excerpt posted to: GDP reaction, ‘There’s no spark in our economy, Wednesday, Sep. 30, 2009 11:53AM EDT
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/theres-no-spark-in-our-economy/article1306631/
So once again Harper and the Con's are saying steady as she goes, we know what we're doing, leave everything to us, our strategy is working, we have put Canada in a better position than the other world economies.
And once again, the realities, at the very least, do not support their position and, in fact, indicate the opposite.
Harper and the Con's can not be basing their plans and predictions on anything real since the realities dictate the opposite of what they are claiming.
It is very difficult to see that Harper and Flaherty would not know that the all the sectors, especially the utilities including oil and gas, where their power base is centred were down and the only one up was manufacturing. If they knew then they deliberately hid this information.
If they did not know then what are they doing "leading our country out of the recession".
And, if they did not know then how could they, in any honesty, say that things are stabilized and will improve with them at the helm.
Clearly, as with everything else, Harper and the Con's are not basing their policies on the realities but only upon their extreme right wing ideology.
What do we have to do to get the truth from Harper and his Con's. What is really happening with the stimulus money. What good does it do to approve an project that won't start for 6 - 8 -12 months or even years. What about the 100's of thousands of jobs that are going to be lost in the next 6 - 8 - 12 months. What about all those people whose EI has run out and will be running out in the next 6 - 8 - 12 months.
Best we get rid of Harper and the Cons.
Having an election this Fall may seem undesirable. But, any hurt is minimal compared to the disastrous effects likely of not so doing over the next year, especially to so many individuals and families - and that's what its all about. It is comparable to someone diagnosed with cancer. Denial does nothing but put off taking action. Following views that are ideologically based and not based in sound science and reality, in a word, Quackery, deceives us into thinking everything will be ok, and so not only delays taking real action but prevents us from facing our situation and taking real effective action, until it is too late.
30 September, 2009
27 September, 2009
- The Harper, extreme right wing, ideologically based, gov’t, weakens our society, disenfranchises the majority and creates unfairness and inequality.
The strength of Democracy lies in allowing each person, as an individual, to contribute their unique skills, experience and abilities to the good of the whole society. The fundamental principle that “everyone created equal” affords the underlying mechanism that allows each of us to make our contribution. The more diverse the society and the more open and transparent the processes, the broader the range of ideas, considerations, perception, depth of understanding and confidence in the solution and that is for the good of all.
Ideology runs contrary to this in that it pre-assuming that certain approaches and opinion are right, and so ought to be considered and other are wrong and oughtn’t to be considered (i.e , “I’m right, your wrong”). These approaches are based on considerations other than what the realities are and give credence to that part of the society that subscribes to the ideology and disenfranchises the remainder. The more diverse the society and the more extreme the ideology the smaller the group that have a say and the larger the remainder that don’t. In a word, the worse the solution and the less likely that it is for the good of all. No matter what it undermines the very strength of democracy, to say nothing of its inherent fairness and equality.
Apply this to Harper and the Cons.
Conclusion:
The Harper, extreme right wing, ideologically based, government, weakens our diverse, open, free society, disenfranchises the majority and creates unfairness and inequality.
Ideology runs contrary to this in that it pre-assuming that certain approaches and opinion are right, and so ought to be considered and other are wrong and oughtn’t to be considered (i.e , “I’m right, your wrong”). These approaches are based on considerations other than what the realities are and give credence to that part of the society that subscribes to the ideology and disenfranchises the remainder. The more diverse the society and the more extreme the ideology the smaller the group that have a say and the larger the remainder that don’t. In a word, the worse the solution and the less likely that it is for the good of all. No matter what it undermines the very strength of democracy, to say nothing of its inherent fairness and equality.
Apply this to Harper and the Cons.
Conclusion:
The Harper, extreme right wing, ideologically based, government, weakens our diverse, open, free society, disenfranchises the majority and creates unfairness and inequality.
26 September, 2009
- ‘Irrational Fear Mongering vs. rational, open debate’ - this is a fundamental wedge issue between Harper and his Cons and the Liberal Party.
posted to: study Critics say Harper's blueprint for revamping corrections policy disregards studied evidence, Bruce Cheadle, Ottawa — The Canadian Press Last updated on Thursday, Sep. 24, 2009 07:20PM EDT
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tory-prison-policy-wedge-politics-study/article1300457/
Harper and the Con’s have made “getting tough on Crime” one of their central policies.
However, as it turns out they have nothing to support their position to say that it is in the best interest of all Canadians. In fact, all the evidence points to the exact opposite. This is illustrated by the Report just released by Graham Stewart, Prof Michael Jackson, et al.
The response by the Con’s, “The professor has a different philosophy than us,” Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan (to CBC).
In other words, the report is correct, Harper and the Cons are totally disregarding the facts and basing their position on shear Ideology, extreme right wing at that.
That is, they are not basing it on what is best for Canadians, but on irrational fear mongering and self-righteous hypocrisy, dragging us back to the Dark Ages with hints of the Inquisition.
This was underlying the statement by Ian Brodie, Harper's former chief of staff, when he explained that
“Despite economic evidence to the contrary, in my view the GST cut worked … It worked in the sense that it helped us to win.”;
as well as, what Tom Flanagan, a former Harper adviser, said about the Harper attack ads on Ignatieff rebuilding the coalition after an election,
“It doesn't have to be true. It just has to be plausible and it strikes me as plausible.”
It is becoming more and more open that this is how Harper and the Con’s operate. No regard for what the realities are and what is in the best interest of all Canadians given those realities. But shear right wing extremist ideology.
‘Irrational Fear Mongering vs. rational, open debate’ - this is a fundamental wedge issue between Harper and his Cons and the Liberal Party.
Harper and the Con’s economic policies have the same irrational, fear mongering foundation and total disregard for what is true and best for all Canadians.
Basing our legislation on irrational, ideologically driven policies, whose support is obtained through fear mongering, deception, distortion, obstruction, obscuration and sinister manipulations, makes a farce of and undermines one of the most fundamental principles of our way of life, “The Rule of Law”.
All legislation ought to be put to the test in a fashion as was done in this Report. Perhaps this is something the Senate could do. Then serious second thought, and rigorous, open and enlightened debate in front of all the Nation, given to it in such light, not just in Parliament, but also the media, on the street corner and everywhere.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tory-prison-policy-wedge-politics-study/article1300457/
Harper and the Con’s have made “getting tough on Crime” one of their central policies.
However, as it turns out they have nothing to support their position to say that it is in the best interest of all Canadians. In fact, all the evidence points to the exact opposite. This is illustrated by the Report just released by Graham Stewart, Prof Michael Jackson, et al.
The response by the Con’s, “The professor has a different philosophy than us,” Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan (to CBC).
In other words, the report is correct, Harper and the Cons are totally disregarding the facts and basing their position on shear Ideology, extreme right wing at that.
That is, they are not basing it on what is best for Canadians, but on irrational fear mongering and self-righteous hypocrisy, dragging us back to the Dark Ages with hints of the Inquisition.
This was underlying the statement by Ian Brodie, Harper's former chief of staff, when he explained that
“Despite economic evidence to the contrary, in my view the GST cut worked … It worked in the sense that it helped us to win.”;
as well as, what Tom Flanagan, a former Harper adviser, said about the Harper attack ads on Ignatieff rebuilding the coalition after an election,
“It doesn't have to be true. It just has to be plausible and it strikes me as plausible.”
It is becoming more and more open that this is how Harper and the Con’s operate. No regard for what the realities are and what is in the best interest of all Canadians given those realities. But shear right wing extremist ideology.
‘Irrational Fear Mongering vs. rational, open debate’ - this is a fundamental wedge issue between Harper and his Cons and the Liberal Party.
Harper and the Con’s economic policies have the same irrational, fear mongering foundation and total disregard for what is true and best for all Canadians.
Basing our legislation on irrational, ideologically driven policies, whose support is obtained through fear mongering, deception, distortion, obstruction, obscuration and sinister manipulations, makes a farce of and undermines one of the most fundamental principles of our way of life, “The Rule of Law”.
All legislation ought to be put to the test in a fashion as was done in this Report. Perhaps this is something the Senate could do. Then serious second thought, and rigorous, open and enlightened debate in front of all the Nation, given to it in such light, not just in Parliament, but also the media, on the street corner and everywhere.
25 September, 2009
- Why doesn’t Harper show some class, stand up and admit he was wrong
Small business fears impact of HST, Sep 25, 2009 04:30 AM, Chantal Hébert
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/700811
In fact, Harper is, in reality, paying off the Ontario and BC governments in order to implement this HST = “Harper Sales Tax”, the Ontario government is getting a rebate of approx $4.3 billion from Harper and BC is getting $1.6 billion just to implement it.
The recently released Toronto-Dominion Bank Report, indicates that the HST will represent an effective tax hike of 1.5%.
On the one hand Harper and his Con’s have been going around saying how great it was for the economy to reduce the GST by 2 points. In the other, how great it is for the economy to have it effectively increased by 1.5%.
Why doesn’t Harper show some class, stand up and admit he was wrong to reduce the GST by two points and explain that this is needed to recoup the revenues that were lost by so doing.
Ian Brodie, Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s former chief of staff, said in Montreal at the annual conference of the McGill Institute for the Study of Canada.
“Despite economic evidence to the contrary, in my view the GST cut worked … It worked in the sense that it helped us to win.”
How much more of this do we have to suffer before we simply just get rid of Harper and his Cons’
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/700811
In fact, Harper is, in reality, paying off the Ontario and BC governments in order to implement this HST = “Harper Sales Tax”, the Ontario government is getting a rebate of approx $4.3 billion from Harper and BC is getting $1.6 billion just to implement it.
The recently released Toronto-Dominion Bank Report, indicates that the HST will represent an effective tax hike of 1.5%.
On the one hand Harper and his Con’s have been going around saying how great it was for the economy to reduce the GST by 2 points. In the other, how great it is for the economy to have it effectively increased by 1.5%.
Why doesn’t Harper show some class, stand up and admit he was wrong to reduce the GST by two points and explain that this is needed to recoup the revenues that were lost by so doing.
Ian Brodie, Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s former chief of staff, said in Montreal at the annual conference of the McGill Institute for the Study of Canada.
“Despite economic evidence to the contrary, in my view the GST cut worked … It worked in the sense that it helped us to win.”
How much more of this do we have to suffer before we simply just get rid of Harper and his Cons’
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
24 September, 2009
- Lets just give Harper the boot.
post to McLeans, Ian Brodie offers a candid case study in politics and policy
by John Geddes on Friday, March 27, 2009
http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/03/27/ian-brodie-offers-a-candid-case-study-in-politics-and-policy/2/
Ian Brodie, Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s former chief of staff, said in Montreal at the annual conference of the McGill Institute for the Study of Canada.
“Despite economic evidence to the contrary, in my view the GST cut worked … It worked in the sense that it helped us to win.”
When you combine this with what Tom Flanagan, a former Harper adviser, said about the Harper attack ads on Ignatieff rebuilding the coalition after an election,
“It doesn't have to be true. It just has to be plausible and it strikes me as plausible.”
what do you get . . . The current government.
Is this really what Canada is all about.
Lets just give Harper the boot.
by John Geddes on Friday, March 27, 2009
http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/03/27/ian-brodie-offers-a-candid-case-study-in-politics-and-policy/2/
Ian Brodie, Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s former chief of staff, said in Montreal at the annual conference of the McGill Institute for the Study of Canada.
“Despite economic evidence to the contrary, in my view the GST cut worked … It worked in the sense that it helped us to win.”
When you combine this with what Tom Flanagan, a former Harper adviser, said about the Harper attack ads on Ignatieff rebuilding the coalition after an election,
“It doesn't have to be true. It just has to be plausible and it strikes me as plausible.”
what do you get . . . The current government.
Is this really what Canada is all about.
Lets just give Harper the boot.
21 September, 2009
- The function of the government of any modern, free, diverse and tolerant Western Democracy is the protect those that need protection ...
The function of the government of any modern, free, diverse and tolerant Western Democracy is the protect those that need protection and help those that need help.
Any ideologically based government, by its very definition favours only a part of the people to the exclusion of the rest. The more extreme the ideology the smaller the group it favours and the larger it excludes and the more restricted is the nature of its actions, to the extent that it acts as if those in power own the country and not serve at the people’s pleasure.
Any action taken by the government must be based on the particular issue at hand and all its relevant circumstance must be weighed in an objective, detached and dispassionate fashion, taking into consideration the opinions from all sides. It must operate in an open, transparent fashion based on the free flow of information, unobstructed and unaltered so that the people may know, understand and formulate their opinions. To the reasonable person this is only fair and just, enlightened. To the extremist it is weakness, indecisiveness, in the vernacular, ‘dithering’.
Power and authority must flow from the people and not vise-versa. The basic law does not grant rights and freedoms to the people, but is based on their rights and freedoms and allots to the government the powers and privileges to impinge on their rights and freedom only to the extent necessary to carry out its function.
Any ideologically based government, by its very definition favours only a part of the people to the exclusion of the rest. The more extreme the ideology the smaller the group it favours and the larger it excludes and the more restricted is the nature of its actions, to the extent that it acts as if those in power own the country and not serve at the people’s pleasure.
Any action taken by the government must be based on the particular issue at hand and all its relevant circumstance must be weighed in an objective, detached and dispassionate fashion, taking into consideration the opinions from all sides. It must operate in an open, transparent fashion based on the free flow of information, unobstructed and unaltered so that the people may know, understand and formulate their opinions. To the reasonable person this is only fair and just, enlightened. To the extremist it is weakness, indecisiveness, in the vernacular, ‘dithering’.
Power and authority must flow from the people and not vise-versa. The basic law does not grant rights and freedoms to the people, but is based on their rights and freedoms and allots to the government the powers and privileges to impinge on their rights and freedom only to the extent necessary to carry out its function.
- This highlights some of the most serious faults with the extreme right wing, Harper and the Con’s approach to government
excerpt submitted to Toronto Star,Statistics at odds with people's realityStatistics at odds with people's reality, Sep 21, 2009 04:30 AM CAROL GOAR
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/697978#Comments
- This highlights some of the most serious faults with the extreme right wing, Harper and the Con’s sink-or-swim, Laissez-faire, let the chips fall where they may, only the strong survive, hands–off by the government approach.
However, the whole purpose of a modern, democratic government is to help those that need help and protect those that need protection.
It is easy to say that the Canadian economy is shifting and must redefine itself. But, this macro-economic approach does not take into account the micro-economic suffering imposed upon the individuals and families that are losing their jobs. It does very little good to say that you can switch to another job and you will back working in a year or so, if they go bankrupt and lose everything they have worked so hard for.
Also, the macro-economic approach of looking at the GDP, as the single factor of economic well-being, as Harper has so been want to do, can be very misleading when looked upon at the human level, for precisely the reasons stated by this report by the Global Project on Measuring the Progress of Societies.
The GDP of Canada could be quite good, but it may be due to the very good performance of one particular sector, e.g. oil and gas, but other sectors could be doing very poorly like forestry and manufacturing. The Harper approach, “let the strong survive”. However, the whole purpose of a modern, democratic government is to help those that need help and protect those that need protection. Harper and the Cons are fixed in the capitalistic model of economic governance of a very much bygone era.
As long as Harper and the Cons are in power there is very little chance that there will be any Canadian government agencies belonging to the Global Project on Measuring the Progress of Societies.
Best for Canada is to simply give Harper the boot.
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/697978#Comments
- This highlights some of the most serious faults with the extreme right wing, Harper and the Con’s sink-or-swim, Laissez-faire, let the chips fall where they may, only the strong survive, hands–off by the government approach.
However, the whole purpose of a modern, democratic government is to help those that need help and protect those that need protection.
It is easy to say that the Canadian economy is shifting and must redefine itself. But, this macro-economic approach does not take into account the micro-economic suffering imposed upon the individuals and families that are losing their jobs. It does very little good to say that you can switch to another job and you will back working in a year or so, if they go bankrupt and lose everything they have worked so hard for.
Also, the macro-economic approach of looking at the GDP, as the single factor of economic well-being, as Harper has so been want to do, can be very misleading when looked upon at the human level, for precisely the reasons stated by this report by the Global Project on Measuring the Progress of Societies.
The GDP of Canada could be quite good, but it may be due to the very good performance of one particular sector, e.g. oil and gas, but other sectors could be doing very poorly like forestry and manufacturing. The Harper approach, “let the strong survive”. However, the whole purpose of a modern, democratic government is to help those that need help and protect those that need protection. Harper and the Cons are fixed in the capitalistic model of economic governance of a very much bygone era.
As long as Harper and the Cons are in power there is very little chance that there will be any Canadian government agencies belonging to the Global Project on Measuring the Progress of Societies.
Best for Canada is to simply give Harper the boot.
20 September, 2009
- There is very little doubt that Layton will prop up the Con’s as much as possible, including in the upcoming non-confidence vote.
posted to: Jack Layton puts his party on political hot seatSep 20, 2009 04:30 AM, ANGELO PERSICHILLI
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/697996#Comments
If the voters of Canada don’t want elections so frequently, then they must come to terms with voting a majority. The Con’s have approx 31% core supporters and God help us if they get a majority.
That leaves the Liberals, and for the Liberals to get a majority a significant number of people who have been voting other parties, including NDP, will have to vote Liberal. If they don’t, it is quite simple, we will be stuck with Harper again and perhaps another minority.
There is not much chance that Layton would increase the number of NDP seats and they are, currently, there to be lost.
Given what I have observed about Layton over the years, my impression is that Layton is not the type of guy who would want to force an election right now, despite NDP ideology and despite previously expressed opposition to Harper and the Con’s .
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/697996#Comments
If the voters of Canada don’t want elections so frequently, then they must come to terms with voting a majority. The Con’s have approx 31% core supporters and God help us if they get a majority.
That leaves the Liberals, and for the Liberals to get a majority a significant number of people who have been voting other parties, including NDP, will have to vote Liberal. If they don’t, it is quite simple, we will be stuck with Harper again and perhaps another minority.
There is not much chance that Layton would increase the number of NDP seats and they are, currently, there to be lost.
Given what I have observed about Layton over the years, my impression is that Layton is not the type of guy who would want to force an election right now, despite NDP ideology and despite previously expressed opposition to Harper and the Con’s .
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- HST = Harper Sales Tax (Ignatieff)
Excerpt posted to G&M: Silver – Powers, Wednesday, September 16, 2009 11:12 AM
Harper's HST revisionism , Robert Silver
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/silver-powers/harpers-hst-revisionism/article1289702/
and, "Thousands attend HST rallies in B.C.", Vancouver — The Canadian Press Saturday, Sep. 19, 2009 06:44PM EDT
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/thousands-of-bc-residents-attend-hst-rallies/article1294430/
It is Harper and the Cons that are really behind this. Harper has been putting pressure on the provinces for quite a while to do the “harmonization” thing. In his budget speech Harper states that:
“Provincial sales tax harmonization is the single most important step provinces with RSTs could take to improve the competitiveness of Canadian businesses."
(http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/silver-powers/harpers-hst-revisionism/article1289702/)
In fact, Harper is, in reality, paying off the Ontario and BC governments in order to implement this HST = “Harper Sales Tax”, the Ontario government is getting a rebate of approx $4.3 billion from Harper and BC is getting $1.6 billion just to implement it.
The recently released Toronto-Dominion Bank Report, indicates that the HST will represent an effective tax hike of 1.5%. (http://www.globeinvestor.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090918.whst0918/GIStory/)
On the one hand Harper and his Con’s have been going around saying how great it was for the economy to reduce the GST by 2 points. In the other, how great it is for the economy to have it effectively increased by 1.5%.
Harper is managing to claw back 75% of the GST reduction he so recklessly brought in to the detriment our economy. Further, he will, no doubt, point to this as part of his “fiscal achievements” and at the same time have the Provincial governments take the blame.
Why doesn’t Harper show some class, stand up and admit he was wrong to reduce the GST by two points and explain that this is needed to recoup the revenues that were lost by so doing.
How much more of this do we have to suffer before we simply just get rid of Harper and his Cons’
Harper's HST revisionism , Robert Silver
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/silver-powers/harpers-hst-revisionism/article1289702/
and, "Thousands attend HST rallies in B.C.", Vancouver — The Canadian Press Saturday, Sep. 19, 2009 06:44PM EDT
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/thousands-of-bc-residents-attend-hst-rallies/article1294430/
It is Harper and the Cons that are really behind this. Harper has been putting pressure on the provinces for quite a while to do the “harmonization” thing. In his budget speech Harper states that:
“Provincial sales tax harmonization is the single most important step provinces with RSTs could take to improve the competitiveness of Canadian businesses."
(http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/silver-powers/harpers-hst-revisionism/article1289702/)
In fact, Harper is, in reality, paying off the Ontario and BC governments in order to implement this HST = “Harper Sales Tax”, the Ontario government is getting a rebate of approx $4.3 billion from Harper and BC is getting $1.6 billion just to implement it.
The recently released Toronto-Dominion Bank Report, indicates that the HST will represent an effective tax hike of 1.5%. (http://www.globeinvestor.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090918.whst0918/GIStory/)
On the one hand Harper and his Con’s have been going around saying how great it was for the economy to reduce the GST by 2 points. In the other, how great it is for the economy to have it effectively increased by 1.5%.
Harper is managing to claw back 75% of the GST reduction he so recklessly brought in to the detriment our economy. Further, he will, no doubt, point to this as part of his “fiscal achievements” and at the same time have the Provincial governments take the blame.
Why doesn’t Harper show some class, stand up and admit he was wrong to reduce the GST by two points and explain that this is needed to recoup the revenues that were lost by so doing.
How much more of this do we have to suffer before we simply just get rid of Harper and his Cons’
19 September, 2009
- You can’t compare Harper to Diefenbaker or Mulroney, especially to explain away Harper’s exceedingly ‘modest background’.
excerpt submitted to: Ignatieff must reach average Canadians, STEPHEN MAHER LETTER FROM OTTAWA , Sat. Sep 19 - 4:46 AM
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Columnists/1143380.html
But both John Diefenbaker, Brian Mulroney were ‘Big’ (although, I never liked Mulroney and too young to have liked or disliked Diefenbaker). Both were part of a political party, the Progressive Conservatives Party of Canada, that had a long and proud history in the contribution to the building of a nation – i.e., Canada. Harper is small, has no history to look upon with pride, conducts himself and his politics, both domestically and at the International level, in a mean, petty, ‘small’ fashion. Harper feels he must hide what he stands for from the general public (and he’s right-on in that matter).
When did Diefenbaker or Mulroney, as part of their general approach regarding debate in Parliament, ever so insult honourable members of the Opposition in Parliament in lieu of answering serious questions on matters of national importance, and to their face (for example calling Bob Rae a ‘left wing incompetent’ – as set out in Queens University, The Journal, 18 Sep.’09, “… During Question Period on Monday, [Harper] called Bob Rae a “left-wing incompetent.” I don’t care whether the man is or isn’t competent—you’re the Prime Minister. Act with a modicum of dignity, please …”, http://www.queensjournal.ca/story/2009-09-18/opinions/raising-political-bar/).
When did Diefenbaker or Mulroney ever launch such attack ads with such raw emotional venom, and total disregard for the truth (as per Tom Flanagan).
When did Diefenbaker or Mulroney ever hide from the general public what they really stood for.
Harper’s aim is to minimalize Canada, dismantle our great nation to the great detriment of all Canadians and to favour a few. His approach is to incite his core supporters with emotional attacks on his ‘enemies’ with total disregard for truth and the good of our nation.
The fact is that the Conservative Party is not the Progressive Conservative Party of Canadian history and Harper is not part of it – just ask Brian Mulroney who didn’t even mention Harper’s name at the ‘fence mending’ gala for Cons and PC’s held the other night, which just so happens, Harper was unable to attend, surprise, surprise.
There is nothing wrong with ‘taking the high road’ and there is nothing wrong with having a background that any leader in a modern, open, tolerant, democracy, would envy, except, perhaps, one with an extreme, right wing agenda, and who applies the ‘propaganda’ approach of appealing to core supporters with emotion and not reason, disregarding the truth.
All Canadians ought to take a close look at Harper’s background. As I suggested to Kelly McParland last week “Perhaps you can post Harper's Resume next to Ignatieff's Resume and let Canadians compare.
Get rid of Harper and his Con’s.
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Columnists/1143380.html
But both John Diefenbaker, Brian Mulroney were ‘Big’ (although, I never liked Mulroney and too young to have liked or disliked Diefenbaker). Both were part of a political party, the Progressive Conservatives Party of Canada, that had a long and proud history in the contribution to the building of a nation – i.e., Canada. Harper is small, has no history to look upon with pride, conducts himself and his politics, both domestically and at the International level, in a mean, petty, ‘small’ fashion. Harper feels he must hide what he stands for from the general public (and he’s right-on in that matter).
When did Diefenbaker or Mulroney, as part of their general approach regarding debate in Parliament, ever so insult honourable members of the Opposition in Parliament in lieu of answering serious questions on matters of national importance, and to their face (for example calling Bob Rae a ‘left wing incompetent’ – as set out in Queens University, The Journal, 18 Sep.’09, “… During Question Period on Monday, [Harper] called Bob Rae a “left-wing incompetent.” I don’t care whether the man is or isn’t competent—you’re the Prime Minister. Act with a modicum of dignity, please …”, http://www.queensjournal.ca/story/2009-09-18/opinions/raising-political-bar/).
When did Diefenbaker or Mulroney ever launch such attack ads with such raw emotional venom, and total disregard for the truth (as per Tom Flanagan).
When did Diefenbaker or Mulroney ever hide from the general public what they really stood for.
Harper’s aim is to minimalize Canada, dismantle our great nation to the great detriment of all Canadians and to favour a few. His approach is to incite his core supporters with emotional attacks on his ‘enemies’ with total disregard for truth and the good of our nation.
The fact is that the Conservative Party is not the Progressive Conservative Party of Canadian history and Harper is not part of it – just ask Brian Mulroney who didn’t even mention Harper’s name at the ‘fence mending’ gala for Cons and PC’s held the other night, which just so happens, Harper was unable to attend, surprise, surprise.
There is nothing wrong with ‘taking the high road’ and there is nothing wrong with having a background that any leader in a modern, open, tolerant, democracy, would envy, except, perhaps, one with an extreme, right wing agenda, and who applies the ‘propaganda’ approach of appealing to core supporters with emotion and not reason, disregarding the truth.
All Canadians ought to take a close look at Harper’s background. As I suggested to Kelly McParland last week “Perhaps you can post Harper's Resume next to Ignatieff's Resume and let Canadians compare.
Get rid of Harper and his Con’s.
17 September, 2009
- why the serious damage control by Harper if there is no potential damage
Posted to: Globe and Mail, “Obama snubs Harper?”, Stephen Wicary, Wednesday, September 16, 2009 05:36 PM,
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/obama-snubs-harper/article1290038/
I have to say it was a bit eye brow raising to hear about Harper’s greeting. Under normal circumstances I may not read too much into it. But, given Harper’s abysmal track record on diplomacy and his “in-your-face” approach to International relations, there is probably some significance to this. The fact that Harper's office would release that statement within minutes is a sure indication that there is serious significance to this - vis.: why the serious damage control if there is no potential damage.
Apparently there was to be 10 – 15 minutes, tête à tête, which is also eye-brow raising, and very ‘not-normal’. This seems to be a MO of Harper’s – i.e. hidden from the public view, and I have no problem inferring that it was Harper that requested it.
It is outrageous that Harper would talk with Obama for 10 – 15 minutes and not inform the Canadian people of what the substance of the conversation was about. This is a formal, official state visit, with Harper there only because he is the Prime Minister. Anything sensitive would have been discussed between offices before hand. What could possibly be so sensitive that Harper could not trust his assistants and official representatives, etc., to discuss it with their counterparts … Harper planning to invade the US???. This is not some private affair between two individuals, or a client seeking a lawyer’s advise.
This secrecy by Harper (other, countless, instances – countless if for no other reason than they are kept secret, hidden from us) should be a concern to all Canadians, and Americans, in this matter.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/obama-snubs-harper/article1290038/
I have to say it was a bit eye brow raising to hear about Harper’s greeting. Under normal circumstances I may not read too much into it. But, given Harper’s abysmal track record on diplomacy and his “in-your-face” approach to International relations, there is probably some significance to this. The fact that Harper's office would release that statement within minutes is a sure indication that there is serious significance to this - vis.: why the serious damage control if there is no potential damage.
Apparently there was to be 10 – 15 minutes, tête à tête, which is also eye-brow raising, and very ‘not-normal’. This seems to be a MO of Harper’s – i.e. hidden from the public view, and I have no problem inferring that it was Harper that requested it.
It is outrageous that Harper would talk with Obama for 10 – 15 minutes and not inform the Canadian people of what the substance of the conversation was about. This is a formal, official state visit, with Harper there only because he is the Prime Minister. Anything sensitive would have been discussed between offices before hand. What could possibly be so sensitive that Harper could not trust his assistants and official representatives, etc., to discuss it with their counterparts … Harper planning to invade the US???. This is not some private affair between two individuals, or a client seeking a lawyer’s advise.
This secrecy by Harper (other, countless, instances – countless if for no other reason than they are kept secret, hidden from us) should be a concern to all Canadians, and Americans, in this matter.
16 September, 2009
- Kelly,Perhaps you can post Harper's Resume next to Ignatieff's Resume and let Canadians compare.
submitted to: Kelly McParland: Michael Ignatieff's Canada is stuck in 1978
Posted: September 15, 2009, 5:15 PM by NP Editor
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/09/15/kelly-mcparland-michael-ignatieff-s-canada-is-stuck-in-1978.aspx?CommentPosted=true#commentmessage
Show us Stephen Harper's "passport filled with exotic stamps" before we were bestowed with the pleasure of his leadership (normally it is the Will of the Canadian People that bestow the honour and privilege on the individual, but Harper and his Cons have it backwards), and after for that mater.
Canadians are able, including Ignatieff whom you seem to feel is somehow a DDEP (de facto disenfranchised person), to look back with pride on Canada's role in the world and its interaction with all nations in the International Community. Ignatieff, himself, has contributed to Canada's stature in the International community himself over the years. In fact, his family has a tradition of doing Canada proud on the International scene.
Harper has no such tradition and, in fact, until he became our 'fearless leader' was for over 30 years completely devoid of any kind of relevant International experience whatsoever.
These attacks on Ignatieff are an obvious attempt to hide this fact and incite core supporters who don't care if they are true.
Harper's complete lack of experience in combination with his extreme right wing ideology, "in your face" approach to International diplomacy has seriously hurt Canada's image and stature on the world stage.
Harper is not the way Canadians want to be thought of by others in other countries.
Lets stand up and be counted, "stand on guard" for Canada and get rid of Harper and his Cons.
Lloyd Maclquham cicblog.com/comments.html, and after for that mater.
Canadians are able, including Ignatieff whom you seem to feel is somehow a DEP (de facto disenfranchised person), to look back with pride on Canada's role in the world and its interaction with all nations in the International Community. Ignatieff, himself, has contributed to Canada's stature in the International community himself over the years. In fact, his family has a tradition of doing Canada proud on the International scene.
Harper has no such tradition and, in fact, until he became our 'fearless leader' was for over 30 years completely devoid of any kind of relevant International experience whatsoever. These attacks on Ignatieff are an obvious attempt to hide this fact and incite core supporters who don't care if they are true.
Harper's complete lack of experience in combination with his extreme right wing ideology, "in your face" approach to International diplomacy has seriously hurt Canada's image and stature on the world stage. Harper is not the way Canadians want to be thought of by others in other countries.
Lets stand up and be counted, "stand on guard" for Canada and get rid of Harper and his Cons.
Posted: September 15, 2009, 5:15 PM by NP Editor
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/09/15/kelly-mcparland-michael-ignatieff-s-canada-is-stuck-in-1978.aspx?CommentPosted=true#commentmessage
Show us Stephen Harper's "passport filled with exotic stamps" before we were bestowed with the pleasure of his leadership (normally it is the Will of the Canadian People that bestow the honour and privilege on the individual, but Harper and his Cons have it backwards), and after for that mater.
Canadians are able, including Ignatieff whom you seem to feel is somehow a DDEP (de facto disenfranchised person), to look back with pride on Canada's role in the world and its interaction with all nations in the International Community. Ignatieff, himself, has contributed to Canada's stature in the International community himself over the years. In fact, his family has a tradition of doing Canada proud on the International scene.
Harper has no such tradition and, in fact, until he became our 'fearless leader' was for over 30 years completely devoid of any kind of relevant International experience whatsoever.
These attacks on Ignatieff are an obvious attempt to hide this fact and incite core supporters who don't care if they are true.
Harper's complete lack of experience in combination with his extreme right wing ideology, "in your face" approach to International diplomacy has seriously hurt Canada's image and stature on the world stage.
Harper is not the way Canadians want to be thought of by others in other countries.
Lets stand up and be counted, "stand on guard" for Canada and get rid of Harper and his Cons.
Lloyd Maclquham cicblog.com/comments.html, and after for that mater.
Canadians are able, including Ignatieff whom you seem to feel is somehow a DEP (de facto disenfranchised person), to look back with pride on Canada's role in the world and its interaction with all nations in the International Community. Ignatieff, himself, has contributed to Canada's stature in the International community himself over the years. In fact, his family has a tradition of doing Canada proud on the International scene.
Harper has no such tradition and, in fact, until he became our 'fearless leader' was for over 30 years completely devoid of any kind of relevant International experience whatsoever. These attacks on Ignatieff are an obvious attempt to hide this fact and incite core supporters who don't care if they are true.
Harper's complete lack of experience in combination with his extreme right wing ideology, "in your face" approach to International diplomacy has seriously hurt Canada's image and stature on the world stage. Harper is not the way Canadians want to be thought of by others in other countries.
Lets stand up and be counted, "stand on guard" for Canada and get rid of Harper and his Cons.
13 September, 2009
- Chrétien, and all Liberals, have always stood tall, held their head up with pride for what they believe in
excerpt submitted to: Best answer to the Quebec question? A majority
Sep 13, 2009 04:30 AM, Angelo Persichilli
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/694585
in reply to: Another Voice Of Reason
Everyone knows that he and the Liberals represented the middle of the road. However, I can see how someone who is viewing matters from the extremely far right might feel the need to so present.
In fact, Chrétien was always very clear as to where he stood and what he stood for. He, and all Liberals, stood tall, held their head up with pride for what they believe in.
Harper on the other hand hides from Canadian what he truly represents, as was clearly demonstrated by the closed door Sault Ste Marie meeting, . In fact, as I am sure you are aware, there is a grass roots movement amongst Conservatives to demand that Harper stand up, with his head held high, no longer hiding like it is some kind of sin, and proclaim, openly to all Canadians, his right wing ideological roots and intentions. For example, Gerry Nicholls, formerly vice president of the National Citizens Coaliton, "The next time the Tories send you a fundraising letter, write them back a polite note indicating you no longer wish to financially support a political party which acts more Liberal than Conservative" (see, "Gerry Nicholls: Canada needs conservatives, not Conservatives, National Post, September 11, 2009"); as well as, a recent interview with Tom Flanagan).
I can respect Gerry Nicholls for standing up for what he believes. And, I can respect Tom Flanagan for doing the same. However, I do not subscribe to their ideology and I do not agree with their political objectives.
However, I can not see how anyone can honestly have respect for Stephan Harper both for not having the courage of his convictions and for the way he has treated our parliamentary institutions, his political opponents and, when it gets right down to it, the good people of Canada.
You suggest that the problem is that Toronto has too much representation because it is based on population and so it should be changed to square milage.
I am surprised that Harper has not announced such a suggestion about disenfranchising Toronto, a large anti-Harper bastion. After all he did introduce a Bill C-56 a while back to expend the number of riding in a fashion that seriously under represented Ontario and Toronto. (see for example, "Premier Mcguinty Asks For Amendment To Bill C-56 - September 16, 2007", http://www.premier.gov.on.ca/news/event.php?ItemID=3742&Lang=en). One need not think too hard to come up with a 'plausible' explanation as to why Harper would want to dis-enfranchise Toronto.
Ontarians obviously have something to look forward to if Harper and the Con's were to get a majority. Better we simply give him the boot.
Sep 13, 2009 04:30 AM, Angelo Persichilli
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/694585
in reply to: Another Voice Of Reason
Everyone knows that he and the Liberals represented the middle of the road. However, I can see how someone who is viewing matters from the extremely far right might feel the need to so present.
In fact, Chrétien was always very clear as to where he stood and what he stood for. He, and all Liberals, stood tall, held their head up with pride for what they believe in.
Harper on the other hand hides from Canadian what he truly represents, as was clearly demonstrated by the closed door Sault Ste Marie meeting, . In fact, as I am sure you are aware, there is a grass roots movement amongst Conservatives to demand that Harper stand up, with his head held high, no longer hiding like it is some kind of sin, and proclaim, openly to all Canadians, his right wing ideological roots and intentions. For example, Gerry Nicholls, formerly vice president of the National Citizens Coaliton, "The next time the Tories send you a fundraising letter, write them back a polite note indicating you no longer wish to financially support a political party which acts more Liberal than Conservative" (see, "Gerry Nicholls: Canada needs conservatives, not Conservatives, National Post, September 11, 2009"); as well as, a recent interview with Tom Flanagan).
I can respect Gerry Nicholls for standing up for what he believes. And, I can respect Tom Flanagan for doing the same. However, I do not subscribe to their ideology and I do not agree with their political objectives.
However, I can not see how anyone can honestly have respect for Stephan Harper both for not having the courage of his convictions and for the way he has treated our parliamentary institutions, his political opponents and, when it gets right down to it, the good people of Canada.
You suggest that the problem is that Toronto has too much representation because it is based on population and so it should be changed to square milage.
I am surprised that Harper has not announced such a suggestion about disenfranchising Toronto, a large anti-Harper bastion. After all he did introduce a Bill C-56 a while back to expend the number of riding in a fashion that seriously under represented Ontario and Toronto. (see for example, "Premier Mcguinty Asks For Amendment To Bill C-56 - September 16, 2007", http://www.premier.gov.on.ca/news/event.php?ItemID=3742&Lang=en). One need not think too hard to come up with a 'plausible' explanation as to why Harper would want to dis-enfranchise Toronto.
Ontarians obviously have something to look forward to if Harper and the Con's were to get a majority. Better we simply give him the boot.
- There is only one thing the people of Quebec, and the rest of Canada for that matter, can do. Get rid of Harper and the Cons'.
excerpt submitted to: Best answer to the Quebec question? A majority
Sep 13, 2009 04:30 AM, Angelo Persichilli
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/694585
"I believe Quebec voters are comfortable with the Bloc not because they want to separate but because it's very convenient to have their own party in Ottawa that cares only about their interests."
Angelo, you may have something there.
It has been a long time since I can recall Duceppe and the Block calling for separation of Quebec from Canada. In fact, Duceppe makes it quite clear that he is there to get the best for Quebec. There is good reason for it and your analysis certainly plays an important part, in particular, they don't want to separate.
Harper calling the Block separatist, who must not have a say in how Canada is governed disenfranchises approximately 41% of all of Quebec and effectively cuts them off from representation. Harper uses it also, and this is very important, to incite his core supporters, the vast majority in the West. This, in itself is divisive and threatens Canadian unity, which I am sure is what Harper is really referring in his attack ads made for Quebec.
With Harper in power the benefits to Quebec of having the Block in Ottawa is effectively neutralized. You can be sure, right wing extremism and the West will be favoured over the interests of Quebec, no matter what Harper and his Con's may say now and during an election. Harper and the Con's are rooted in extreme right wing ideology. Their power base is all the right wingers in Alberta and even Saskatchewan and to some extent BC. The closed door Sault Ste Marie speech to party faithfuls is precisely about maintaining the support of, and inciting, the right wing. There is a grass roots movement amongst Conservatives to demand that Harper stand up, with his head held high, no longer hiding like it is some kind of sin, and proclaim, openly to all Canadians, his right wing ideological roots and intentions. For example, Gerry Nicholls, formerly vice president of the National Citizens Coaliton, "The next time the Tories send you a fundraising letter, write them back a polite note indicating you no longer wish to financially support a political party which acts more Liberal than Conservative" (see, "Gerry Nicholls: Canada needs conservatives, not Conservatives, National Post, September 11, 2009"; as well as a recent interview with Tom Flanigan)
The last election demonstrated that 2/3 rds of Canadians are opposed to right wing extremist ideologues running our country. This is particularly true in Quebec, if I may so bold as to suggest.
People in Quebec may feel comfortable voting Block, but, if Harper returns to power and Quebec votes the Block, then Quebec will be out in the cold.
There is only one thing the people of Quebec, and the rest of Canada for that matter, can do. Get rid of Harper and the Cons'.
Sep 13, 2009 04:30 AM, Angelo Persichilli
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/694585
"I believe Quebec voters are comfortable with the Bloc not because they want to separate but because it's very convenient to have their own party in Ottawa that cares only about their interests."
Angelo, you may have something there.
It has been a long time since I can recall Duceppe and the Block calling for separation of Quebec from Canada. In fact, Duceppe makes it quite clear that he is there to get the best for Quebec. There is good reason for it and your analysis certainly plays an important part, in particular, they don't want to separate.
Harper calling the Block separatist, who must not have a say in how Canada is governed disenfranchises approximately 41% of all of Quebec and effectively cuts them off from representation. Harper uses it also, and this is very important, to incite his core supporters, the vast majority in the West. This, in itself is divisive and threatens Canadian unity, which I am sure is what Harper is really referring in his attack ads made for Quebec.
With Harper in power the benefits to Quebec of having the Block in Ottawa is effectively neutralized. You can be sure, right wing extremism and the West will be favoured over the interests of Quebec, no matter what Harper and his Con's may say now and during an election. Harper and the Con's are rooted in extreme right wing ideology. Their power base is all the right wingers in Alberta and even Saskatchewan and to some extent BC. The closed door Sault Ste Marie speech to party faithfuls is precisely about maintaining the support of, and inciting, the right wing. There is a grass roots movement amongst Conservatives to demand that Harper stand up, with his head held high, no longer hiding like it is some kind of sin, and proclaim, openly to all Canadians, his right wing ideological roots and intentions. For example, Gerry Nicholls, formerly vice president of the National Citizens Coaliton, "The next time the Tories send you a fundraising letter, write them back a polite note indicating you no longer wish to financially support a political party which acts more Liberal than Conservative" (see, "Gerry Nicholls: Canada needs conservatives, not Conservatives, National Post, September 11, 2009"; as well as a recent interview with Tom Flanigan)
The last election demonstrated that 2/3 rds of Canadians are opposed to right wing extremist ideologues running our country. This is particularly true in Quebec, if I may so bold as to suggest.
People in Quebec may feel comfortable voting Block, but, if Harper returns to power and Quebec votes the Block, then Quebec will be out in the cold.
There is only one thing the people of Quebec, and the rest of Canada for that matter, can do. Get rid of Harper and the Cons'.
- Canadians, also, have a lot to gain by an election - Getting rid of Harper and the Con's.
Submitted to: "Ignatieff has nothing to lose if the writ drops, And neither do we, so bring it on"
By Randall Denley, The Ottawa CitizenSeptember 13, 2009
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Ignatieff+nothing+lose+writ+drops/1989118/story.html#Comments
If Harper co-operated and worked with the Opposition parties there would be no election right now. Whether there is an election or not is not up to the Liberals. Nor is it up to the NDP or Block. It is up to Harper.
Unfortunately, Harper right from the start has taken the “in-your-face”, “my-way-or-the-highway”, “no-compromise” approach. He and the Cons have deliberately obstructed Parliament, including the Parliamentary Committees, to the point of being dysfunctional for their own partizan purposes and to the harm of all Canadians. He also uses it as a smoke screen for implementing on a slow but steady and insidious fashion his right wing extremist ideology through the Administrative side of the government. For example, apparently one of the worst things a Liberal government could do as far as Harper and his core of Con's is concerned is appoint left-wing ideologues to the judiciary. Well, given the sentiment, you can well imagine what ideology Harper is looking for in his appointees.
Harper and his Con's have shamelessly disrupted Parliament to the point of being dysfunctional then used this to justify his calling an election against his own legislation last fall as well as suspending Parliament. His approach is so extreme and so uncompromising that the only way to get Harper to compromise and do the right things is to threaten him with loss of power, i.e. real possibility of a non-confidence vote.
Part of the Harper strategy is to incite his core supporters with accusations, quite false, of the Liberals intending to undermine our democratic process to form a government if Harper doesn't get a majority. Harper fails to mention, of course, that he joined up with the NDP and Block, that's right, the same socialists and separatists, in an attempt to "overthrough" the Martin government in '04. Harper also fails to mention that it is precisely the same Parliamentary system that gave him power in the first place despite having 2/3rds of Canadians vote against him. One-third of the population supporting Harper does not represent the will of the people. In a minority the will of the people is compromise, work together. Harper refuses, even to the point of forcing an election.
By Randall Denley, The Ottawa CitizenSeptember 13, 2009
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Ignatieff+nothing+lose+writ+drops/1989118/story.html#Comments
If Harper co-operated and worked with the Opposition parties there would be no election right now. Whether there is an election or not is not up to the Liberals. Nor is it up to the NDP or Block. It is up to Harper.
Unfortunately, Harper right from the start has taken the “in-your-face”, “my-way-or-the-highway”, “no-compromise” approach. He and the Cons have deliberately obstructed Parliament, including the Parliamentary Committees, to the point of being dysfunctional for their own partizan purposes and to the harm of all Canadians. He also uses it as a smoke screen for implementing on a slow but steady and insidious fashion his right wing extremist ideology through the Administrative side of the government. For example, apparently one of the worst things a Liberal government could do as far as Harper and his core of Con's is concerned is appoint left-wing ideologues to the judiciary. Well, given the sentiment, you can well imagine what ideology Harper is looking for in his appointees.
Harper and his Con's have shamelessly disrupted Parliament to the point of being dysfunctional then used this to justify his calling an election against his own legislation last fall as well as suspending Parliament. His approach is so extreme and so uncompromising that the only way to get Harper to compromise and do the right things is to threaten him with loss of power, i.e. real possibility of a non-confidence vote.
Part of the Harper strategy is to incite his core supporters with accusations, quite false, of the Liberals intending to undermine our democratic process to form a government if Harper doesn't get a majority. Harper fails to mention, of course, that he joined up with the NDP and Block, that's right, the same socialists and separatists, in an attempt to "overthrough" the Martin government in '04. Harper also fails to mention that it is precisely the same Parliamentary system that gave him power in the first place despite having 2/3rds of Canadians vote against him. One-third of the population supporting Harper does not represent the will of the people. In a minority the will of the people is compromise, work together. Harper refuses, even to the point of forcing an election.
12 September, 2009
- Harper and the Con's have developed and use the greatest propaganda machine seen in Western democracies in recent times.
Here is an analysis of the Obama speech a few days ago:
September 11, 2009 , An Obama Speech in 13 Easy Steps, By Rich Lowry
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/09/11/an_obama_speech_in_13_easy_steps_98267.html
If one calls that the 'ration' school of speech writing.
Then I suggest to you the following analysis of the 'propaganda school of speech writing:
The 'Propaganda' approach:
- lie
- blunt statement of what you want people to believe
- total disregard for the truth (not exactly the same as lying but helps to bolster them)
- disregard for the context of events but crass manipulation to suite your purpose
- slanderous accusations against opponents
- blunt statements "we're right - their wrong", “we're good – they're bad”, etc.
- designed to incite people emotionally both to create fear and motivate to action, i.e. a call-to-arms
The underlying principle is, of course, “if you tell a big enough lie often enough people will begin to believe it”
I invite all Canadians to apply my analysis of the 'Propaganda' approach to the, now infamous, covert Harper speech of last week, Harper and they Con's attack ads and pretty much everything that comes out of Harper's and the Con's mouths.
There is a reason, of course, why Harper and the Con's use the Propaganda approach. Quite simply, the vast majority of Canadians are against right wing extremist ideology and 2/3 rds voted against Harper and the Con's in the last election. Harper knows that if he were 'to stand up and be counted', hold his head up with pride and openly and truthfully tell the good people of Canada exactly what he stands for, he, and teh Con's, would lose power.
September 11, 2009 , An Obama Speech in 13 Easy Steps, By Rich Lowry
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/09/11/an_obama_speech_in_13_easy_steps_98267.html
If one calls that the 'ration' school of speech writing.
Then I suggest to you the following analysis of the 'propaganda school of speech writing:
The 'Propaganda' approach:
- lie
- blunt statement of what you want people to believe
- total disregard for the truth (not exactly the same as lying but helps to bolster them)
- disregard for the context of events but crass manipulation to suite your purpose
- slanderous accusations against opponents
- blunt statements "we're right - their wrong", “we're good – they're bad”, etc.
- designed to incite people emotionally both to create fear and motivate to action, i.e. a call-to-arms
The underlying principle is, of course, “if you tell a big enough lie often enough people will begin to believe it”
I invite all Canadians to apply my analysis of the 'Propaganda' approach to the, now infamous, covert Harper speech of last week, Harper and they Con's attack ads and pretty much everything that comes out of Harper's and the Con's mouths.
There is a reason, of course, why Harper and the Con's use the Propaganda approach. Quite simply, the vast majority of Canadians are against right wing extremist ideology and 2/3 rds voted against Harper and the Con's in the last election. Harper knows that if he were 'to stand up and be counted', hold his head up with pride and openly and truthfully tell the good people of Canada exactly what he stands for, he, and teh Con's, would lose power.
- 2/3rds of Canadians voted against Harper. It's time he were given the boot.
submitted to:
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Opinion/1142053.html
Here’s the deal, despite what they say
STEPHEN MAHER Letter From Ottawa
Sat. Sep 12 - 4:46 AM
For Harper and the Cons it simply doesn't matter if it is true whether Ignatieff and Liberals intend to reform the coalition.
We saw this with Flanagan last week and yesterday when Mr. Ignatieff stated that he would not be forming a coalition and immediately after Harper's Parliamentary secretary, Pierre Poilievre, said that Ignatieff had not ruled out that possibility.
Perhaps Harper could explain why his alliance with what he labels as 'socialist and separatists' was ok for him and the Con's in Sep.'04 to 'overthrough' the Martin minority, but now when it would work against him it 'threatens Canadian unity'.
Apparently the new Harper attack ads accuse Ignatieff and the Liberals of threatening national unity. Perhaps Harper would like to explain exactly what it is that he means by this.
The Harper strategy is not to inform Canadians and Harper has no interest in to what extent it reflects the truth.
The Harper accusations of Ignatieff going to form a coalition is being done precisely to incite core supporters of Harper and the Con's. There will be much more of this in the days to come, you can be assured. I can only suggest that we all as Canadians take note of this.
2/3rds of Canadians voted against Harper. It's time he were given the boot.
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Opinion/1142053.html
Here’s the deal, despite what they say
STEPHEN MAHER Letter From Ottawa
Sat. Sep 12 - 4:46 AM
For Harper and the Cons it simply doesn't matter if it is true whether Ignatieff and Liberals intend to reform the coalition.
We saw this with Flanagan last week and yesterday when Mr. Ignatieff stated that he would not be forming a coalition and immediately after Harper's Parliamentary secretary, Pierre Poilievre, said that Ignatieff had not ruled out that possibility.
Perhaps Harper could explain why his alliance with what he labels as 'socialist and separatists' was ok for him and the Con's in Sep.'04 to 'overthrough' the Martin minority, but now when it would work against him it 'threatens Canadian unity'.
Apparently the new Harper attack ads accuse Ignatieff and the Liberals of threatening national unity. Perhaps Harper would like to explain exactly what it is that he means by this.
The Harper strategy is not to inform Canadians and Harper has no interest in to what extent it reflects the truth.
The Harper accusations of Ignatieff going to form a coalition is being done precisely to incite core supporters of Harper and the Con's. There will be much more of this in the days to come, you can be assured. I can only suggest that we all as Canadians take note of this.
2/3rds of Canadians voted against Harper. It's time he were given the boot.
11 September, 2009
- The Harper accusations of Ignatieff going to form a coalition is being done precisely to incite core supporters of Harper and the Con's.
Comment on: TheStar.com - Canada - PM's horror stories might not pay off, September 11, 2009,
Chantal Hébert
http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/694101
As Tom Flanagan stated a couple days ago when discussing the Harper strategy to accuse Ignatieff and the Liberals of intending to reform the coalition:
“It doesn't have to be true. It just has to be plausible and it strikes me as plausible.”
(http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-to-stoke-fear-of-opposition-coalition/article1279929/)
That Ms. Hébert is the heart of the matter.
For Harper and the Cons it simply doesn't matter if it is true whether Ignatieff and Liberals intend to reform the coalition.
We saw this today when Mr. Ignatieff stated that he would not be forming a coalition and immediately after Harper's Parliamentary secretary, Pierre Poilievre, said that Ignatieff had not ruled out that possibility.
Apparently the new Harper accuse Ignatieff and the Liberals of threatening national unity. Perhaps Harper would like to explain exactly what it is that he means by this.
The Harper strategy is not to inform Canadians and Harper has no interest in to what extent it reflects the truth.
The Harper accusations of Ignatieff going to form a coalition is being done precisely to incite core supporters of Harper and the Con's. There will be much more of this in the days to come, you can be assured. I can only suggest that we all as Canadians take note of this.
Chantal Hébert
http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/694101
As Tom Flanagan stated a couple days ago when discussing the Harper strategy to accuse Ignatieff and the Liberals of intending to reform the coalition:
“It doesn't have to be true. It just has to be plausible and it strikes me as plausible.”
(http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-to-stoke-fear-of-opposition-coalition/article1279929/)
That Ms. Hébert is the heart of the matter.
For Harper and the Cons it simply doesn't matter if it is true whether Ignatieff and Liberals intend to reform the coalition.
We saw this today when Mr. Ignatieff stated that he would not be forming a coalition and immediately after Harper's Parliamentary secretary, Pierre Poilievre, said that Ignatieff had not ruled out that possibility.
Apparently the new Harper accuse Ignatieff and the Liberals of threatening national unity. Perhaps Harper would like to explain exactly what it is that he means by this.
The Harper strategy is not to inform Canadians and Harper has no interest in to what extent it reflects the truth.
The Harper accusations of Ignatieff going to form a coalition is being done precisely to incite core supporters of Harper and the Con's. There will be much more of this in the days to come, you can be assured. I can only suggest that we all as Canadians take note of this.
10 September, 2009
- Lets get rid of Harper and the Con's as soon as possible.
Posted to: PM parries 'hidden agenda' attack, Ottawa — The Globe and Mail
Last updated on Thursday, Sep. 10, 2009 01:08PM EDT
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/pm-parries-hidden-agenda-attack/article1282210/
Certainly then we may proceed as a country with openness and pride as is right and proper.
Everyone in Canada ought to stop and reflect on the fact that we have a Prime Minister who refuses to talk publicly about getting a majority for fear of severe voter backlash. He will only talk about it behind closed doors to incite core supporters.
What is that telling us about Harper and what he stands for (or in this case doesn't stand but hides).
Certainly our Prime Minister ought to by proud of what he represents and openly profess it and encourage voters to support him in his objectives.
Instead we have Harper hiding what he truly stands for out of fear that when people see him and the Con's for what he, and they, really are, right wing extremist ideologues, they will drop him like a hot potato.
Is this really what Canada is all about - our National Dream.
Last updated on Thursday, Sep. 10, 2009 01:08PM EDT
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/pm-parries-hidden-agenda-attack/article1282210/
Certainly then we may proceed as a country with openness and pride as is right and proper.
Everyone in Canada ought to stop and reflect on the fact that we have a Prime Minister who refuses to talk publicly about getting a majority for fear of severe voter backlash. He will only talk about it behind closed doors to incite core supporters.
What is that telling us about Harper and what he stands for (or in this case doesn't stand but hides).
Certainly our Prime Minister ought to by proud of what he represents and openly profess it and encourage voters to support him in his objectives.
Instead we have Harper hiding what he truly stands for out of fear that when people see him and the Con's for what he, and they, really are, right wing extremist ideologues, they will drop him like a hot potato.
Is this really what Canada is all about - our National Dream.
- There is no Harper and the Con's surge in the Polls.
posted to: Joan Bryden, Ottawa — The Canadian Press Last updated on Wednesday, Sep. 09, 2009 06:07PM EDT
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ignatieffs-support-slips-on-sabre-rattling/article1280965/
The current polls do not represent a surge for Harper and the Con's but can be accounted for by the core support of Harper and the Con's being unchanging at approx 31 - 32% and the number of undecided voters increasing.
This was evident in the Nanos poll release a day or two ago.
Conservative 37.5% (+6.2)
Liberal 33.4% (-0.4)
NDP 14.8% (-3.9)
BQ 9.7% (+0.5)
Green 4.6% (-2.4)
Undecided 24.6% (+8.9)
(http://www.nanosresearch.com/main.asp)
The Con's were at 32.3% of decided voters and assuming that that represents their core supporters, when the undecided voters increases by 8.9% these same core supporters now represent 35% of decided voters which is statistically speaking the same as the actual result of 37.5% ( accuracy of the poll of +/- 3.2%). The Liberals stayed the same, relatively, which suggests that in actual numbers the Liberals decreased and likely became undecided.
Everyone in Canada ought to stop and reflect on the fact that we have a Prime Minister who refuses to talk publicly about getting a majority for fear of severe voter backlash. He will only talk about it behind closed doors to incite core supporters. What is that telling us about Harper and what he stands for (or in this case hides ).
Certainly our Prime Minister ought to by proud of what he represents and openly profess it and encourage voters to support him in his objectives. Instead we have Harper hiding what he truly stands for out of fear that when people see him and the Con's for what he, and they, really are, right wing extremist ideologues, they will drop him like a hot potato.
I suggest we get rid of Harper and the Con's as soon as possible. Certainly then we may proceed as a country with openness and pride.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ignatieffs-support-slips-on-sabre-rattling/article1280965/
The current polls do not represent a surge for Harper and the Con's but can be accounted for by the core support of Harper and the Con's being unchanging at approx 31 - 32% and the number of undecided voters increasing.
This was evident in the Nanos poll release a day or two ago.
Conservative 37.5% (+6.2)
Liberal 33.4% (-0.4)
NDP 14.8% (-3.9)
BQ 9.7% (+0.5)
Green 4.6% (-2.4)
Undecided 24.6% (+8.9)
(http://www.nanosresearch.com/main.asp)
The Con's were at 32.3% of decided voters and assuming that that represents their core supporters, when the undecided voters increases by 8.9% these same core supporters now represent 35% of decided voters which is statistically speaking the same as the actual result of 37.5% ( accuracy of the poll of +/- 3.2%). The Liberals stayed the same, relatively, which suggests that in actual numbers the Liberals decreased and likely became undecided.
Everyone in Canada ought to stop and reflect on the fact that we have a Prime Minister who refuses to talk publicly about getting a majority for fear of severe voter backlash. He will only talk about it behind closed doors to incite core supporters. What is that telling us about Harper and what he stands for (or in this case hides ).
Certainly our Prime Minister ought to by proud of what he represents and openly profess it and encourage voters to support him in his objectives. Instead we have Harper hiding what he truly stands for out of fear that when people see him and the Con's for what he, and they, really are, right wing extremist ideologues, they will drop him like a hot potato.
I suggest we get rid of Harper and the Con's as soon as possible. Certainly then we may proceed as a country with openness and pride.
09 September, 2009
Harper and the Cons Fear Mongering Hyperbola
posted to "Tories to stoke fear of opposition coalition", Steven Chase and Campbell Clark
Ottawa — From Wednesday's Globe and Mail
Last updated on Wednesday, Sep. 09, 2009 08:29AM EDT
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-to-stoke-fear-of-opposition-coalition/article1279929/
[updated]
Two things quoted below that everyone in Canada ought to take very close note:
- Tom Flanagan talking about the possible Harper strategy of attacking the Liberals - for opportunism in forcing an election and reforming the coalition
“It doesn't have to be true. It just has to be plausible and it strikes me as plausible.”
It is clear that Harper and the Cons are not in the least interested in the truth or what is in the best interest of Canada and all Canadians an d of all people Tom Flanagan should know.
- the other by Greg Lyle, managing director of Innovative Research Group:
"The strategy's effectiveness lies more in its ability to spur Conservative supporters to head to the polls to vote than it does in converting swing voters to the Tories"
He is understating this considerably. You can be sure that Harper and the Cons will be doing whatever they can to incite their core supporters. Further, they will have very little concern for the truth.
We saw this last December when Harper and the Cons shut down Parliament to prevent it from exercising its authority.
Especially when you compare the letter (brought to our attention by Compos Mentis, posted to the above G&M article) he sent to the Governor General in 9 Sep.`04, requesting that she consider a Con government supported by the NDP and Block and signed by Harper, Layton and Duceppe:
***********
September 9, 2004
Her Excellency the Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson,
C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D.
Governor General
Rideau Hall
1 Sussex Drive
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A1
Excellency,
As leaders of the opposition parties, we are well aware that, given the Liberal minority government, you could be asked by the Prime Minister
to dissolve the 38th Parliament at any time should the House of Commons fail to support some part of the government's program.
We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation. We believe that, should a request for dissolution arise this should give you cause, as constitutional practice has determined, to consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority.
Your attention to this matter is appreciated.
Sincerely,
Hon. Stephen Harper, P.C., M.P.
Leader of the Opposition
Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada
Also signed by Duceppe and Layton
***********
The basic principle that Harper and the Cons seem to be employing here is that 30% of the population that is very vocal, animated and who base their political decisions on emotion outweighs the vast majority of Canadians.
Flanagan has compared the political methods (attack ads) of Harper and the Cons to ancient Rome, which is likely very accurate. One of the basic strategies there was to appeal to the emotions of the people by giving them such things as the Gladiatorial fights. The analogy to the Harper and the Cons' attack ads is so close, it's scary.
For example on hearing that Ignatieff and the Liberals will no longer be supporting his government Harper and his Ministers have been going around saying how an election right now would hurt the economy. This is, of course, fear mongering hyperbola directed exactly at the core Con supporters to incite . And Flanagan is right we can look for much more of this during an election. The deputy chief economist at BMO came out and stated that the prime minister is overstating the effects of an election right now.
Even Dimitri Soudas, speaking for the Harper government on CBC News Today with Suhana Meharchand, (see: Macleans.ca: "Meharchand v. Soudas, Another in this week’s series of Frustrated Journalists Losing Their Patience", http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/09/04/meharchand-v-soudas/ ) had to back down on whether it would hurt the economy but merely asserted "An election will do absolutely nothing to make sure that government is able to continue implementing its economic action plan". That effect would be a far cry from hurting the economy and in fact would be exactly what Canadians need right now. Only core Harper and Con supporters would be indignant about this, precisely the target group they are aiming at.
Recently Harper stated "“To be honest with you, I am a lot more concerned by God's verdict regarding my life than the one of historians” (see: "‘God's verdict' outranks history's, PM says", Steven Chase and Daniel Leblanc, Ottawa — From Saturday's Globe and Mail, Last updated on Friday, Sep. 04, 2009 03:18PM EDT, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/gods-verdict-outranks-historys-pm-says/article1269229/). Once again, Harper is playing to the emotions of the religious right, a la George W. Bush. One question that everyone, especially Canadians, may ask in judgement on Harper is "were you honest in your dealings with the people of Canada while you were prime minister". What do you suppose Harper`s answer to that would be, standing in front of St Peter at the Pearly Gates, compelled to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Ottawa — From Wednesday's Globe and Mail
Last updated on Wednesday, Sep. 09, 2009 08:29AM EDT
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-to-stoke-fear-of-opposition-coalition/article1279929/
[updated]
Two things quoted below that everyone in Canada ought to take very close note:
- Tom Flanagan talking about the possible Harper strategy of attacking the Liberals - for opportunism in forcing an election and reforming the coalition
“It doesn't have to be true. It just has to be plausible and it strikes me as plausible.”
It is clear that Harper and the Cons are not in the least interested in the truth or what is in the best interest of Canada and all Canadians an d of all people Tom Flanagan should know.
- the other by Greg Lyle, managing director of Innovative Research Group:
"The strategy's effectiveness lies more in its ability to spur Conservative supporters to head to the polls to vote than it does in converting swing voters to the Tories"
He is understating this considerably. You can be sure that Harper and the Cons will be doing whatever they can to incite their core supporters. Further, they will have very little concern for the truth.
We saw this last December when Harper and the Cons shut down Parliament to prevent it from exercising its authority.
Especially when you compare the letter (brought to our attention by Compos Mentis, posted to the above G&M article) he sent to the Governor General in 9 Sep.`04, requesting that she consider a Con government supported by the NDP and Block and signed by Harper, Layton and Duceppe:
***********
September 9, 2004
Her Excellency the Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson,
C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D.
Governor General
Rideau Hall
1 Sussex Drive
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A1
Excellency,
As leaders of the opposition parties, we are well aware that, given the Liberal minority government, you could be asked by the Prime Minister
to dissolve the 38th Parliament at any time should the House of Commons fail to support some part of the government's program.
We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation. We believe that, should a request for dissolution arise this should give you cause, as constitutional practice has determined, to consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority.
Your attention to this matter is appreciated.
Sincerely,
Hon. Stephen Harper, P.C., M.P.
Leader of the Opposition
Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada
Also signed by Duceppe and Layton
***********
The basic principle that Harper and the Cons seem to be employing here is that 30% of the population that is very vocal, animated and who base their political decisions on emotion outweighs the vast majority of Canadians.
Flanagan has compared the political methods (attack ads) of Harper and the Cons to ancient Rome, which is likely very accurate. One of the basic strategies there was to appeal to the emotions of the people by giving them such things as the Gladiatorial fights. The analogy to the Harper and the Cons' attack ads is so close, it's scary.
For example on hearing that Ignatieff and the Liberals will no longer be supporting his government Harper and his Ministers have been going around saying how an election right now would hurt the economy. This is, of course, fear mongering hyperbola directed exactly at the core Con supporters to incite . And Flanagan is right we can look for much more of this during an election. The deputy chief economist at BMO came out and stated that the prime minister is overstating the effects of an election right now.
Even Dimitri Soudas, speaking for the Harper government on CBC News Today with Suhana Meharchand, (see: Macleans.ca: "Meharchand v. Soudas, Another in this week’s series of Frustrated Journalists Losing Their Patience", http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/09/04/meharchand-v-soudas/ ) had to back down on whether it would hurt the economy but merely asserted "An election will do absolutely nothing to make sure that government is able to continue implementing its economic action plan". That effect would be a far cry from hurting the economy and in fact would be exactly what Canadians need right now. Only core Harper and Con supporters would be indignant about this, precisely the target group they are aiming at.
Recently Harper stated "“To be honest with you, I am a lot more concerned by God's verdict regarding my life than the one of historians” (see: "‘God's verdict' outranks history's, PM says", Steven Chase and Daniel Leblanc, Ottawa — From Saturday's Globe and Mail, Last updated on Friday, Sep. 04, 2009 03:18PM EDT, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/gods-verdict-outranks-historys-pm-says/article1269229/). Once again, Harper is playing to the emotions of the religious right, a la George W. Bush. One question that everyone, especially Canadians, may ask in judgement on Harper is "were you honest in your dealings with the people of Canada while you were prime minister". What do you suppose Harper`s answer to that would be, standing in front of St Peter at the Pearly Gates, compelled to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
08 September, 2009
Give Harper the boot!
posted to Globe and Mail, “Tories to introduce own EI reform “, 8 Sep.'09, Rhéal Séguin
Just another example of how Harper and the Con's simply have no real intention of working with the other Parties and every intention of thrust upon Canadians policies designed only for their own political benefit and with no consideration for what is real for the good of Canadians.
One need only look at their little book on how to disrupt Parliamentary Committees, etc, to see the strategy – disrupt the working group until it is totally dysfunctional and then try to blame it on the other Parties.
This was likely a well established strategy right from the formation of the EI working group on the part of Harper and the Con's.
Any real policy on EI would take a considerable amount of time to develop. They must have been doing this secretly and at the same time as they were paying 'lip service' to their commitment to work together on the committee.
If Harper and the Con's were conducting themselves in good faith they ought to have presented it to the working group.
The alternative is that they are dumping upon the Canadian people something has they have thrown together in the last few days for political purposes and nothing else.
This is not how a modern, world class, developed democracy works.
Just another example of how Harper and the Con's simply have no real intention of working with the other Parties and every intention of thrust upon Canadians policies designed only for their own political benefit and with no consideration for what is real for the good of Canadians.
One need only look at their little book on how to disrupt Parliamentary Committees, etc, to see the strategy – disrupt the working group until it is totally dysfunctional and then try to blame it on the other Parties.
This was likely a well established strategy right from the formation of the EI working group on the part of Harper and the Con's.
Any real policy on EI would take a considerable amount of time to develop. They must have been doing this secretly and at the same time as they were paying 'lip service' to their commitment to work together on the committee.
If Harper and the Con's were conducting themselves in good faith they ought to have presented it to the working group.
The alternative is that they are dumping upon the Canadian people something has they have thrown together in the last few days for political purposes and nothing else.
This is not how a modern, world class, developed democracy works.
05 September, 2009
Canada Has A Lot to Gain By an Election
submitted to, The Chronicle Herald, "Liberals have a lot to gain by forcing an election", Stephen Maher, 5 Sep.`09
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Opinion/1141085.html
Mr. Maher,
Canada has a lot to gain – Getting rid of Harper and his Con's !
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Opinion/1141085.html
Mr. Maher,
Canada has a lot to gain – Getting rid of Harper and his Con's !
03 September, 2009
“If I had a million dollars ... I could afford to have a Small vision of Canada”
submitted to: Globe and mail, “Will Ignatieff's bid to stake out higher ground work? “, Lawrence Martin, 3 Sep.'09
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/will-ignatieffs-bid-to-stake-out-higher-ground-work/article1273746/
If my personal net worth were in the millions, then I would not have to worry about my job, EI, the recession, stimulus spending, mega-deficits, CPP, privatization of health care, child-care, leaving future generations with crippling deficits (my children would be ok, and in fact it would ensure that they would be members of the 'Haves' party) and an environmental catastrophe (those with money will surely be able to adapt) and a whole 'lotta' other things.
I would be in favour of eliminating taxes and minimalization of our federal government system since this would protect my interests. Laissez-faire, sink-or-swim, every-person-for-themself, survival of the strongest, would be at the heart of my value system and “help those that need help and protect those that need protection” would, in all likelihood, be a very foreign concepts.
I would have no reservation of employing ruthless tactics to acquire power and hold onto it, in fact my value system would require it and make right – it was good for the Romans, wasn't it. Developing and employing a propaganda machine the likes of which Western Democracies have not experience in recent history would be `a good thing`. Attacking our democratic institutions, designed and in place to protect our way of life, including our Parliamentary System and Parliamentary itself, our Charter of Rights, our Supreme Court would be fair game. Suppressing the free flow of information, curtailing openness and transparency in government, deliberately disrupting Parliament and Parliamentary Committees to the extent of making them dysfunctional so as to create a `smoke screen` for the implementation of right wing policies administratively, and to use as justification for the going against your own legislation, using the powers entrusted to you to promote your self interest, attack the opposing Parties in an effort to weaken them, suspending Parliament to avoid the natural and Constitution consequences of your actions, de facto disenfranchisement of millions of Quebec voters would all be means to be employed, why not. I would turn away from being judged by my fellow country-persons because I know that future generations will point to me and my kind with disapproval.
Hell, if my personal net worth were in the millions the only thing that would stop me from voting for Harper and the Con's is my conscience.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/will-ignatieffs-bid-to-stake-out-higher-ground-work/article1273746/
If my personal net worth were in the millions, then I would not have to worry about my job, EI, the recession, stimulus spending, mega-deficits, CPP, privatization of health care, child-care, leaving future generations with crippling deficits (my children would be ok, and in fact it would ensure that they would be members of the 'Haves' party) and an environmental catastrophe (those with money will surely be able to adapt) and a whole 'lotta' other things.
I would be in favour of eliminating taxes and minimalization of our federal government system since this would protect my interests. Laissez-faire, sink-or-swim, every-person-for-themself, survival of the strongest, would be at the heart of my value system and “help those that need help and protect those that need protection” would, in all likelihood, be a very foreign concepts.
I would have no reservation of employing ruthless tactics to acquire power and hold onto it, in fact my value system would require it and make right – it was good for the Romans, wasn't it. Developing and employing a propaganda machine the likes of which Western Democracies have not experience in recent history would be `a good thing`. Attacking our democratic institutions, designed and in place to protect our way of life, including our Parliamentary System and Parliamentary itself, our Charter of Rights, our Supreme Court would be fair game. Suppressing the free flow of information, curtailing openness and transparency in government, deliberately disrupting Parliament and Parliamentary Committees to the extent of making them dysfunctional so as to create a `smoke screen` for the implementation of right wing policies administratively, and to use as justification for the going against your own legislation, using the powers entrusted to you to promote your self interest, attack the opposing Parties in an effort to weaken them, suspending Parliament to avoid the natural and Constitution consequences of your actions, de facto disenfranchisement of millions of Quebec voters would all be means to be employed, why not. I would turn away from being judged by my fellow country-persons because I know that future generations will point to me and my kind with disapproval.
Hell, if my personal net worth were in the millions the only thing that would stop me from voting for Harper and the Con's is my conscience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)