abridged version posted to:
G&M, “Wall adds voice to call for EI reform“, 31 May ’09, Bill Curry
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/wall-adds-voice-to-call-for-ei-reform/article1161074/
The Harper, self-professed ‘stimulus’, package as Ignatieff so aptly pointed out “the stimulus is not out the door”. Part of the reason is that for the infrastructure part, Harper has made it contingent on the provinces and municipalities matching the amounts. In reality Harper doesn’t want to spend the money and has put this equal contribution from the provinces as an excuse.
One question. If the stimulus is not out the door, then why do we have a deficit of over $50 billion. If this includes the necessary borrowing for the stimulus spending, then we have already borrowed the money and so, where is it.
On the other hand, if the Harper government has not yet borrowed the money, and given it would be imprudent to do so without the particular infrastucture, or other project, ready including the provincial contributions, then when it is borrowed just how much greater will the deficit be.
I can only say God help us!
On the other hand the general consensus is that EI benefits go very quickly right to the heart of the matter. It staves off bankruptcy by individuals who have lost their jobs and at the same time provides money that people will spend on all sorts of things and thus stimulate the economy in a fair, across-the-board fashion, without having to spend the huge overhead that is associated with any infrastructure project and concern that it is only going to Conservative friendly ridings simply to buy votes in the next election.
Ontario Finance Minister Dwight Dunca recently stated (on his way into a meeting with the Jim Flaherty and other provincial finance ministers):
"We prefer not to see an election right now, we prefer to see real change to provide fairness for the unemployed," he said on his way into a meeting with the Jim Flaherty and other provincial finance ministers.
The problem is that Harper, despite having a minority and despite the necessity, logic and fairness of changing the IE benefits, is maintaining his ‘in your face … my way or the highway … Laissez-faire … sink or swim…if the Opposition Parties want it then I will oppose it … right wing extremist ideological …’ attitude.
Lloyd MacIlquham
****************
5/31/2009 1:57:05 PM
The Harper, self-professed ‘stimulus’, package as Ignatieff so aptly pointed out “is not out the door”. Part of the reason is that for the infrastructure part, Harper has made it contingent on the provinces and municipalities matching the amounts.
_____________________________________________
One question. If the stimulus is not out the door, then why do we have a deficit of over $50 billion. If this includes the necessary borrowing for the stimulus spending, then we have already borrowed the money and so, where is it. If not what will the deficit be when they do.
_____________________________________________
General consensus is that EI benefits go very quickly to the heart of the matter. It staves off bankruptcy by individuals who have lost their jobs and at the same time provides money that people will spend on daily needs, stimulating the economy in a fair, across-the-board fashion, without having to spend the huge overhead that is associated with any infrastructure project and concern that it is only going to Conservative friendly ridings simply to buy votes in the next election.
_____________________________________________
"We prefer not to see an election right now, we prefer to see real change to provide fairness for the unemployed", Ontario Finance Minsiter
_____________________________________________
The problem is that Harper, despite having a minority and despite the necessity, logic and fairness of the proposed changing the IE benefits, is maintaining his ‘in your face … my way or the highway … Laissez-faire … sink or swim … if the Opposition Parties want it then I will oppose it … right wing extremist ideological …’ attitude.
_____________________________________________
Harper has demonstrated that he and the Cons have no intention of adopting the best policies for Canadians unless he is pushed to the edge and confronted with the real threat of losing power.
_____________________________________________
I can only say, ‘God save us’!
30 May, 2009
- Poll on Patriotism Probably Skewed by Die Hard Harperites
Post to G&M, "Harper's a Tims man, but Ignatieff inspires", 30 May '09, Brian Laghi
I think one needs to look at the methodology of a Poll when it indicates that Canadians consider Harper more patriotic, especially considering his general long term plan is to dismantle Federalism and protect Alberta’s interested to the exclusion of the rest of Canada.
…………………………………………………………………………………………
For example, what per centage of those with High School or less education were represented in the poll (this is important since the poll reveals such a wide margin between support in this group in favour of Harper). Also, what per centage of those from Alberta were represented in the poll. What about the wording of the question - if ‘patriotism’ somehow relates back to Alberta, then I can see the result.
…………………………………………………………………………………………
And, of course, there is a significant per centage of the Canadian population that are die hard supporters of Harper and the Cons. Who are not interested in the facts, reality or the good of the Canadian people but blindly support everything Harper and the Cons stand for. It is very likely that when asked in a poll they will all answer in favour of Harper, especially given the signals from Harper and the Cons that they are making ‘patriotism’ a major campaign issue. Whereas the general population will not be so one sided. This skewing probably accounts for the poll result on patriotism.
…………………………………………………………………………………………
The Poll explains why the Harper attack ads are designed to communicate to people on the lowest of denominators, fear mongering and in this case, Xenophobia as well. Such ‘propaganda’ are typical of extreme right wing idealogues with really no credentials except to appeal to a small segment of the population. I guess that’s what Harper and the Cons mean when they refer to their party as a ‘Populist’ party.
…………………………………………………………………………………………
Lloyd MacIlquham
I think one needs to look at the methodology of a Poll when it indicates that Canadians consider Harper more patriotic, especially considering his general long term plan is to dismantle Federalism and protect Alberta’s interested to the exclusion of the rest of Canada.
…………………………………………………………………………………………
For example, what per centage of those with High School or less education were represented in the poll (this is important since the poll reveals such a wide margin between support in this group in favour of Harper). Also, what per centage of those from Alberta were represented in the poll. What about the wording of the question - if ‘patriotism’ somehow relates back to Alberta, then I can see the result.
…………………………………………………………………………………………
And, of course, there is a significant per centage of the Canadian population that are die hard supporters of Harper and the Cons. Who are not interested in the facts, reality or the good of the Canadian people but blindly support everything Harper and the Cons stand for. It is very likely that when asked in a poll they will all answer in favour of Harper, especially given the signals from Harper and the Cons that they are making ‘patriotism’ a major campaign issue. Whereas the general population will not be so one sided. This skewing probably accounts for the poll result on patriotism.
…………………………………………………………………………………………
The Poll explains why the Harper attack ads are designed to communicate to people on the lowest of denominators, fear mongering and in this case, Xenophobia as well. Such ‘propaganda’ are typical of extreme right wing idealogues with really no credentials except to appeal to a small segment of the population. I guess that’s what Harper and the Cons mean when they refer to their party as a ‘Populist’ party.
…………………………………………………………………………………………
Lloyd MacIlquham
29 May, 2009
- Liberals should do a response ad comparing Harper credentials, or lack thereof, with Ignatieff’s
Posted to: G&M, “Just answer the question, Iggy”, Rick Salutin, 29 May ‘09
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/just-answer-the-question-iggy/article1158499/#
5/29/2009 12:58:28 PM
I suspect that these attack ads are designed to obscure attention away from Harper himself – i.e. Harper’s background, or lack thereof, and his very close connection, actual and ideological, to the extreme right wing of the Republican Party in the US. One need simply compare Harper’s background to that of Ignatieff to see that Ignatieff outclasses Harper by a country mile, whatever that ‘country’ is. There is simply no comparison.
…………………………………………………………………………………………
Perhaps the Liberal should come out with an Ad that makes a comparison between Harper’s background and Ignatieff’s background. Then at least people would have something upon which they may base a rational decision and see Harper for what he really is – an extreme right wing idealogue with really no credentials except to appeal to a small segment of the population. I guess that’s what they mean when they call themselves a ‘Populist’ party.
…………………………………………………………………………………………
The Harper attack ads are designed to communicate to people on the lowest of denominators, fear mongering and in this case, Xenophobia as well. There is no intention of discourse on any type of meaningful level, above playing on people’s raw emotion. One need only observe that they are totally divest of any explanation as to why Ignatieff’s background outside Canada might be a drawback in leading our country. Of course, such ads, they used to be called propaganda, typically consisting of fear mongering and xenophobia, form one of the main pillars upon which all extreme right wing ideologue groups support their objectives.
…………………………………………………………………………………………
With Harper’s strong leaning to the United States and strong ideological ties to the extreme right wing of the Republican Party one might suspect that he will be looking for a job there when he ‘retires from office’. Perhaps as a lecturer at Harvard. Given his recent personal PR campaign in the States, at the tax payer’s expense, this is not such a far out thought.
…………………………………………………………………
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/just-answer-the-question-iggy/article1158499/#
5/29/2009 12:58:28 PM
I suspect that these attack ads are designed to obscure attention away from Harper himself – i.e. Harper’s background, or lack thereof, and his very close connection, actual and ideological, to the extreme right wing of the Republican Party in the US. One need simply compare Harper’s background to that of Ignatieff to see that Ignatieff outclasses Harper by a country mile, whatever that ‘country’ is. There is simply no comparison.
…………………………………………………………………………………………
Perhaps the Liberal should come out with an Ad that makes a comparison between Harper’s background and Ignatieff’s background. Then at least people would have something upon which they may base a rational decision and see Harper for what he really is – an extreme right wing idealogue with really no credentials except to appeal to a small segment of the population. I guess that’s what they mean when they call themselves a ‘Populist’ party.
…………………………………………………………………………………………
The Harper attack ads are designed to communicate to people on the lowest of denominators, fear mongering and in this case, Xenophobia as well. There is no intention of discourse on any type of meaningful level, above playing on people’s raw emotion. One need only observe that they are totally divest of any explanation as to why Ignatieff’s background outside Canada might be a drawback in leading our country. Of course, such ads, they used to be called propaganda, typically consisting of fear mongering and xenophobia, form one of the main pillars upon which all extreme right wing ideologue groups support their objectives.
…………………………………………………………………………………………
With Harper’s strong leaning to the United States and strong ideological ties to the extreme right wing of the Republican Party one might suspect that he will be looking for a job there when he ‘retires from office’. Perhaps as a lecturer at Harvard. Given his recent personal PR campaign in the States, at the tax payer’s expense, this is not such a far out thought.
…………………………………………………………………
23 May, 2009
- The open, transparent, free and unobstructed flow of information ought to be enshrined in our Charter of Rights.
Submitted to the Toronot Star, "Dark virus infects budget office", 23 May '09, James Travers.
The open, transparent, free and unobstructed flow of information ought to be enshrined in our Charter of Rights. Its obstruction and obscuration, and in the extreme, by Harper and the Con’s shows us the dire need for this
"How can you cast your vote intelligently if you don't know what's going on?"
(As Travers so aptly quotes Robert Marleau, information commissioner).
Liberal and comprehensive rights to access information, available to all, unobstructed and vigilantly exercised, is a cornerstone of modern, open and free, democracy, protecting all from a closed, secretive government intent on using the powers entrusted to them for their self interest and interests contrary to the will of the people.
Access to information affords the stuff whereby the individual may forge both sword and shield to uphold human rights, without which no amount legislation can guaranty these rights and so, should therefore stand on the same footing.
...
Many people criticize the media for not reporting fairly and accurately.
When information is obscured and perverted at the source by the government, such is what is happening now by Harper and the Con’s, this criticism is not merely blaming the messenger – since the media could make this a “cause de celebre”.
When the free flow is obstructed and curtailed it gives the government a leverage to gain influence in the media, by favouring one media outlet over another. The media is also to blame as well for this but then, they’re only human - aren’t they? I don’t know, ask Travers.
The open, transparent, free and unobstructed flow of information ought to be enshrined in our Charter of Rights. Its obstruction and obscuration, and in the extreme, by Harper and the Con’s shows us the dire need for this
"How can you cast your vote intelligently if you don't know what's going on?"
(As Travers so aptly quotes Robert Marleau, information commissioner).
Liberal and comprehensive rights to access information, available to all, unobstructed and vigilantly exercised, is a cornerstone of modern, open and free, democracy, protecting all from a closed, secretive government intent on using the powers entrusted to them for their self interest and interests contrary to the will of the people.
Access to information affords the stuff whereby the individual may forge both sword and shield to uphold human rights, without which no amount legislation can guaranty these rights and so, should therefore stand on the same footing.
...
Many people criticize the media for not reporting fairly and accurately.
When information is obscured and perverted at the source by the government, such is what is happening now by Harper and the Con’s, this criticism is not merely blaming the messenger – since the media could make this a “cause de celebre”.
When the free flow is obstructed and curtailed it gives the government a leverage to gain influence in the media, by favouring one media outlet over another. The media is also to blame as well for this but then, they’re only human - aren’t they? I don’t know, ask Travers.
18 May, 2009
- Carbon Tax was a Non-Issue in the BC Election – The Real Issue was the Uselessness of Fixed date Elections
Globe and mail, “How a B.C. carbon tax rose from Dion's ashes“,Stewart Elgie And David Boyd And Chris Waddell, May 17, 2009 at 10:51 PM EDT
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090515.wcocarbon18/BNStory/specialComment/home
I am not sure that the election in BC supports all your conclusions. The BC election was not issue based, it was called simply because of legislation requiring an election every four years. The campaigns were very low key, to say the least. The electorate were very much disengaged. This non-necessary, non-issue, non-engaged, dis-interest was manifested in the lowest turnout in BC history (50%) and that the result were essentially the same as before.
Carol James tried to make the carbon tax an issue but, except getting the environmentalists mad at her, it really did nothing.
One might say that the economy so dominated the election that no other issue had much traction. But, I am not sure that this is at all accurate. For one thing, NDP, in my opinion anyway, is not viewed by the electorate as an “economy issues” party. So, in an election where the economy so dominated one would expect that it would be very one sided and result in a bigger majority for the Liberals. But it wasn’t and it didn’t.
On the other side, I don’t think you can conclude that there was a backlash against the Liberals for their handling of the economy, or for their carbon tax. Once again if this were the case you would expect that the NDP supporters would be motivated and mobilized, which the % of voters and the results does not bear out – nobody was motivated, in the least.
The real issue in this election, to me, is the requirement to have a fixed election date, set out in legislation. It may work for Americans but then, we’re not Americans, are we.
The carbon tax was pretty much irrelevant to the election or its results and so I can’t see how you can use the BC election to infer very much regarding the carbon tax issue or global warming generally.
Lloyd Maclquham
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090515.wcocarbon18/BNStory/specialComment/home
I am not sure that the election in BC supports all your conclusions. The BC election was not issue based, it was called simply because of legislation requiring an election every four years. The campaigns were very low key, to say the least. The electorate were very much disengaged. This non-necessary, non-issue, non-engaged, dis-interest was manifested in the lowest turnout in BC history (50%) and that the result were essentially the same as before.
Carol James tried to make the carbon tax an issue but, except getting the environmentalists mad at her, it really did nothing.
One might say that the economy so dominated the election that no other issue had much traction. But, I am not sure that this is at all accurate. For one thing, NDP, in my opinion anyway, is not viewed by the electorate as an “economy issues” party. So, in an election where the economy so dominated one would expect that it would be very one sided and result in a bigger majority for the Liberals. But it wasn’t and it didn’t.
On the other side, I don’t think you can conclude that there was a backlash against the Liberals for their handling of the economy, or for their carbon tax. Once again if this were the case you would expect that the NDP supporters would be motivated and mobilized, which the % of voters and the results does not bear out – nobody was motivated, in the least.
The real issue in this election, to me, is the requirement to have a fixed election date, set out in legislation. It may work for Americans but then, we’re not Americans, are we.
The carbon tax was pretty much irrelevant to the election or its results and so I can’t see how you can use the BC election to infer very much regarding the carbon tax issue or global warming generally.
Lloyd Maclquham
- Comment Posted to the G&M
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/635530#Comments
About Lloyd MacIlquham at 11:37 AM Sunday, May 17 2009
His composition is superb and his point well made. I have no doubt I had, -- after a long time, -- a chance to read some lines of high wisdom.
Submitted by zoroni at 5:46 PM Sunday, May 17 2009
About Lloyd MacIlquham at 11:37 AM Sunday, May 17 2009
His composition is superb and his point well made. I have no doubt I had, -- after a long time, -- a chance to read some lines of high wisdom.
Submitted by zoroni at 5:46 PM Sunday, May 17 2009
17 May, 2009
- History will look back at Harper and the Con’s as a pack of vicious, mean spirited, self-serving, power mongering, extreme right wing ideologues
submitted 17 May '09, 8:35am(PDT) to:
Toronto Star, “Knee-deep in political mud and still sinking”, 17 May ’09, Angelo Persichilli http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/635530
" Harper and the Con’s have built, and employ ‘liberally’, a propaganda machine the likes of which Western democracies have not seen in recent times."
I remember Mulroney and I remember Turner. I also remember Chrétien and of course, Martin. What I don’t remember is anything that comes anywhere near the blatant distortion of truth and unabashed slanderous attacks that Harper and the Con’s are doing. Harper has “ramped it up” to a level never seen before in Canadian politics. Harper and the Con’s have built, and employ ‘liberally’, a propaganda machine the likes of which Western democracies have not seen in recent times.
10 –15 years ago we may have referred to it as ‘attack” ads but when comparing it to what Harper and the Cons are doing it was nothing more than boy scouts talking around a camp fire. “The truth be told” it is as different as “an apple and a fridge”.
"History will look back at Stephen Harper and the Con’s as a pack of vicious, mean spirited, self-serving, power mongering, extreme right wing ideologues"
Also, I would like to point out that the Conservative Party of Stephen Harper is not that same party as the Progressive Conservative Party (PC’s) of Brian Mulroney and John Diefenbaker. Again, “The truth be told” they are as different as “an apple and a fridge”.
I never supported the PC’s but I acknowledge that the PC’s had a long and venerable history serving Canada with honour and distinction. They should be proud of their legacy and in fact most Canadians, I suggest, are.
When history looks back at Steven Harper and the Cons I cannot imagine that anyone would dream of suggesting the Harper and the Cons have served Canada with honour and distinction.
Rather, I suggest that history will look back at Stephen Harper and the Con’s as a pack of vicious, mean spirited, self-serving, power mongering, extreme right wing ideologues that attempted to systematically dismantled national unity and tear asunder the social fabric that we, through the PC’s and Liberals, spent over a century weaving.
Toronto Star, “Knee-deep in political mud and still sinking”, 17 May ’09, Angelo Persichilli http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/635530
" Harper and the Con’s have built, and employ ‘liberally’, a propaganda machine the likes of which Western democracies have not seen in recent times."
I remember Mulroney and I remember Turner. I also remember Chrétien and of course, Martin. What I don’t remember is anything that comes anywhere near the blatant distortion of truth and unabashed slanderous attacks that Harper and the Con’s are doing. Harper has “ramped it up” to a level never seen before in Canadian politics. Harper and the Con’s have built, and employ ‘liberally’, a propaganda machine the likes of which Western democracies have not seen in recent times.
10 –15 years ago we may have referred to it as ‘attack” ads but when comparing it to what Harper and the Cons are doing it was nothing more than boy scouts talking around a camp fire. “The truth be told” it is as different as “an apple and a fridge”.
"History will look back at Stephen Harper and the Con’s as a pack of vicious, mean spirited, self-serving, power mongering, extreme right wing ideologues"
Also, I would like to point out that the Conservative Party of Stephen Harper is not that same party as the Progressive Conservative Party (PC’s) of Brian Mulroney and John Diefenbaker. Again, “The truth be told” they are as different as “an apple and a fridge”.
I never supported the PC’s but I acknowledge that the PC’s had a long and venerable history serving Canada with honour and distinction. They should be proud of their legacy and in fact most Canadians, I suggest, are.
When history looks back at Steven Harper and the Cons I cannot imagine that anyone would dream of suggesting the Harper and the Cons have served Canada with honour and distinction.
Rather, I suggest that history will look back at Stephen Harper and the Con’s as a pack of vicious, mean spirited, self-serving, power mongering, extreme right wing ideologues that attempted to systematically dismantled national unity and tear asunder the social fabric that we, through the PC’s and Liberals, spent over a century weaving.
14 May, 2009
- Harper and the Con’s have built, and employ ‘liberally’, a propaganda machine the likes of which Western democracies have not seen in recent times.
Comment posted to:
Globe and Mail, “Desperate times for Tories call for desperate attack ads”, May 14, 2009, Lawrence Martin
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090513.wcomartin14/BNStory/specialComment/home
For Harper and the Con’s to attack Ignatieff as they are, and will be, is sheer partisan politics and dishonest.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
One need only recall their ‘call-to-arms’ last December to see how potentially divisive and hurtful Harper and the Cons’ propaganda campaigns can be to the future of our country.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
The Harper, and the Con’s generally, style politics is of duplicity, deception, obscuration, suppression of truth and, slandering and mud slinging in lieu of serious and sober response to important issues.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
For Harper Parliament is little more than as a focus group to try out new attack strategies under the cover of Parliamentary privilege. He has already shown us his distain for Parliament and disrespect for the most fundamental of our Democratic institutions.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
The problem is that Harper and the Con’s style of politicking is so pervasive in the current landscape that some of us are unable to see clearly the fundamental destructiveness of it not only to our nation as a whole but our social fabric and self-image.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Hopefully all Canadians will let Harper know in no uncertain terms that we don’t go for his type of rules and government.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Although we have had a number of elections in close order and another would be painful, in the long run, the sooner we get rid of Harper and his Con’s the better for all Canadians and our way of life.
Globe and Mail, “Desperate times for Tories call for desperate attack ads”, May 14, 2009, Lawrence Martin
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090513.wcomartin14/BNStory/specialComment/home
For Harper and the Con’s to attack Ignatieff as they are, and will be, is sheer partisan politics and dishonest.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
One need only recall their ‘call-to-arms’ last December to see how potentially divisive and hurtful Harper and the Cons’ propaganda campaigns can be to the future of our country.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
The Harper, and the Con’s generally, style politics is of duplicity, deception, obscuration, suppression of truth and, slandering and mud slinging in lieu of serious and sober response to important issues.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
For Harper Parliament is little more than as a focus group to try out new attack strategies under the cover of Parliamentary privilege. He has already shown us his distain for Parliament and disrespect for the most fundamental of our Democratic institutions.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
The problem is that Harper and the Con’s style of politicking is so pervasive in the current landscape that some of us are unable to see clearly the fundamental destructiveness of it not only to our nation as a whole but our social fabric and self-image.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Hopefully all Canadians will let Harper know in no uncertain terms that we don’t go for his type of rules and government.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Although we have had a number of elections in close order and another would be painful, in the long run, the sooner we get rid of Harper and his Con’s the better for all Canadians and our way of life.
10 May, 2009
- Laissez-faire, ‘sink-or-swim’ approach has no place in a modern, complex, economy based society such as is Canada’s
My E-mail to lorrie.goldstein@sunmedia.ca
sent 10 May.'09:
Hi Lorrie Goldstein
The following is a comment on your article in the Toronto Sun, “A 'liberal' state of mind”, 10th May 2009, 3:49am
http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/lorrie_goldstein/2009/05/10/9410256-sun.html
I am quite surprised that, in this day and age, your newspaper does not allow people to post comments – both the Toronto Star and Globe and mail do.
I am posting this to my blog:
http://cicblog.com/comments.html
You may E-mail me, at this E-mail address, a response if you wish for my consideration.
“Freedom’ and ‘individual liberty, material security, voluntary co-operation and social order’ are all afforded by a good standard of living. One need only look to the deficiency of freedom, individual liberty, material security, voluntary co-operation and social order people in third world countries have, except those very few that have money. One need also only look at those living in poverty in the United States.
The foundation of a good standard of living is education. It is clear that education must start early in life. Education has the added benefit of produces well adjusted members of society who understand and have learned the need to co-operate and live in harmony with everyone else.
One need only look at the causes of the current and severe economic downturn to see the problems of allowing ‘entrepreneurial’ forces to run amuck and unchecked.
Dr. Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr., may be a good psychiatrist, I have no idea, but simply testifying at thousands of trials in the United States neither means, per se, he is good (one need only look at Dr. Charles Smith in Ontario) nor that he has any understanding of the Canadian social or political context. Canadian society, precisely in this regard, is very much distinct to US society.
For example, in my observation, Canadians believe firmly in the social safety net actively established and maintained by government policies. The Americans subscribe to a far more laissez-faire, ‘sink-or-swim’ approach to society and their economy. This by itself is fatal to relying on his opinion in these matters as they apply to the Canadian context and one need not go further to investigate his competence to give an informed opinion on political matters, or the merits of said opinions.
It seems to me that this is more a testament to the power of education and social freedom in a country like the United States – i.e. no matter what the opinion, you can find someone with high credentials expounding it, just watch some of the ‘Infomercials’, or read, or listen to, some of their media editorials.
On the other hand I can see how those subscribing to a right wing extremist ideology might be tempted to blindly embrace his ruminations with or without an objective assessment of their merits or relevance to the Canadian context.
If I recall it seems to me the comment by Scott Reid had to do with the Harper government shirking the responsibility of our Federal government regarding day care and adopting the ‘sink-or-swim’ approach the American seems to embrace so much. Day care is a serious and important element of our society, and our future, and the education of our young. $100 a month does not come close to paying for it (If you can do it, please let me know how I can and I would be more than happy to retract this statement). Realistically, the only way that meaningful, quality Day-Care will be available to all Canadians, and not just those with a high income, is a program established and maintained by the government. Such government initiatives work, we all know that.
It seems to me that "winners," as opposed to "losers," is referring to Harper’s Minister of Finance, Jim Flaherty’s statement regarding refusing to helping out the Ford Motor Company in Jan.’08 – vis.: “quite frankly, politicians aren't very good at picking business winners and losers" (G&M, 16 Jan.’08, “No bailout for Ford, Flaherty says”).
When looked at in the current economic context we see just how wrong Flaherty was, and the extent to which blindly and dogmatically applying this laissez-faire, right wing, extremist ideology expounded by Dr. Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr., is out of step and damaging in a modern, complex, economy based society such as Canada has. On the other hand, if Flaherty was speaking for himself, Harper and the Con’s then, I am sure, he got their inability to take an active approach to running the country right – one need only look at the events as they have been unfolding since Jan.’08.
Lloyd MacIlquham, Nanaimo, BC,
sent 10 May.'09:
Hi Lorrie Goldstein
The following is a comment on your article in the Toronto Sun, “A 'liberal' state of mind”, 10th May 2009, 3:49am
http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/lorrie_goldstein/2009/05/10/9410256-sun.html
I am quite surprised that, in this day and age, your newspaper does not allow people to post comments – both the Toronto Star and Globe and mail do.
I am posting this to my blog:
http://cicblog.com/comments.html
You may E-mail me, at this E-mail address, a response if you wish for my consideration.
“Freedom’ and ‘individual liberty, material security, voluntary co-operation and social order’ are all afforded by a good standard of living. One need only look to the deficiency of freedom, individual liberty, material security, voluntary co-operation and social order people in third world countries have, except those very few that have money. One need also only look at those living in poverty in the United States.
The foundation of a good standard of living is education. It is clear that education must start early in life. Education has the added benefit of produces well adjusted members of society who understand and have learned the need to co-operate and live in harmony with everyone else.
One need only look at the causes of the current and severe economic downturn to see the problems of allowing ‘entrepreneurial’ forces to run amuck and unchecked.
Dr. Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr., may be a good psychiatrist, I have no idea, but simply testifying at thousands of trials in the United States neither means, per se, he is good (one need only look at Dr. Charles Smith in Ontario) nor that he has any understanding of the Canadian social or political context. Canadian society, precisely in this regard, is very much distinct to US society.
For example, in my observation, Canadians believe firmly in the social safety net actively established and maintained by government policies. The Americans subscribe to a far more laissez-faire, ‘sink-or-swim’ approach to society and their economy. This by itself is fatal to relying on his opinion in these matters as they apply to the Canadian context and one need not go further to investigate his competence to give an informed opinion on political matters, or the merits of said opinions.
It seems to me that this is more a testament to the power of education and social freedom in a country like the United States – i.e. no matter what the opinion, you can find someone with high credentials expounding it, just watch some of the ‘Infomercials’, or read, or listen to, some of their media editorials.
On the other hand I can see how those subscribing to a right wing extremist ideology might be tempted to blindly embrace his ruminations with or without an objective assessment of their merits or relevance to the Canadian context.
If I recall it seems to me the comment by Scott Reid had to do with the Harper government shirking the responsibility of our Federal government regarding day care and adopting the ‘sink-or-swim’ approach the American seems to embrace so much. Day care is a serious and important element of our society, and our future, and the education of our young. $100 a month does not come close to paying for it (If you can do it, please let me know how I can and I would be more than happy to retract this statement). Realistically, the only way that meaningful, quality Day-Care will be available to all Canadians, and not just those with a high income, is a program established and maintained by the government. Such government initiatives work, we all know that.
It seems to me that "winners," as opposed to "losers," is referring to Harper’s Minister of Finance, Jim Flaherty’s statement regarding refusing to helping out the Ford Motor Company in Jan.’08 – vis.: “quite frankly, politicians aren't very good at picking business winners and losers" (G&M, 16 Jan.’08, “No bailout for Ford, Flaherty says”).
When looked at in the current economic context we see just how wrong Flaherty was, and the extent to which blindly and dogmatically applying this laissez-faire, right wing, extremist ideology expounded by Dr. Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr., is out of step and damaging in a modern, complex, economy based society such as Canada has. On the other hand, if Flaherty was speaking for himself, Harper and the Con’s then, I am sure, he got their inability to take an active approach to running the country right – one need only look at the events as they have been unfolding since Jan.’08.
Lloyd MacIlquham, Nanaimo, BC,
09 May, 2009
- Harper’s Ham-Stringing and Strong-Arming Our Parliamentary and Administrative Watch-Dogs
comment on: Toronto Star, “Another victory for hired guns”, May 09, 2009 04:30 AM, James Travers
http://www.thestar.com/canada/columnist/article/631673
There I no doubt that Harper is systematically and deliberately ham-stringing and strong-arming the various Parliamentary and administrative institutions whose purpose is to ‘keep the government honest’ by ensuring the people of Canada know the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and in timely fashion. That “bureaucrats helped the government deliver an essentially misleading economic update while mixing public policy and political provocation” is alarming and should be a warning to all Canadians.
This of course is an integral part of his general suppression of information and hiding and distorting the truth. This is also reflected in his total distain for integrity of Parliament. The goal is, obviously and as suggested, to concentrate power in his hands alone, without regard for the will of Parliament or the will of the people of Canada.
Lloyd MacIlquham
http://www.thestar.com/canada/columnist/article/631673
There I no doubt that Harper is systematically and deliberately ham-stringing and strong-arming the various Parliamentary and administrative institutions whose purpose is to ‘keep the government honest’ by ensuring the people of Canada know the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and in timely fashion. That “bureaucrats helped the government deliver an essentially misleading economic update while mixing public policy and political provocation” is alarming and should be a warning to all Canadians.
This of course is an integral part of his general suppression of information and hiding and distorting the truth. This is also reflected in his total distain for integrity of Parliament. The goal is, obviously and as suggested, to concentrate power in his hands alone, without regard for the will of Parliament or the will of the people of Canada.
Lloyd MacIlquham
- The only thing that has hit the mark here is that Ignatieff is a fast learner - whereas, Harper, and the Cons’s, is a fast deceiver - and this is a
Submitted to: Toronto Star, "Ignatieff's Turner problem", May 09, 2009 04:30 AM, Thomas Walkom
http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/article/631587
If you look at the examples given in this article the only problem Ignatieff might have is being open, transparent, logical, and, basically, being a straight shooter.
It is certainly out of step with the Harper, and the Con’s generally, style politics of duplicity, deception, obscuration, suppression of truth and, slandering and mud slinging in lieu of serious and sober response to important issues.
But to suggest that that makes him out of touch with Canada is perverse and, fortunately, erroneous.
Also, implied is that somehow Lester B. Pearson is a leader that we all, as Canadians, ought not to turn to as an example of the type of competence and integrity that we should not only desire in our leader but demand in our leader.
The problem is that the Harper and Con’s style of politicking is so pervasive in the current landscape that some of us are unable to see clearly the fundamental destructiveness of it not only to our nation as a whole but our social fabric and self-image.
The only thing that has hit the mark here is that Ignatieff is a fast learner - whereas, Harper, and the Cons’s, is a fast deceiver - and this is a good thing.
Lloyd MacIlquham
http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/article/631587
If you look at the examples given in this article the only problem Ignatieff might have is being open, transparent, logical, and, basically, being a straight shooter.
It is certainly out of step with the Harper, and the Con’s generally, style politics of duplicity, deception, obscuration, suppression of truth and, slandering and mud slinging in lieu of serious and sober response to important issues.
But to suggest that that makes him out of touch with Canada is perverse and, fortunately, erroneous.
Also, implied is that somehow Lester B. Pearson is a leader that we all, as Canadians, ought not to turn to as an example of the type of competence and integrity that we should not only desire in our leader but demand in our leader.
The problem is that the Harper and Con’s style of politicking is so pervasive in the current landscape that some of us are unable to see clearly the fundamental destructiveness of it not only to our nation as a whole but our social fabric and self-image.
The only thing that has hit the mark here is that Ignatieff is a fast learner - whereas, Harper, and the Cons’s, is a fast deceiver - and this is a good thing.
Lloyd MacIlquham
08 May, 2009
- Reply to My Comments posted to Toronto Star, 7 May '09 - see below
To Lloyd MacIlquham
Your posting under "Without transparency..." is one of the best I have seen in the Star. I hope that a lot of people read it, especially those Conservative (Reform/Alliance) supporters who want to put Harper on a pedestal so they can prostrate themselves before him.
Submitted by E.B. at 12:50 PM Thursday, May 07 2009
http://www.thestar.com/canada/columnist/article/630362#Comments
Your posting under "Without transparency..." is one of the best I have seen in the Star. I hope that a lot of people read it, especially those Conservative (Reform/Alliance) supporters who want to put Harper on a pedestal so they can prostrate themselves before him.
Submitted by E.B. at 12:50 PM Thursday, May 07 2009
http://www.thestar.com/canada/columnist/article/630362#Comments
07 May, 2009
- Without transparency and the free, undistorted and unobstructed access to information the line between ‘Education’ and ‘Propaganda’ can be blurred
submitted to:
Toronto Star, 'Education our only magic elixir', May 07, 2009 04:30 AM, James Travers
http://www.thestar.com/canada/columnist/article/630362#Comments
Just Look at Harper and the Con’s
Harper and the Con’s have built, and employ ‘liberally’, a propaganda machine the likes of which Western democracies have not seen in recent times. They consider it ‘Educating the Public to Conservative Values’ (compare Harper’s statement at the beginning of the last election).
Like any propaganda machine ‘obscuration and obstruction’ of access to the truth is fundamental. Harper and the Con’s deliberate and extensive restricting and obstructing access to information is well documented. So to are his, and their, hiding and distorting the truth; responding to serious, reasonable and legitimate questions with personal attacks and slurs; and, their dark-ages attitude to Science and Scientific research.
I think education is vital but we must make sure that what people are applying it to is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and that they have free, undistorted and unobstructed access to it.
Lloyd MacIlquham
Toronto Star, 'Education our only magic elixir', May 07, 2009 04:30 AM, James Travers
http://www.thestar.com/canada/columnist/article/630362#Comments
Just Look at Harper and the Con’s
Harper and the Con’s have built, and employ ‘liberally’, a propaganda machine the likes of which Western democracies have not seen in recent times. They consider it ‘Educating the Public to Conservative Values’ (compare Harper’s statement at the beginning of the last election).
Like any propaganda machine ‘obscuration and obstruction’ of access to the truth is fundamental. Harper and the Con’s deliberate and extensive restricting and obstructing access to information is well documented. So to are his, and their, hiding and distorting the truth; responding to serious, reasonable and legitimate questions with personal attacks and slurs; and, their dark-ages attitude to Science and Scientific research.
I think education is vital but we must make sure that what people are applying it to is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and that they have free, undistorted and unobstructed access to it.
Lloyd MacIlquham
06 May, 2009
- You choose: Ignatieff – help those that need help v. Harper – sink or swim
Submitted 6 May.’09 8:02am (PDT) to:
Toronto Star,'Why Ignatieff's Liberals changed their tune on EI', Chantal Hébert, 6 May.'09
http://www.thestar.com/canada/columnist/article/629664
Suggesting that the Liberals’ emphasis on EI is based on ‘electoral credit’ has things backwards. EI is part of Canada’s social safety net which is a defining feature of our society and an integral part of our social fabric. In a recession more people require EI and require it to a greater extent. Thus, EI becomes more important to more people. As noted this is particularly true in Ontario.
A fundamental aspect of government is to protect those that need protection and help those that need help. That Ignatieff and the Federal Liberals feel that it is their duty to do exactly this, especially when Harper and the Con’s fundamental ideology incorporates a ‘sink or swim’ approach, can hardly be said to be politicing to voters.
Lloyd MacIlquham
Toronto Star,'Why Ignatieff's Liberals changed their tune on EI', Chantal Hébert, 6 May.'09
http://www.thestar.com/canada/columnist/article/629664
Suggesting that the Liberals’ emphasis on EI is based on ‘electoral credit’ has things backwards. EI is part of Canada’s social safety net which is a defining feature of our society and an integral part of our social fabric. In a recession more people require EI and require it to a greater extent. Thus, EI becomes more important to more people. As noted this is particularly true in Ontario.
A fundamental aspect of government is to protect those that need protection and help those that need help. That Ignatieff and the Federal Liberals feel that it is their duty to do exactly this, especially when Harper and the Con’s fundamental ideology incorporates a ‘sink or swim’ approach, can hardly be said to be politicing to voters.
Lloyd MacIlquham
05 May, 2009
- Harper’s basic strategies is to marginalize Parliament and concentrate all power in his hands.
submitted to the Toronto Star, 5 May'09: '
Election chatter: Don't go there', James Travers, TS, 5 May'09
http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/628967
If the Liberal formed a government Harper would be just as disruptive, divisive, belligerent and disrespectful, if not more so, of the comity of Parliament, a fundamental principle of Westminster democracies, as the was when Martin was PM, when he disrespected its laws, which he himself initiated, by calling an early election last Fall and, when he shirked the will Parliament by suspending it. One need only recall the ‘call-to-arms’ and threat of division that Harper and the Con’s fostered in their build-up to his disbanding of Parliament.
It is clear that one of Harper’s basic strategies is to marginalize Parliament and concentrate all power in his hands. For him Parliament is little more than as a focus group to try out new attack strategies under the cover of Parliamentary privilege. To this end, Harper and the Con’s have developed and implement a propaganda machine the likes of which have not been seen in Western democracies in recent times.
Although we have had a number of elections in close order and another would be painful, in the long run, the sooner we get rid of Harper and his Con’s the better for all Canadians and our way of life.
Lloyd MacIlquham
Election chatter: Don't go there', James Travers, TS, 5 May'09
http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/628967
If the Liberal formed a government Harper would be just as disruptive, divisive, belligerent and disrespectful, if not more so, of the comity of Parliament, a fundamental principle of Westminster democracies, as the was when Martin was PM, when he disrespected its laws, which he himself initiated, by calling an early election last Fall and, when he shirked the will Parliament by suspending it. One need only recall the ‘call-to-arms’ and threat of division that Harper and the Con’s fostered in their build-up to his disbanding of Parliament.
It is clear that one of Harper’s basic strategies is to marginalize Parliament and concentrate all power in his hands. For him Parliament is little more than as a focus group to try out new attack strategies under the cover of Parliamentary privilege. To this end, Harper and the Con’s have developed and implement a propaganda machine the likes of which have not been seen in Western democracies in recent times.
Although we have had a number of elections in close order and another would be painful, in the long run, the sooner we get rid of Harper and his Con’s the better for all Canadians and our way of life.
Lloyd MacIlquham
04 May, 2009
- “Just Watch Me”
submitted, 4 May ’09, 7:15am (PDT) in response to the Times article about whether Ignatieff will b able to make the transition from intellectual to politician.
From The Times, May 4, 2009, 'The Avenue of Mulberries - Combining the life of the mind with politics is difficult'
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article6216204.ece?Submitted=true
In the words of another outstanding Canadian intellect and politician , “Just watch me”.
Lloyd MacIlquham
From The Times, May 4, 2009, 'The Avenue of Mulberries - Combining the life of the mind with politics is difficult'
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article6216204.ece?Submitted=true
In the words of another outstanding Canadian intellect and politician , “Just watch me”.
Lloyd MacIlquham
02 May, 2009
- In Ontario: Conservatives rise 8% and NDP at 1% - Am I reading this Right!
Submitted 2 May’09
Comment on: Ignatieff takes hit for tax remarks
http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/627872
In Ontario: Conservatives rise 8% and NDP at 1%. At first blush I’d say there is something wrong with the polling and I would be very hesitant to rely on it. Perhaps it is that one time out 20 – The Star and La Presse might ask Nanos how many polls Nanos Research done lately. To me this is significant and I think that this should have been commented on in the article and an explanation given.
However, if true, it seems the Liberals are not out of the wood in Ontario. It is not likely that the NDP would get 1% of the vote in Ontario if there were and election. It is also hard to see people turning away from the Con’s to the NDP. So, an NDP rise, which would be at least 10% - 15% and inevitable, would represent a significant decrease for the Liberals, even to the extent of putting them far behind the Con’s and comparable to Oct.’08, 34%, from the current poll’s 43%. However, the Green seem to be fairly solid at around 4 – 8% and would likely only give 2 – 3% to the NDP.
Lloyd MacIlquham
Comment on: Ignatieff takes hit for tax remarks
http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/627872
In Ontario: Conservatives rise 8% and NDP at 1%. At first blush I’d say there is something wrong with the polling and I would be very hesitant to rely on it. Perhaps it is that one time out 20 – The Star and La Presse might ask Nanos how many polls Nanos Research done lately. To me this is significant and I think that this should have been commented on in the article and an explanation given.
However, if true, it seems the Liberals are not out of the wood in Ontario. It is not likely that the NDP would get 1% of the vote in Ontario if there were and election. It is also hard to see people turning away from the Con’s to the NDP. So, an NDP rise, which would be at least 10% - 15% and inevitable, would represent a significant decrease for the Liberals, even to the extent of putting them far behind the Con’s and comparable to Oct.’08, 34%, from the current poll’s 43%. However, the Green seem to be fairly solid at around 4 – 8% and would likely only give 2 – 3% to the NDP.
Lloyd MacIlquham
01 May, 2009
- ave atque vale, Stéphane
Catullus
Latin text
1 Multās per gentēs et multa per aequora vectus
2 adveniō hās miserās, frāter, ad īnferiās,
3 ut tē postrēmō dōnārem mūnere mortis
4 et mūtam nēquīquam alloquerer cinerem.
5 quandoquidem fortūna mihī tētē abstulit ipsum.
6 heu miser indignē frāter adēmpte mihi,
7 nunc tamen intereā haec, prīscō quae mōre parentum
8 trādita sunt trīstī mūnere ad īnferiās,
9 accipe frāternō multum mānantia flētū,
10 atque in perpetuum, frāter, avē atque valē.
Latin text
1 Multās per gentēs et multa per aequora vectus
2 adveniō hās miserās, frāter, ad īnferiās,
3 ut tē postrēmō dōnārem mūnere mortis
4 et mūtam nēquīquam alloquerer cinerem.
5 quandoquidem fortūna mihī tētē abstulit ipsum.
6 heu miser indignē frāter adēmpte mihi,
7 nunc tamen intereā haec, prīscō quae mōre parentum
8 trādita sunt trīstī mūnere ad īnferiās,
9 accipe frāternō multum mānantia flētū,
10 atque in perpetuum, frāter, avē atque valē.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)