Posted: 1/29/2010 12:26:30 PM
Liberal MP calls for debate on increasing GST, Bill Curry,Jan. 29, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/liberal-mp-calls-for-debate-on-increasing-gst/article1448582/ Tab 11
It is high time we took a long hard look the impact of all, not just GST, the Harper Policies on our Nation now and the Legacy we leave to our children and our children's children to prevent Harper and his Con's from tearing asunder what has been built thru the blood sweat and tears of out forefathers, maintain what we have achieved in the past, and perhaps improve on it, if possible, and leave our children with the appreciation of us having lived here and not a bitter resentment that we were ever given a turn at the helm.
Canada has dropped to 43rd in the 2010 Environmental Performance Index from the Liberal legacy high point. This is outrageous, an embarrassment and a blight on Canada's International Reputation.
Reducing the GST 2 points was bad economically and was done by Harper and the Con's for political reasons.
Then, there's the Afghan Detainee Transfer Scandal, ensuing cover-up and shutting down our democratic Institutions by Harper and his Con's.
All Canadians should demand a review.
It seems that Carl Sonnen did not consult with Ian Brodie, Harper's adviser at the time, who has come out and admitted that Harper implemented the GST reduction contrary to good economic advise - “Despite economic evidence to the contrary, in my view the GST cut worked … It worked in the sense that it helped us to win.”
Also, it should be pointed out that when England reduced their VAT (equivalent to out GST), they did it on a temporary basis, for one year, and not permanently contributing to a gross systemic reduction in revenue contributing to our stellar deficits.
Carl Sonnen seems to have a history of being supportive of Harper's policies on other issues as well as can be seen in the C.D. Howe Institute Commentary, Oct 2002, 'The Kyoto Protocol: Canada’s Risky Rush to Judgment'. This publication, surprise, surprise, suggests that implementing the Kyoto Protocol by the Chrétien government "could lead to serious economic damage".
I turned this up in a two minute search on Google. You try it and see what else there may be.
In 20 years when our children and our children's children are asking just how is that our nation is collapsing from debt and in 50 years, when world civilization is being destroyed by Global Warming, the 'Web Archaeologists" will be able to "drill down" (to borough a military phrase) and shine a light on the dark corners of the Harper government and all those that promote it, Harper and the Con agenda.
When are the next round of Senate appointments by Harper - oh, it was today, is Sonnen's name on the list . . . I guess Harper, in his infinite strategic wisdom, thinks he is more useful as is, but perhaps next time.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
29 January, 2010
27 January, 2010
- We're Being Con'd Again - Flanagan is offering faulty logic
Submitted 9:57am, PST, 27 Jan.'10
Cash, votes and the rise of toxic politics, Hébert, 27 Jan.'10
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/756378--h-eacute-bert-cash-votes-and-the-rise-of-toxic-politics
Everyone knows that the source of "la guerre" is Harper and the Con's. The only Party that has and can afford a full time war room, is Harper and the Con's. In fact, Harper and the Con's have built a propaganda machine the likes of which has not been seen in Western Democracies in recent times.
The Con's have a large war chest because they have a diehard core of supporters of around 33% that, if the Parties were required to report the source of contributions under $200, I am confident would show centred in Alberta. Now there's an election financing reform that might be considered.
Every one knows that the Liberal Party is struggling with finances even with receiving the vote-allowance - yes even the media reporters know this. Also, they received considerably less votes than Harper and the Con's and so receive considerably less of the vote-allowance than the Con's.
One can only wonder why Flanagan is publishing such a paper at this time. Is it to demonstrate academic excellence - I suspect not. Is it to start to pave the way for Harper to re-introduce his malicious attack on the Opposition through election financing, I suspect so.
Perhaps Flanagan is publishing an extremely partizan paper in the guise of academia. Ask him.
I also suggest that Iggy and the Lib's take note.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Cash, votes and the rise of toxic politics, Hébert, 27 Jan.'10
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/756378--h-eacute-bert-cash-votes-and-the-rise-of-toxic-politics
Everyone knows that the source of "la guerre" is Harper and the Con's. The only Party that has and can afford a full time war room, is Harper and the Con's. In fact, Harper and the Con's have built a propaganda machine the likes of which has not been seen in Western Democracies in recent times.
The Con's have a large war chest because they have a diehard core of supporters of around 33% that, if the Parties were required to report the source of contributions under $200, I am confident would show centred in Alberta. Now there's an election financing reform that might be considered.
Every one knows that the Liberal Party is struggling with finances even with receiving the vote-allowance - yes even the media reporters know this. Also, they received considerably less votes than Harper and the Con's and so receive considerably less of the vote-allowance than the Con's.
One can only wonder why Flanagan is publishing such a paper at this time. Is it to demonstrate academic excellence - I suspect not. Is it to start to pave the way for Harper to re-introduce his malicious attack on the Opposition through election financing, I suspect so.
Perhaps Flanagan is publishing an extremely partizan paper in the guise of academia. Ask him.
I also suggest that Iggy and the Lib's take note.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
25 January, 2010
- Harper Strikes Another Blow for Freedom - from Afghanistan Detainee Transfer Scandal, that is
Submitted: 6:22pm PST, 25 Jan.'10
Colvin fears retaliation for torture testimony, January 25, 2010
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/01/25/afghan-detainees-colvin-legal-fees.html#socialcomments
This last in a long series of steps taken by Harper and the Con's to stifle the truth is outrageous.
It should not only offend the integrity and sense of justice of every person in Canadian but an embarrassment in front of all other countries that live by the Rule of Law - that's right including even that core of Harper supporters that seems to be the only reason Harper and the Cons are running this fair nation of ours.
Given the importance to getting at the truth and the likely cogency of the evidence, based Mr. Colvin's testimony so far, it seems this would be a candidate for Pro Bono work by a lawyer or a team of lawyers. I would be surprised if there weren't some qualified lawyer(s) out there that would be willing to so do.
Oh, by the way, did I mention, I'm a lawyer.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Colvin fears retaliation for torture testimony, January 25, 2010
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/01/25/afghan-detainees-colvin-legal-fees.html#socialcomments
This last in a long series of steps taken by Harper and the Con's to stifle the truth is outrageous.
It should not only offend the integrity and sense of justice of every person in Canadian but an embarrassment in front of all other countries that live by the Rule of Law - that's right including even that core of Harper supporters that seems to be the only reason Harper and the Cons are running this fair nation of ours.
Given the importance to getting at the truth and the likely cogency of the evidence, based Mr. Colvin's testimony so far, it seems this would be a candidate for Pro Bono work by a lawyer or a team of lawyers. I would be surprised if there weren't some qualified lawyer(s) out there that would be willing to so do.
Oh, by the way, did I mention, I'm a lawyer.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
24 January, 2010
- What Heroes These Harper Con's Be - excerpt
Posted January 24, 1:15 PM
Hundreds protest at no-prorogue rally in Waterloo, Babar Tahirkheli, 24 Jan.'10
http://wwww.examiner.com/x-35391-Waterloo-Headlines-Examiner~y2010m1d24-Hundreds-protest-at-noprorogue-rally-in-Waterloo?#comments
Harper in his defence of Prorogation stated "We are unfortunately at the same time dealing with life-and-death issues as we here in this terrible Haiti tragedy,”
First, this is a clear attempt by Harper to make Canada's response to the Haiti disaster political. Soon he will be putting massages on the sides of the Go trains in and out of Toronto (sounds familiar) saying "What Heroes These Harper Con's Be".
The fact is that Harper and the Con's are doing no more, if that, than any government of the day would do for Haiti, even with Parliament sitting. It is outrageous that Harper and the Con's would deliberately cut off 2/3 of Canadians having a say in how and to what extent our country helps Haiti. This is especially for Quebec, where Harper has explicitly disenfranchised 38% of the people - all those voting Block. This is even more outrageous since the ties between the people of Quebec and Haiti are so very close.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
also:
Submitted: 1/24/2010 1:49:41 PM & continued 1/24/2010 1:55:57 PM
Thousands protest prorogued Parliament , Ciara Byrne, 24 Jan. '10http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/prorogation/protesters-denounce-prorogued-parliament/article1441809/ Tab 222
Hundreds protest at no-prorogue rally in Waterloo, Babar Tahirkheli, 24 Jan.'10
http://wwww.examiner.com/x-35391-Waterloo-Headlines-Examiner~y2010m1d24-Hundreds-protest-at-noprorogue-rally-in-Waterloo?#comments
Harper in his defence of Prorogation stated "We are unfortunately at the same time dealing with life-and-death issues as we here in this terrible Haiti tragedy,”
First, this is a clear attempt by Harper to make Canada's response to the Haiti disaster political. Soon he will be putting massages on the sides of the Go trains in and out of Toronto (sounds familiar) saying "What Heroes These Harper Con's Be".
The fact is that Harper and the Con's are doing no more, if that, than any government of the day would do for Haiti, even with Parliament sitting. It is outrageous that Harper and the Con's would deliberately cut off 2/3 of Canadians having a say in how and to what extent our country helps Haiti. This is especially for Quebec, where Harper has explicitly disenfranchised 38% of the people - all those voting Block. This is even more outrageous since the ties between the people of Quebec and Haiti are so very close.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
also:
Submitted: 1/24/2010 1:49:41 PM & continued 1/24/2010 1:55:57 PM
Thousands protest prorogued Parliament , Ciara Byrne, 24 Jan. '10http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/prorogation/protesters-denounce-prorogued-parliament/article1441809/ Tab 222
- What heroes these Harper Con's Be!
In response to the following article:
Across Canada, protests urge reopening Parliament, Susan Delacourt and Bruce Campion-Smith, 23 Jan. '10
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/754967--across-canada-protests-urge-reopening-parliament?bn=1
Harper in his defence of Prorogation stated "We are unfortunately at the same time dealing with life-and-death issues as we here in this terrible Haiti tragedy,”
First, this is a clear attempt by Harper to make Canada's response to the Haiti disaster political. Soon he will be putting massages on the sides of the Go trains in and out of Toronto (like he's never done anything like that before) saying "What Heroes are These Harper Con's".
The fact is that Harper and the Con's are doing no more, if that, than any government of the day would do for Haiti, even with Parliament sitting. In fact Ignatieff, rightly so, pointed out that the Haiti disaster is one reason for Parliament sitting. It is outrageous that Harper and the Con's would deliberately cut off 2/3 of Canadians having a say in how and to what extent our country helps Haiti. This is especially for Quebec, where Harper has explicitly disenfranchised 38% of the people - all those voting Block. This is even more outrageous since the ties between the people of Quebec and Haiti are so very close.
Also, there is a serious issue of rationality here. Harper Prorogued Parliament on 30 December, a full 13 days before the earthquake struck Haiti. I know Harper and the Con's do not believe in the laws of physics, cause-and-effect, or science generally, as manifested by appointing people like Stockwell Day, Vic Toews and Gary Goodyear to run this country as well as an overall lack of support for education and research (except Harper's contribution to solving Global Warm - research into sequestering the Oil Sands) and do not want to encourage or promote rational thought amongst the population, but come on.
'What fools we Canadians be' ??? - Who is that stupid to as to accept this as an explanation.
Perhaps, Harper knew in advance through divine inspiration (ok, sorry , I know that is being sarcastic, I stand corrected - I should have said perhaps Stockwell Day . . ., who then promptly reported back to Harper). Then he ought to have warned everyone.
This is the same logic Harper and the Con's used with the GST reduction and the recession. A year before the recession they reduced the GST, against the advise of just about every reasonable economist in Canada, by two points, then spent the next year saying how much that stimulated the economy and denying any kind of economic downturn or problems until he was forced to in the last stages of the '08 election. Since then he and his Con's have been going around saying just how great they were for preparing our economy for the recession by reducing the GST two points. They, of course, totally ignore the fact that they have brought Canada into systemic deficits, not the least of which cause was the reduction in GST.
“We now have to turn our mind to the broader agenda, to some of the economic challenges, including deficit reduction, ahead of us,” he said. Here's a suggestion, if trying to reduce the deficit is so difficult and time consuming, then get some help. Include those Canadians that didn't vote for you and whose money you have spent on the ones that did - i.e. consult with the Opposition Parties, Un-Prorogue Parliament (if that's a word), that is what democracy is all about.
Harper said 'opposition party members – who took part in the Saturday rallies – should be focused on making “constructive proposals.'
Unbelievable, Harper Progogues Parliament exactly to prevent the Opposition Parties from having a say, not just with regard to the Afghan Detainee transfer, but also to the Budget. Perhaps Harper might explain to what extent he has approached the Opposition for "constructive proposals".
We are unfortunately at the same time dealing with life-and-death issues as we here in this terrible Haiti tragedy,” he said at a news conference in Ottawa to announce more federal funding for the earthquake relief effort.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Submitted: 1/24/2010 1:49:41 PM & continued 1/24/2010 1:55:57 PM
Thousands protest prorogued Parliament , Ciara Byrne, 24 Jan. '10http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/prorogation/protesters-denounce-prorogued-parliament/article1441809/ Tab 222
submitted: Submitted: CTV - 11:28PST, 24 Jan.'10 & continued Submitted: 11:25am, PST, 24 Jan.'10
Opposition keeps heat on during parliamentary freeze, CTV.ca News Staff, 24 Jan. 2010
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100124/Ottawa_Monday_100124/20100124?hub=TopStoriesV2
Across Canada, protests urge reopening Parliament, Susan Delacourt and Bruce Campion-Smith, 23 Jan. '10
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/754967--across-canada-protests-urge-reopening-parliament?bn=1
Harper in his defence of Prorogation stated "We are unfortunately at the same time dealing with life-and-death issues as we here in this terrible Haiti tragedy,”
First, this is a clear attempt by Harper to make Canada's response to the Haiti disaster political. Soon he will be putting massages on the sides of the Go trains in and out of Toronto (like he's never done anything like that before) saying "What Heroes are These Harper Con's".
The fact is that Harper and the Con's are doing no more, if that, than any government of the day would do for Haiti, even with Parliament sitting. In fact Ignatieff, rightly so, pointed out that the Haiti disaster is one reason for Parliament sitting. It is outrageous that Harper and the Con's would deliberately cut off 2/3 of Canadians having a say in how and to what extent our country helps Haiti. This is especially for Quebec, where Harper has explicitly disenfranchised 38% of the people - all those voting Block. This is even more outrageous since the ties between the people of Quebec and Haiti are so very close.
Also, there is a serious issue of rationality here. Harper Prorogued Parliament on 30 December, a full 13 days before the earthquake struck Haiti. I know Harper and the Con's do not believe in the laws of physics, cause-and-effect, or science generally, as manifested by appointing people like Stockwell Day, Vic Toews and Gary Goodyear to run this country as well as an overall lack of support for education and research (except Harper's contribution to solving Global Warm - research into sequestering the Oil Sands) and do not want to encourage or promote rational thought amongst the population, but come on.
'What fools we Canadians be' ??? - Who is that stupid to as to accept this as an explanation.
Perhaps, Harper knew in advance through divine inspiration (ok, sorry , I know that is being sarcastic, I stand corrected - I should have said perhaps Stockwell Day . . ., who then promptly reported back to Harper). Then he ought to have warned everyone.
This is the same logic Harper and the Con's used with the GST reduction and the recession. A year before the recession they reduced the GST, against the advise of just about every reasonable economist in Canada, by two points, then spent the next year saying how much that stimulated the economy and denying any kind of economic downturn or problems until he was forced to in the last stages of the '08 election. Since then he and his Con's have been going around saying just how great they were for preparing our economy for the recession by reducing the GST two points. They, of course, totally ignore the fact that they have brought Canada into systemic deficits, not the least of which cause was the reduction in GST.
“We now have to turn our mind to the broader agenda, to some of the economic challenges, including deficit reduction, ahead of us,” he said. Here's a suggestion, if trying to reduce the deficit is so difficult and time consuming, then get some help. Include those Canadians that didn't vote for you and whose money you have spent on the ones that did - i.e. consult with the Opposition Parties, Un-Prorogue Parliament (if that's a word), that is what democracy is all about.
Harper said 'opposition party members – who took part in the Saturday rallies – should be focused on making “constructive proposals.'
Unbelievable, Harper Progogues Parliament exactly to prevent the Opposition Parties from having a say, not just with regard to the Afghan Detainee transfer, but also to the Budget. Perhaps Harper might explain to what extent he has approached the Opposition for "constructive proposals".
We are unfortunately at the same time dealing with life-and-death issues as we here in this terrible Haiti tragedy,” he said at a news conference in Ottawa to announce more federal funding for the earthquake relief effort.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Submitted: 1/24/2010 1:49:41 PM & continued 1/24/2010 1:55:57 PM
Thousands protest prorogued Parliament , Ciara Byrne, 24 Jan. '10http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/prorogation/protesters-denounce-prorogued-parliament/article1441809/ Tab 222
submitted: Submitted: CTV - 11:28PST, 24 Jan.'10 & continued Submitted: 11:25am, PST, 24 Jan.'10
Opposition keeps heat on during parliamentary freeze, CTV.ca News Staff, 24 Jan. 2010
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100124/Ottawa_Monday_100124/20100124?hub=TopStoriesV2
23 January, 2010
-Second Coming of Stockwell Day ??? God Save Canada
The second coming of Stockwell Day, Jane Taber, 22 Jan.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/the-second-coming-of-stockwell-day/article1441516/
If you want to know why Stockwell day lost the election in 2000, other than simply being an extremist right wing ideologue, who was leading a right wing extremist Party representing a small fraction of this country. Here are some comments to consider . . .
Maybe Parliament could introduce a motion to change "Stockwell Day's" name to "Doris Day".
What, already been suggested? by Rick Mercer? Brilliant!
Ahhh ... yes, I see, through the miracle of Internet I can go back in history and get:
"Rick Mercer gets minimum signatures for referendum to have Stockwell Day change name to Doris!"
http://web.ncf.ca/pat/pdqlib/humor.html
. . .
what's this ... coming up on my Google search of "Stockwell Day " +"Doris Day" ...
"During the 2000 election campaign Day made the following comments and voiced the following beliefs:
...
- Day espoused his belief that evolution doesn't exist and that people do really come from Adam and Eve.
- Day believed that an "Asian Invasion" was taking place at Canadian universities and that we shouldn't allow asians to study in Canada.
- He made a variety of other quotes displaying his anti-immigration beliefs, anti-native rights, anti-women's rights and anti-Quebec."
(http://www.lilithgallery.com/articles/canada/The_Prank_That_Destroyed_StockwellDay.html
"The Prank That Destroyed Stockwell Day, By Charles Moffat")
Am I ready this right! Did Day actually say these things?
Perhaps the media could through some light in this dark place.
And Day is running this country as International Trade Minister - sorry, Treasury Board president ???What would aliens say if they came and hovered over Ottawa.
All I can say is, God save Canada! Wait, God helps those that help themselves. We can not rely on divine intervention.
We must take the bull - graven image for all you traditionalists - by the horns, give Harper, MacKay, O'Connor, Baird, Prentice, Van Loan, Nicholson, Toews, . . . oh, and did I mention Day, the boot.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/the-second-coming-of-stockwell-day/article1441516/
If you want to know why Stockwell day lost the election in 2000, other than simply being an extremist right wing ideologue, who was leading a right wing extremist Party representing a small fraction of this country. Here are some comments to consider . . .
Maybe Parliament could introduce a motion to change "Stockwell Day's" name to "Doris Day".
What, already been suggested? by Rick Mercer? Brilliant!
Ahhh ... yes, I see, through the miracle of Internet I can go back in history and get:
"Rick Mercer gets minimum signatures for referendum to have Stockwell Day change name to Doris!"
http://web.ncf.ca/pat/pdqlib/humor.html
. . .
what's this ... coming up on my Google search of "Stockwell Day " +"Doris Day" ...
"During the 2000 election campaign Day made the following comments and voiced the following beliefs:
...
- Day espoused his belief that evolution doesn't exist and that people do really come from Adam and Eve.
- Day believed that an "Asian Invasion" was taking place at Canadian universities and that we shouldn't allow asians to study in Canada.
- He made a variety of other quotes displaying his anti-immigration beliefs, anti-native rights, anti-women's rights and anti-Quebec."
(http://www.lilithgallery.com/articles/canada/The_Prank_That_Destroyed_StockwellDay.html
"The Prank That Destroyed Stockwell Day, By Charles Moffat")
Am I ready this right! Did Day actually say these things?
Perhaps the media could through some light in this dark place.
And Day is running this country as International Trade Minister - sorry, Treasury Board president ???What would aliens say if they came and hovered over Ottawa.
All I can say is, God save Canada! Wait, God helps those that help themselves. We can not rely on divine intervention.
We must take the bull - graven image for all you traditionalists - by the horns, give Harper, MacKay, O'Connor, Baird, Prentice, Van Loan, Nicholson, Toews, . . . oh, and did I mention Day, the boot.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
22 January, 2010
- Harper's Extreme Right Wing Agenda
posted 8:00am, PST, 22 Jan.'10
Ottawa warns provinces will be cutting back, too, 22 Jan.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ottawa-warns-provinces-will-be-cutting-back-too/article1439826/ Tab 26
"Mr. Harper said yesterday Ottawa doesn't plan significant cuts to transfers "
How many times has Harper promised one thing to gain and clutch onto power only to do the exact opposite once he has the opportunity to us it. The very fact that he would mention it means its on the radar.
"The squeeze at both levels of government will come to a head in 2013 when Ottawa must renegotiate a new health transfer accord with the provinces, which face soaring medical care costs."
Reducing health care payments is a reduction in transfer payments. It also falls in line with the basic objective of Harper and all the extreme right wing to eliminate Canada's health care system and abandon the field to the Provinces to implement privatized health care.
Harper's agenda is to dismantle Canada as a coherent nation abandoning its responsibilities leaving the Provinces to fill the void. Hand-in-hand with this is deserting the tax field and leaving it to the Provinces.
Anyone who is not convinced that this is a very deliberate and well thought out agenda might look back over Harper's public life and what he has professed, not the least of which is the Firewall Letter.
Harper's base is in Alberta. They make up the die-hardest of his supporters, and perhaps the source of the lion's share of the Con's funding. Harper, from the start has done everything to increase Alberta' autonomy and protect its oil industry, and Canada be [censored - see above] - this is nowhere more apparent than Harper's policies on Global Warming. Natural Resources Department assessment indicates that the projected increase to economic growth from the oil industry is $885 billion between 2000 and 2020, including growth of $634 billion in Alberta. Just imagine how much the benefit would remain in Alberta if there were no Federal taxes. Then there is the transfer payments, which would be hugely increased, that would be done away with. You do the math.
****
If anyone wants to get more details on right wing ideology behind Harper's economic strategy check out the following coven of extreme right wing ideologues:
Fraser Institute - Mike Harris and Preston Manning
A Canada Strong and Free, Date Published: April 1, 2005
If these names sound familiar but you can't quite place them.
Mike Harris, extreme right wing conservative who as Primeir, along with Flaherty, Baird, Clement, Van Loan, as Ministers destroyed Ontario both on a social and on an economic level in the '90's and early 2000's
Preston Manning that is the right wing extremist that started, and was leader of, the Reform Party, mentor to Stephen Harper, co-author of numerous right wing papers
" Harris and Manning propose eliminating the federal role in health care management and financing ..."
Sounds like elimination of Canada's health care system and replacing it by private providers could he.
"smaller governments . . . the size of government itself is constrained and the functions of government are decentralized and localized as much as possible. "
Sounds like dismantling the Federal Government, abdicating Federal responsibility, abandoning its presence in governing our great nation in favour of separate Provinces.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Ottawa warns provinces will be cutting back, too, 22 Jan.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ottawa-warns-provinces-will-be-cutting-back-too/article1439826/ Tab 26
"Mr. Harper said yesterday Ottawa doesn't plan significant cuts to transfers "
How many times has Harper promised one thing to gain and clutch onto power only to do the exact opposite once he has the opportunity to us it. The very fact that he would mention it means its on the radar.
"The squeeze at both levels of government will come to a head in 2013 when Ottawa must renegotiate a new health transfer accord with the provinces, which face soaring medical care costs."
Reducing health care payments is a reduction in transfer payments. It also falls in line with the basic objective of Harper and all the extreme right wing to eliminate Canada's health care system and abandon the field to the Provinces to implement privatized health care.
Harper's agenda is to dismantle Canada as a coherent nation abandoning its responsibilities leaving the Provinces to fill the void. Hand-in-hand with this is deserting the tax field and leaving it to the Provinces.
Anyone who is not convinced that this is a very deliberate and well thought out agenda might look back over Harper's public life and what he has professed, not the least of which is the Firewall Letter.
Harper's base is in Alberta. They make up the die-hardest of his supporters, and perhaps the source of the lion's share of the Con's funding. Harper, from the start has done everything to increase Alberta' autonomy and protect its oil industry, and Canada be [censored - see above] - this is nowhere more apparent than Harper's policies on Global Warming. Natural Resources Department assessment indicates that the projected increase to economic growth from the oil industry is $885 billion between 2000 and 2020, including growth of $634 billion in Alberta. Just imagine how much the benefit would remain in Alberta if there were no Federal taxes. Then there is the transfer payments, which would be hugely increased, that would be done away with. You do the math.
****
If anyone wants to get more details on right wing ideology behind Harper's economic strategy check out the following coven of extreme right wing ideologues:
Fraser Institute - Mike Harris and Preston Manning
A Canada Strong and Free, Date Published: April 1, 2005
If these names sound familiar but you can't quite place them.
Mike Harris, extreme right wing conservative who as Primeir, along with Flaherty, Baird, Clement, Van Loan, as Ministers destroyed Ontario both on a social and on an economic level in the '90's and early 2000's
Preston Manning that is the right wing extremist that started, and was leader of, the Reform Party, mentor to Stephen Harper, co-author of numerous right wing papers
" Harris and Manning propose eliminating the federal role in health care management and financing ..."
Sounds like elimination of Canada's health care system and replacing it by private providers could he.
"smaller governments . . . the size of government itself is constrained and the functions of government are decentralized and localized as much as possible. "
Sounds like dismantling the Federal Government, abdicating Federal responsibility, abandoning its presence in governing our great nation in favour of separate Provinces.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
19 January, 2010
- Harper has dragged us into a Post-Modern Dark Age!
Submitted: 1/19/2010 1:22:17 PM
Poll finds strong support for boosting heath, medical research funding, André Picard, 18 Jan.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/poll-finds-strong-support-for-boosting-heath-medical-research-funding/article1434464/#comments Tab 2
This country is being run be right wing conservative extremists, where Harper, our Prime Minister, feels that the best person to run the Ministry of Science and Technology, Gary Goodyear, is someone who, it has come to light, has trouble separating religion from science and the state.
It is no accident by Harper that Goodyear is the Ministry of Science and Technology. And, it is no accident that Harper has such close ties with extreme right wing Conservatives in the US and has such a close connection to Bush and Bush's policies.
“trailing most industrialized nations” - Harper and his Con's have dragged us into a into a Post-Modern Dark Age!
It is easy to see why Harper and the Con's are anti-Science. Science deals with bringing to light, truth and reality - two principles that are manifestly abhorrent to Harper and the Con's. The Harper method is to approach people emotionally, to hide the truth, cover-up, obscure and obstruct. To this end Harper and the Con's have built, and employ, a propaganda machine the likes of which has not been seen in Western Democracies in recent times.
These methods are diametrically opposed to the Scientific method and can not survive the light of rationalism. The last thing Harper wants is to have people who approach politics on a rational basis. Science, mathematics and other such disciplines have spent 500 years pulling us out of the Dark Ages into a Golden Era of Rationality. One of the last endeavors of Western society to remain in the Dark Ages is politics. Harper and the Con's know this.
Will Harper increase funding to Medical, and Scientific generally, research - You do the Math.
Oh, my apologies, I forgot, Harper and the Con's are promoting sequestration as the Con's solution to Global Warming. And here I am suggestion that Harper spews nothing but emotional, non-rationally based, political propaganda designed only to grab, hold onto and monger power.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Poll finds strong support for boosting heath, medical research funding, André Picard, 18 Jan.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/poll-finds-strong-support-for-boosting-heath-medical-research-funding/article1434464/#comments Tab 2
This country is being run be right wing conservative extremists, where Harper, our Prime Minister, feels that the best person to run the Ministry of Science and Technology, Gary Goodyear, is someone who, it has come to light, has trouble separating religion from science and the state.
It is no accident by Harper that Goodyear is the Ministry of Science and Technology. And, it is no accident that Harper has such close ties with extreme right wing Conservatives in the US and has such a close connection to Bush and Bush's policies.
“trailing most industrialized nations” - Harper and his Con's have dragged us into a into a Post-Modern Dark Age!
It is easy to see why Harper and the Con's are anti-Science. Science deals with bringing to light, truth and reality - two principles that are manifestly abhorrent to Harper and the Con's. The Harper method is to approach people emotionally, to hide the truth, cover-up, obscure and obstruct. To this end Harper and the Con's have built, and employ, a propaganda machine the likes of which has not been seen in Western Democracies in recent times.
These methods are diametrically opposed to the Scientific method and can not survive the light of rationalism. The last thing Harper wants is to have people who approach politics on a rational basis. Science, mathematics and other such disciplines have spent 500 years pulling us out of the Dark Ages into a Golden Era of Rationality. One of the last endeavors of Western society to remain in the Dark Ages is politics. Harper and the Con's know this.
Will Harper increase funding to Medical, and Scientific generally, research - You do the Math.
Oh, my apologies, I forgot, Harper and the Con's are promoting sequestration as the Con's solution to Global Warming. And here I am suggestion that Harper spews nothing but emotional, non-rationally based, political propaganda designed only to grab, hold onto and monger power.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
16 January, 2010
- Harper dares not face the Opposition.
Rope a Dope? Harper Slipping in Polls as Canadians React to Proroguing – Ignatieff on the War Path – January 16, 2010,
http://cornwallfreenews.com/2010/01/rope-a-dope-harper-slipping-in-polls-as-canadians-react-to-proroguing-ignatieff-on-the-war-path-january-16-2010
Harper is only concerned with power, grabbing it, holding on to it and mongering it, Canada be damned. His contempt for Canada and its Democratic Institutions is well established and of a nature and degree that all Canadians ought to take serious note.
Harper’s aim is to minimalize Canada, dismantle our great nation to the great detriment of all Canadians and to favour a few.
Soon Harper will claim 'Canada is dysfunctional', prorogue Canada and defer entirely to the Provinces.
This dedication to power is why he hasn't got the 'right stuff' (morally right that is) to stand up to the Opposition.
Harper's base is in Alberta. They make up the die-hardest of his supporters, and perhaps the source of the lion's share of the Con's funding. Harper, from the start has done everything to increase Alberta' autonomy and protect its oil industry, and Canada be [censored - see above] - this is nowhere more apparent than Harper's policies on Global Warming. Natural Resources Department assessment indicates that the projected increase to economic growth from the oil industry is $885 billion between 2000 and 2020, including growth of $634 billion in Alberta. Just imagine how much the benefit would remain in Alberta if there were no Federal taxes. Then there is the transfer payments, which would be hugely increased, that would be done away with. You do the math.
Harper knows that as long as he has this core of support, the Con's will be able to hold onto power. Further, he need only Con a relatively small segment of the regular population to get a majority - in that case, all I can say is, 'God save Canada'.
As long as he has this significant core-support and the regular population is divided amongst the other Parties, Harper knows he can display this contempt for Canada, our Democratic Institutions and, frankly, anyone who dares to stand up to him.
Harper's Prorogation is, of course outrageous, and there is no doubt it was done to try to quell the backlash of the Afghan Detainee Transfer scandal and ensuing cover-up.
Paul Martin stood tall, took responsibility, showed leadership, putting the grasping onto, maintaining and grubbing of power, second to the good of the country, and called for an Inquiry into the Sponsorship Scandal. One might say that, yes, but, Martin knew that he, personally, had nothing to worry about when the truth started to emerge, whereas you can't say that about Harper.
There are other examples of Harper avoiding to face the Opposition for example - his economic update announce he made while in China so that he could avoid facing the Opposition. Also, while in Trinidad, Harper viciously lashed out at Ignatieff, the Liberals and all the Opposition, with slanderous allegations of a deceitful nature.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
http://cornwallfreenews.com/2010/01/rope-a-dope-harper-slipping-in-polls-as-canadians-react-to-proroguing-ignatieff-on-the-war-path-january-16-2010
Harper is only concerned with power, grabbing it, holding on to it and mongering it, Canada be damned. His contempt for Canada and its Democratic Institutions is well established and of a nature and degree that all Canadians ought to take serious note.
Harper’s aim is to minimalize Canada, dismantle our great nation to the great detriment of all Canadians and to favour a few.
Soon Harper will claim 'Canada is dysfunctional', prorogue Canada and defer entirely to the Provinces.
This dedication to power is why he hasn't got the 'right stuff' (morally right that is) to stand up to the Opposition.
Harper's base is in Alberta. They make up the die-hardest of his supporters, and perhaps the source of the lion's share of the Con's funding. Harper, from the start has done everything to increase Alberta' autonomy and protect its oil industry, and Canada be [censored - see above] - this is nowhere more apparent than Harper's policies on Global Warming. Natural Resources Department assessment indicates that the projected increase to economic growth from the oil industry is $885 billion between 2000 and 2020, including growth of $634 billion in Alberta. Just imagine how much the benefit would remain in Alberta if there were no Federal taxes. Then there is the transfer payments, which would be hugely increased, that would be done away with. You do the math.
Harper knows that as long as he has this core of support, the Con's will be able to hold onto power. Further, he need only Con a relatively small segment of the regular population to get a majority - in that case, all I can say is, 'God save Canada'.
As long as he has this significant core-support and the regular population is divided amongst the other Parties, Harper knows he can display this contempt for Canada, our Democratic Institutions and, frankly, anyone who dares to stand up to him.
Harper's Prorogation is, of course outrageous, and there is no doubt it was done to try to quell the backlash of the Afghan Detainee Transfer scandal and ensuing cover-up.
Paul Martin stood tall, took responsibility, showed leadership, putting the grasping onto, maintaining and grubbing of power, second to the good of the country, and called for an Inquiry into the Sponsorship Scandal. One might say that, yes, but, Martin knew that he, personally, had nothing to worry about when the truth started to emerge, whereas you can't say that about Harper.
There are other examples of Harper avoiding to face the Opposition for example - his economic update announce he made while in China so that he could avoid facing the Opposition. Also, while in Trinidad, Harper viciously lashed out at Ignatieff, the Liberals and all the Opposition, with slanderous allegations of a deceitful nature.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
15 January, 2010
- Transfer Payments - Ha, Next Harper Prorogue Canada and Defer to the Provinces
Ghiz raises issue of equalization cuts in meeting with Shea, Wayne Thibodeau, 15/01/10
http://www.theguardian.pe.ca/index.cfm?sid=318615&sc=98
Posted 15/01/2010 at 2:42 PM
I suggest that Harper's true agenda is to eliminate equalization payments.
Why, you ask.
Equalization payments are one of the biggest 'glue's' that keep all the Provinces together as one nation. It represents all Canadians getting together to help those that need help and protect those that need protection.
Harper's agenda is to dismantle Canada as a coherent nation abandoning its responsibilities leaving the Provinces to fill the void. Hand-in-hand with this is deserting the tax field and leaving it to the Provinces.
We have seen this agenda in 'action' a number of areas already Global Warming not the least. It is no accident that Harper's approach to Global Warming abdicates responsibility and leaves it to the Provinces to take the necessary action.
Anyone who is not convinced that this is a very deliberate and well thought out agenda might look back over Harper's public life and what he has professed, not the least of which is the Firewall Letter.
It's funny how Harper attacks Ignatieff for having spent so much of his public life outside Canada, where Harper,himself, has dedicated much more of his to dissolving Canada. I might laugh, if it weren't so important, not only to us but also to our children and our children's children.
They are the ones that will be required shoulder a withering economic burden in a hollowed-out shell of a nation whose social fabric has been torn asunder. Who amongst us will be able to take a step back, look the next generation in the eye, so to speak, be proud to say "This is Canada, this our nation, it's your turn now".
Who amongst us can say, "We have stood on guard for this great nation of ours and what it stands for. We have maintained and preserved what our forefathers achieved in the past, and perhaps improved on it."
Who can feel confident that we are leaving our children with the appreciation of us having lived here and not a bitter resentment that we were ever given a turn at the helm.
Whereas, for Harper, it's 'Canada be Damned' ['Damned' was censored by the newspaper - 'public be damned' is a very famous quote and has come to refer to outrageous arrogance of public figures who have their own self interest at heart to the detriment of the people generally. In this context the appropriateness ought to outweigh any offense to people's sensibilities, I am sure people are much more concerned about what Harper is doing to our nation]. In fact he has deeply ingrained contempt for Canada as a nation and our Parliamentary institutions.
Soon Harper will claim 'Canada is dysfunctional', prorogue Canada and defer entirely to the Provinces.
Harper's base is in Alberta. They make up the die-hardest of his supporters, and perhaps the source of the lion's share of the Con's funding. Harper, from the start has done everything to increase Alberta' autonomy and protect its oil industry, and Canada be [censored - see above] - this is nowhere more apparent than Harper's policies on Global Warming. Natural Resources Department assessment indicates that the projected increase to economic growth from the oil industry is $885 billion between 2000 and 2020, including growth of $634 billion in Alberta. Just imagine how much the benefit would remain in Alberta if there were no Federal taxes. Then there is the transfer payments, which would be hugely increased, that would be done away with. You do the math.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
http://www.theguardian.pe.ca/index.cfm?sid=318615&sc=98
Posted 15/01/2010 at 2:42 PM
I suggest that Harper's true agenda is to eliminate equalization payments.
Why, you ask.
Equalization payments are one of the biggest 'glue's' that keep all the Provinces together as one nation. It represents all Canadians getting together to help those that need help and protect those that need protection.
Harper's agenda is to dismantle Canada as a coherent nation abandoning its responsibilities leaving the Provinces to fill the void. Hand-in-hand with this is deserting the tax field and leaving it to the Provinces.
We have seen this agenda in 'action' a number of areas already Global Warming not the least. It is no accident that Harper's approach to Global Warming abdicates responsibility and leaves it to the Provinces to take the necessary action.
Anyone who is not convinced that this is a very deliberate and well thought out agenda might look back over Harper's public life and what he has professed, not the least of which is the Firewall Letter.
It's funny how Harper attacks Ignatieff for having spent so much of his public life outside Canada, where Harper,himself, has dedicated much more of his to dissolving Canada. I might laugh, if it weren't so important, not only to us but also to our children and our children's children.
They are the ones that will be required shoulder a withering economic burden in a hollowed-out shell of a nation whose social fabric has been torn asunder. Who amongst us will be able to take a step back, look the next generation in the eye, so to speak, be proud to say "This is Canada, this our nation, it's your turn now".
Who amongst us can say, "We have stood on guard for this great nation of ours and what it stands for. We have maintained and preserved what our forefathers achieved in the past, and perhaps improved on it."
Who can feel confident that we are leaving our children with the appreciation of us having lived here and not a bitter resentment that we were ever given a turn at the helm.
Whereas, for Harper, it's 'Canada be Damned' ['Damned' was censored by the newspaper - 'public be damned' is a very famous quote and has come to refer to outrageous arrogance of public figures who have their own self interest at heart to the detriment of the people generally. In this context the appropriateness ought to outweigh any offense to people's sensibilities, I am sure people are much more concerned about what Harper is doing to our nation]. In fact he has deeply ingrained contempt for Canada as a nation and our Parliamentary institutions.
Soon Harper will claim 'Canada is dysfunctional', prorogue Canada and defer entirely to the Provinces.
Harper's base is in Alberta. They make up the die-hardest of his supporters, and perhaps the source of the lion's share of the Con's funding. Harper, from the start has done everything to increase Alberta' autonomy and protect its oil industry, and Canada be [censored - see above] - this is nowhere more apparent than Harper's policies on Global Warming. Natural Resources Department assessment indicates that the projected increase to economic growth from the oil industry is $885 billion between 2000 and 2020, including growth of $634 billion in Alberta. Just imagine how much the benefit would remain in Alberta if there were no Federal taxes. Then there is the transfer payments, which would be hugely increased, that would be done away with. You do the math.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
11 January, 2010
- Harper is Constitutionally Challenged - Part 2
Submitted: 11:28am, 11 Jan.'10
PM creates 'dictatorial environment' by shutting down Parliament, Tim Naumetz, 11 Jan.'10
http://www.thehilltimes.ca/page/view/dictatorial-01-11-2010
Mr. Tinsley. "For one, like myself, who believes that fundamental to our legal structure is the supremacy of Parliament"
"Supremacy of Parliament", the Constitution (which includes the Charter) and independence of the Supreme Court of Canada, is equivalent to "rule of law". Rule by the unfettered discretion of one person is "dictatorship".
In our Democratic System, these Institutions, by requiring that the Administrative branch operate by the rule of law, rein in the unfettered discretion of the PM.
One might suggest that a minority Parliament combined with a weak opposition, not willing to go to the m at, so to speak, effects an imbalance and the PM becomes less fettered.
However, this is faulty analysis since, with a majority government the opposition is even 'weaker' and there is no chance of an election, unless the PM so chooses.
The power to do what Harper is doing (attacking our Democratic Institutions) has always been there, especially for PM's that have a majority, or even a large majority. So, why is Harper doing this, whereas Mulroney and Chrétien didn't.
One need only consider that the previous PM's had the interests of Canada, all Canadians and the future of this nation, at heart.
Whereas, Harper, in word, doesn't. In fact he has deeply ingrained contempt for Canada as a nation and our Parliamentary institutions.
Certainly Harper's agenda to dismantle Canada as a nation is one reason. Soon Harper will claim Canada is dysfunctional and defer entirely to the Provinces. Harper's very deep roots with the extreme right conservative movement in the US is another - for one, unless it is a republic, structured in the same fashion as the good ol' U.S.of A., then he has contempt for it. But, more important is the Oil, both for the USA and Alberta.
Harper's base is in Alberta. They make up the die-hardest of his supporters, and perhaps the source of the lion's share of the Con's funding. Harper, from the start has done everything to increase Alberta' autonomy and protect its oil industry, and Canada be damned - this is nowhere more apparent than Harper's policies on Global Warming. Natural Resources Department assessment indicates that the projected increase to economic growth from the oil industry is $885 billion between 2000 and 2020, including growth of $634 billion in Alberta. Just imagine how much the benefit would remain in Alberta if there were no Federal taxes. Then there is the transfer payments, which would be hugely increased, that would be done away with. You do the math.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
PM creates 'dictatorial environment' by shutting down Parliament, Tim Naumetz, 11 Jan.'10
http://www.thehilltimes.ca/page/view/dictatorial-01-11-2010
Mr. Tinsley. "For one, like myself, who believes that fundamental to our legal structure is the supremacy of Parliament"
"Supremacy of Parliament", the Constitution (which includes the Charter) and independence of the Supreme Court of Canada, is equivalent to "rule of law". Rule by the unfettered discretion of one person is "dictatorship".
In our Democratic System, these Institutions, by requiring that the Administrative branch operate by the rule of law, rein in the unfettered discretion of the PM.
One might suggest that a minority Parliament combined with a weak opposition, not willing to go to the m at, so to speak, effects an imbalance and the PM becomes less fettered.
However, this is faulty analysis since, with a majority government the opposition is even 'weaker' and there is no chance of an election, unless the PM so chooses.
The power to do what Harper is doing (attacking our Democratic Institutions) has always been there, especially for PM's that have a majority, or even a large majority. So, why is Harper doing this, whereas Mulroney and Chrétien didn't.
One need only consider that the previous PM's had the interests of Canada, all Canadians and the future of this nation, at heart.
Whereas, Harper, in word, doesn't. In fact he has deeply ingrained contempt for Canada as a nation and our Parliamentary institutions.
Certainly Harper's agenda to dismantle Canada as a nation is one reason. Soon Harper will claim Canada is dysfunctional and defer entirely to the Provinces. Harper's very deep roots with the extreme right conservative movement in the US is another - for one, unless it is a republic, structured in the same fashion as the good ol' U.S.of A., then he has contempt for it. But, more important is the Oil, both for the USA and Alberta.
Harper's base is in Alberta. They make up the die-hardest of his supporters, and perhaps the source of the lion's share of the Con's funding. Harper, from the start has done everything to increase Alberta' autonomy and protect its oil industry, and Canada be damned - this is nowhere more apparent than Harper's policies on Global Warming. Natural Resources Department assessment indicates that the projected increase to economic growth from the oil industry is $885 billion between 2000 and 2020, including growth of $634 billion in Alberta. Just imagine how much the benefit would remain in Alberta if there were no Federal taxes. Then there is the transfer payments, which would be hugely increased, that would be done away with. You do the math.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- Harper is Constitutionally Challenged
Posted 10:29am, 11 Jan.'10
Tories to start legislative agenda, again, Former clerk says the Prime Minister didn't have to shut down Parliament for two months to get a majority on Senate committees, Harris MacLeod, January 11, 2010
http://www.thehilltimes.ca/page/view/legislation-01-11-2010 Tab 1
Of course, Harper answers to the will of Parliament. So, we can turn to Parliament to protect us against dictatorial rule. And, then there is the Senate as well, with its sober second thought.
Surely it will limit Harper and prevent him from implementing any right wing extremist ideologically based policies, especially those that lead to a de facto dictatorship.
Harper himself told us that before he got elected.
How could a dictator take over with Parliament and the Senate. Unless, of course, you dissolve Parliament when it goes to exercise its Will, call-to-arms a small but significant group of die-hard supporters, and abolish the Senate, or at least attack and hamstring it to the extent that it can’t protect itself, let alone Canada, all Canadians and our way of life.
No Prime Minister would do such a thing. Would they?
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
25 Jun.'09
Senator Colin Kenny,
Could you make public the basis of a SCC challenge to the two Bills that are to be proposes (according to, Alberta Conservative Senator Bert Brown), one on limiting Senators' terms to eight years, and the other to put in place a process for electing Senators.
I can see that limiting the Senate terms to 8 years might very well be a violation of our Constitution, since, it violates the indefinite term, put in place to eliminate partisanship. It may even be argued that the two together do the same. However, if the PM has absolute discretion to choose Senators, why can't he choose ones that have been elected.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Tories to start legislative agenda, again, Former clerk says the Prime Minister didn't have to shut down Parliament for two months to get a majority on Senate committees, Harris MacLeod, January 11, 2010
http://www.thehilltimes.ca/page/view/legislation-01-11-2010 Tab 1
Of course, Harper answers to the will of Parliament. So, we can turn to Parliament to protect us against dictatorial rule. And, then there is the Senate as well, with its sober second thought.
Surely it will limit Harper and prevent him from implementing any right wing extremist ideologically based policies, especially those that lead to a de facto dictatorship.
Harper himself told us that before he got elected.
How could a dictator take over with Parliament and the Senate. Unless, of course, you dissolve Parliament when it goes to exercise its Will, call-to-arms a small but significant group of die-hard supporters, and abolish the Senate, or at least attack and hamstring it to the extent that it can’t protect itself, let alone Canada, all Canadians and our way of life.
No Prime Minister would do such a thing. Would they?
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
25 Jun.'09
Senator Colin Kenny,
Could you make public the basis of a SCC challenge to the two Bills that are to be proposes (according to, Alberta Conservative Senator Bert Brown), one on limiting Senators' terms to eight years, and the other to put in place a process for electing Senators.
I can see that limiting the Senate terms to 8 years might very well be a violation of our Constitution, since, it violates the indefinite term, put in place to eliminate partisanship. It may even be argued that the two together do the same. However, if the PM has absolute discretion to choose Senators, why can't he choose ones that have been elected.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
10 January, 2010
- Stephen Harper is the Bizzaro World (Opposite) Twin of "Open Democracy"
You wrote:
the further question posed: How did a Party so politically and media sophisticated devolve into the current Liberal Party and what, if any, relationship is there between the concurrent Conservative rise and Liberal decline?
I won't mention any names but . . . . . . ah ah aaaa "Dion" chooo, sorry sneezed.
Probably one of the worst repercussions of the sponsorship scandal was allowing Harper to get a foot hold. It is hard to imagine that Canadians would vote for such a right wing extremist ideologue, morphed dictator, as Harper except for something as catastrophic (politically) as that. The way Martin handled it, although was the morally right thing to do, had Canada's best interests at heart and despite being predictably bad for the Liberals, it was politically a disaster (Harper has, obviously, learned from this political mistake, i.e. - don't convoke an Inquiry).
Of course, once Harper and the Con's obtained power, every 'red neck' and their right wing extremist brother (figuratively, that is) jumped on the band wagon. For the next 6 months there were all these so called experts coming out and saying how great Harper was (barf me out!).
The Chicago School has a very well developed strategy (Naomi Klein, "The Shock Doctrine"*) of right wing conservative extremism being able to capitalize on disasters - basically, people are more willing to accept them since they give the appearance of "action" - sound familiar, for a year or two Baird, et al, ran around saying how they were party of action.
Although Harper would never admit it, and Flanagan seems to enjoy taking the credit, it is strongly indicated that this all comes out of the South i.e. the good ol' U.S.of A.
Consider Harper's actions as well. It is no mistake that last year he went on a PR circuit to the talk shows in the US. Of course, the real question is what was he doing all the other time he was there. I don't recall ever seeing an accounting of his time. Perhaps these TV, et al, appearances were just a cover for meeting with people of the extreme right conservative persuasion he would rather the Canadian people not know about. There are other 'gaps' in his times with other meeting. For example, apparently there was about 10 -15 minutes where he and Obama were alone without any one else, including aides. Also, the infamous meeting with the Governor General last December where he met with her for a couple hours without his ever accounting for what he said.
I am not suggesting, of course, that Obama or our Governor General are right wing extremists, however one can only wonder if Harper were somehow pressing his extreme right wing agenda, in a fashion that he would rather Canadians not know about for fear of backlash.
This type of covert activity is outrageous when you consider that the only reason he has these opportunities is because he is representing all of Canadians as our Prime Minister. It is very difficult given the circumstances to imagine any circumstances that would warrant such obfuscation and lack of transparency.
It is also no accident that he is 'tying his, sorry I mean our, horse in the US stable, with respect not only to Global Warming but also just about everything. Of course, not the least important factor is the Oil and the US dominance in the Oil industry in Alberta, as well as their having a claim on it after extraction to the extent that Bush including it in the US reserves (if I recall) - thanks to Mulroney and the Free Trade Agreement, of course.
Never mind what Flanagan does when "Oh Canada, we stand on guard for thee" is sung. We should seek Flanagan's advise on the proper Etiquette and nuances how to sing the "Star Spangled Banner".
Read the following and tell me to what extent Stphen Harper and the Con's have adopted it.
The neo-conservative core
The three chief tenets of neo-conservative ideology are:
- the human condition is a choice between good and evil, and the true measure of political character is to be found in the willingness by the former (themselves) to confront the latter
- the fundamental determinant of the relationship between states rests on military power and the willingness to use it
- the Middle East and global Islam is the prime theatre for American overseas interests.
In making these tenets active, neo-conservatives:
- see international issues in morally absolutist categories; they are convinced that they alone hold the moral high ground and argue that disagreement effectively offers comfort to the enemy
- emphasise the unipolar nature of American power and are prepared to exercise the military option as the first rather than last policy choice; they repudiate the received “lessons of Vietnam”, believing they undermine American willingness to use force - and rather embrace the “lessons of Munich”, believing they establish the virtues of pre-emptive military action
- disdain conventional diplomatic agencies such as the state department and country-specific, pragmatic analysis because they dilute and confuse the ideological clarity of their policies
- eschew multilateral institutions and treaties while drawing comfort from international criticism, believing that it confirms American virtue
http://www.opendemocracy.net/democracy-americanpower/article_1998.jsp
Neo-conservatism and the American future, Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke, 6 July 2004
"Stefan Halper " " Stephen Harper" is it possible, . . . no, not possible, . . . yes . . . wait . . . it's confirmed . . . Stephen Harper is the Bizzaro World twin.
*****
* In "The Shock Doctrine" Naomi Klein talks about a "holy trinity" -- privatization, deregulation and cuts to social spending -- in which governments dismantle trade barriers, abandon public ownership, reduce taxes, eliminate the minimum wage, cut health and welfare spending, and privatize education. She calls the means of achieving this goal "disaster capitalism" and describes how it has resulted in a worldwide redistribution of income and wealth to the already rich at the expense of economic solvency for the middle and lower classes. (Ms. Magazine Review: The Shock Doctrine** Ronnie Steinberg, Ms Magazine, Fall 2007)
When you read this Harper's statement during the last election makes sense, and it becomes clear that it was no slip but an expression of his core neo-con beliefs and code for a re-assurance to all the neo-con's out there that he has not lost his way vis.: "I suspect some good buying opportunities are opening up with some of the panic we've seen in the Stock market in last few days". (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTgfjpZkAPQ - 23 seconds)
** Reviews of The Shock Doctrine,
http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine/reviews
President Eisenhower warned us about the military-industrial complex, but even he would be horrified by the Faustian bargain we see in today's neoliberal model of globalization. Not to be confused with the political liberalism of John Stuart Mill, neoliberalism is characterized by investigative reporter Naomi Klein as a "holy trinity" -- privatization, deregulation and cuts to social spending -- in which governments dismantle trade barriers, abandon public ownership, reduce taxes, eliminate the minimum wage, cut health and welfare spending, and privatize education. She calls the means of achieving this goal "disaster capitalism" and describes how it has resulted in a worldwide redistribution of income and wealth to the already rich at the expense of economic solvency for the middle and lower classes.
The New Road to Serfdom
Christopher Hayes, In These Times, November 9, 2007
In the early ’80s, as Margaret Thatcher attempted to hack away at England’s substantial public sector, she found a frustrating degree of public resistance. The closer she got to the bone, the more the patient wriggled and withdrew. Thatcher doggedly persisted, yet her pace wasn’t fast enough for right-wing Austrian economist Friedrich von Hayek, her idol and ideological mentor. You see, in 1981, Hayek had traveled to Gen. Augusto Pinochet’s Chile, where, under the barbed restraints of dictatorship and with the guidance of University of Chicago-trained economists, Pinochet had gouged out nearly every vestige of the public sector, privatizing everything from utilities to the Chilean state pension program. Hayek returned gushing, and wrote Thatcher, urging her to follow Chile’s aggressive model more faithfully.
War, Terror, Catastrophe: Profiting From 'Disaster Capitalism'
Paul B. Farrell, Dow Jones Business News, October 16, 2007
Hot tip: Invest in "Disaster Capitalism." This new investment sector is the core of the emerging "new economy" that generates profits by feeding off other peoples' misery: Wars, terror attacks, natural catastrophes, poverty, trade sanctions, market crashes and all kinds of economic, financial and political disasters.
In this Orwellian future, everything must be seen with new eyes: "Disasters" are "IPOs," opportunities to buy into a new "company." Corporations like Lockheed-Martin are the real "emerging nations" of the world, not some dinky countries. They generate huge profits, grow earnings. And seen through the new rose-colored glasses of "Disaster Capitalism" they are hot investment opportunities.
To more fully grasp this new economy, you must read what may be the most important book on economics in the 21st century, Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, whose roots trace back the ideas of three 20th century giants:
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
the further question posed: How did a Party so politically and media sophisticated devolve into the current Liberal Party and what, if any, relationship is there between the concurrent Conservative rise and Liberal decline?
I won't mention any names but . . . . . . ah ah aaaa "Dion" chooo, sorry sneezed.
Probably one of the worst repercussions of the sponsorship scandal was allowing Harper to get a foot hold. It is hard to imagine that Canadians would vote for such a right wing extremist ideologue, morphed dictator, as Harper except for something as catastrophic (politically) as that. The way Martin handled it, although was the morally right thing to do, had Canada's best interests at heart and despite being predictably bad for the Liberals, it was politically a disaster (Harper has, obviously, learned from this political mistake, i.e. - don't convoke an Inquiry).
Of course, once Harper and the Con's obtained power, every 'red neck' and their right wing extremist brother (figuratively, that is) jumped on the band wagon. For the next 6 months there were all these so called experts coming out and saying how great Harper was (barf me out!).
The Chicago School has a very well developed strategy (Naomi Klein, "The Shock Doctrine"*) of right wing conservative extremism being able to capitalize on disasters - basically, people are more willing to accept them since they give the appearance of "action" - sound familiar, for a year or two Baird, et al, ran around saying how they were party of action.
Although Harper would never admit it, and Flanagan seems to enjoy taking the credit, it is strongly indicated that this all comes out of the South i.e. the good ol' U.S.of A.
Consider Harper's actions as well. It is no mistake that last year he went on a PR circuit to the talk shows in the US. Of course, the real question is what was he doing all the other time he was there. I don't recall ever seeing an accounting of his time. Perhaps these TV, et al, appearances were just a cover for meeting with people of the extreme right conservative persuasion he would rather the Canadian people not know about. There are other 'gaps' in his times with other meeting. For example, apparently there was about 10 -15 minutes where he and Obama were alone without any one else, including aides. Also, the infamous meeting with the Governor General last December where he met with her for a couple hours without his ever accounting for what he said.
I am not suggesting, of course, that Obama or our Governor General are right wing extremists, however one can only wonder if Harper were somehow pressing his extreme right wing agenda, in a fashion that he would rather Canadians not know about for fear of backlash.
This type of covert activity is outrageous when you consider that the only reason he has these opportunities is because he is representing all of Canadians as our Prime Minister. It is very difficult given the circumstances to imagine any circumstances that would warrant such obfuscation and lack of transparency.
It is also no accident that he is 'tying his, sorry I mean our, horse in the US stable, with respect not only to Global Warming but also just about everything. Of course, not the least important factor is the Oil and the US dominance in the Oil industry in Alberta, as well as their having a claim on it after extraction to the extent that Bush including it in the US reserves (if I recall) - thanks to Mulroney and the Free Trade Agreement, of course.
Never mind what Flanagan does when "Oh Canada, we stand on guard for thee" is sung. We should seek Flanagan's advise on the proper Etiquette and nuances how to sing the "Star Spangled Banner".
Read the following and tell me to what extent Stphen Harper and the Con's have adopted it.
The neo-conservative core
The three chief tenets of neo-conservative ideology are:
- the human condition is a choice between good and evil, and the true measure of political character is to be found in the willingness by the former (themselves) to confront the latter
- the fundamental determinant of the relationship between states rests on military power and the willingness to use it
- the Middle East and global Islam is the prime theatre for American overseas interests.
In making these tenets active, neo-conservatives:
- see international issues in morally absolutist categories; they are convinced that they alone hold the moral high ground and argue that disagreement effectively offers comfort to the enemy
- emphasise the unipolar nature of American power and are prepared to exercise the military option as the first rather than last policy choice; they repudiate the received “lessons of Vietnam”, believing they undermine American willingness to use force - and rather embrace the “lessons of Munich”, believing they establish the virtues of pre-emptive military action
- disdain conventional diplomatic agencies such as the state department and country-specific, pragmatic analysis because they dilute and confuse the ideological clarity of their policies
- eschew multilateral institutions and treaties while drawing comfort from international criticism, believing that it confirms American virtue
http://www.opendemocracy.net/democracy-americanpower/article_1998.jsp
Neo-conservatism and the American future, Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke, 6 July 2004
"Stefan Halper " " Stephen Harper" is it possible, . . . no, not possible, . . . yes . . . wait . . . it's confirmed . . . Stephen Harper is the Bizzaro World twin.
*****
* In "The Shock Doctrine" Naomi Klein talks about a "holy trinity" -- privatization, deregulation and cuts to social spending -- in which governments dismantle trade barriers, abandon public ownership, reduce taxes, eliminate the minimum wage, cut health and welfare spending, and privatize education. She calls the means of achieving this goal "disaster capitalism" and describes how it has resulted in a worldwide redistribution of income and wealth to the already rich at the expense of economic solvency for the middle and lower classes. (Ms. Magazine Review: The Shock Doctrine** Ronnie Steinberg, Ms Magazine, Fall 2007)
When you read this Harper's statement during the last election makes sense, and it becomes clear that it was no slip but an expression of his core neo-con beliefs and code for a re-assurance to all the neo-con's out there that he has not lost his way vis.: "I suspect some good buying opportunities are opening up with some of the panic we've seen in the Stock market in last few days". (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTgfjpZkAPQ - 23 seconds)
** Reviews of The Shock Doctrine,
http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine/reviews
President Eisenhower warned us about the military-industrial complex, but even he would be horrified by the Faustian bargain we see in today's neoliberal model of globalization. Not to be confused with the political liberalism of John Stuart Mill, neoliberalism is characterized by investigative reporter Naomi Klein as a "holy trinity" -- privatization, deregulation and cuts to social spending -- in which governments dismantle trade barriers, abandon public ownership, reduce taxes, eliminate the minimum wage, cut health and welfare spending, and privatize education. She calls the means of achieving this goal "disaster capitalism" and describes how it has resulted in a worldwide redistribution of income and wealth to the already rich at the expense of economic solvency for the middle and lower classes.
The New Road to Serfdom
Christopher Hayes, In These Times, November 9, 2007
In the early ’80s, as Margaret Thatcher attempted to hack away at England’s substantial public sector, she found a frustrating degree of public resistance. The closer she got to the bone, the more the patient wriggled and withdrew. Thatcher doggedly persisted, yet her pace wasn’t fast enough for right-wing Austrian economist Friedrich von Hayek, her idol and ideological mentor. You see, in 1981, Hayek had traveled to Gen. Augusto Pinochet’s Chile, where, under the barbed restraints of dictatorship and with the guidance of University of Chicago-trained economists, Pinochet had gouged out nearly every vestige of the public sector, privatizing everything from utilities to the Chilean state pension program. Hayek returned gushing, and wrote Thatcher, urging her to follow Chile’s aggressive model more faithfully.
War, Terror, Catastrophe: Profiting From 'Disaster Capitalism'
Paul B. Farrell, Dow Jones Business News, October 16, 2007
Hot tip: Invest in "Disaster Capitalism." This new investment sector is the core of the emerging "new economy" that generates profits by feeding off other peoples' misery: Wars, terror attacks, natural catastrophes, poverty, trade sanctions, market crashes and all kinds of economic, financial and political disasters.
In this Orwellian future, everything must be seen with new eyes: "Disasters" are "IPOs," opportunities to buy into a new "company." Corporations like Lockheed-Martin are the real "emerging nations" of the world, not some dinky countries. They generate huge profits, grow earnings. And seen through the new rose-colored glasses of "Disaster Capitalism" they are hot investment opportunities.
To more fully grasp this new economy, you must read what may be the most important book on economics in the 21st century, Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, whose roots trace back the ideas of three 20th century giants:
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- Just 'Boot' Stephen Harper and the Con's - never mind 'rebooting' Michael Ignatieff
Rebooting Michael IgnatieffHandlers hope Liberal leader's back-to-school tour will help revitalize their party's sagging fortunes, Susan Delacourt, Jan 10 2010
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/748676--rebooting-michael-ignatieff?bn=1#comments
Submitted: 10:38am, PST,10 Jan.'10
Last week Ignatieff described the purpose of his University circuit as "listen and learn".
Whereas, these are admirable intellectual pursuits which I am sure student will appreciate. There are a number of reasons (some important ones set out below) I am not so sure this is going to achieve much.
Also, UofVic newspaper noted that the Liberal leader would do well to talk about the environment", which suggest another issue. To what extent have the Liberals researched exactly what are the needs and concerns of students at our various Universities.
If this UofVic 'media advisory' were news to Ignatieff, then it's going to be a long trek. 'Looking before you leap' is important as we saw last Fall when Ignatieff seemed to have missed the overwhelming feeling of Canadian about an election before he jumped into his "giving notice" campaign, to the extent that one wonders how that could be so. On the other hand, Harper seemed to have no trouble in guessing the sentiments of the vast majority on that issue.
What is more that might be gleaned from this is that the students don't want some esoteric, intellectual discussion about an Utopia in the murky future.
I suggest that they are like all Canadians, if not more so. That is, students are concerned about their futures, jobs, the withering debt they are being left with. They are also concerned about Global Warming for which they are the ones who will be left to pay.
Further, like all of us, they want a leader that will fight for them, these things, what this great nation stands for, maintain what we have achieved in the past, and perhaps improve on it, if possible, and leave them with the appreciation of us having lived here and not a bitter resentment that we were ever given a turn at the helm.
I suggest that students, like all of us, are concerned that they will not only will they have to suffer the extreme climate changes precipitated by Global Warming. But, when the Third World Countries come 'knocking' for retribution, and they will come 'knocking', law suits, based on the tobacco law suit precedents, with awards in the trillions (that's 10 to the power of 12) will be the least of their worries. It's the looking at all Canada's (assuming there is a Canada then, another acute issue) resources and how 'we did nothing to stop it' justification that is much scarier, by far. Does anyone really think they, with no water, engulfed in systemic famine, floods, catastrophic weather, will say, "Oh, but Canada's inaction was justified because it only accounts for only 2% of global warming gases". Not likely.
Then, of course, there is Harper and the Con's extreme contempt for all Canada's Democratic institutions and Harper's systematic dismantling this nation and abandoning its responsibilities leaving the Provinces to fill the void.
Also, the Afghan Detainee transfer scandal and ensuing cover-up, with its potential for the ICC (International Criminal Courts) at the Hague - there's the basis of intellectual and stimulating discussion. All I want to know is: how do you get a seat as an onlooker at the ICC, anyway. Do they sell tickets? Do you to book in advance? Are there Scalpers? Can you apply to be on the prosecution team? Pro Bono? I asked MacKay, you were Foreign Affairs Minister, to check that out for me, but I haven't heard back, yet. Any of your reading know. Thanks.
Our campuses are a centre for intellectual activity, but also, there is also the traditional centre and very visible and passionate protesting corrupt governments.
We can count on our students not to allow Harper, Baird, Prentice and all the Con's to define "urgency" as "panic","passionate advocacy" as 'irrational'.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/748676--rebooting-michael-ignatieff?bn=1#comments
Submitted: 10:38am, PST,10 Jan.'10
Last week Ignatieff described the purpose of his University circuit as "listen and learn".
Whereas, these are admirable intellectual pursuits which I am sure student will appreciate. There are a number of reasons (some important ones set out below) I am not so sure this is going to achieve much.
Also, UofVic newspaper noted that the Liberal leader would do well to talk about the environment", which suggest another issue. To what extent have the Liberals researched exactly what are the needs and concerns of students at our various Universities.
If this UofVic 'media advisory' were news to Ignatieff, then it's going to be a long trek. 'Looking before you leap' is important as we saw last Fall when Ignatieff seemed to have missed the overwhelming feeling of Canadian about an election before he jumped into his "giving notice" campaign, to the extent that one wonders how that could be so. On the other hand, Harper seemed to have no trouble in guessing the sentiments of the vast majority on that issue.
What is more that might be gleaned from this is that the students don't want some esoteric, intellectual discussion about an Utopia in the murky future.
I suggest that they are like all Canadians, if not more so. That is, students are concerned about their futures, jobs, the withering debt they are being left with. They are also concerned about Global Warming for which they are the ones who will be left to pay.
Further, like all of us, they want a leader that will fight for them, these things, what this great nation stands for, maintain what we have achieved in the past, and perhaps improve on it, if possible, and leave them with the appreciation of us having lived here and not a bitter resentment that we were ever given a turn at the helm.
I suggest that students, like all of us, are concerned that they will not only will they have to suffer the extreme climate changes precipitated by Global Warming. But, when the Third World Countries come 'knocking' for retribution, and they will come 'knocking', law suits, based on the tobacco law suit precedents, with awards in the trillions (that's 10 to the power of 12) will be the least of their worries. It's the looking at all Canada's (assuming there is a Canada then, another acute issue) resources and how 'we did nothing to stop it' justification that is much scarier, by far. Does anyone really think they, with no water, engulfed in systemic famine, floods, catastrophic weather, will say, "Oh, but Canada's inaction was justified because it only accounts for only 2% of global warming gases". Not likely.
Then, of course, there is Harper and the Con's extreme contempt for all Canada's Democratic institutions and Harper's systematic dismantling this nation and abandoning its responsibilities leaving the Provinces to fill the void.
Also, the Afghan Detainee transfer scandal and ensuing cover-up, with its potential for the ICC (International Criminal Courts) at the Hague - there's the basis of intellectual and stimulating discussion. All I want to know is: how do you get a seat as an onlooker at the ICC, anyway. Do they sell tickets? Do you to book in advance? Are there Scalpers? Can you apply to be on the prosecution team? Pro Bono? I asked MacKay, you were Foreign Affairs Minister, to check that out for me, but I haven't heard back, yet. Any of your reading know. Thanks.
Our campuses are a centre for intellectual activity, but also, there is also the traditional centre and very visible and passionate protesting corrupt governments.
We can count on our students not to allow Harper, Baird, Prentice and all the Con's to define "urgency" as "panic","passionate advocacy" as 'irrational'.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
09 January, 2010
- Harper in Conext, For all the non-Canadian Readers
Harper goes prorogue, Jan 7th 2010
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15213212 Tab 5
For all the non-Canadian readers, here is some context:
Proroguing Parliament is outrageous and a very dangerous precedent. As pointed out. Now anytime the PM gets his government into trouble they simply has to prorogue. This will have a neutering effect on Parliament and marginalize it to the point of being irrelevant. Without Parliament, who will be in a position to keep Harper and the Con's in check. There is no other Institution that has the right to obtain the information, present it to Canadians and actually do something about it.
It is common knowledge that Harper has the greatest contempt for all Canada's Democratic institutions and is systematically dismantling this nation and abandoning its responsibilities leaving the Provinces to fill the void. To see just exactly what he has planned we simply have to look at what he has done.
Harper caused serious disruption to Parliament and its Committees, obstructing and responding only with insults instead of any serious discussion. He then called an election contrary to the spirit of his legislation, claiming that Parliament is dysfunctional - neat trick, make it dysfunctional and then use that to justify his anti-democratic actions.
Soon Harper will claim Canada is dysfunctional and defer entirely to the Provinces.
The power to do these things has always been there, especially for PM's that have a majority, or even a large majority. So, why is Harper doing this, whereas Mulroney and Chrétien didn't. One need only consider that the previous PM's had the interests of Canada, all Canadians and the future of this nation, at heart.
Whereas, Harper's base is in Alberta. They make up the die-hardest of his supporters, and perhaps the source of the lion's share of the Con's funding. Harper, from the start has done everything to increase Alberta' autonomy and protect its oil industry, and Canada be damned - this is nowhere more apparent than Harper's policies on Global Warming. Natural Resources Department assessment indicates that the projected increase to economic growth from the oil industry is $885 billion between 2000 and 2020, including growth of $634 billion in Alberta. Just imagine how much the benefit would remain in Alberta if there were no Federal taxes. Then there is the transfer payments, which would be hugely increased, that would be done away with. You do the math.
Note that: "where much is decided at the provincial level" is 'Con[servative] code' for the above.
As far as Afghanistan Detainee Transfer Scandal, Harper may be able to Prorogue Parliament. But, he can't Prorogue the the International Criminal Courts at the Hague - those 'For whom the Gavel Falls' - must answer.
How do you get a seat as an onlooker at the Int'l Criminal Court, anyway. Do they sell tickets? Do you to book in advance? Are there Scalpers? Can you apply to be on the prosecution team? Pro Bono? I asked MacKay, you were Foreign Affairs Minister, to check that out for me, but I haven't heard back, yet. Any of your reading know. Thanks.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15213212 Tab 5
For all the non-Canadian readers, here is some context:
Proroguing Parliament is outrageous and a very dangerous precedent. As pointed out. Now anytime the PM gets his government into trouble they simply has to prorogue. This will have a neutering effect on Parliament and marginalize it to the point of being irrelevant. Without Parliament, who will be in a position to keep Harper and the Con's in check. There is no other Institution that has the right to obtain the information, present it to Canadians and actually do something about it.
It is common knowledge that Harper has the greatest contempt for all Canada's Democratic institutions and is systematically dismantling this nation and abandoning its responsibilities leaving the Provinces to fill the void. To see just exactly what he has planned we simply have to look at what he has done.
Harper caused serious disruption to Parliament and its Committees, obstructing and responding only with insults instead of any serious discussion. He then called an election contrary to the spirit of his legislation, claiming that Parliament is dysfunctional - neat trick, make it dysfunctional and then use that to justify his anti-democratic actions.
Soon Harper will claim Canada is dysfunctional and defer entirely to the Provinces.
The power to do these things has always been there, especially for PM's that have a majority, or even a large majority. So, why is Harper doing this, whereas Mulroney and Chrétien didn't. One need only consider that the previous PM's had the interests of Canada, all Canadians and the future of this nation, at heart.
Whereas, Harper's base is in Alberta. They make up the die-hardest of his supporters, and perhaps the source of the lion's share of the Con's funding. Harper, from the start has done everything to increase Alberta' autonomy and protect its oil industry, and Canada be damned - this is nowhere more apparent than Harper's policies on Global Warming. Natural Resources Department assessment indicates that the projected increase to economic growth from the oil industry is $885 billion between 2000 and 2020, including growth of $634 billion in Alberta. Just imagine how much the benefit would remain in Alberta if there were no Federal taxes. Then there is the transfer payments, which would be hugely increased, that would be done away with. You do the math.
Note that: "where much is decided at the provincial level" is 'Con[servative] code' for the above.
As far as Afghanistan Detainee Transfer Scandal, Harper may be able to Prorogue Parliament. But, he can't Prorogue the the International Criminal Courts at the Hague - those 'For whom the Gavel Falls' - must answer.
How do you get a seat as an onlooker at the Int'l Criminal Court, anyway. Do they sell tickets? Do you to book in advance? Are there Scalpers? Can you apply to be on the prosecution team? Pro Bono? I asked MacKay, you were Foreign Affairs Minister, to check that out for me, but I haven't heard back, yet. Any of your reading know. Thanks.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- On 25 Jan.'10 Ignatieff and the Liberals will be there fighting for Canadians, Harper will be off somewhere fighting for more power and Canada be damned.
Submitted: 9:43am, PST, 9 Jan.'10
Look Who's (Just?) Visiting the Foyer!, January 8, 2010 ,|Kady O'Malley
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2010/01/look-whos-just-visiting-the-foyer.html
It is common knowledge that Harper has the greatest contempt for all Canada's Democratic institutions and is systematically dismantling this nation and abandoning its responsibilities leaving the Provinces to fill the void. To see just exactly what he has planned we simply have to look at what he has done.
Harper caused serious disruption to Parliament and its Committees, obstructing and responding only with insults instead of any serious discussion. He then called an election contrary to the spirit of his legislation, claiming that Parliament is dysfunctional - neat trick, make it dysfunctional and then use that to justify his anti-democratic actions.
Soon Harper will claim Canada is dysfunctional and defer entirely to the Provinces.
The power to do these things has always been there, especially for PM's that have a majority, or even a large majority. So, why is Harper doing this, whereas Mulroney and Chrétien didn't. One need only consider that the previous PM's had the interests of Canada, all Canadians and the future of this nation, at heart.
Whereas, Harper's base is in Alberta. They make up the die-hardest of his supporters, and perhaps the source of the lion's share of the Con's funding. Harper, from the start has done everything to increase Alberta' autonomy and protect its oil industry, and Canada be damned - this is nowhere more apparent than Harper's policies on Global Warming. Natural Resources Department assessment indicates that the projected increase to economic growth from the oil industry is $885 billion between 2000 and 2020, including growth of $634 billion in Alberta. Just imagine how much the benefit would remain in Alberta if there were no Federal taxes. Then there is the transfer payments, which would be hugely increased, that would be done away with. You do the math.
Canadians don't want an election, but, I suggest to you, they want a Canada, one that is strong, united, prosperous and Democratic.
And, they want a leader that will fight for them, these things, what this great nation stands for, maintain what we have achieved in the past, and perhaps improve on it, if possible, and leave our children with the appreciation of us having lived here and not a bitter resentment that we were ever given a turn at the helm.
On 25 Jan.'10 Ignatieff and the Liberals will be there fighting for Canadians, Harper will be off somewhere fighting for more power and Canada be damned.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Look Who's (Just?) Visiting the Foyer!, January 8, 2010 ,|Kady O'Malley
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2010/01/look-whos-just-visiting-the-foyer.html
It is common knowledge that Harper has the greatest contempt for all Canada's Democratic institutions and is systematically dismantling this nation and abandoning its responsibilities leaving the Provinces to fill the void. To see just exactly what he has planned we simply have to look at what he has done.
Harper caused serious disruption to Parliament and its Committees, obstructing and responding only with insults instead of any serious discussion. He then called an election contrary to the spirit of his legislation, claiming that Parliament is dysfunctional - neat trick, make it dysfunctional and then use that to justify his anti-democratic actions.
Soon Harper will claim Canada is dysfunctional and defer entirely to the Provinces.
The power to do these things has always been there, especially for PM's that have a majority, or even a large majority. So, why is Harper doing this, whereas Mulroney and Chrétien didn't. One need only consider that the previous PM's had the interests of Canada, all Canadians and the future of this nation, at heart.
Whereas, Harper's base is in Alberta. They make up the die-hardest of his supporters, and perhaps the source of the lion's share of the Con's funding. Harper, from the start has done everything to increase Alberta' autonomy and protect its oil industry, and Canada be damned - this is nowhere more apparent than Harper's policies on Global Warming. Natural Resources Department assessment indicates that the projected increase to economic growth from the oil industry is $885 billion between 2000 and 2020, including growth of $634 billion in Alberta. Just imagine how much the benefit would remain in Alberta if there were no Federal taxes. Then there is the transfer payments, which would be hugely increased, that would be done away with. You do the math.
Canadians don't want an election, but, I suggest to you, they want a Canada, one that is strong, united, prosperous and Democratic.
And, they want a leader that will fight for them, these things, what this great nation stands for, maintain what we have achieved in the past, and perhaps improve on it, if possible, and leave our children with the appreciation of us having lived here and not a bitter resentment that we were ever given a turn at the helm.
On 25 Jan.'10 Ignatieff and the Liberals will be there fighting for Canadians, Harper will be off somewhere fighting for more power and Canada be damned.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
08 January, 2010
- Soon Harper Will Claim Canada is Dysfunctional and Prorogue Our Nation
submitted in 4 parts, starting 9:27 am, PST, 8 Jan.'10:
Harper prorogues, No election plans? Just watch him, Don Newman, January 7, 2010
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/01/07/f-vp-newman.html#socialcomments-submit
Don Newman's analysis of the current situation is very good. He seems to have left out the euphoric love-in effect for Harper and the Con's coming off the Winter Olympics. This factor should not be overlooked and by that time the Afghan Detainee Transfer Scandal and ensuing cover-up may very well refer to 'bygone days'.
Another factor, which may work against an election is the current downward trend in Harper and the Con's in the Polls. However, it may very well be that the fading into the pages of history of the Afghan Scandal and the Olympics will cause an upturn, and it probably will.
But keep in mind, and this is fundamental to me anyway, Harper and the Con's appear to have a 33 - 35% core of die-hard supporters, Harper and the Con's need only be targeted in their approach to wooing and turning some of the demographic and social-economic 'blocks' and anyone who thinks they do not have such a strategy and are not successful in this will, likely, be in for a surprise. I won't go into the actual blocks and where they stand. But keep in mind that it is quite possible to get a majority with only 38% of the vote.
Also, the 33% core die-hard supporters means that in any election Harper and the Con's are not likely to finish behind any other Party, no matter who starts it. Also, given the seemingly unlimited funds from these supporters and the very limited funds for their 'enemy', an election will not harm the Con Party finances but may very well devastate those of the Liberals, itself a 'winning strategy'.
So Harper has nothing to loose and everything to gain. And, hey, if he can con people into thinking it was the Liberals who brought on the election maybe he will get that majority.
Combine this with a perception that Ignatieff and the Liberals are weak (and if the Liberals don't think this is so, they just have to go out and talk to people) and Harper will, in the New Year, start changing his tune to "Oh, and by the way, did I mention that Canadians do want an election" and perhaps poison the budget to force an election - yah, like he's ever done that before.
Ignatieff and the Liberals seem to be oblivious to this real threat of an early Spring election with Ignatieff going on the University circuit to 'listen and learn'.
Ignatieff ought to be girding his sword, the Liberals 'gathering the Clans'.
It seems to me that Canadians want a clear alternative to Harper, not some esoteric world view. They are looking for someone that can stand toe-to-toe with Harper, not in the hazy future, but now. They are not looking for some future Utopia. They want to know that they won't lose their jobs, they won't lose their homes, they won't go bankrupt and they will leave a heritage for their children and their children's children that we all can take a step back, look at and be proud to say "This is Canada, this our nation, it's your turn now", and not leave a future for which our children's children that will be required shoulder a withering economic burden in a hollowed-out shell of a nation whose social fabric has been torn asunder.
Someone has observed that the political environment is that of a constant campaign. Anyone who is waiting to fight sometime in the future when they are 'ready' has already lost, if Dion taught us anything it's that.
Proroguing Parliament is outrageous and a very dangerous precedent. As pointed out. Now anytime the PM gets his government into trouble they simply has to prorogue. This will have a neutering effect on Parliament and marginalize it to the point of being irrelevant. Without Parliament, who will be in a position to keep Harper and the Con's in check. There is no other Institution that has the right to obtain the information, present it to Canadians and actually do something about it.
As far as Afghanistan Detainee Transfer Scandal, Harper may be able to Prorogue Parliament. But, he can't Prorogue the the International Criminal Courts at the Hague - those 'For whom the Gavel Falls' - must answer.
It is common knowledge that Harper has the greatest contempt for all Canada's Democratic institutions and is systematically dismantling this nation and abandoning its responsibilities leaving the Provinces to fill the void. To see just exactly what he has planned we simply have to look at what he has done.
Harper caused serious and intentional disruption to Parliament and its Committees, obstructing and responding only with insults instead of any serious discussion. He then called an election contrary to, in at least, the spirit of his fixed term legislation, claiming that Parliament is dysfunctional - neat trick, make it dysfunctional and then use that to justify his anti-democratic actions.
Soon Harper will claim Canada is dysfunctional and defer entirely to the Provinces.
The power to do these things has always been there, especially for PM's that have a majority, or even a large majority. So, why is Harper doing this, whereas Mulroney and Chrétien didn't. One need only consider that the previous PM's had the interests of Canada, all Canadians and the future of this nation, at heart (you may no have agreed with them, but I can't recall anyone suggesting that they did not have Canada and our nation at heart).
Whereas, Harper's base is in Alberta. They make up the die-hardest of his supporters, and perhaps the source of the lion's share of the Con's funding. Harper, from the start has done everything to increase Alberta' autonomy and protect its oil industry, and Canada be damned - this is nowhere more apparent than Harper's policies on Global Warming. Natural Resources Department assessment indicates that the projected increase to economic growth from the oil industry is $885 billion between 2000 and 2020, including growth of $634 billion in Alberta. Just imagine how much the benefit would remain in Alberta if there were no Federal taxes. Then there is the transfer payments, which would be hugely increased, that would be done away with. You do the math.
It seems to me that Canadian's must be made aware of the overall damaging effect that Harper and the Con's policies will have in the long run to Canada not only our economy, but to the country as a nation and our social fabric. It is our children and our children's children that will be required shoulder this withering burdened.
The Liberal Party, or other the opposition Parties, will not be able to do this by themself. It is something that will have to result from a general awareness, including the media both traditional and Web "[shining a] light into dark corners" of government and "assist the process of holding governments accountable” (to borrow a phrase from Harper).
This, of course, is harder than it sounds given Harper propaganda machine and the huge amounts of tax payers money, as well as Con Party money, Harper spends on media - central to the smooth running of their propaganda machine, the Harper and Con largess is tied to media that publish pro-Con materials.
I think that the way to do this is by having everyone, to a person, in Canada who feels strongly enough to stand up and be counted (I am sure I don't need a reference) do so, be encouraged to do it and be provided with the necessary information to assist. Everyone who can, including the media, who is at all concerned ought to be doing this - Canada's future and the future of our children and our children's children are at stake.
Canadians don't want an election, but, I suggest to you, they want a Canada, one that is strong, united, prosperous and Democratic.
And, they want a leader that will fight for them, these things, what this great nation stands for, maintain what we have achieved in the past, and perhaps improve on it, if possible, and leave our children with the appreciation of us having lived here and not a bitter resentment that we were ever given a turn at the helm.
Harper Proroguing Parliament. Then I can only say.
God save Canada.
Who else is left to 'Stand On Guard for Thee'.
We must bite the bullet, so to speak, have an election and give Harper and his Con's the boot.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Harper prorogues, No election plans? Just watch him, Don Newman, January 7, 2010
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/01/07/f-vp-newman.html#socialcomments-submit
Don Newman's analysis of the current situation is very good. He seems to have left out the euphoric love-in effect for Harper and the Con's coming off the Winter Olympics. This factor should not be overlooked and by that time the Afghan Detainee Transfer Scandal and ensuing cover-up may very well refer to 'bygone days'.
Another factor, which may work against an election is the current downward trend in Harper and the Con's in the Polls. However, it may very well be that the fading into the pages of history of the Afghan Scandal and the Olympics will cause an upturn, and it probably will.
But keep in mind, and this is fundamental to me anyway, Harper and the Con's appear to have a 33 - 35% core of die-hard supporters, Harper and the Con's need only be targeted in their approach to wooing and turning some of the demographic and social-economic 'blocks' and anyone who thinks they do not have such a strategy and are not successful in this will, likely, be in for a surprise. I won't go into the actual blocks and where they stand. But keep in mind that it is quite possible to get a majority with only 38% of the vote.
Also, the 33% core die-hard supporters means that in any election Harper and the Con's are not likely to finish behind any other Party, no matter who starts it. Also, given the seemingly unlimited funds from these supporters and the very limited funds for their 'enemy', an election will not harm the Con Party finances but may very well devastate those of the Liberals, itself a 'winning strategy'.
So Harper has nothing to loose and everything to gain. And, hey, if he can con people into thinking it was the Liberals who brought on the election maybe he will get that majority.
Combine this with a perception that Ignatieff and the Liberals are weak (and if the Liberals don't think this is so, they just have to go out and talk to people) and Harper will, in the New Year, start changing his tune to "Oh, and by the way, did I mention that Canadians do want an election" and perhaps poison the budget to force an election - yah, like he's ever done that before.
Ignatieff and the Liberals seem to be oblivious to this real threat of an early Spring election with Ignatieff going on the University circuit to 'listen and learn'.
Ignatieff ought to be girding his sword, the Liberals 'gathering the Clans'.
It seems to me that Canadians want a clear alternative to Harper, not some esoteric world view. They are looking for someone that can stand toe-to-toe with Harper, not in the hazy future, but now. They are not looking for some future Utopia. They want to know that they won't lose their jobs, they won't lose their homes, they won't go bankrupt and they will leave a heritage for their children and their children's children that we all can take a step back, look at and be proud to say "This is Canada, this our nation, it's your turn now", and not leave a future for which our children's children that will be required shoulder a withering economic burden in a hollowed-out shell of a nation whose social fabric has been torn asunder.
Someone has observed that the political environment is that of a constant campaign. Anyone who is waiting to fight sometime in the future when they are 'ready' has already lost, if Dion taught us anything it's that.
Proroguing Parliament is outrageous and a very dangerous precedent. As pointed out. Now anytime the PM gets his government into trouble they simply has to prorogue. This will have a neutering effect on Parliament and marginalize it to the point of being irrelevant. Without Parliament, who will be in a position to keep Harper and the Con's in check. There is no other Institution that has the right to obtain the information, present it to Canadians and actually do something about it.
As far as Afghanistan Detainee Transfer Scandal, Harper may be able to Prorogue Parliament. But, he can't Prorogue the the International Criminal Courts at the Hague - those 'For whom the Gavel Falls' - must answer.
It is common knowledge that Harper has the greatest contempt for all Canada's Democratic institutions and is systematically dismantling this nation and abandoning its responsibilities leaving the Provinces to fill the void. To see just exactly what he has planned we simply have to look at what he has done.
Harper caused serious and intentional disruption to Parliament and its Committees, obstructing and responding only with insults instead of any serious discussion. He then called an election contrary to, in at least, the spirit of his fixed term legislation, claiming that Parliament is dysfunctional - neat trick, make it dysfunctional and then use that to justify his anti-democratic actions.
Soon Harper will claim Canada is dysfunctional and defer entirely to the Provinces.
The power to do these things has always been there, especially for PM's that have a majority, or even a large majority. So, why is Harper doing this, whereas Mulroney and Chrétien didn't. One need only consider that the previous PM's had the interests of Canada, all Canadians and the future of this nation, at heart (you may no have agreed with them, but I can't recall anyone suggesting that they did not have Canada and our nation at heart).
Whereas, Harper's base is in Alberta. They make up the die-hardest of his supporters, and perhaps the source of the lion's share of the Con's funding. Harper, from the start has done everything to increase Alberta' autonomy and protect its oil industry, and Canada be damned - this is nowhere more apparent than Harper's policies on Global Warming. Natural Resources Department assessment indicates that the projected increase to economic growth from the oil industry is $885 billion between 2000 and 2020, including growth of $634 billion in Alberta. Just imagine how much the benefit would remain in Alberta if there were no Federal taxes. Then there is the transfer payments, which would be hugely increased, that would be done away with. You do the math.
It seems to me that Canadian's must be made aware of the overall damaging effect that Harper and the Con's policies will have in the long run to Canada not only our economy, but to the country as a nation and our social fabric. It is our children and our children's children that will be required shoulder this withering burdened.
The Liberal Party, or other the opposition Parties, will not be able to do this by themself. It is something that will have to result from a general awareness, including the media both traditional and Web "[shining a] light into dark corners" of government and "assist the process of holding governments accountable” (to borrow a phrase from Harper).
This, of course, is harder than it sounds given Harper propaganda machine and the huge amounts of tax payers money, as well as Con Party money, Harper spends on media - central to the smooth running of their propaganda machine, the Harper and Con largess is tied to media that publish pro-Con materials.
I think that the way to do this is by having everyone, to a person, in Canada who feels strongly enough to stand up and be counted (I am sure I don't need a reference) do so, be encouraged to do it and be provided with the necessary information to assist. Everyone who can, including the media, who is at all concerned ought to be doing this - Canada's future and the future of our children and our children's children are at stake.
Canadians don't want an election, but, I suggest to you, they want a Canada, one that is strong, united, prosperous and Democratic.
And, they want a leader that will fight for them, these things, what this great nation stands for, maintain what we have achieved in the past, and perhaps improve on it, if possible, and leave our children with the appreciation of us having lived here and not a bitter resentment that we were ever given a turn at the helm.
Harper Proroguing Parliament. Then I can only say.
God save Canada.
Who else is left to 'Stand On Guard for Thee'.
We must bite the bullet, so to speak, have an election and give Harper and his Con's the boot.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
07 January, 2010
- Harper "The government will prorogue the House so that it will not be held accountable for its shameful record"
Excerpt submitted: 10:02am PST, 7 Jan.'10
Harper's new tune strikes sour note, PM trying to avoid facing Parliament, Dan Lett, 7/01/2010
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/columnists/harpers-new-tune-strikes-sour-note-80885187.html?commentConfirmed=y#comments
"The government will prorogue the House so that it will not be held accountable for its shameful record"
(Harper, as leader of the Official Opposition, lambasting the Chrétien government's plans to prorogue Parliament back in 2003)
Wow . . . I wish I had said that - about Harper and the Afghan transferee scandal and ensuing cover-up that is - as well as many other things.
Harper and the Con's priority far outweighs any legislative agenda.
In fact, it does not include our Democratic Institutions at all. What does Harper need laws for when he exercises unbridled power through the Executive and Administration.
As far as the 'tough on crime' agenda, as Van Loan explained it, they have "a different philosophy" - yes guess what it is. If your answer is heavy on extreme right wing ideology and light on Democracy, transparency, rationality, factual underpinning, your not far off.
The 'tough on crime' agenda is no more than power mongering, like Harper's other agenda's, and Canada be damned .
We saw the same kind of propaganda politiking with the 2% GST reduction. Even Ian Brodie, Harper's adviser at the time, came out and admitted as much (“Despite economic evidence to the contrary, in my view the GST cut worked … It worked in the sense that it helped us to win.”)
Harper and the Con's use a catchy phrase that is short, resonates with no demands on in depth analysis and sticks, to describe ad hoc and superficial policies - designed for their propaganda machine the likes of which has not been seen in Western Democracies in recent times.
God Save Canada.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
From previous posts . . .
One big difference between Paul Martin and Harper, aside from Harper's slanderous attacks on Martin and anyone that dares to stand up to him. Martin stood tall, took responsibility, showed leadership, putting the grasping onto, maintaining and grubbing of power, second to the good of the country, and called for an Inquiry into the Sponsorship Scandal. One might say that, yes, but, Martin knew that he, personally, had nothing to worry about when the truth started to emerge.
It would be outrageous if Canadians would have to wait for action outside Canada, on the International level, to learn the truth; and, an incredible catastrophe to Canada and our reputation on the International level, if the Afghan Detainee transfer scandal went to the International Criminal Courts in the Hague.
He may be able to Prorogue Parliament. But, Harper can't Prorogue the Hague - those 'For whom the Gavel Falls' - must answer
How do you get a seat as an onlooker at the Int'l Criminal Court, anyway. Do they sell tickets? Do you to book in advance? Are there Scalpers? Can you apply to be on the prosecution team? Pro Bono? MacKay, you were Foreign Affairs Minister, would you check that out for me. Thanks.
With a 33 - 35% die-hard core of supporters, Harper and the Con's need only be targeted in their approach to wooing and turning some of these Blocks and anyone who thinks they do not have such a strategy and are not successful in this will, likely, be in for a surprise.
The counter to this is to thoroughly and vigorously, with all out efforts and at all times, expose Harper and the Con's for what they are and the damage they have already done and will do, especially if they get a majority.
It is not good enough to say, what are the Liberals doing. I would vote Liberals but their leader is weak.
This is not Harper's Canada, it is not the Liberal's Canada.
This is our Canada, each and every one of us. It is up to us to stand up and be counted. If we shirk this duty, we lose, and our children lose and our children's children will suffer.
We must all keep in mind, it is not Harper that must pay. I am sure that when he 'retires' he will go to the US and get a great paying position with some ultra-right conservative group.
We are the ones, each and every one of us to a man, woman and child, that will have to pay. But, worse, it is also our children and our children's children that will be left to pay the crippling financial debt as well as the impacts of Harper's policies regarding just about everything, not the least of which is Global Warming,
Combine this with a perception that Ignatieff and the Liberals are weak (and if the Liberals don't think this is so, they just have to go out and talk to people) and Harper will, in the New Year, start changing his turn to "Oh, and by the way, did I mention that Canadians do want an election". He may even poison the budget - yah, like he's ever done that before.
It seems to me that Canadian's must be made aware of the overall damaging effect that Harper and the Con's policies will have in the long run to Canada not only our economy, but to the country as a nation and our social fabric. It is our children and our children's children that will be required shoulder this withering burdened.
The Liberal Party, or other the opposition Parties, will not be able to do this by themself. It is something that will have to result from a general awareness, including the media both traditional and Web "[shining a] light into dark corners" of government and "assist the process of holding governments accountable” (to borrow a phrase from Harper).
This, of course, is harder than it sounds given Harper propaganda machine and the huge amounts of tax payers money, as well as Con Party money, Harper spends on media - central to the smooth running of their propaganda machine, the Harper and Con largess is tied to media that publish pro-Con materials.
I think that the way to do this is by having everyone, to a person, in Canada who feels strongly enough to stand up and be counted (I am sure I don't need a reference) do so, be encouraged to do it and be provided with the necessary information to assist. Everyone who can, including the media, who is at all concerned ought to be doing this - Canada's future and the future of our children and our children's children are at stake.
Harper's new tune strikes sour note, PM trying to avoid facing Parliament, Dan Lett, 7/01/2010
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/columnists/harpers-new-tune-strikes-sour-note-80885187.html?commentConfirmed=y#comments
"The government will prorogue the House so that it will not be held accountable for its shameful record"
(Harper, as leader of the Official Opposition, lambasting the Chrétien government's plans to prorogue Parliament back in 2003)
Wow . . . I wish I had said that - about Harper and the Afghan transferee scandal and ensuing cover-up that is - as well as many other things.
Harper and the Con's priority far outweighs any legislative agenda.
In fact, it does not include our Democratic Institutions at all. What does Harper need laws for when he exercises unbridled power through the Executive and Administration.
As far as the 'tough on crime' agenda, as Van Loan explained it, they have "a different philosophy" - yes guess what it is. If your answer is heavy on extreme right wing ideology and light on Democracy, transparency, rationality, factual underpinning, your not far off.
The 'tough on crime' agenda is no more than power mongering, like Harper's other agenda's, and Canada be damned .
We saw the same kind of propaganda politiking with the 2% GST reduction. Even Ian Brodie, Harper's adviser at the time, came out and admitted as much (“Despite economic evidence to the contrary, in my view the GST cut worked … It worked in the sense that it helped us to win.”)
Harper and the Con's use a catchy phrase that is short, resonates with no demands on in depth analysis and sticks, to describe ad hoc and superficial policies - designed for their propaganda machine the likes of which has not been seen in Western Democracies in recent times.
God Save Canada.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
From previous posts . . .
One big difference between Paul Martin and Harper, aside from Harper's slanderous attacks on Martin and anyone that dares to stand up to him. Martin stood tall, took responsibility, showed leadership, putting the grasping onto, maintaining and grubbing of power, second to the good of the country, and called for an Inquiry into the Sponsorship Scandal. One might say that, yes, but, Martin knew that he, personally, had nothing to worry about when the truth started to emerge.
It would be outrageous if Canadians would have to wait for action outside Canada, on the International level, to learn the truth; and, an incredible catastrophe to Canada and our reputation on the International level, if the Afghan Detainee transfer scandal went to the International Criminal Courts in the Hague.
He may be able to Prorogue Parliament. But, Harper can't Prorogue the Hague - those 'For whom the Gavel Falls' - must answer
How do you get a seat as an onlooker at the Int'l Criminal Court, anyway. Do they sell tickets? Do you to book in advance? Are there Scalpers? Can you apply to be on the prosecution team? Pro Bono? MacKay, you were Foreign Affairs Minister, would you check that out for me. Thanks.
With a 33 - 35% die-hard core of supporters, Harper and the Con's need only be targeted in their approach to wooing and turning some of these Blocks and anyone who thinks they do not have such a strategy and are not successful in this will, likely, be in for a surprise.
The counter to this is to thoroughly and vigorously, with all out efforts and at all times, expose Harper and the Con's for what they are and the damage they have already done and will do, especially if they get a majority.
It is not good enough to say, what are the Liberals doing. I would vote Liberals but their leader is weak.
This is not Harper's Canada, it is not the Liberal's Canada.
This is our Canada, each and every one of us. It is up to us to stand up and be counted. If we shirk this duty, we lose, and our children lose and our children's children will suffer.
We must all keep in mind, it is not Harper that must pay. I am sure that when he 'retires' he will go to the US and get a great paying position with some ultra-right conservative group.
We are the ones, each and every one of us to a man, woman and child, that will have to pay. But, worse, it is also our children and our children's children that will be left to pay the crippling financial debt as well as the impacts of Harper's policies regarding just about everything, not the least of which is Global Warming,
Combine this with a perception that Ignatieff and the Liberals are weak (and if the Liberals don't think this is so, they just have to go out and talk to people) and Harper will, in the New Year, start changing his turn to "Oh, and by the way, did I mention that Canadians do want an election". He may even poison the budget - yah, like he's ever done that before.
It seems to me that Canadian's must be made aware of the overall damaging effect that Harper and the Con's policies will have in the long run to Canada not only our economy, but to the country as a nation and our social fabric. It is our children and our children's children that will be required shoulder this withering burdened.
The Liberal Party, or other the opposition Parties, will not be able to do this by themself. It is something that will have to result from a general awareness, including the media both traditional and Web "[shining a] light into dark corners" of government and "assist the process of holding governments accountable” (to borrow a phrase from Harper).
This, of course, is harder than it sounds given Harper propaganda machine and the huge amounts of tax payers money, as well as Con Party money, Harper spends on media - central to the smooth running of their propaganda machine, the Harper and Con largess is tied to media that publish pro-Con materials.
I think that the way to do this is by having everyone, to a person, in Canada who feels strongly enough to stand up and be counted (I am sure I don't need a reference) do so, be encouraged to do it and be provided with the necessary information to assist. Everyone who can, including the media, who is at all concerned ought to be doing this - Canada's future and the future of our children and our children's children are at stake.
06 January, 2010
- Harper morphing to 'extreme right wing dictator'
Posted: 1/6/2010 10:54:58 AM
Harper to revive Senate reform plan, Campbell Clark, Jan. 06, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harper-to-revive-senate-reform-plan/article1420300/Tab 30
'As for the detainee issue, the Prime Minister said “polls have been very clear … that that's not on the top of the radar of most Canadians.”'
Am I reading this right.
Wasn't it Harper who, on his 'Right Wing Extremist' high horse, stated:
"This party will not take its position based on public opinion polls. We will not take a stand based on focus groups. We will not take a stand based on phone-in shows or householder surveys or any other vagaries of public opinion"
Is this Harper reversing his approach on how to run Canada from 'extreme right wing ideologue' to 'extreme right wing dictator'.
Or, is it simply Harper Con'ing Canadians.
Harper, how about doing the right (morally right that is) thing, stand tall, take responsibility, show leadership, put the grasping onto, maintaining and grubbing of power, second to the good of our country, and call for an Inquiry into the Sponsorship Scandal.
Paul Martin and the Liberals did it. I know, I know, . . . one might say that, yes, but, Martin knew that he, personally, had nothing to worry about when the truth started to emerge.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Harper to revive Senate reform plan, Campbell Clark, Jan. 06, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harper-to-revive-senate-reform-plan/article1420300/Tab 30
'As for the detainee issue, the Prime Minister said “polls have been very clear … that that's not on the top of the radar of most Canadians.”'
Am I reading this right.
Wasn't it Harper who, on his 'Right Wing Extremist' high horse, stated:
"This party will not take its position based on public opinion polls. We will not take a stand based on focus groups. We will not take a stand based on phone-in shows or householder surveys or any other vagaries of public opinion"
Is this Harper reversing his approach on how to run Canada from 'extreme right wing ideologue' to 'extreme right wing dictator'.
Or, is it simply Harper Con'ing Canadians.
Harper, how about doing the right (morally right that is) thing, stand tall, take responsibility, show leadership, put the grasping onto, maintaining and grubbing of power, second to the good of our country, and call for an Inquiry into the Sponsorship Scandal.
Paul Martin and the Liberals did it. I know, I know, . . . one might say that, yes, but, Martin knew that he, personally, had nothing to worry about when the truth started to emerge.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
05 January, 2010
- Arma virumque cano
posted: 1/5/2010 12:56:58 PM
Prorogation versus coalition:Which causes more outrage? Gloria Galloway, January 4, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/prorogation-vs-coalition-which-causes-more-outrage/article1418211/
Tab 34
It is an error in analysis to put the call-to-arms by Harper and the Con's last December on the same plane with the 'opponents of prorogation' protests on the Internet.
The former was a show of strength not a show of (anti-) support. It represented a 'mobilization of troops' in a fashion that has been repeated countless times since mankind first organized into groups and not an Internet-arm-chair exercise in Democracy.
'Arma virumque cano' (in case Flanagan might read this. I just learned that Tom, mastermind behind Harper and the Con's acquisition and maintaining power, was actually born in Ottawa. Oh, a Canadian - Not! That's Ottawa, Illinois - but then Harper probably prefers Ottawa to be in the US anyway - i.e. in the right wing, conservative heartland, USA - I wonder what Flanagan and the other right wing extremist Harper political advisers from the US do when we sing "Oh Canada, we stand on guard for thee" - anybody notice)
It is no co-incidence that Harper and the Con's employed such tactics when they were in the process of suppressing our Democratically elected Institutions last December in order to keep a grip on power.
The problem is that Harper and the Con's have 33% diehard supporters that are, for one, a source of unending funds (legally contributed, of course) and unquestioning support that Harper seems to be able to radicalize at the drop of a hat.
During the holidays someone posed the question:
How did a Party so politically and media inept that the considered calling themselves "Canadian Conservative Reform Alliance Party" (C-CRAP) evolve into the tight, well oiled Political entity with a propaganda machine the likes of which has not been seen in Western Democracies in recent times that is on the verge of eliminating our Democratic Institutions and establishing dictatorial rule by the Executive Branch of government. I would love to hear suggested explanations.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Prorogation versus coalition:Which causes more outrage? Gloria Galloway, January 4, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/prorogation-vs-coalition-which-causes-more-outrage/article1418211/
Tab 34
It is an error in analysis to put the call-to-arms by Harper and the Con's last December on the same plane with the 'opponents of prorogation' protests on the Internet.
The former was a show of strength not a show of (anti-) support. It represented a 'mobilization of troops' in a fashion that has been repeated countless times since mankind first organized into groups and not an Internet-arm-chair exercise in Democracy.
'Arma virumque cano' (in case Flanagan might read this. I just learned that Tom, mastermind behind Harper and the Con's acquisition and maintaining power, was actually born in Ottawa. Oh, a Canadian - Not! That's Ottawa, Illinois - but then Harper probably prefers Ottawa to be in the US anyway - i.e. in the right wing, conservative heartland, USA - I wonder what Flanagan and the other right wing extremist Harper political advisers from the US do when we sing "Oh Canada, we stand on guard for thee" - anybody notice)
It is no co-incidence that Harper and the Con's employed such tactics when they were in the process of suppressing our Democratically elected Institutions last December in order to keep a grip on power.
The problem is that Harper and the Con's have 33% diehard supporters that are, for one, a source of unending funds (legally contributed, of course) and unquestioning support that Harper seems to be able to radicalize at the drop of a hat.
During the holidays someone posed the question:
How did a Party so politically and media inept that the considered calling themselves "Canadian Conservative Reform Alliance Party" (C-CRAP) evolve into the tight, well oiled Political entity with a propaganda machine the likes of which has not been seen in Western Democracies in recent times that is on the verge of eliminating our Democratic Institutions and establishing dictatorial rule by the Executive Branch of government. I would love to hear suggested explanations.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
04 January, 2010
- Giving Harper a majority will only bring on more of the same damage, but to a much greater extreme and much quicker
submitted: 8:07am PST, 4 Jan.'10
2010: The year of the Harper majority, By Dan Leger, Jan 4, '10,
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Columnists/1160594.html Tab 4
All those who have grave concerns about Harper, MacKay, Flaherty, Baird, O'Connor and the Con government, and that is about 2/3rd's of us, should take what Dan Leger has to say very seriously.
Personally I think there is a good chance Harper will put a poison pill or two in the budget in order to force a non-confidence vote.
This is not Harper's Canada, it is not the Liberal's Canada.
This is our Canada, each and every one of us. It is up to us to stand up and be counted. If we shirk this duty, we lose, and our children lose and our children's children will suffer.
Harper has already done an exception amount of damage not only to the country's finances but also to its International reputation, the social, economic and political fabric that holds Canada together, and the future of our children and our children's children.
Giving Harper a majority will only bring on more of the same damage, but to a much greater extreme and much quicker and everyone who dares to stand up to him will be well advised to take cover - if you think the viscous character attacks now are bad, just wait.
We must all keep in mind when reflecting on this, it is not Harper that must pay. I am sure that when he 'retires' he will go to the US and get a great paying position with some ultra-right conservative group.
We are the ones, each and every one of us to a man, woman and child, that will have to pay. But, worse, it is also our children and our children's children that will be left to pay the crippling financial debt as well as the impacts of Harper's policies regarding just about everything, not the least of which is Global Warming, but also includes their "tough on Crime"; their "2 points off the GST"; their dismantling Federalism and shirking responsibility in many areas, leaving a vacuum that the Provinces must fill; their abandonment of national childcare; their abandonment of the Arts, Sciences and education; their policies on Immigration with their roots in "old ways" of Manning, Day, Harper and the right wing extremists of the Reform Party; their 'in-your-face" international diplomacy; their contempt for our democratic institutions; their putting our men and women in uniform in harms way by their handling of the Afghan prisoner transfers in the first instance and their pursuant cover-up, etc.
There are many people who are in a position to know, who are predicting a second wave of recession, globally, much worse than the first in the next year.
The Bank of Canada has already come out and warned people that interest rates will increase in June and that our finances are not in order. Harper last time called the election on the precipice of the recession and for the first 2 - 3 weeks of the election even denied that there was an kind of financial difficulties.
Job losses from the current recession will start having a negative and domino effect on our economy in 2010 and people will start to see just to what extent Harper and the Con's have mis-managed the stimulus spending, Canada's finances and there will be the mega-deficit.
Combine this with a perception that Ignatieff and the Liberals are weak (and if the Liberals don't think this is so, they just have to go out and talk to people) and Harper will, in the New Year, start changing his tune to "Oh, and by the way, did I mention that Canadians do want an election" and perhaps poison the budget to force an election - yah, like he's ever done that before.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
2010: The year of the Harper majority, By Dan Leger, Jan 4, '10,
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Columnists/1160594.html Tab 4
All those who have grave concerns about Harper, MacKay, Flaherty, Baird, O'Connor and the Con government, and that is about 2/3rd's of us, should take what Dan Leger has to say very seriously.
Personally I think there is a good chance Harper will put a poison pill or two in the budget in order to force a non-confidence vote.
This is not Harper's Canada, it is not the Liberal's Canada.
This is our Canada, each and every one of us. It is up to us to stand up and be counted. If we shirk this duty, we lose, and our children lose and our children's children will suffer.
Harper has already done an exception amount of damage not only to the country's finances but also to its International reputation, the social, economic and political fabric that holds Canada together, and the future of our children and our children's children.
Giving Harper a majority will only bring on more of the same damage, but to a much greater extreme and much quicker and everyone who dares to stand up to him will be well advised to take cover - if you think the viscous character attacks now are bad, just wait.
We must all keep in mind when reflecting on this, it is not Harper that must pay. I am sure that when he 'retires' he will go to the US and get a great paying position with some ultra-right conservative group.
We are the ones, each and every one of us to a man, woman and child, that will have to pay. But, worse, it is also our children and our children's children that will be left to pay the crippling financial debt as well as the impacts of Harper's policies regarding just about everything, not the least of which is Global Warming, but also includes their "tough on Crime"; their "2 points off the GST"; their dismantling Federalism and shirking responsibility in many areas, leaving a vacuum that the Provinces must fill; their abandonment of national childcare; their abandonment of the Arts, Sciences and education; their policies on Immigration with their roots in "old ways" of Manning, Day, Harper and the right wing extremists of the Reform Party; their 'in-your-face" international diplomacy; their contempt for our democratic institutions; their putting our men and women in uniform in harms way by their handling of the Afghan prisoner transfers in the first instance and their pursuant cover-up, etc.
There are many people who are in a position to know, who are predicting a second wave of recession, globally, much worse than the first in the next year.
The Bank of Canada has already come out and warned people that interest rates will increase in June and that our finances are not in order. Harper last time called the election on the precipice of the recession and for the first 2 - 3 weeks of the election even denied that there was an kind of financial difficulties.
Job losses from the current recession will start having a negative and domino effect on our economy in 2010 and people will start to see just to what extent Harper and the Con's have mis-managed the stimulus spending, Canada's finances and there will be the mega-deficit.
Combine this with a perception that Ignatieff and the Liberals are weak (and if the Liberals don't think this is so, they just have to go out and talk to people) and Harper will, in the New Year, start changing his tune to "Oh, and by the way, did I mention that Canadians do want an election" and perhaps poison the budget to force an election - yah, like he's ever done that before.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
03 January, 2010
- Harper Turning Over a New Leaf??? - Yeh, Right!
Excerpt submitted: 2:17 PST, 3 Jan.10
PM shuts down Parliament until March Tories trying to 'shut down democracy,' Liberal MP Goodale says, December 30, 2009,
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2009/12/30/parliament-prorogation-harper.html#socialcomments tab 821
Harper Proroguing Parliament
Harper turning over a new leaf???
Increasing Transparency? - evidently, Everyone can plainly see why Harper, MacKay, O'Connor, Baird, Hawn and all the Con's are doing everything they can to bury the Afghan detainee transfer scandal and cover-up.
Fortunately, it's not likely to stop the call for a Judicial Inquiry. I think Louise Arbour would be an excellent choice as Commissioner for an Inquiry into the Afghan detainee transfer scandal and ensuing cover-up. What do you think.
Harper's Viscous Character Attacks? - it appears that Harper is intending to responding to criticism as well without his normal modus operandi of in-your-face, insult and vicious character attack.
Harper's only use of Parliament and its Committees is to viciously attack everyone who gets in his way, with gratuitous insults and character assassinations. By Proroguing Parliament he must be intending to give up his tried and true ways.
Harper's In-Your-Face diplomacy? - Ever since Harper took office he has been seriously criticized for his incredibly inept handling of foreign affairs.
Evidently, by Proroguing Parliament Harper seems to be trying to avoid further International diplomatic disasters for Canada. How would Canada look on the International scene when all the foreign leaders are here for the Winter Olympics and Parliament is exposing Harper and his Ministers for their participation in the Afghan Detainee Transfers and ensuing cover-up. That would certainly be more black marks to Canada's previous sparkling International reputation. Also, how could Harper look these other leaders in the eye in any discussions and be taken seriously with a background of such revelations.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
One big difference between Paul Martin and Harper, aside from Harper's slanderous attacks on Martin and anyone that dares to stand up to him. Martin stood tall, took responsibility, showed leadership, putting the grasping onto, maintaining and grubbing of power, second to the good of the country, and called for an Inquiry into the Sponsorship Scandal. One might say that, yes, but, Martin knew that he, personally, had nothing to worry about when the truth started to emerge.
It would be outrageous if Canadians would have to wait for action outside Canada, on the International level, to learn the truth; and, an incredible catastrophe to Canada and our reputation on the International level, if the Afghan Detainee transfer scandal went to the International Criminal Courts in the Hague.
He may be able to Prorogue Parliament. But, Harper can't Prorogue the Hague - those 'For whom the Gavel Falls' - must answer
It seems to me that anyone who strongly supports the military would demand an Inquiry in order to place the blame where it ought to lie; and, I would be very surprised if Canadians, to a person, would not stand up and support our men and women in uniform, if the truth were to be revealed.
Harper, MacKay, O'Connor, Baird, Hawn and all the Con's have risked putting our men and women in uniform in harm's way by potential exposure to possible war crimes allegations and prosecution at the International Criminal Court in the Hague and even with respect to domestic Canadian law, in regards to the transfer of Afghan detainees to the Afghan authorities; and, the ensuing cover-up and viscous character assassination of anyone who dares to stand up to them is outrageous.
How do you get a seat as an onlooker at the Int'l Criminal Court, anyway. Do they sell tickets? Do you to book in advance? Are there Scalpers? Can you apply to be on the prosecution team? Pro Bono? MacKay, you were Foreign Affairs Minister, would you check that out for me. Thanks.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
PM shuts down Parliament until March Tories trying to 'shut down democracy,' Liberal MP Goodale says, December 30, 2009,
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2009/12/30/parliament-prorogation-harper.html#socialcomments tab 821
Harper Proroguing Parliament
Harper turning over a new leaf???
Increasing Transparency? - evidently, Everyone can plainly see why Harper, MacKay, O'Connor, Baird, Hawn and all the Con's are doing everything they can to bury the Afghan detainee transfer scandal and cover-up.
Fortunately, it's not likely to stop the call for a Judicial Inquiry. I think Louise Arbour would be an excellent choice as Commissioner for an Inquiry into the Afghan detainee transfer scandal and ensuing cover-up. What do you think.
Harper's Viscous Character Attacks? - it appears that Harper is intending to responding to criticism as well without his normal modus operandi of in-your-face, insult and vicious character attack.
Harper's only use of Parliament and its Committees is to viciously attack everyone who gets in his way, with gratuitous insults and character assassinations. By Proroguing Parliament he must be intending to give up his tried and true ways.
Harper's In-Your-Face diplomacy? - Ever since Harper took office he has been seriously criticized for his incredibly inept handling of foreign affairs.
Evidently, by Proroguing Parliament Harper seems to be trying to avoid further International diplomatic disasters for Canada. How would Canada look on the International scene when all the foreign leaders are here for the Winter Olympics and Parliament is exposing Harper and his Ministers for their participation in the Afghan Detainee Transfers and ensuing cover-up. That would certainly be more black marks to Canada's previous sparkling International reputation. Also, how could Harper look these other leaders in the eye in any discussions and be taken seriously with a background of such revelations.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
One big difference between Paul Martin and Harper, aside from Harper's slanderous attacks on Martin and anyone that dares to stand up to him. Martin stood tall, took responsibility, showed leadership, putting the grasping onto, maintaining and grubbing of power, second to the good of the country, and called for an Inquiry into the Sponsorship Scandal. One might say that, yes, but, Martin knew that he, personally, had nothing to worry about when the truth started to emerge.
It would be outrageous if Canadians would have to wait for action outside Canada, on the International level, to learn the truth; and, an incredible catastrophe to Canada and our reputation on the International level, if the Afghan Detainee transfer scandal went to the International Criminal Courts in the Hague.
He may be able to Prorogue Parliament. But, Harper can't Prorogue the Hague - those 'For whom the Gavel Falls' - must answer
It seems to me that anyone who strongly supports the military would demand an Inquiry in order to place the blame where it ought to lie; and, I would be very surprised if Canadians, to a person, would not stand up and support our men and women in uniform, if the truth were to be revealed.
Harper, MacKay, O'Connor, Baird, Hawn and all the Con's have risked putting our men and women in uniform in harm's way by potential exposure to possible war crimes allegations and prosecution at the International Criminal Court in the Hague and even with respect to domestic Canadian law, in regards to the transfer of Afghan detainees to the Afghan authorities; and, the ensuing cover-up and viscous character assassination of anyone who dares to stand up to them is outrageous.
How do you get a seat as an onlooker at the Int'l Criminal Court, anyway. Do they sell tickets? Do you to book in advance? Are there Scalpers? Can you apply to be on the prosecution team? Pro Bono? MacKay, you were Foreign Affairs Minister, would you check that out for me. Thanks.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
02 January, 2010
- Our Society is based on Rationality, It's Time We Insisted that Our Politics is as Well
Revolution implies a very rapid, radical change in polarity of a state's political structure. Since it is a radical change in polarity, the group must, by necessity, be extremist. To support its rapidity and success, force is employed, and perhaps required. Sometimes it is violent and others the mere display of violence through social disobedience and protesting seems to do the trick. 10 - 15% of the population so dedicated to the cause is sufficient, and perhaps necessary, support to sustain such revolution.
On the other hand, even in a democracy, if you double the % of people dedicated to 1/3 rd of the people, 30 - 35%, say, such change may be effected without out-and-out revolution but through patience. The end result is the same, of course, that is, the radical change in polarity of the state's political, and social, structure.
Of course, if a comparable number are equally dedicated to maintaining the old political structure then you have a civil war, in the former case; and, serious political instability as society undergoes the radical social and political upheaval, in the latter case. Who wins out is really a question of survival of the strongest.
This has, of course, been going on since humankind started organizing into groups. Our instincts have developed to equate politically strong with what is right and good. How often have we heard people say "my gut instinct is to vote for this person", or, more usually, "against that person". This begs the question, exactly what instinct they are relying upon to formulate this judgement. Of course, mud slinging and in its extreme form, attack ads, are designed precisely to play upon this. Some may say that this approach - equate politically strong with what is right and good - has served us well, and is the way it ought to be. But, one must keep in mind that this whole approach was developed and is effective in the situation where the law of the jungle dominates, where power flows from the barrel of a gun, so to speak. Where power flows from commerce, information and understanding our surrounding, all derived from knowledge based on rational thought through scientific methods, this 'physical might is right' approach not only has no place but is, obviously, counter-productive, and in fact downright destructive.
However, we, modern, scientifically advanced and dependent, developed, complex, multi-faceted, tolerant, economy based and democratic societies are in a circumstance that has never in the history of mankind been seen, or even close. Our whole way of life depends on rational thought. Our science is based on rational thought. Our economics is based on rational thought. Our educational system is based on rational thought. However, politics is still based on approaching the voter on an emotional level and irrational level - employing the socially dead-end evolutionarily principles of: our camp against your camp; we're right - you're wrong; we're good - you're bad; we're big - you're small, all relying on the basic premise: we're strong - you're week.
It is suggested that the doctrine of laïcité, or secularism (separation of church, or religion, and state) went hand in hand with the modern development of the application of scientific thought with the accompanying of mathematics to our circumstances. It freed politics from basing its decisions and policies on religious considerations and so allowed them to be based on the developing rationalism. Somewhere, somehow, this process has been thwarted and has has not yet taken effect.
Because our life style, standard of living and society as a whole, are based on rationality and diametrically opposite to the emotional, irrationality of the way we select our political leaders and those that govern us, we can only be destined for a radical change in polarity of our social and political structure. The only question is will it be rapid thus leading to revolution or civil war, or, through political instability and reversal of social attitudes. Of course, if we, the people, required that our politics be based on rationality, then our social structure will not only fall in sync but re-enforce each other, rather than, vibrate at odds and shake each other apart.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
On the other hand, even in a democracy, if you double the % of people dedicated to 1/3 rd of the people, 30 - 35%, say, such change may be effected without out-and-out revolution but through patience. The end result is the same, of course, that is, the radical change in polarity of the state's political, and social, structure.
Of course, if a comparable number are equally dedicated to maintaining the old political structure then you have a civil war, in the former case; and, serious political instability as society undergoes the radical social and political upheaval, in the latter case. Who wins out is really a question of survival of the strongest.
This has, of course, been going on since humankind started organizing into groups. Our instincts have developed to equate politically strong with what is right and good. How often have we heard people say "my gut instinct is to vote for this person", or, more usually, "against that person". This begs the question, exactly what instinct they are relying upon to formulate this judgement. Of course, mud slinging and in its extreme form, attack ads, are designed precisely to play upon this. Some may say that this approach - equate politically strong with what is right and good - has served us well, and is the way it ought to be. But, one must keep in mind that this whole approach was developed and is effective in the situation where the law of the jungle dominates, where power flows from the barrel of a gun, so to speak. Where power flows from commerce, information and understanding our surrounding, all derived from knowledge based on rational thought through scientific methods, this 'physical might is right' approach not only has no place but is, obviously, counter-productive, and in fact downright destructive.
However, we, modern, scientifically advanced and dependent, developed, complex, multi-faceted, tolerant, economy based and democratic societies are in a circumstance that has never in the history of mankind been seen, or even close. Our whole way of life depends on rational thought. Our science is based on rational thought. Our economics is based on rational thought. Our educational system is based on rational thought. However, politics is still based on approaching the voter on an emotional level and irrational level - employing the socially dead-end evolutionarily principles of: our camp against your camp; we're right - you're wrong; we're good - you're bad; we're big - you're small, all relying on the basic premise: we're strong - you're week.
It is suggested that the doctrine of laïcité, or secularism (separation of church, or religion, and state) went hand in hand with the modern development of the application of scientific thought with the accompanying of mathematics to our circumstances. It freed politics from basing its decisions and policies on religious considerations and so allowed them to be based on the developing rationalism. Somewhere, somehow, this process has been thwarted and has has not yet taken effect.
Because our life style, standard of living and society as a whole, are based on rationality and diametrically opposite to the emotional, irrationality of the way we select our political leaders and those that govern us, we can only be destined for a radical change in polarity of our social and political structure. The only question is will it be rapid thus leading to revolution or civil war, or, through political instability and reversal of social attitudes. Of course, if we, the people, required that our politics be based on rationality, then our social structure will not only fall in sync but re-enforce each other, rather than, vibrate at odds and shake each other apart.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- This is not Harper's Canada, This is our Canada - we are the ones that must stand up to Harper and his Con's
Winning voters' hearts and minds: it's all about managing the message, John Ibbitson, 2 Jan.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/winning-voters-hearts-and-minds-its-all-about-managing-the-message/article1416775/ posted 1/2/2010 1:14:19 PM , Tab 26
"The question is whether voters are finally ready to overcome their suspicion that Mr. Harper might push the federal agenda far to the right if they entrust him with a majority government."
This statement suggests that the voters somehow get together and, en masse, make a deliberate, conscious decision to "give Harper a majority" or minority.
Obviously, this doesn't happen. At best voting goes in blocks, normally based on demographics and issues. The underlying dynamic is that there are many issues, each precipitating its own group for which it is important, which effects, not a spectrum, or unity, of voter opinion but a discrete and disconnected collection. However, there is only perhaps 5 Parties from which to choose. This, of course, explains vote splitting, and why it is that almost 2/3rds of Canadians voted against Harper and the Con's, but they are now running this country. There have been examples of where the vote may be have overwhelmingly for one party or another - e.g. Mulroney's and Chrétien's first win, but in those cases the voters hardly needed to get together to decide who to vote for.
One can muse that the media is the medium for the voters to get together to decide for whom to vote. Although the media (traditional) can, and does, manipulate voting and can make a difference, specially with the undecided who don't know who to listen to - a prime example, in my opinion, of this was in the last few days of the last election when Dion made his 'radio interview re-takes' and Duffy, and CTV, plaid it for what it was worth - it is hard to determine the extent to which it affects the outcome (would Dion and the Liberals have come out ahead if not for Duffy).
The Web offers a better medium for getting together in the fashion envisioned. However, I suggest it illustrates, and supports, the precipitation of opinion into many small blocks, on many and diverse issues,which is my point.
It is rather the other way around.
If the media, including the media both traditional and Web, can "shine a light into dark corners" of government and "assist the process of holding governments accountable” (to borrow a phrase from Harper), then the voters can go to the voting polls, informed and enlightened. You can be sure, if Harper and the Con's were not afraid of this kind of exposure they would be carrying out their affairs in a totally different fashion.
One thing you can be sure of, Harper and the Con's are fully aware of 'block' voting and have been working on this from the very start. It takes time to woo and turn such blocks, but once you do, you reap the electoral rewards and they can be quite loyal - one need only look at Harper and the Con's support in Alberta, the Block support in Quebec, the Green support, etc.. And, it is a very difficult process to reverse, especially during an election where people are skeptical of politicians who talk to them only once every 4 years and their senses are numb from being blasted from all sides. Ideologically based Parties such as the Con's, NDP, Block and Greens, can survive only because they have a diehard core of supporters, based on their ideology.
I won't go into the actual blocks and where they stand. But keep in mind that it is quite possible to get a majority with only 38% of the vote.
With a 33 - 35% die-hard core of supporters, Harper and the Con's need only be targeted in their approach to wooing and turning some of these Blocks and anyone who thinks they do not have such a strategy and are not successful in this will, likely, be in for a surprise.
The counter to this is to thoroughly and vigorously, with all out efforts and at all times, expose Harper and the Con's for what they are and the damage they have already done and will do, especially if they get a majority.
It is not good enough to say, what are the Liberals doing. I would vote Liberals but their leader is weak.
This is not Harper's Canada, it is not the Liberal's Canada.
This is our Canada, each and every one of us. It is up to us to stand up and be counted. If we shirk this duty, we lose, and our children lose and our children's children will suffer.
We must all keep in mind, it is not Harper that must pay. I am sure that when he 'retires' he will go to the US and get a great paying position with some ultra-right conservative group.
We are the ones, each and every one of us to a man, woman and child, that will have to pay. But, worse, it is also our children and our children's children that will be left to pay the crippling financial debt as well as the impacts of Harper's policies regarding just about everything, not the least of which is Global Warming, but also includes their "tough on Crime"; their "2 points off the GST"; their dismantling Federalism and shirking responsibility in many areas, leaving a vacuum that the Provinces must fill; their abandonment of national childcare; their abandonment of the Arts, Sciences and education; their policies on Immigration with their roots in "old ways" of Manning, Day, Harper and the right wing extremists of the Reform Party; their 'in-your-face" international diplomacy; their contempt for our democratic institutions; their putting our men and women in uniform in harms way by their handling of the Afghan prisoner transfers in the first instance and their pursuant cover-up, etc.
There are many people who are in a position to know, who are predicting a second wave of recession, globally, much worse than the first in the next year. The Bank of Canada has already come out and warned people that interest rates will increase in June and that our finances are not in order. Harper last time called the election on the precipice of the recession and for the first 2 - 3 weeks of the election even denied that there was an kind of financial difficulties. Job losses from the current recession will start having a negative and domino effect on our economy in 2010 and people will start to see just to what extent Harper and the Con's have mis-managed the stimulus spending, Canada's finances and there will be the mega-deficit.
Combine this with a perception that Ignatieff and the Liberals are weak (and if the Liberals don't think this is so, they just have to go out and talk to people) and Harper will, in the New Year, start changing his turn to "Oh, and by the way, did I mention that Canadians do want an election". He may even poison the budget - yah, like he's ever done that before.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/winning-voters-hearts-and-minds-its-all-about-managing-the-message/article1416775/ posted 1/2/2010 1:14:19 PM , Tab 26
"The question is whether voters are finally ready to overcome their suspicion that Mr. Harper might push the federal agenda far to the right if they entrust him with a majority government."
This statement suggests that the voters somehow get together and, en masse, make a deliberate, conscious decision to "give Harper a majority" or minority.
Obviously, this doesn't happen. At best voting goes in blocks, normally based on demographics and issues. The underlying dynamic is that there are many issues, each precipitating its own group for which it is important, which effects, not a spectrum, or unity, of voter opinion but a discrete and disconnected collection. However, there is only perhaps 5 Parties from which to choose. This, of course, explains vote splitting, and why it is that almost 2/3rds of Canadians voted against Harper and the Con's, but they are now running this country. There have been examples of where the vote may be have overwhelmingly for one party or another - e.g. Mulroney's and Chrétien's first win, but in those cases the voters hardly needed to get together to decide who to vote for.
One can muse that the media is the medium for the voters to get together to decide for whom to vote. Although the media (traditional) can, and does, manipulate voting and can make a difference, specially with the undecided who don't know who to listen to - a prime example, in my opinion, of this was in the last few days of the last election when Dion made his 'radio interview re-takes' and Duffy, and CTV, plaid it for what it was worth - it is hard to determine the extent to which it affects the outcome (would Dion and the Liberals have come out ahead if not for Duffy).
The Web offers a better medium for getting together in the fashion envisioned. However, I suggest it illustrates, and supports, the precipitation of opinion into many small blocks, on many and diverse issues,which is my point.
It is rather the other way around.
If the media, including the media both traditional and Web, can "shine a light into dark corners" of government and "assist the process of holding governments accountable” (to borrow a phrase from Harper), then the voters can go to the voting polls, informed and enlightened. You can be sure, if Harper and the Con's were not afraid of this kind of exposure they would be carrying out their affairs in a totally different fashion.
One thing you can be sure of, Harper and the Con's are fully aware of 'block' voting and have been working on this from the very start. It takes time to woo and turn such blocks, but once you do, you reap the electoral rewards and they can be quite loyal - one need only look at Harper and the Con's support in Alberta, the Block support in Quebec, the Green support, etc.. And, it is a very difficult process to reverse, especially during an election where people are skeptical of politicians who talk to them only once every 4 years and their senses are numb from being blasted from all sides. Ideologically based Parties such as the Con's, NDP, Block and Greens, can survive only because they have a diehard core of supporters, based on their ideology.
I won't go into the actual blocks and where they stand. But keep in mind that it is quite possible to get a majority with only 38% of the vote.
With a 33 - 35% die-hard core of supporters, Harper and the Con's need only be targeted in their approach to wooing and turning some of these Blocks and anyone who thinks they do not have such a strategy and are not successful in this will, likely, be in for a surprise.
The counter to this is to thoroughly and vigorously, with all out efforts and at all times, expose Harper and the Con's for what they are and the damage they have already done and will do, especially if they get a majority.
It is not good enough to say, what are the Liberals doing. I would vote Liberals but their leader is weak.
This is not Harper's Canada, it is not the Liberal's Canada.
This is our Canada, each and every one of us. It is up to us to stand up and be counted. If we shirk this duty, we lose, and our children lose and our children's children will suffer.
We must all keep in mind, it is not Harper that must pay. I am sure that when he 'retires' he will go to the US and get a great paying position with some ultra-right conservative group.
We are the ones, each and every one of us to a man, woman and child, that will have to pay. But, worse, it is also our children and our children's children that will be left to pay the crippling financial debt as well as the impacts of Harper's policies regarding just about everything, not the least of which is Global Warming, but also includes their "tough on Crime"; their "2 points off the GST"; their dismantling Federalism and shirking responsibility in many areas, leaving a vacuum that the Provinces must fill; their abandonment of national childcare; their abandonment of the Arts, Sciences and education; their policies on Immigration with their roots in "old ways" of Manning, Day, Harper and the right wing extremists of the Reform Party; their 'in-your-face" international diplomacy; their contempt for our democratic institutions; their putting our men and women in uniform in harms way by their handling of the Afghan prisoner transfers in the first instance and their pursuant cover-up, etc.
There are many people who are in a position to know, who are predicting a second wave of recession, globally, much worse than the first in the next year. The Bank of Canada has already come out and warned people that interest rates will increase in June and that our finances are not in order. Harper last time called the election on the precipice of the recession and for the first 2 - 3 weeks of the election even denied that there was an kind of financial difficulties. Job losses from the current recession will start having a negative and domino effect on our economy in 2010 and people will start to see just to what extent Harper and the Con's have mis-managed the stimulus spending, Canada's finances and there will be the mega-deficit.
Combine this with a perception that Ignatieff and the Liberals are weak (and if the Liberals don't think this is so, they just have to go out and talk to people) and Harper will, in the New Year, start changing his turn to "Oh, and by the way, did I mention that Canadians do want an election". He may even poison the budget - yah, like he's ever done that before.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)