwell Day.
Who knows, who cares? In the Harper/Ignatieff era if you don't like today's polls, wait for tomorrow's.
Now I'm no political scientist but this seesaw in the midst of Canada's political doldrums suggests the voting public is waiting for some party to produce policies that resonate with them and that they can embrace. Vision has always been Harper's short suit and the Libs are fools if they don't hit Furious Leader where he's weakest. So Michael, have you got anything to promote beyond arts funding?
Who knows, who cares? In the Harper/Ignatieff era if you don't like today's polls, wait for tomorrow's.
Now I'm no political scientist but this seesaw in the midst of Canada's political doldrums suggests the voting public is waiting for some party to produce policies that resonate with them and that they can embrace. Vision has always been Harper's short suit and the Libs are fools if they don't hit Furious Leader where he's weakest. So Michael, have you got anything to promote beyond arts funding?
Saturday, July 03, 2010
Our Worthless Servants or Furious Steve Runs Afoul of the Gospel of Matthew
We missed it the first time but we'll get there eventually because, if we don't, the consequences will be unbearable.
Do you think your society can function without quality infrastructure - proper roads, a modern rail system, a state of the art electricity grid, schools, hospitals, airports and so on? If you do, you've probably never visited a truly backward country, the sort where electricity is available sporadically, where the roads are as much pothole as pavement, and where already short supplies of safe freshwater bubble to the surface from broken mains to run in streams down to sewers. That's the sort of world you get without adequate infrastructure. I have seen these places and marvelled at their ruin.
That's what made me so damned mad at Steve Harper and his junior partner, Mike Ignatieff, when they joined together in 2009 to foist on our country and our people what was perhaps the worst stimulus/recovery budget imaginable. It was a haphazard, thoughtless, on the fly fiasco. Sure it pumped money into the economy, billions of dollars borrowed by Ottawa on our behalf and pledged to the credit of taxpayers both existing and to come. But it was money squandered when what we needed was money invested.
The billions those two chumps dumped onto the street were akin to dollars thrown into the air above an expectant crowd. Some got a lot, some got a bit and an awful lot of people got nothing. But we made sure that each of them got something - an IOU for all that money plus interest that everyone of them is going to have to repay through their taxes.
And what did we expect them to do with that money? For many it was home improvements - new windows, a bit of landscaping, a water heater or a furnace. There was also the new deck for the cottage, a new dock perhaps. But if you didn't own a home or a cottage or even if you did but didn't have the up front cash to fund the renos, well you were probably out of luck. The race, after all, goes to the richest, no?
And now that all that money is gone, pumped into the economy, when will all those new decks and docks start paying dividends back into the federal treasury? What sort of revenue stream can we project for them over the next ten, twenty, forty years? I suppose I don't need to answer that. When you squander your paycheque in a bar you usually don't have much left over to show for it except, perhaps, the hangover.
But what if the federal fund factory, the parliamentary pig pen, had decided not to chip in for Fred's new deck but to spend that money itself? What if they had decided to do something with that money that would benefit all Canadians in all regions? What if they decided to invest that money into things that would pay dividends for decades to come when the bill for all that spending came due?
Isn't there something in the Bible about three guys and some easy cash, the "Parable of the Talents"? Hey, wait a second! Why don't we ask Steve? He's really into that Bible stuff isn't he? I guess it's been a while since he read Matthew 25:14-30 or maybe that smug slacker dozed off when they went through that parable.
Gee Steve and Mike, I think that "worthless servant" business fits both of you like a glove (but especially you Steve because you're supposed to know better). We're the master, you took our money borrowed by pledging our credit, and, instead of investing it, you pissed it all away. Unlike the worthless servant in the Bible, you didn't even bury it in the ground for safekeeping. You just squandered it. Weeping and gnashing of teeth in the darkness somehow doesn't seem quite enough for your kind - but it's a good start.
No, we need a change of servants, sooner rather than later. We still need government stimulus spending and, if what's looming on the horizon in California, Illinois, Arizona and Washington plus most of Europe is any indication, we're in for a bumpy ride for years to come. We're all going to take a kicking but I figure that the countries that come through this the best will be those who used the opportunity of the global doldrums to reinvest in their infrastructure, to position their nations to be capable of landing on their feet when that opportunity returns.
Do you think your society can function without quality infrastructure - proper roads, a modern rail system, a state of the art electricity grid, schools, hospitals, airports and so on? If you do, you've probably never visited a truly backward country, the sort where electricity is available sporadically, where the roads are as much pothole as pavement, and where already short supplies of safe freshwater bubble to the surface from broken mains to run in streams down to sewers. That's the sort of world you get without adequate infrastructure. I have seen these places and marvelled at their ruin.
That's what made me so damned mad at Steve Harper and his junior partner, Mike Ignatieff, when they joined together in 2009 to foist on our country and our people what was perhaps the worst stimulus/recovery budget imaginable. It was a haphazard, thoughtless, on the fly fiasco. Sure it pumped money into the economy, billions of dollars borrowed by Ottawa on our behalf and pledged to the credit of taxpayers both existing and to come. But it was money squandered when what we needed was money invested.
The billions those two chumps dumped onto the street were akin to dollars thrown into the air above an expectant crowd. Some got a lot, some got a bit and an awful lot of people got nothing. But we made sure that each of them got something - an IOU for all that money plus interest that everyone of them is going to have to repay through their taxes.
And what did we expect them to do with that money? For many it was home improvements - new windows, a bit of landscaping, a water heater or a furnace. There was also the new deck for the cottage, a new dock perhaps. But if you didn't own a home or a cottage or even if you did but didn't have the up front cash to fund the renos, well you were probably out of luck. The race, after all, goes to the richest, no?
And now that all that money is gone, pumped into the economy, when will all those new decks and docks start paying dividends back into the federal treasury? What sort of revenue stream can we project for them over the next ten, twenty, forty years? I suppose I don't need to answer that. When you squander your paycheque in a bar you usually don't have much left over to show for it except, perhaps, the hangover.
But what if the federal fund factory, the parliamentary pig pen, had decided not to chip in for Fred's new deck but to spend that money itself? What if they had decided to do something with that money that would benefit all Canadians in all regions? What if they decided to invest that money into things that would pay dividends for decades to come when the bill for all that spending came due?
Isn't there something in the Bible about three guys and some easy cash, the "Parable of the Talents"? Hey, wait a second! Why don't we ask Steve? He's really into that Bible stuff isn't he? I guess it's been a while since he read Matthew 25:14-30 or maybe that smug slacker dozed off when they went through that parable.
"...throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness,
where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth"
Gee Steve and Mike, I think that "worthless servant" business fits both of you like a glove (but especially you Steve because you're supposed to know better). We're the master, you took our money borrowed by pledging our credit, and, instead of investing it, you pissed it all away. Unlike the worthless servant in the Bible, you didn't even bury it in the ground for safekeeping. You just squandered it. Weeping and gnashing of teeth in the darkness somehow doesn't seem quite enough for your kind - but it's a good start.
No, we need a change of servants, sooner rather than later. We still need government stimulus spending and, if what's looming on the horizon in California, Illinois, Arizona and Washington plus most of Europe is any indication, we're in for a bumpy ride for years to come. We're all going to take a kicking but I figure that the countries that come through this the best will be those who used the opportunity of the global doldrums to reinvest in their infrastructure, to position their nations to be capable of landing on their feet when that opportunity returns.
Friday, July 02, 2010
See, I Said It Was a Coalition, One in Which the Junion Partner Does as It's Told
Just yesterday in my dirge to Canada Day, I wrote of the de facto Conservative-Liberal coalition:
"...In Parliament we discovered that Stephen Harper hasn't been running a minority government after all. It turns out Steve has had a coalition government thanks to a Liberal opposition whose only demonstrated skill this past year has been rolling over. When Mr. Ignatieff wasn't busy steering the LPC to the right in pursuit of the far-right Harper, he was either quite shamelessly backing Harper or simply skipping critical votes. You hand the guy the keys to the party of Laurier, Pearson and Trudeau and this is what you get? Un-believable."
Turns out, I'm not a lone voice on this one. Paul Wells, writing in MacLeans, says that Harper is just fine with his parliamentary toadie, Michael Ignatieff:
"... Harper and his junior coalition partner, Michael Ignatieff, are too smart to be thrown off balance. So, just before he welcomed the world’s leaders and southern Ontario’s riot police to the Metro Toronto Convention Centre, Harper permitted himself to revel in the Conservative-Liberal coalition’s latest accomplishments. “I think in the end we actually got some pretty good results,” Harper told reporters from Reuters. “Particularly in the closing days. As you know, we got the budget implementation bill through.”
One bill? That’s all he has to show for a year’s strife? But this was no ordinary bill. “The budget bill was wide-ranging legislation that had a lot, not just of important budgetary measures, but important measures for the Canadian economy. So I think the passage of the budget bill, in and of itself, made the parliamentary sessions productive.”
He listed other measures the opposition had caved on, like refugee-system reform and a measure making it harder for convicts to get pardons. (The opposition never fails to collapse in the face of each new Conservative tough-on-crime measure. Harper should recognize their contribution by hanging photos of Ignatieff and Jack Layton in every new federal prison.)
But the budget was the main ingredient. “I know we’ve been criticized for how much was in that budget bill,” Harper said. “But putting a lot in that budget bill effectively ensured—passing it ensured a productive parliamentary session.” This was a slip-up, I believe, for it marked the first time Harper admitted he used the implementation bill to smuggle a bunch of other stuff into law.
And what an impressive list of achievements it was. Bill C-9 enabled all the usual taxing and spending, but it also removed new energy projects from the purview of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and gave the job for assessing them to the National Energy Board. To make that move even while the world’s attention was transfixed by the BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico was quite a feat. Harper couldn’t have done it without the Liberal members of his coalition.
Throw in provisions for the sale of Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. and an end to the Canada Post monopoly on overseas mail. The Canada Post plan was introduced as a separate, stand-alone bill in 2008 and 2009, only to die on the Order Paper when Harper called the 2008 election and prorogued Parliament a year later.
When the 900-page Budget Implementation Act, with amendments to five dozen laws, passed the Commons early in June because not enough Liberals showed up to vote against it, Liberal Sen. Pierrette Ringuette swore it wouldn’t be the same story in the Senate. “The Liberal senators are not rubber-stampers of the leadership,” Ringuette said. “We have a mandate to do sober second review of legislation for Canadians, and we will fulfill our responsibility.” Then the Budget Implementation Act passed the Senate later in June because not enough Liberals showed up to vote against it.
I'm sorry, Liberal faithful, but when you let the schoolyard bully help himself to your lunch money you haven't got much to gripe about when you start getting bitchslapped. Under the rule of this professorial charlatan you're not fit to form a government, you're not even fit to serve the country as our official opposition. You're a goddamned joke.
"...In Parliament we discovered that Stephen Harper hasn't been running a minority government after all. It turns out Steve has had a coalition government thanks to a Liberal opposition whose only demonstrated skill this past year has been rolling over. When Mr. Ignatieff wasn't busy steering the LPC to the right in pursuit of the far-right Harper, he was either quite shamelessly backing Harper or simply skipping critical votes. You hand the guy the keys to the party of Laurier, Pearson and Trudeau and this is what you get? Un-believable."
Turns out, I'm not a lone voice on this one. Paul Wells, writing in MacLeans, says that Harper is just fine with his parliamentary toadie, Michael Ignatieff:
"... Harper and his junior coalition partner, Michael Ignatieff, are too smart to be thrown off balance. So, just before he welcomed the world’s leaders and southern Ontario’s riot police to the Metro Toronto Convention Centre, Harper permitted himself to revel in the Conservative-Liberal coalition’s latest accomplishments. “I think in the end we actually got some pretty good results,” Harper told reporters from Reuters. “Particularly in the closing days. As you know, we got the budget implementation bill through.”
One bill? That’s all he has to show for a year’s strife? But this was no ordinary bill. “The budget bill was wide-ranging legislation that had a lot, not just of important budgetary measures, but important measures for the Canadian economy. So I think the passage of the budget bill, in and of itself, made the parliamentary sessions productive.”
He listed other measures the opposition had caved on, like refugee-system reform and a measure making it harder for convicts to get pardons. (The opposition never fails to collapse in the face of each new Conservative tough-on-crime measure. Harper should recognize their contribution by hanging photos of Ignatieff and Jack Layton in every new federal prison.)
But the budget was the main ingredient. “I know we’ve been criticized for how much was in that budget bill,” Harper said. “But putting a lot in that budget bill effectively ensured—passing it ensured a productive parliamentary session.” This was a slip-up, I believe, for it marked the first time Harper admitted he used the implementation bill to smuggle a bunch of other stuff into law.
And what an impressive list of achievements it was. Bill C-9 enabled all the usual taxing and spending, but it also removed new energy projects from the purview of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and gave the job for assessing them to the National Energy Board. To make that move even while the world’s attention was transfixed by the BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico was quite a feat. Harper couldn’t have done it without the Liberal members of his coalition.
Throw in provisions for the sale of Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. and an end to the Canada Post monopoly on overseas mail. The Canada Post plan was introduced as a separate, stand-alone bill in 2008 and 2009, only to die on the Order Paper when Harper called the 2008 election and prorogued Parliament a year later.
When the 900-page Budget Implementation Act, with amendments to five dozen laws, passed the Commons early in June because not enough Liberals showed up to vote against it, Liberal Sen. Pierrette Ringuette swore it wouldn’t be the same story in the Senate. “The Liberal senators are not rubber-stampers of the leadership,” Ringuette said. “We have a mandate to do sober second review of legislation for Canadians, and we will fulfill our responsibility.” Then the Budget Implementation Act passed the Senate later in June because not enough Liberals showed up to vote against it.
I'm sorry, Liberal faithful, but when you let the schoolyard bully help himself to your lunch money you haven't got much to gripe about when you start getting bitchslapped. Under the rule of this professorial charlatan you're not fit to form a government, you're not even fit to serve the country as our official opposition. You're a goddamned joke.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Why Gagging the Public Service Works for Harper
It's not your public service. You merely get to pay for it. It's Steve Harper's public service, at least that's how this petty tyrant sees it, and he'll decide what you hear from it and when.
Triplepundit.com has an interesting lament on how pathetic the G20 summit was when it came to the fight against global warming and it laid the blame for that squarely on Harper:
...Truth to tell, it’s just the latest salvo in Harper’s overall strategy to lock North America into a fossil fuel economy. And that’s because his tentative hold on power in Canadian politics requires him to serve the needs of his home province of Alberta and its Tar Sands.
As politicians go, Harper — who doesn’t believe in the science of climate change — is crafty. He’s managing to delay and derail international climate change policy on a grand scale even as he convinces Canadians that our country remains environmentally progressive.
How?
A recently leaked document from a source at Environment Canada (EC) shows that media stories on global warming are down by 80% in the Great White North since the Conservative government instituted rules in 2007 that curtail the ability of government scientists to speak with the reporters. The scientists must receive permission from government mandarins before giving interviews, and the approval process is often measured in days, if it comes at all. As a result, the country’s high-profile media, often facing quick deadlines, have stopped calling EC scientists.
Senior scientists in Canada are frustrated by the muzzles, and feel that Canadians are being kept in the dark about one of the most important issues facing the country. They have voiced their displeasure to the government communication officials, which appears to have resulted in an increasingly frosty relationship. As a result, four experts who were quoted in 99 major articles during a nine month period in in 2007 were only quoted in 12 articles during the same period in 2008.
“It’s definitely a scandal,” said Graham Saul, Executive Director of Climate Action Network Canada. He added that the government was “muzzling scientists; they’re putting climate deniers in key oversight positions over research, and they’re reducing funding in key areas [...] It’s almost as though they’re making a conscious attempt to bury the truth.”
Now a shout out to all you Liberal faithful. Your own leader too is an avowed Tar Sander, a greasy Fossil Fueler through and through. He's got his nose so far up Harper's ass that they look like one hybrid creature. It's Michael Ignatieff and the Liberal Party of Canada who are empowering Harper, enabling him to govern as though he had a majority. It's because of your Leader and his feckless caucus that Harper can muzzle the civil service and the armed forces. You're making this miserable farce today's reality.
Triplepundit.com has an interesting lament on how pathetic the G20 summit was when it came to the fight against global warming and it laid the blame for that squarely on Harper:
...Truth to tell, it’s just the latest salvo in Harper’s overall strategy to lock North America into a fossil fuel economy. And that’s because his tentative hold on power in Canadian politics requires him to serve the needs of his home province of Alberta and its Tar Sands.
As politicians go, Harper — who doesn’t believe in the science of climate change — is crafty. He’s managing to delay and derail international climate change policy on a grand scale even as he convinces Canadians that our country remains environmentally progressive.
How?
A recently leaked document from a source at Environment Canada (EC) shows that media stories on global warming are down by 80% in the Great White North since the Conservative government instituted rules in 2007 that curtail the ability of government scientists to speak with the reporters. The scientists must receive permission from government mandarins before giving interviews, and the approval process is often measured in days, if it comes at all. As a result, the country’s high-profile media, often facing quick deadlines, have stopped calling EC scientists.
Senior scientists in Canada are frustrated by the muzzles, and feel that Canadians are being kept in the dark about one of the most important issues facing the country. They have voiced their displeasure to the government communication officials, which appears to have resulted in an increasingly frosty relationship. As a result, four experts who were quoted in 99 major articles during a nine month period in in 2007 were only quoted in 12 articles during the same period in 2008.
“It’s definitely a scandal,” said Graham Saul, Executive Director of Climate Action Network Canada. He added that the government was “muzzling scientists; they’re putting climate deniers in key oversight positions over research, and they’re reducing funding in key areas [...] It’s almost as though they’re making a conscious attempt to bury the truth.”
Now a shout out to all you Liberal faithful. Your own leader too is an avowed Tar Sander, a greasy Fossil Fueler through and through. He's got his nose so far up Harper's ass that they look like one hybrid creature. It's Michael Ignatieff and the Liberal Party of Canada who are empowering Harper, enabling him to govern as though he had a majority. It's because of your Leader and his feckless caucus that Harper can muzzle the civil service and the armed forces. You're making this miserable farce today's reality.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Is Harper Ready to Hang Up His Spurs?
Is Stephen Harper ready to pack it in?
Despite his endless flaws and shortcomings, Steve Harper has outgamed every Liberal team since Martin's.
I don't think Harper will be run out of town. I think he'll leave on his own terms. I would expect that sooner rather than later. I think Harper's horribly inept behaviour lately reflects a guy who's definitely not playing his "A" game.
What would possibly keep Harper in the job except some real prospect of winning a majority and that's not in the cards.
He's so far behind the curve on global warming that, even with the best and brightest at EnviroCan utterly gagged, he can't hide it much longer. He has bought as much time as possible. He's done an excellent job for the Oil Patch. It's not his fault that world prices cratered with the global meltdown. But time is running out.
Harper's hand will soon be forced on the climate change issue. He's going to have to set realistic and meaningful targets and he'll have to begin introducing measures to meet those. Other nations, particularly the United States, will be setting the bar and Canada is going to have to follow suit. To Harper's base that will be like shoving cloves of garlic down a vampire's throat. Do you really believe he, or the right wing of his party, want to be the people to deliver that up to their followers?
What have they got to lose by losing to Ignatieff right now? MI's already shown that he's willing to leave Canada's political centre far to the right (mission accomplished, point- Mr. Harper) and he'll be easy to attack as the successor to Dion when he has no choice but to introduce some form of carbon emissions controls.
Copenhagen is but six months away, the End Times are nigh. I think Harp's ready to pack his bags on a moment's notice and I don't think the Libs are remotely ready to deal with the vacuum he'll bequeath them.
Despite his endless flaws and shortcomings, Steve Harper has outgamed every Liberal team since Martin's.
I don't think Harper will be run out of town. I think he'll leave on his own terms. I would expect that sooner rather than later. I think Harper's horribly inept behaviour lately reflects a guy who's definitely not playing his "A" game.
What would possibly keep Harper in the job except some real prospect of winning a majority and that's not in the cards.
He's so far behind the curve on global warming that, even with the best and brightest at EnviroCan utterly gagged, he can't hide it much longer. He has bought as much time as possible. He's done an excellent job for the Oil Patch. It's not his fault that world prices cratered with the global meltdown. But time is running out.
Harper's hand will soon be forced on the climate change issue. He's going to have to set realistic and meaningful targets and he'll have to begin introducing measures to meet those. Other nations, particularly the United States, will be setting the bar and Canada is going to have to follow suit. To Harper's base that will be like shoving cloves of garlic down a vampire's throat. Do you really believe he, or the right wing of his party, want to be the people to deliver that up to their followers?
What have they got to lose by losing to Ignatieff right now? MI's already shown that he's willing to leave Canada's political centre far to the right (mission accomplished, point- Mr. Harper) and he'll be easy to attack as the successor to Dion when he has no choice but to introduce some form of carbon emissions controls.
Copenhagen is but six months away, the End Times are nigh. I think Harp's ready to pack his bags on a moment's notice and I don't think the Libs are remotely ready to deal with the vacuum he'll bequeath them.
Monday, February 02, 2009
Steve & Mike's Pinata Budget
What irks me most about the Harper-Ignatieff budget is that it's so much like a pinata party.
It's a paper mache figure into which Harper, under the watchful and approving eye of Ignatieff, stuffs tens of billions of dollars in Deficit Bucks and then steps away. He then hands out sticks to those who qualify with his matching fund criteria and they bash away until the pinata breaks and those Deficit Bucks cascade to the ground.
Then those kids drop their sticks, scoop up as many Deficit Bucks as they can carry and scurry off knowing that the rest of the kids, those who didn't get sticks, will have to make good the tax bill at the end of the day.
Stimulus? Maybe, maybe not. There'll probably be some recession-fighting stimulus effect but how much? Who's to say? Will it be 50-cents on the Deficit Buck or 25? Who will ever really know?
What about the provinces and the regions that don't get fairly represented at the Harper-Ignatieff pinata party? They're going to get to pay their fair share of the tax bill for the deficit and that seems to be about all the equality some will get out of this visionless scheme.
I guess the problem is that Harper doesn't have vision and he doesn't have guts. Ditto for Ignatieff. The stimulus budget is a national initiative. It's supposed to do its work nationwide and, presumably, with at least some semblence of equality.
This initiative never should have been transformed into a pinata party. That merely abandons the authority and responsibility for how the Deficit Bucks are spent to provinces, municipalities and cottage owners who are not accountable to us, the Canadian public. Harper shouldn't have hatched this scheme and Ignatieff ought to have put Canada first and opposed it.
Oh well, I hope Steve remembers to hire the Mariachi band so we can all dance around our new deficit while Michael mixes the margaritas.
It's a paper mache figure into which Harper, under the watchful and approving eye of Ignatieff, stuffs tens of billions of dollars in Deficit Bucks and then steps away. He then hands out sticks to those who qualify with his matching fund criteria and they bash away until the pinata breaks and those Deficit Bucks cascade to the ground.
Then those kids drop their sticks, scoop up as many Deficit Bucks as they can carry and scurry off knowing that the rest of the kids, those who didn't get sticks, will have to make good the tax bill at the end of the day.
Stimulus? Maybe, maybe not. There'll probably be some recession-fighting stimulus effect but how much? Who's to say? Will it be 50-cents on the Deficit Buck or 25? Who will ever really know?
What about the provinces and the regions that don't get fairly represented at the Harper-Ignatieff pinata party? They're going to get to pay their fair share of the tax bill for the deficit and that seems to be about all the equality some will get out of this visionless scheme.
I guess the problem is that Harper doesn't have vision and he doesn't have guts. Ditto for Ignatieff. The stimulus budget is a national initiative. It's supposed to do its work nationwide and, presumably, with at least some semblence of equality.
This initiative never should have been transformed into a pinata party. That merely abandons the authority and responsibility for how the Deficit Bucks are spent to provinces, municipalities and cottage owners who are not accountable to us, the Canadian public. Harper shouldn't have hatched this scheme and Ignatieff ought to have put Canada first and opposed it.
Oh well, I hope Steve remembers to hire the Mariachi band so we can all dance around our new deficit while Michael mixes the margaritas.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
What Choice Did They Have?
There's been a river of drivel flowing out of Iggy supporters and Iggy apologists today since he folded and embraced the Harper stimulus budget.
Here's one some joker threw my way. A majority of Canadians and a majority of Liberals support this budget. Okay, I tracked down one poll showing 51% of Canadians surveyed supported the budget. But wait, what choice did they have? Was anybody offering an alternative? No, of course not. An opposition party might have done that but the existing Liberal opposition came with empty hands, said "me too," and cinched the deal.
There being no other proposals on the table and the crest of the recession wave nearing shore, what's a girl to do but take what she can get?
But there are Iggy supporters who say that the budget is okay because Harper folded to Iggy's demands. Ignatieff actually made Harper produce this budget. Really? Why then is it so godawful?
What I like best, though, is how these same Iggy supporters howl like vampires caught in the noonday sun when anyone suggests this is a Harper-Ignatieff budget. Well it must be if Iggy forced Harper's hand. Geez, that sounds like a coalition government in everything but name.
Well if these Iggy supporters are right, that speaks volumes. The total lack of vision in this illegitimate creature is a collaborative effort. Neither of these, er, leaders has any vision. That's why this budget isn't driven by federal recovery spending programmes. It's just the feds throwing money around for others to figure out how it will be spent.
This country may be in for a fiscal thumping worse than any seen in generations. Jobs will be lost, homes too. Families will fall apart. Yet so many of my fellow Liberals are focused instead on who's ahead on points as though this was a political football game. Oh, Iggy's setting Steve up so he can pounce on him when the moment is ripe. Of for Christ's sake, the time is now, maybe not for Harper or for Iggy or for those who cheer on this game - but for a lot of your fellow Canadians, the time is definitely now.
Christ what a sad pair. But a pair nonetheless.
Here's one some joker threw my way. A majority of Canadians and a majority of Liberals support this budget. Okay, I tracked down one poll showing 51% of Canadians surveyed supported the budget. But wait, what choice did they have? Was anybody offering an alternative? No, of course not. An opposition party might have done that but the existing Liberal opposition came with empty hands, said "me too," and cinched the deal.
There being no other proposals on the table and the crest of the recession wave nearing shore, what's a girl to do but take what she can get?
But there are Iggy supporters who say that the budget is okay because Harper folded to Iggy's demands. Ignatieff actually made Harper produce this budget. Really? Why then is it so godawful?
What I like best, though, is how these same Iggy supporters howl like vampires caught in the noonday sun when anyone suggests this is a Harper-Ignatieff budget. Well it must be if Iggy forced Harper's hand. Geez, that sounds like a coalition government in everything but name.
Well if these Iggy supporters are right, that speaks volumes. The total lack of vision in this illegitimate creature is a collaborative effort. Neither of these, er, leaders has any vision. That's why this budget isn't driven by federal recovery spending programmes. It's just the feds throwing money around for others to figure out how it will be spent.
This country may be in for a fiscal thumping worse than any seen in generations. Jobs will be lost, homes too. Families will fall apart. Yet so many of my fellow Liberals are focused instead on who's ahead on points as though this was a political football game. Oh, Iggy's setting Steve up so he can pounce on him when the moment is ripe. Of for Christ's sake, the time is now, maybe not for Harper or for Iggy or for those who cheer on this game - but for a lot of your fellow Canadians, the time is definitely now.
Christ what a sad pair. But a pair nonetheless.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)