Posted: 8/31/2010 12:26:41 PM The Globe and Mail
Jack Layton's refusal to crack whip bodes ill for gun registry, Gloria Galloway, Globe and Mail, August 30, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/ Tab 52
"'In effect, rhetoric aside, both Coalition leaders intend to keep the wasteful and ineffective $2 billion long-gun registry,’ the Tories say. "
I thought the (soon to be released - soon after the vote, perhaps) RCMP '09 Gun Registry Report states that it cost no more than approx. 4 million a year.
If you want to see wasteful and ineffective in the $billions just look at the G-8 and G20 costs to Canadians taxpayers this Summer in Toronto. For a couple days of Harper and Con photo-op's we are responsible for over a billion dollars in costs.
This is enough to cover the Long Gun registry for over 250 years (if the billion were set aside now, with interest compounds, hey perhaps a 1000 years), which Canadians would benefit to a much, much, much greater extent (even a little benefit is better than zero, or negative, benefit).
Oh, and did I mention that these 'security costs' by Harper make the cost of setting up the Gun Registry look like kid's stuff. And we are still waiting for the full costs of increasing prison facilities for 'unreported crimes'.
Do I perceive an inconsistency with the Harper policies:
- if it furthers Harper's hyper-partizan, right-wing extremist agenda, then the sky's the limit on spending.
But, if it goes against the Harper hyper-agenda then any amount is' wasteful and ineffective', despite how much it benefits Canada as a whole and our way of life.
If the Con on the Long Form census is: get rid of the sanctions, make it voluntary.
Then Harper, wouldn't it be consistent to do the same for the Long Gun Registry.
. . . Oh, I see, then people would decline to register their guns and the information as a resource would be unreliable - now why didn't I see that argument coming.
But then, even with the current sanction on the Gun Registry they could simply put down "Jedi" for 'use' (or is it 'religion'), couldn't they Mr. Harper, I mean applying your neo-rational pseudo-reasons.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
31 August, 2010
- Jack Layton - Here's a Good Plan
Posted: 8/31/2010 12:12:05 PM The Globe and Mail
Jack Layton's refusal to crack whip bodes ill for gun registry, Gloria Galloway, Globe and Mail, August 30, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/ Tab 52
Mr. Layton should explain just exactly how he would be able to " introduce his own legislation – possibly in the form of a private-member’s bill – to address rural concerns." if the private member's bill is passed.
For one thing, you can betcha Harper and the Con's will dismantle it, forthwith, to at least the full-extent allowed by the Bill.
- Compare: "This private member's bill will require the destruction of more than 8,000,000 firearms records." (William Blair, president of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and head of Toronto's police department, Globe and Mail, Nov. 03, 2009).
It seems to me more rational to ensure that this Private Member's Bill fails.
(If for no other reason than:
- Harper should be up front about it and have the Con government introduce the Bill;
- the failure to release the '08 Gun Registry Report last November until just after the vote; and,
- the failure, so far, of releasing the '09 Gun Registry Report, in which RCMP evaluation apparently states that:
"The report concludes the registry prepares officers for urgent calls, helps them trace weapons found at crime scenes and assists in keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable.
“It ensures police are better equipped to respond to, for example, a situation of domestic violence, assess potential safety risks and confirm the possible presence of firearms and their legal status,” the evaluation says." (Globe and Mail)
- I can understand why Harper might not want that in front of the Canadian people prior to the vote.)
Then, once this Bill is defeated " introduce his own legislation".
Ignatieff is right (morally that is) if this Bill passes, Jack Layton may very well be the cause of Canadians not getting changes to the Gun Registry that are rationally based, taking into account the good of all Canadians, in all demographics.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Jack Layton's refusal to crack whip bodes ill for gun registry, Gloria Galloway, Globe and Mail, August 30, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/ Tab 52
Mr. Layton should explain just exactly how he would be able to " introduce his own legislation – possibly in the form of a private-member’s bill – to address rural concerns." if the private member's bill is passed.
For one thing, you can betcha Harper and the Con's will dismantle it, forthwith, to at least the full-extent allowed by the Bill.
- Compare: "This private member's bill will require the destruction of more than 8,000,000 firearms records." (William Blair, president of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and head of Toronto's police department, Globe and Mail, Nov. 03, 2009).
It seems to me more rational to ensure that this Private Member's Bill fails.
(If for no other reason than:
- Harper should be up front about it and have the Con government introduce the Bill;
- the failure to release the '08 Gun Registry Report last November until just after the vote; and,
- the failure, so far, of releasing the '09 Gun Registry Report, in which RCMP evaluation apparently states that:
"The report concludes the registry prepares officers for urgent calls, helps them trace weapons found at crime scenes and assists in keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable.
“It ensures police are better equipped to respond to, for example, a situation of domestic violence, assess potential safety risks and confirm the possible presence of firearms and their legal status,” the evaluation says." (Globe and Mail)
- I can understand why Harper might not want that in front of the Canadian people prior to the vote.)
Then, once this Bill is defeated " introduce his own legislation".
Ignatieff is right (morally that is) if this Bill passes, Jack Layton may very well be the cause of Canadians not getting changes to the Gun Registry that are rationally based, taking into account the good of all Canadians, in all demographics.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
30 August, 2010
- Harper's New Constitutional Convention - 'Protect My Bu[redacted]t'
Posted: 8/30/2010 11:28:18 AM The Globe and Mail
Opposition undeterred by Tory refusal to hand over emails, Globe and Mail, Aug. 30, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/opposition-undeterred-by-governments-refusal-to-hand-over-emails/article1689506/
Sorry Mr. Baird, but you do not make the rules, no matter what Stephen Harper thinks, Parliament does.
'Protect My Bu[redacted]t' may be a long standing political principle but it has never been elevated to Constitutional Convention.
The Fundamental Constitutional Convention is that Parliament is Supreme, as Speaker of the House, Peter Milliken, so dramatically and emphatically re-inforced a mere few months ago.
Why do Canadians have to spend months fighting tooth and nail to force Harper and the Conservative government to release information - I mean other than it might incriminate Harper or some other Con.
Rather than simply ranting and raving that "constitutional convention dictates" perhaps John Baird, Stephen Harper or any other Con state exactly what law, what convention, what precedent (other than one generated by them) they are relying on to withhold this information.
Another fundamental Constitutional Convention in Canada is the rule of law (not to be confused with the rule of Harper).
Thus, we arrive at a Fundamental Equation of Canadian Democracy:
Parliament has the right to the information + no law to bar release to Parliament = hand over the documents
The above is based on rationality, logic, law, and not the neo-rational pseudo-reasons put forth for Canadian consumption by Harper, Baird, Tony Clement and all the other Con's.
This Fundamental Equation of Canadian Democracy is in stark contrast to
The Fundamental Con of the Harper Government:
a core of die-hard, right-wing extremists with epi-centred in Alberta, who are the ones keeping him in power
+
polarized, non-consolidated opposition
=
Harper's 'I make the rules'
with corollary:
'Canadians be d[redacted]'.
"But constitutional expert C.E.S. (Ned) Franks does not believe the government can withhold the e-mails. 'I think the Parliament is entitled to know what instructions the minister’s office staff gives,' Mr. Franks said, 'and I also think the Parliament is entitled to know whether the minister has any knowledge of this.'
(Ned) Franks is right (morally that is) Parliament, and all Canadians, are entitled know what Harper and his Ministers' are doing; and, why they go to such great lengths to obscure, obstruct, obfuscate it.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Opposition undeterred by Tory refusal to hand over emails, Globe and Mail, Aug. 30, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/opposition-undeterred-by-governments-refusal-to-hand-over-emails/article1689506/
Sorry Mr. Baird, but you do not make the rules, no matter what Stephen Harper thinks, Parliament does.
'Protect My Bu[redacted]t' may be a long standing political principle but it has never been elevated to Constitutional Convention.
The Fundamental Constitutional Convention is that Parliament is Supreme, as Speaker of the House, Peter Milliken, so dramatically and emphatically re-inforced a mere few months ago.
Why do Canadians have to spend months fighting tooth and nail to force Harper and the Conservative government to release information - I mean other than it might incriminate Harper or some other Con.
Rather than simply ranting and raving that "constitutional convention dictates" perhaps John Baird, Stephen Harper or any other Con state exactly what law, what convention, what precedent (other than one generated by them) they are relying on to withhold this information.
Another fundamental Constitutional Convention in Canada is the rule of law (not to be confused with the rule of Harper).
Thus, we arrive at a Fundamental Equation of Canadian Democracy:
Parliament has the right to the information + no law to bar release to Parliament = hand over the documents
The above is based on rationality, logic, law, and not the neo-rational pseudo-reasons put forth for Canadian consumption by Harper, Baird, Tony Clement and all the other Con's.
This Fundamental Equation of Canadian Democracy is in stark contrast to
The Fundamental Con of the Harper Government:
a core of die-hard, right-wing extremists with epi-centred in Alberta, who are the ones keeping him in power
+
polarized, non-consolidated opposition
=
Harper's 'I make the rules'
with corollary:
'Canadians be d[redacted]'.
"But constitutional expert C.E.S. (Ned) Franks does not believe the government can withhold the e-mails. 'I think the Parliament is entitled to know what instructions the minister’s office staff gives,' Mr. Franks said, 'and I also think the Parliament is entitled to know whether the minister has any knowledge of this.'
(Ned) Franks is right (morally that is) Parliament, and all Canadians, are entitled know what Harper and his Ministers' are doing; and, why they go to such great lengths to obscure, obstruct, obfuscate it.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
29 August, 2010
- Harper: 'Let The Con be With You'
Posted: 8/29/2010 11:22:40 AM
Witness compares veracity of census data to information obtained through torture, Steven Chase, Globe and Mail, Aug. 27, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/witness-compares-veracity-of-census-data-to-information-obtained-through-torture/article1688516/
This article reveals no actual evidence to support that allegation that Canadians lie on the Long Form Census because they are compelled to answer by threat of criminal prosecution to the extent of torture, or to any extent, for that matter.
These 'Con-icisms' smacks of all the neo-rational pseudo-reasons put forth for Canadian consumption by Stephen Harper, Tony Clement and all the other Con's - all hype and no content, designed to appeal to our emotions, to incite, and not to address an issue rationally, to determine the best for all Canadians.
It is so much like the Con's, the only actual example is the same one that was used by Harper earlier this Summer - vis.: " 21,000 Canadians registered Jedi as their religion in the 2001 census"
The answer "Jedi" indicates that exact opposite to someone 'confessing under torture".
It has the hallmark of a joke (unless, of course, the bases of the alleged deception is that it is actually a philosophy and not a religion).
Someone being tortured is not likely to say something that is so obviously a joke - just ask some of the refugees that Canada has accepted over the years who had been tortured and fled their country because of it. There are lots of them around due to Canada's humanitarian policies, pre-Harper, anyway.
With due respect to all those Jedi in the galaxy, giving the answer 'Jedi' is so obviously wrong that it would very likely draw attention to it. This, it is submitted, is exactly the intention by so responding.
I would think the reason people put this is either as a lark (and, hay, it is funny), or, perhaps, a protest, something that they want to draw attention, and is done with very little fear of reprisal (this proposition, one would expect, would be very easy to verify).
When I read this article, one question that comes to mind is, "I wonder if Harper has any more Senate positions, or perhaps, some top government appointment, coming open."
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Witness compares veracity of census data to information obtained through torture, Steven Chase, Globe and Mail, Aug. 27, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/witness-compares-veracity-of-census-data-to-information-obtained-through-torture/article1688516/
This article reveals no actual evidence to support that allegation that Canadians lie on the Long Form Census because they are compelled to answer by threat of criminal prosecution to the extent of torture, or to any extent, for that matter.
These 'Con-icisms' smacks of all the neo-rational pseudo-reasons put forth for Canadian consumption by Stephen Harper, Tony Clement and all the other Con's - all hype and no content, designed to appeal to our emotions, to incite, and not to address an issue rationally, to determine the best for all Canadians.
It is so much like the Con's, the only actual example is the same one that was used by Harper earlier this Summer - vis.: " 21,000 Canadians registered Jedi as their religion in the 2001 census"
The answer "Jedi" indicates that exact opposite to someone 'confessing under torture".
It has the hallmark of a joke (unless, of course, the bases of the alleged deception is that it is actually a philosophy and not a religion).
Someone being tortured is not likely to say something that is so obviously a joke - just ask some of the refugees that Canada has accepted over the years who had been tortured and fled their country because of it. There are lots of them around due to Canada's humanitarian policies, pre-Harper, anyway.
With due respect to all those Jedi in the galaxy, giving the answer 'Jedi' is so obviously wrong that it would very likely draw attention to it. This, it is submitted, is exactly the intention by so responding.
I would think the reason people put this is either as a lark (and, hay, it is funny), or, perhaps, a protest, something that they want to draw attention, and is done with very little fear of reprisal (this proposition, one would expect, would be very easy to verify).
When I read this article, one question that comes to mind is, "I wonder if Harper has any more Senate positions, or perhaps, some top government appointment, coming open."
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
28 August, 2010
- Harper 'Nation Building' ??? - yah, 'Con - Nation Building' !!!
Posted: 8/28/2010 12:31:59 PM
Stephen Harper’s northern renaissance, John Ibbitson,
Globe and Mail, Aug. 27, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/john-ibbitson/stephen-harpers-northern-renaissance/article1686928/ Tab 52
Stephen Harper on the ATV - think: Stockwell Day and Jet Ski.
Everything does Stephen Harper is hyper-partizan.
You betcha his 'holiday' in the North is for partizan, political purposes and the million(s) spent on the military exercises was to provide a backdrop for a Harper photo-op. Harper has no qualms about spending billion(s) of our hard earned taxes in a two day photo-op in Toronto, a million seems like boy scouts.
It is beyond credibility that the Russians planes that came within 30 kl Canadian air space and met by 2 F-18's is justification for spending 16 billion on 65 F-35's as apparently offered up for Canadian consumption by Harper's press spokesman, Dimitri Soudas. (Compare: "At no time did the Russian military aircraft enter Canadian or U.S. sovereign airspace," said NORAD's statement. "Both Russia and NORAD routinely exercise their capability to operate in the north. These exercises are important to both NORAD and Russia and are not cause for alarm."Ottawacitizen)
These Russian aircraft obviously had no intention of entering Canadian air space and, if they did, the F-18's were easily up to the task.
More likely they were Russian Paparazi looking for some footage of the Harper holiday - now, I see what Harper meant by making Canada an International player, a pic of the Canada PM riding a ATV on the front page of Pravda is nothing to shake a stick at, just ask Vladimir Putin.
Harper: "We're not going to win or lose an election in the North, . . .We're doing it because this is about nation-building, this is the frontier, this is the place that defines our country."
yah, 'Con Nation' building.
Harper doesn't specify just exactly what 'nation' or just exactly 'who' when he says 'our'.
Given Harper's career long ambition to tear Canada as a nation asunder, sounds like code for his right-wing, extremist, die-hard supporters with epi-centre in Alberta, for an Alberta - North West Territories nation.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
submitted: 9:54am, PDT, 28 Aug.'10
Nation-building, not politics, behind week-long Arctic tour: Harper, Stephanie Levitz, The Canadian Press, 27/08/2010
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/breakingnews/harper-says-choice-in-next-election-is-tory-majority-or-opposition-coaltion-101629833.html?commentConfirmed=y#comments
Stephen Harper’s northern renaissance, John Ibbitson,
Globe and Mail, Aug. 27, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/john-ibbitson/stephen-harpers-northern-renaissance/article1686928/ Tab 52
Stephen Harper on the ATV - think: Stockwell Day and Jet Ski.
Everything does Stephen Harper is hyper-partizan.
You betcha his 'holiday' in the North is for partizan, political purposes and the million(s) spent on the military exercises was to provide a backdrop for a Harper photo-op. Harper has no qualms about spending billion(s) of our hard earned taxes in a two day photo-op in Toronto, a million seems like boy scouts.
It is beyond credibility that the Russians planes that came within 30 kl Canadian air space and met by 2 F-18's is justification for spending 16 billion on 65 F-35's as apparently offered up for Canadian consumption by Harper's press spokesman, Dimitri Soudas. (Compare: "At no time did the Russian military aircraft enter Canadian or U.S. sovereign airspace," said NORAD's statement. "Both Russia and NORAD routinely exercise their capability to operate in the north. These exercises are important to both NORAD and Russia and are not cause for alarm."Ottawacitizen)
These Russian aircraft obviously had no intention of entering Canadian air space and, if they did, the F-18's were easily up to the task.
More likely they were Russian Paparazi looking for some footage of the Harper holiday - now, I see what Harper meant by making Canada an International player, a pic of the Canada PM riding a ATV on the front page of Pravda is nothing to shake a stick at, just ask Vladimir Putin.
Harper: "We're not going to win or lose an election in the North, . . .We're doing it because this is about nation-building, this is the frontier, this is the place that defines our country."
yah, 'Con Nation' building.
Harper doesn't specify just exactly what 'nation' or just exactly 'who' when he says 'our'.
Given Harper's career long ambition to tear Canada as a nation asunder, sounds like code for his right-wing, extremist, die-hard supporters with epi-centre in Alberta, for an Alberta - North West Territories nation.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
submitted: 9:54am, PDT, 28 Aug.'10
Nation-building, not politics, behind week-long Arctic tour: Harper, Stephanie Levitz, The Canadian Press, 27/08/2010
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/breakingnews/harper-says-choice-in-next-election-is-tory-majority-or-opposition-coaltion-101629833.html?commentConfirmed=y#comments
26 August, 2010
- Is There A Tory In The House!
Submitted: 8/26/2010 12:44:37 PM The Globe and Mail
Is there an old-style Tory in the House?, Lawrence Martin, Globe and Mail, Aug. 26, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/is-there-an-old-style-tory-in-the-house/article1685364/
One of the big problems is of perception.
People continually confuse the current Conservative Party of Canada with the Progressive Conservative Party, even to the point of calling them 'Tory'. This has been especially propagated in the media.
The fact of the matter is that The Conservative Party of Canada is not the Progressive Conservative Party.
The Con's and not the Tories. It is not a question of 'old-style' v. 'new-style'. They are very different beasts. Although the Con's I am sure are quite pleased and make very little effort to dispel the confusion.
Substantively, one of the big differences is that Stephen Harper and the Con's, are dedicated to tearing this great nation we are proud to call Canada apart. Harper has dedicated a greater % of his public career to this end than Ignatieff has spent outside Canada.
Harper's support consists of a core die-hard, right-wing extremists with epi-centred in Alberta. They are the ones keeping him in power and they are the ones that Harper caters to. As long as the Harper policies do not consolidate the opposition then Harper can take the position 'Canadians be d[redacted]'.
The Tories, on the other hand, have a long and proud history of contributing to build this great nation of ours. They may be right of centre but underlying there policies has always been the good of the country as a whole.
The Conservative Party of Canada does not have a long and proud history and what history they do have, as pointed out in the article, is not anything I would expect someone would be proud - vis.:
Peter MacKay won the leadership of the PC Party as a result of a back-room deal with David Orchard. According to Wikipedia "it was eventually revealed that the infamous 'Orchard deal' promised . . . no merger or joint candidates with the Canadian Alliance, and a promise to redouble efforts to rebuild the national status of the Progressive Conservative Party' (31 May '03)
On 15 Oct.'03 MacKay and the PC announce they will form a new party with the Alliance.
"In December 2003, the Canadian Alliance and the Progressive Conservative parties voted to disband and merge into the Conservative Party of Canada." (Wikipedia)
That is not a name change or any kind of attempt to continue the long and proud tradition of the PC party.
However, it is us, all Canadians, that must take responsibility. It is our country, not Harper's and not a small group of right-wing extremists.
We must consider the impact of all the Harper Policies on our Nation and the Legacy we leave to our children and our children's children to prevent Harper from tearing asunder what has been built thru the blood sweat and tears of our 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.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Is there an old-style Tory in the House?, Lawrence Martin, Globe and Mail, Aug. 26, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/is-there-an-old-style-tory-in-the-house/article1685364/
One of the big problems is of perception.
People continually confuse the current Conservative Party of Canada with the Progressive Conservative Party, even to the point of calling them 'Tory'. This has been especially propagated in the media.
The fact of the matter is that The Conservative Party of Canada is not the Progressive Conservative Party.
The Con's and not the Tories. It is not a question of 'old-style' v. 'new-style'. They are very different beasts. Although the Con's I am sure are quite pleased and make very little effort to dispel the confusion.
Substantively, one of the big differences is that Stephen Harper and the Con's, are dedicated to tearing this great nation we are proud to call Canada apart. Harper has dedicated a greater % of his public career to this end than Ignatieff has spent outside Canada.
Harper's support consists of a core die-hard, right-wing extremists with epi-centred in Alberta. They are the ones keeping him in power and they are the ones that Harper caters to. As long as the Harper policies do not consolidate the opposition then Harper can take the position 'Canadians be d[redacted]'.
The Tories, on the other hand, have a long and proud history of contributing to build this great nation of ours. They may be right of centre but underlying there policies has always been the good of the country as a whole.
The Conservative Party of Canada does not have a long and proud history and what history they do have, as pointed out in the article, is not anything I would expect someone would be proud - vis.:
Peter MacKay won the leadership of the PC Party as a result of a back-room deal with David Orchard. According to Wikipedia "it was eventually revealed that the infamous 'Orchard deal' promised . . . no merger or joint candidates with the Canadian Alliance, and a promise to redouble efforts to rebuild the national status of the Progressive Conservative Party' (31 May '03)
On 15 Oct.'03 MacKay and the PC announce they will form a new party with the Alliance.
"In December 2003, the Canadian Alliance and the Progressive Conservative parties voted to disband and merge into the Conservative Party of Canada." (Wikipedia)
That is not a name change or any kind of attempt to continue the long and proud tradition of the PC party.
However, it is us, all Canadians, that must take responsibility. It is our country, not Harper's and not a small group of right-wing extremists.
We must consider the impact of all the Harper Policies on our Nation and the Legacy we leave to our children and our children's children to prevent Harper from tearing asunder what has been built thru the blood sweat and tears of our 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.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
25 August, 2010
- Hey Big Spender, why don't you spend a little time with us - Explaining the 16B for 65 F35's - continued
Posted: 8/25/2010 10:43:42 AM Globe and Mail
continued . . .
"MacKay said the new fighter aircraft was needed to meet the 'increasingly complex demands' facing Canada’s air force." (Toronto Star)
Excuse me for asking, but, Mr. MacKay, just exactly what are these “increasingly complex demands” you are talking about.
Just exactly what do you have in mind for Canada's armed forces that we would need such state of the art equipment.
"Lt.-Gen. André Deschamps, who heads the air force, 'This marks a huge step forward in the air force’s capability'" (IBID)
And the reason we need to spend 16 billion to get this huge increase in the air force's capabilities, is . . .???
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
continued . . .
"MacKay said the new fighter aircraft was needed to meet the 'increasingly complex demands' facing Canada’s air force." (Toronto Star)
Excuse me for asking, but, Mr. MacKay, just exactly what are these “increasingly complex demands” you are talking about.
Just exactly what do you have in mind for Canada's armed forces that we would need such state of the art equipment.
"Lt.-Gen. André Deschamps, who heads the air force, 'This marks a huge step forward in the air force’s capability'" (IBID)
And the reason we need to spend 16 billion to get this huge increase in the air force's capabilities, is . . .???
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- Hey Big Spender, why don't you spend a little time with us - Explaining the 16B for 65 F35's
Posted: 8/25/2010 10:38:15 AM The Globe and Mail
Critics set to launch new attacks on untendered deal to buy fighter jets, Daniel Leblanc, Globe and Mail, Aug. 25, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/critics-set-to-launch-new-attacks-on-f-35-deal/article1684112/
16 billion for 'future generation' fighter jets? . . .
Mr. Stephen Harper, how about 'future generation' Canadians.
Peter MacKay presented the procurement in Parliament as "eye-watering technology"
(and this is in Hansard) . . .
Hey Peter how about the 'eye-watering' costs.
"Asked at a news conference last month for 'specific examples of the uses of these aircraft,' MacKay mostly focused on what a great recruiting device they make.
'[I]t helps a great deal, I can assure you, in recruiting, to have new gear, new equipment, that is state of the art,' MacKay said."(Toronto Star)
If it is all the latest 'eye watering' gadgets MacKay wants to equip our troops with, make DS's standard issue - although the cost of the games may rack up a billion or two as anyone with kids will know, this should reduce the 'eye-watering' bills for these toys.
"MacKay said the new fighter aircraft was needed to meet the 'increasingly complex demands' facing Canada’s air force."
Excuse me for asking, but, Mr. MacKay, just exactly what are these “increasingly complex demands” you are talking about. Just exactly what do you have in mind for Canada's armed forces that we would need such state of the art equipment.
"Lt.-Gen. André Deschamps, who heads the air force, 'This marks a huge step forward in the air force’s capability'"
And the reason we need to spend 16 billion to get this huge increase in the air force's capabilities, is . . .???
As Laurie Hawk, sorry Hawn (slip of the pen), pointed out: "Alberta and Cold Lake will certainly figure prominently in the life of the F-35," (The Ottawa Citizen)
I guess there is some kind of logic (of the political, partizan kind) behind it, after all, the money is from all the revenues flowing from Alberta to the Canadian Federal purse due to their oil and gas; and, Alberta is the reason Harper is in power.
As long as the Harper policies do not consolidate the opposition then Harper can take the position 'Canadians be d[redacted]'.
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.
We must prevent leaving for future generations a debt burden that is so crippling that the economy collapses into third world oblivion like almost happened with Mulroney.
Let not our legacy be a bitter resentment that we were ever given a turn at the helm.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Critics set to launch new attacks on untendered deal to buy fighter jets, Daniel Leblanc, Globe and Mail, Aug. 25, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/critics-set-to-launch-new-attacks-on-f-35-deal/article1684112/
16 billion for 'future generation' fighter jets? . . .
Mr. Stephen Harper, how about 'future generation' Canadians.
Peter MacKay presented the procurement in Parliament as "eye-watering technology"
(and this is in Hansard) . . .
Hey Peter how about the 'eye-watering' costs.
"Asked at a news conference last month for 'specific examples of the uses of these aircraft,' MacKay mostly focused on what a great recruiting device they make.
'[I]t helps a great deal, I can assure you, in recruiting, to have new gear, new equipment, that is state of the art,' MacKay said."(Toronto Star)
If it is all the latest 'eye watering' gadgets MacKay wants to equip our troops with, make DS's standard issue - although the cost of the games may rack up a billion or two as anyone with kids will know, this should reduce the 'eye-watering' bills for these toys.
"MacKay said the new fighter aircraft was needed to meet the 'increasingly complex demands' facing Canada’s air force."
Excuse me for asking, but, Mr. MacKay, just exactly what are these “increasingly complex demands” you are talking about. Just exactly what do you have in mind for Canada's armed forces that we would need such state of the art equipment.
"Lt.-Gen. André Deschamps, who heads the air force, 'This marks a huge step forward in the air force’s capability'"
And the reason we need to spend 16 billion to get this huge increase in the air force's capabilities, is . . .???
As Laurie Hawk, sorry Hawn (slip of the pen), pointed out: "Alberta and Cold Lake will certainly figure prominently in the life of the F-35," (The Ottawa Citizen)
I guess there is some kind of logic (of the political, partizan kind) behind it, after all, the money is from all the revenues flowing from Alberta to the Canadian Federal purse due to their oil and gas; and, Alberta is the reason Harper is in power.
As long as the Harper policies do not consolidate the opposition then Harper can take the position 'Canadians be d[redacted]'.
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.
We must prevent leaving for future generations a debt burden that is so crippling that the economy collapses into third world oblivion like almost happened with Mulroney.
Let not our legacy be a bitter resentment that we were ever given a turn at the helm.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
24 August, 2010
- Stephen Harper, Where's the Report
Submitted: 7:03am, PDT, 24 Aug.'10 CBC News
Re-submitted: 2:50pm, PDT, 24 Aug.'10 CBC News
Re-Re-submitted: 4:39pm, PDT, 24 Aug.'10 CBC News (go figure)
Police chiefs endorse long-gun registry, August 24, 2010, CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/08/23/gun-registry-police-chiefs.html
I thought that Cheliak was going to release the '09 Report on the Gun registry. You, know, the '09 version of the one that somehow didn't get released by the Harper government until 2 days after the vote last year - vis.:
"The email trail shows the 2008 firearms report was received on Sept. 18, [2009] but 'apparently reviewed by the office of the liaison to the minister for some time. The minister's office is now saying that because they did not receive the report until Oct. 9, they have until Nov. 6 to table it' [2 days after the vote, 4 Nov.'09].
The 2008 report was a largely positive review of the gun control program, and confirmed growing police use of the gun registry database. The 2009 numbers are even more pronounced. " (Toronto Star)
Don't tell me that it is somehow going to get lost in the shuffle. Or, perhaps the new guy taking Cheliak's place will have to review it before it is released and so it will be pushed back to say, 24 Sep (2 days after the next vote on the private member's bill).
The big surprise is that the media doesn't seem to be giving the Report and the delay in its release any attention.
Come on Media: shine that light into dark corners of government and assist the process of holding governments accountable. Let it shine, shine, shine, shine, shine
excerpt: comments Lloyd MacILquham cicblog
Re-submitted: 2:50pm, PDT, 24 Aug.'10 CBC News
Re-Re-submitted: 4:39pm, PDT, 24 Aug.'10 CBC News (go figure)
Police chiefs endorse long-gun registry, August 24, 2010, CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/08/23/gun-registry-police-chiefs.html
I thought that Cheliak was going to release the '09 Report on the Gun registry. You, know, the '09 version of the one that somehow didn't get released by the Harper government until 2 days after the vote last year - vis.:
"The email trail shows the 2008 firearms report was received on Sept. 18, [2009] but 'apparently reviewed by the office of the liaison to the minister for some time. The minister's office is now saying that because they did not receive the report until Oct. 9, they have until Nov. 6 to table it' [2 days after the vote, 4 Nov.'09].
The 2008 report was a largely positive review of the gun control program, and confirmed growing police use of the gun registry database. The 2009 numbers are even more pronounced. " (Toronto Star)
Don't tell me that it is somehow going to get lost in the shuffle. Or, perhaps the new guy taking Cheliak's place will have to review it before it is released and so it will be pushed back to say, 24 Sep (2 days after the next vote on the private member's bill).
The big surprise is that the media doesn't seem to be giving the Report and the delay in its release any attention.
Come on Media: shine that light into dark corners of government and assist the process of holding governments accountable. Let it shine, shine, shine, shine, shine
excerpt: comments Lloyd MacILquham cicblog
23 August, 2010
- Harplet, "To release or not to release – that is the question:"
Submitted: 7:48am, 23 Aug.'10, CBC News
Gun program head's ouster not political: Elliott, RCMP chief says it's 'fairly self-evident' senior Mounties trying to push him out, CBC News, August 20, 2010
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/08/20/rcmp-elliott-long-gun-registry.html
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous criticisms
Or to take arms against a sea of opposition
And, by suppressing the Report, end it.
[take-off from Shakespeare's Hamlet, of course]
"'There is not one iota of truth in that,' [RCMP Commissioner William] Elliott said. 'The media and others just made this up. It's not true, it's not true, it's not true.'
Before his quiet removal, Cheliak was set to unveil a major report before the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police at its annual general meeting in Edmonton and receive a president's award for his work on the long-gun registry."
It seems to me the litmus test on this one is:
Does this mean that the 'major Report' on the Gun Registry that Cheliak was going to release before the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police at its annual general meeting in Edmonton, will still be released at the same time, or at least well before the 22 September vote on the private member's gun registry vote.
This is, as opposed to say, 2 days after the vote, which, it seems, as I recall, happened in the last Report and vote on the same Bill - vis.: "The email trail shows the 2008 firearms report was received on Sept. 18, [2009] but 'apparently reviewed by the office of the liaison to the minister for some time. The minister's office is now saying that because they did not receive the report until Oct. 9, they have until Nov. 6 to table it' [2 days after the vote, 4 Nov.'09].
The 2008 report was a largely positive review of the gun control program, and confirmed growing police use of the gun registry database. The 2009 numbers are even more pronounced. " (Toronto Star)
I think that RCMP Commissioner William Elliott announcing that this Report, in toto, un-abridged, un-redacted, un-amended, un-edited, will be released to the general public well in advance of the vote on 22 September, and then so releasing it of course, would go a long way to underlining his statement "The media and others just made this [allegation of political interference by Stephen Harper and his Conservative Party] up. It's not true, it's not true, it's not true."
comments Lloyd MacILquham cicblog
Gun program head's ouster not political: Elliott, RCMP chief says it's 'fairly self-evident' senior Mounties trying to push him out, CBC News, August 20, 2010
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/08/20/rcmp-elliott-long-gun-registry.html
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous criticisms
Or to take arms against a sea of opposition
And, by suppressing the Report, end it.
[take-off from Shakespeare's Hamlet, of course]
"'There is not one iota of truth in that,' [RCMP Commissioner William] Elliott said. 'The media and others just made this up. It's not true, it's not true, it's not true.'
Before his quiet removal, Cheliak was set to unveil a major report before the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police at its annual general meeting in Edmonton and receive a president's award for his work on the long-gun registry."
It seems to me the litmus test on this one is:
Does this mean that the 'major Report' on the Gun Registry that Cheliak was going to release before the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police at its annual general meeting in Edmonton, will still be released at the same time, or at least well before the 22 September vote on the private member's gun registry vote.
This is, as opposed to say, 2 days after the vote, which, it seems, as I recall, happened in the last Report and vote on the same Bill - vis.: "The email trail shows the 2008 firearms report was received on Sept. 18, [2009] but 'apparently reviewed by the office of the liaison to the minister for some time. The minister's office is now saying that because they did not receive the report until Oct. 9, they have until Nov. 6 to table it' [2 days after the vote, 4 Nov.'09].
The 2008 report was a largely positive review of the gun control program, and confirmed growing police use of the gun registry database. The 2009 numbers are even more pronounced. " (Toronto Star)
I think that RCMP Commissioner William Elliott announcing that this Report, in toto, un-abridged, un-redacted, un-amended, un-edited, will be released to the general public well in advance of the vote on 22 September, and then so releasing it of course, would go a long way to underlining his statement "The media and others just made this [allegation of political interference by Stephen Harper and his Conservative Party] up. It's not true, it's not true, it's not true."
comments Lloyd MacILquham cicblog
22 August, 2010
- Harper's 'Right' Knight To The Rescue
Posted: 8/22/2010 11:35:51 AM, The Globe and Mail
om Flanagan, Globe and Mail, Aug. 20, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/should-we-just-shut-up-and-do-what-statistics-canada-tells-us-to-do/article1678999/ Tab 37
Flanagan is obfuscating the real issue here and given his connections to Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party, it seems to me likely deliberately and perhaps as part of his effort to the cause.
"The Conservative government was, indeed, wrong in the way it started the great census debate. Its reforms were not thought through, it should have consulted the user groups created through so many decades of providing cheap data, and it should have had a more coherent communications plan. (Any plan would have been an improvement.)"
Flanagan is, of course, correct here but he is watering down his original position to an incredible extent and one can only ask themselves why.
If I recall what Flanagan, at the start of all this, said was "I think it was an exercise in bad government to suddenly spring this on the public without any previous discussion, no consultation at all . . . You don't deal with the public that way in a democracy." (Montreal Gazette).
Flanagan asks "What’s worse than ill-advised political interference in public administration?"
The Answer really is: 'Exemption of the Harper government from political oversight'
This is not Statcan trying to break free and run amuck with our privacy.
This is all about Canadians finally starting to stand up and be heard regarding the manner in with Harper and his Con's are destroying our Canada and undermining our Democratic way of life.
If Flanagan's true objective were to fix something, the rational approach would be to suggest how the questions could be changes to improve the results. If it's one thing Flanagan knows it's polls and surveys.
The real issue Harper and the Con's in a very deliberate and inch-by-inch fashion surreptitiously destroying the very social fabric of Canada to establish their right-wing extremist ideology as well as dismantle Canadian federalism. He is doing it in a very anti-demoncratic fashion through the executive powers of the office of Prime Minister to corrupt and manipulate the Administrative Branch. Firing those at the top who oppose him, or simply are 100%'ers, is one method Harper is using, over and over. Installation of political appointments is another. Viscous attacks while avoiding the real issue is another. Controlling the message given by anyone under Harper control, including the civil service is another - referred to as the MEPs. Changing the rules is another. This was, apparently, at Flanagan's advise, as he revealed in his recent book. Getting rid of the Long Form in the census is a particularly insidious example of the above, since its true and far reaching effect is indirect.
Rather than using rationality to try to convince his readers that the Long Form is an example of bureaucracy at its worst, Flanagan try to connect on an emotional, non-rational basis by giving an example of a question that his portrays as silly or useless, or poorly crafted.
If his true objective were to fix something that he perceives needs fixing, the rational approach would be to suggest how the questions could be changes to improve the results. If it's one thing Flanagan knows it's polls and surveys.
If it is the potential risk to our privacy, perhaps Flanagan could explain why it is at any greater risk than the very extensive and intrusive information we are compelled to give to Revenue Canada, and other such.
If it is the potential criminal charges that is his concern, then simply suggest other methods. I think they should pay the people to fill the form out, after all StatsCan does sell the information and people use it to make money and we are in a Commerce based society. That is likely to get a better response than the threat of criminal sanctions.
Also, Flanagan should point out all the other places that abiding by the legislation is re-inforced by criminal sanctions. I can't wait to see Harper and the Con's get to dealing with each of these, one-by-one.
[There are approx 692 Federal Statutes with their corresponding sets of regulations (approx 3442). Generally each (statute and pursuant regulations, rules, etc) has provisions for criminal prosecution for failing to do something it requires be done or not doing something that would transgress the provisions of the legislation. This is besides the Canadian Criminal Code.
This makes an awful lot of opportunities to be thrown in jail. And from this 'criminal offence pool' I am very confident that there could be found many, many examples that, if brought to the attention of Canadians, would illicit the type of response that Tony Clement is giving to the Long Form. So why would Harper and the Con's be so firm on this one - it's all in the Ideology.
Next time you use a stamp to mail a letter keep in mind that:
Canada Post Corporation Act
Next time you use a penny to replace that blown fuse keep in mind you may be committing a criminal office (of course, you may have the defence of insanity available to you).
See my post: 28 July, 2010, - Stephen Harper: It's The Ideology, Stupid! ]
Also, Flanagan states as an example of how bad the current system is: "And Statistics Canada has no clear idea of the number of status Indians because 22 first nations refused full co-operation with the 2006 census". However, he fails to inform us of how many were prosecuted, thrown in jail or even received a fine - sound familiar - vis.: Tony Clement, Stockwell Day, and the other Con's.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
om Flanagan, Globe and Mail, Aug. 20, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/should-we-just-shut-up-and-do-what-statistics-canada-tells-us-to-do/article1678999/ Tab 37
Flanagan is obfuscating the real issue here and given his connections to Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party, it seems to me likely deliberately and perhaps as part of his effort to the cause.
"The Conservative government was, indeed, wrong in the way it started the great census debate. Its reforms were not thought through, it should have consulted the user groups created through so many decades of providing cheap data, and it should have had a more coherent communications plan. (Any plan would have been an improvement.)"
Flanagan is, of course, correct here but he is watering down his original position to an incredible extent and one can only ask themselves why.
If I recall what Flanagan, at the start of all this, said was "I think it was an exercise in bad government to suddenly spring this on the public without any previous discussion, no consultation at all . . . You don't deal with the public that way in a democracy." (Montreal Gazette).
Flanagan asks "What’s worse than ill-advised political interference in public administration?"
The Answer really is: 'Exemption of the Harper government from political oversight'
This is not Statcan trying to break free and run amuck with our privacy.
This is all about Canadians finally starting to stand up and be heard regarding the manner in with Harper and his Con's are destroying our Canada and undermining our Democratic way of life.
If Flanagan's true objective were to fix something, the rational approach would be to suggest how the questions could be changes to improve the results. If it's one thing Flanagan knows it's polls and surveys.
The real issue Harper and the Con's in a very deliberate and inch-by-inch fashion surreptitiously destroying the very social fabric of Canada to establish their right-wing extremist ideology as well as dismantle Canadian federalism. He is doing it in a very anti-demoncratic fashion through the executive powers of the office of Prime Minister to corrupt and manipulate the Administrative Branch. Firing those at the top who oppose him, or simply are 100%'ers, is one method Harper is using, over and over. Installation of political appointments is another. Viscous attacks while avoiding the real issue is another. Controlling the message given by anyone under Harper control, including the civil service is another - referred to as the MEPs. Changing the rules is another. This was, apparently, at Flanagan's advise, as he revealed in his recent book. Getting rid of the Long Form in the census is a particularly insidious example of the above, since its true and far reaching effect is indirect.
Rather than using rationality to try to convince his readers that the Long Form is an example of bureaucracy at its worst, Flanagan try to connect on an emotional, non-rational basis by giving an example of a question that his portrays as silly or useless, or poorly crafted.
If his true objective were to fix something that he perceives needs fixing, the rational approach would be to suggest how the questions could be changes to improve the results. If it's one thing Flanagan knows it's polls and surveys.
If it is the potential risk to our privacy, perhaps Flanagan could explain why it is at any greater risk than the very extensive and intrusive information we are compelled to give to Revenue Canada, and other such.
If it is the potential criminal charges that is his concern, then simply suggest other methods. I think they should pay the people to fill the form out, after all StatsCan does sell the information and people use it to make money and we are in a Commerce based society. That is likely to get a better response than the threat of criminal sanctions.
Also, Flanagan should point out all the other places that abiding by the legislation is re-inforced by criminal sanctions. I can't wait to see Harper and the Con's get to dealing with each of these, one-by-one.
[There are approx 692 Federal Statutes with their corresponding sets of regulations (approx 3442). Generally each (statute and pursuant regulations, rules, etc) has provisions for criminal prosecution for failing to do something it requires be done or not doing something that would transgress the provisions of the legislation. This is besides the Canadian Criminal Code.
This makes an awful lot of opportunities to be thrown in jail. And from this 'criminal offence pool' I am very confident that there could be found many, many examples that, if brought to the attention of Canadians, would illicit the type of response that Tony Clement is giving to the Long Form. So why would Harper and the Con's be so firm on this one - it's all in the Ideology.
Next time you use a stamp to mail a letter keep in mind that:
Canada Post Corporation Act
Next time you use a penny to replace that blown fuse keep in mind you may be committing a criminal office (of course, you may have the defence of insanity available to you).
See my post: 28 July, 2010, - Stephen Harper: It's The Ideology, Stupid! ]
Also, Flanagan states as an example of how bad the current system is: "And Statistics Canada has no clear idea of the number of status Indians because 22 first nations refused full co-operation with the 2006 census". However, he fails to inform us of how many were prosecuted, thrown in jail or even received a fine - sound familiar - vis.: Tony Clement, Stockwell Day, and the other Con's.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
19 August, 2010
- Hi Ekos Politics, Poll Me This . . .
Submitted: August 19th, 2010 at 11:10 am
tories claw back small lead - august 19, 2010
defecting university educated voters propel grits into a much more competitive race, August 19, 2010
http://www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2010/08/tories-claw-back-small-lead-august-19-2010/#comment-10077
Click here for the full_report_august_19
http://www.ekospolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/full_report_august_19.pdf
Hi Ekos Politics,
I have a few questions
- What about undecideds? I find that these numbers are generally left out, except some polls give result for second choice.
Your Detailed Table: National Federal Vote Intention: August 11 - 17 (week 2), at p. 8, seems to suggest that these results are only amongst decided voters (support for the parties ads up to 99.9%, not 100% presumably due to rounding). Am I reading this wrong and if not why do it this way.
How can we make any kind of analysis of voter trends without these numbers. You may have them in your full 17 page report but I don't have time to read it so carefully. Perhaps in your press releases, summaries and tables, you could set them out as well.
- If 50.4% feel the country is going in the right direction and 44% feel the government is going in the right direction, why would the Con's get only 32.5% for voter intention? Do you any suggestions as to what this is all about and why this is happening.
- The results for Ontario are essentially identical, not just statistically, as the results nationally, except for the Lib's and the Block. Is this just a co-incidence, a result of the poll design, or a reflection of actual voter intentions, or otherwise?
Also, your margins of error for all the other regions are double that for Ont & Que, where these two are within the normal margins of error for these types of polls. It seems your poll is very heavily weighted to Ontario and Quebec.
Why do you do this, especially given the perceived East-West schism? I understand that the pop of Ontario is so large that it has big influence on the result but is it really that pronounced and given this why allow the big difference in margins of error.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
wlloydm@hotmail.com
tories claw back small lead - august 19, 2010
defecting university educated voters propel grits into a much more competitive race, August 19, 2010
http://www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2010/08/tories-claw-back-small-lead-august-19-2010/#comment-10077
Click here for the full_report_august_19
http://www.ekospolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/full_report_august_19.pdf
Hi Ekos Politics,
I have a few questions
- What about undecideds? I find that these numbers are generally left out, except some polls give result for second choice.
Your Detailed Table: National Federal Vote Intention: August 11 - 17 (week 2), at p. 8, seems to suggest that these results are only amongst decided voters (support for the parties ads up to 99.9%, not 100% presumably due to rounding). Am I reading this wrong and if not why do it this way.
How can we make any kind of analysis of voter trends without these numbers. You may have them in your full 17 page report but I don't have time to read it so carefully. Perhaps in your press releases, summaries and tables, you could set them out as well.
- If 50.4% feel the country is going in the right direction and 44% feel the government is going in the right direction, why would the Con's get only 32.5% for voter intention? Do you any suggestions as to what this is all about and why this is happening.
- The results for Ontario are essentially identical, not just statistically, as the results nationally, except for the Lib's and the Block. Is this just a co-incidence, a result of the poll design, or a reflection of actual voter intentions, or otherwise?
Also, your margins of error for all the other regions are double that for Ont & Que, where these two are within the normal margins of error for these types of polls. It seems your poll is very heavily weighted to Ontario and Quebec.
Why do you do this, especially given the perceived East-West schism? I understand that the pop of Ontario is so large that it has big influence on the result but is it really that pronounced and given this why allow the big difference in margins of error.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
wlloydm@hotmail.com
18 August, 2010
- Confucius say: "If it looks like a Con and smells like a Con, it's likely a Con"
Submitted: 8:14am, PDT, 18 Aug.'10 CBC News
Federal gun program head ousted, CBC News, August 17, 2010
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/08/17/long-gun-registry-cheliak.html
"'I question why he's been transferred and who has made this decision to transfer him,' said Charles Momy, president of the Canadian Police Association. 'But it seems interesting that all of a sudden this transfer occurs when we know the vote is coming on this bill'.
. . .
CBC's Brian Stewart reported that Cheliak was set to unveil a major report before the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police at their annual general meeting in Edmonton and get a president's award for his work on the long-gun registry."
Confucius say: "If it looks like a Con and smells like a Con, it's likely a Con" (well he might if he were able to take a look at what Harper and the Con's are doing).
What is it with Harper and the Con's and reports on the long gun registry. The article doesn't mention what will happen to this 'major report'. Don't tell me that its release will be delayed by a month, or so - I'm getting déjà vu here - till after any vote on the Private Member's Bill (C-391) on 22 Sep. Wasn't that the Con on the first vote.
"Access to Information has revealed that the then-public safety minister Peter Van Loan sat on the RCMP report on the Gun registry until after the vote. The paper trail shows that the Report was received by him on 18 September. It ought to have been released in 15 sitting days but was help up by Van Loan until 6 November, after the vote. Van Loan response, we had the Report 'for several days'."
(posted to cicblog: 22 February, 2010)
Compare:
Tories sniped at firearm data Challenges held up RCMP report backing long-gun registry until after key Commons vote, Kevin Frayer, Feb 22 2010
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/769298--tories-sniped-at-firearm-data
"The email trail shows the 2008 firearms report was received on Sept. 18, [2009,] but "apparently reviewed by the office of the liaison to the minister for some time. The minister's office is now saying that because they did not receive the report until Oct. 9, they have until Nov. 6 to table it [2 days after the vote, 4 Nov.'09]."
The 2008 report was a largely positive review of the gun control program, and confirmed growing police use of the gun registry database. The 2009 numbers are even more pronounced. "
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Federal gun program head ousted, CBC News, August 17, 2010
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/08/17/long-gun-registry-cheliak.html
"'I question why he's been transferred and who has made this decision to transfer him,' said Charles Momy, president of the Canadian Police Association. 'But it seems interesting that all of a sudden this transfer occurs when we know the vote is coming on this bill'.
. . .
CBC's Brian Stewart reported that Cheliak was set to unveil a major report before the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police at their annual general meeting in Edmonton and get a president's award for his work on the long-gun registry."
Confucius say: "If it looks like a Con and smells like a Con, it's likely a Con" (well he might if he were able to take a look at what Harper and the Con's are doing).
What is it with Harper and the Con's and reports on the long gun registry. The article doesn't mention what will happen to this 'major report'. Don't tell me that its release will be delayed by a month, or so - I'm getting déjà vu here - till after any vote on the Private Member's Bill (C-391) on 22 Sep. Wasn't that the Con on the first vote.
"Access to Information has revealed that the then-public safety minister Peter Van Loan sat on the RCMP report on the Gun registry until after the vote. The paper trail shows that the Report was received by him on 18 September. It ought to have been released in 15 sitting days but was help up by Van Loan until 6 November, after the vote. Van Loan response, we had the Report 'for several days'."
(posted to cicblog: 22 February, 2010)
Compare:
Tories sniped at firearm data Challenges held up RCMP report backing long-gun registry until after key Commons vote, Kevin Frayer, Feb 22 2010
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/769298--tories-sniped-at-firearm-data
"The email trail shows the 2008 firearms report was received on Sept. 18, [2009,] but "apparently reviewed by the office of the liaison to the minister for some time. The minister's office is now saying that because they did not receive the report until Oct. 9, they have until Nov. 6 to table it [2 days after the vote, 4 Nov.'09]."
The 2008 report was a largely positive review of the gun control program, and confirmed growing police use of the gun registry database. The 2009 numbers are even more pronounced. "
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
17 August, 2010
- Poll Indicates That Harper Die-Hards Support Harper - Now that sounds about Right!
Posted: 8/17/2010 11:40:25 AM
Should Tories, Liberals and New Democrats just give up on Quebec? Jane Taber, August 16, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/should-tories-liberals-and-new-democrats-give-up-on-quebec/article1674396/ Tab 62
"The results show, too, that 50 per cent opposed the government’s decision to do away with it while 35 per cent supported the government’s decision. "
The results of this poll are very interesting.
35% support Harper's decisions to get rid of the Long Form in the census.
However, 31% think Harper should stick by his decisions to get rid of it.
And, 24% agree with Harper that it is intrusive and Canadians should not be forced to answer it.
My initial reaction is that what we are experiencing here is something like the levels in Dante's Inferno - concentric circles, decreasing in size, of increasing dedication until you reach the absolute bottom, (where Harper and his minions sit - to carry out the allusions to its logical conclusion) of the degrees of commitment to Harper and the Conservative Party.
The above indicates that there are die-hards and then there are dei-harders and finally at the bottom, the core of core's.
That there would be 35% supporting Harper's decision and 31% think Harper should stick by his decision to get rid of the Long Form is not surprising at all.
Generally, Harper and the Con's have a core of die-hard, right wing extremists, epi-centred in Alberta, of 33% that are the reason Harper is running this great nation of ours.
With their support Harper can introduce pretty much anything he wants that furthers his Con agenda and benefits his core support, to the detriment of Canada and Canadians as a whole. He will not lose the die-hards and perhaps even attract a few others hear and there - who knows even get a majority.
As long as the Harper policies do not consolidate the opposition then Harper can take the position 'Canadians be d[redacted]'.
However, other results of the Poll seems to suggest that support for, and opposition to Harper's move, is not exactly along Party lines, especially for the Con supporters.
"Clear majorities of respondents who voted for the Bloc Québécois (74%), the Liberal Party (73%), the Green Party (68%) and the New Democratic Party (NDP) (55%) in the 2008 federal election oppose the government's decision to scrap the mandatory long form census. Conversely, almost three-in-five Conservative Party voters (57%) agree with the decision."
"Hostility Towards Census Changes Remains the Norm in Canada No signs of controversy dying down, as a majority of Canadians continue to call on the federal government to back down.", Angus Reid, Aug. 16, 2010,
http://www.visioncritical.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/2010.08.16_Census_CAN.pdf
It is very difficult to analyze the results as presented since for example, which level of the Inferno does "agree with the decision fall into", is it "support", "stick by his decisions", "feel it is intrusive". Or, is it a new level - then, how far done into the Inferno is it.
I think there may have been a problem with the questioning in this Poll which may be distorting the results. Or, there may be results that resolve the concerns which are not being releases (sometimes, non-committed, etc., play a part). Also, if it is an on line survey then what checks and balances does it have to ensure accurate results, given Harper's negativity to sound statistic research, and his desire to demonstrate support for his move to eliminate the Long Form form the Census.
Also, what about the 43% Con's that did not say they agreed with the Harper move. What about all those that didn't vote Con but support/agree with/ the Harper move.
These results appear to account for only 20 points of the 33 points die-hard Harper supporters and so, 15 points are people that didn't vote Con but agree with the decision. Now that is interesting.
I would suggest that the 31% that say Harper should stick by the decision is a manifestation of the die-hard core (within the margin of errors and being the Summer time and all). What that suggest is that there are 13 points of die-hards that do not agree with the decision but want Harper to stick by it. Now that sounds about Right! Although I suspect the margin is actually wider.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Should Tories, Liberals and New Democrats just give up on Quebec? Jane Taber, August 16, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/should-tories-liberals-and-new-democrats-give-up-on-quebec/article1674396/ Tab 62
"The results show, too, that 50 per cent opposed the government’s decision to do away with it while 35 per cent supported the government’s decision. "
The results of this poll are very interesting.
35% support Harper's decisions to get rid of the Long Form in the census.
However, 31% think Harper should stick by his decisions to get rid of it.
And, 24% agree with Harper that it is intrusive and Canadians should not be forced to answer it.
My initial reaction is that what we are experiencing here is something like the levels in Dante's Inferno - concentric circles, decreasing in size, of increasing dedication until you reach the absolute bottom, (where Harper and his minions sit - to carry out the allusions to its logical conclusion) of the degrees of commitment to Harper and the Conservative Party.
The above indicates that there are die-hards and then there are dei-harders and finally at the bottom, the core of core's.
That there would be 35% supporting Harper's decision and 31% think Harper should stick by his decision to get rid of the Long Form is not surprising at all.
Generally, Harper and the Con's have a core of die-hard, right wing extremists, epi-centred in Alberta, of 33% that are the reason Harper is running this great nation of ours.
With their support Harper can introduce pretty much anything he wants that furthers his Con agenda and benefits his core support, to the detriment of Canada and Canadians as a whole. He will not lose the die-hards and perhaps even attract a few others hear and there - who knows even get a majority.
As long as the Harper policies do not consolidate the opposition then Harper can take the position 'Canadians be d[redacted]'.
However, other results of the Poll seems to suggest that support for, and opposition to Harper's move, is not exactly along Party lines, especially for the Con supporters.
"Clear majorities of respondents who voted for the Bloc Québécois (74%), the Liberal Party (73%), the Green Party (68%) and the New Democratic Party (NDP) (55%) in the 2008 federal election oppose the government's decision to scrap the mandatory long form census. Conversely, almost three-in-five Conservative Party voters (57%) agree with the decision."
"Hostility Towards Census Changes Remains the Norm in Canada No signs of controversy dying down, as a majority of Canadians continue to call on the federal government to back down.", Angus Reid, Aug. 16, 2010,
http://www.visioncritical.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/2010.08.16_Census_CAN.pdf
It is very difficult to analyze the results as presented since for example, which level of the Inferno does "agree with the decision fall into", is it "support", "stick by his decisions", "feel it is intrusive". Or, is it a new level - then, how far done into the Inferno is it.
I think there may have been a problem with the questioning in this Poll which may be distorting the results. Or, there may be results that resolve the concerns which are not being releases (sometimes, non-committed, etc., play a part). Also, if it is an on line survey then what checks and balances does it have to ensure accurate results, given Harper's negativity to sound statistic research, and his desire to demonstrate support for his move to eliminate the Long Form form the Census.
Also, what about the 43% Con's that did not say they agreed with the Harper move. What about all those that didn't vote Con but support/agree with/ the Harper move.
These results appear to account for only 20 points of the 33 points die-hard Harper supporters and so, 15 points are people that didn't vote Con but agree with the decision. Now that is interesting.
I would suggest that the 31% that say Harper should stick by the decision is a manifestation of the die-hard core (within the margin of errors and being the Summer time and all). What that suggest is that there are 13 points of die-hards that do not agree with the decision but want Harper to stick by it. Now that sounds about Right! Although I suspect the margin is actually wider.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
14 August, 2010
- James Travers, Turn on Your Light, Let It Shine, Shine, Shine, Shine, Shine
Submitted: 8:50am, PST, 14 Aug.'10
Travers: Liberals look on as Tories vandalize Canada, James Travers, Aug 14 2010
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/847738--travers-liberals-look-on-as-tories-vandalize-canada#comments
- James Travers, when you're right you're right (morally that is).
"Another is for Michael Ignatieff to screw Liberal courage to the sticking point and declare enough is enough.
. . .
Conservatives go too far when they trample widely shared Canadian values by twisting truth to fit narrow ideology."
This is almost the one year anniversary of Ignatieff's "enough is enough" and the backlash by Canadians.
It is not Ignatieff and the Liberals that must stand up be counted and say "enough is enough", it is the people of Canada, each and every one of us (except that 33% core die-hard supporters epi-centred in Alberta that are the reason Harper is able to tear this great country of ours asunder).
As long as these Harper polices do not consolidate the opposition then Harper and the Conservative party can take the position 'Canada be d[redacted]'.
If Canadians are not willing to give Harper the boot, the Liberals if they force an election run the risk of allowing Harper and the Con's to get a majority and if you think Harper is vandalizing Canada now, that's kid's stuff if he gets a majority.
Lloyd MacILquham
Travers: Liberals look on as Tories vandalize Canada, James Travers, Aug 14 2010
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/847738--travers-liberals-look-on-as-tories-vandalize-canada#comments
- James Travers, when you're right you're right (morally that is).
"Another is for Michael Ignatieff to screw Liberal courage to the sticking point and declare enough is enough.
. . .
Conservatives go too far when they trample widely shared Canadian values by twisting truth to fit narrow ideology."
This is almost the one year anniversary of Ignatieff's "enough is enough" and the backlash by Canadians.
It is not Ignatieff and the Liberals that must stand up be counted and say "enough is enough", it is the people of Canada, each and every one of us (except that 33% core die-hard supporters epi-centred in Alberta that are the reason Harper is able to tear this great country of ours asunder).
As long as these Harper polices do not consolidate the opposition then Harper and the Conservative party can take the position 'Canada be d[redacted]'.
If Canadians are not willing to give Harper the boot, the Liberals if they force an election run the risk of allowing Harper and the Con's to get a majority and if you think Harper is vandalizing Canada now, that's kid's stuff if he gets a majority.
Lloyd MacILquham
12 August, 2010
- Haroon Siddiqui, Turn on your Light, Let It shine, shine, shine, shine, shine
Siddiqui: Day, Clement expose Harper’s kingdom, Aug 12 2010
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/846793--day-and-clement-expose-harper-s-kingdom
Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party getting rid of the Long Form could violate International Treaties - interesting point.
The problem is that it is clear that Harper and the Con's simply don't care. With his refusal to bend unless forced to, unless the UN passed a Security Counsel Resolution to constitute a mission to enter Canada and liberate Canadians, I can't see it making much difference - except this may explain Harper spending 16 billion on 65 F-35's (at least it would give it some rationality, albeit twisted).
Throwing out numbers and asserting 'statistics' they fail to substantiate is only to present a facade of rationality based government, one that is for the good of all Canadian - in a word a 'Con'. To call them on it each time is a mug's game, they simply ignore the realities they are being confronted with and go to the next 'Con'.
All Harper polices are solely ideologically based, what furthers the cause, what benefits the small core of die-hard right wing extremists epi-centred in Alberta. These supporters do not require logic they will support Harper no matter what, as long as Harper leads the cause, that is.
In reality, for Harper and his Con's it's very much 'our way and the good of Canada and Canadians be damned'.
As long as the Harper policies do not consolidate the opposition then Harper can implement his ideological policies, whether they may violate International Treaties and Conventions, or not.
Throwing Harper out of power and putting another, non extremist, party in power, could not be so bad as to compel us to allow Harper to continue down the path he is taking us.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/846793--day-and-clement-expose-harper-s-kingdom
Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party getting rid of the Long Form could violate International Treaties - interesting point.
The problem is that it is clear that Harper and the Con's simply don't care. With his refusal to bend unless forced to, unless the UN passed a Security Counsel Resolution to constitute a mission to enter Canada and liberate Canadians, I can't see it making much difference - except this may explain Harper spending 16 billion on 65 F-35's (at least it would give it some rationality, albeit twisted).
Throwing out numbers and asserting 'statistics' they fail to substantiate is only to present a facade of rationality based government, one that is for the good of all Canadian - in a word a 'Con'. To call them on it each time is a mug's game, they simply ignore the realities they are being confronted with and go to the next 'Con'.
All Harper polices are solely ideologically based, what furthers the cause, what benefits the small core of die-hard right wing extremists epi-centred in Alberta. These supporters do not require logic they will support Harper no matter what, as long as Harper leads the cause, that is.
In reality, for Harper and his Con's it's very much 'our way and the good of Canada and Canadians be damned'.
As long as the Harper policies do not consolidate the opposition then Harper can implement his ideological policies, whether they may violate International Treaties and Conventions, or not.
Throwing Harper out of power and putting another, non extremist, party in power, could not be so bad as to compel us to allow Harper to continue down the path he is taking us.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog
11 August, 2010
- Roy Romanow, Turn on your Light, Let It shine, shine, shine, shine, shine
Posted: 8/11/2010 11:34:59 AM, the Globe and Mail
Web-exclusive commentary, Information must be Canada’s bedrock, Roy Romanow Canadian Press, Globe and Mail Update, Aug. 11, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/information-must-be-canadas-bedrock/article1668377/
"Information must be the bedrock on which we build public policy in areas that matter to Canadians. Trying to get a snapshot of our country with inaccurate and unreliable data is like using a camera without enough pixels. The blurrier the picture gets, the harder it becomes to recognize the face of our nation.
Roy Romanow is chair of the Canadian Index of Wellbeing’s advisory board and a former premier of Saskatchewan. "
Mr. Romanow, when you're right, you're right (morally that is).
Senators standing up and shining their, what can be quite bright, light on the dark corners of the Harper government without concern for their jobs is certainly a function that our Senators are in a unique position to fulfill - 'sober second thought' - now that's a catchy phrase.
This applies more generally: 'Information is the bedrock of democracy - of government by the people for the people'.
Harper and the Conservative government is neither by the people nor for the people.
Harper and the Con's have a core of die-hard, right wing extremists, epi-centred in Alberta, of 33% that are the reason Harper is running this great nation of ours.
With their support Harper can introduce pretty much anything he wants that furthers his Con agenda and benefits his core support, to the detriment of Canada and Canadians as a whole. He will not lose the die-hards and perhaps even attract a few others hear and there - who knows even get a majority.
As long as the Harper policies do not consolidate the opposition then Harper can take the position 'Canadians be d[redacted]'.
Perhaps StatsCan can analyze Harper's Long Form to confirming that he has spent a greater % of his public career bent on tearing Canada asunder than Ignatieff has spent his outside Canada. - that would be violating Harper's privacy, wouldn't it?, or is this something we ought to know of our PM.
Harper, and the Con's have a policy of hiding, refusing to release, obstructing, obscuring, distorting, and MEP'ing information in order to surreptitiously implement their right wing extremist ideology. Apparently Harper is extending personal privacy rights to running the very public job of running this country.
Liberal and comprehensive rights to access information, available to all, unobstructed and vigilantly exercised, is a cornerstone of modern, open and free, democracy, protecting all from a closed, secretive government intent on using the powers entrusted to them for their self interest and interests contrary to the will of the people. This assumes there is information to access, if you undermine the information then there is no fear in giving people access to it.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Web-exclusive commentary, Information must be Canada’s bedrock, Roy Romanow Canadian Press, Globe and Mail Update, Aug. 11, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/information-must-be-canadas-bedrock/article1668377/
"Information must be the bedrock on which we build public policy in areas that matter to Canadians. Trying to get a snapshot of our country with inaccurate and unreliable data is like using a camera without enough pixels. The blurrier the picture gets, the harder it becomes to recognize the face of our nation.
Roy Romanow is chair of the Canadian Index of Wellbeing’s advisory board and a former premier of Saskatchewan. "
Mr. Romanow, when you're right, you're right (morally that is).
Senators standing up and shining their, what can be quite bright, light on the dark corners of the Harper government without concern for their jobs is certainly a function that our Senators are in a unique position to fulfill - 'sober second thought' - now that's a catchy phrase.
This applies more generally: 'Information is the bedrock of democracy - of government by the people for the people'.
Harper and the Conservative government is neither by the people nor for the people.
Harper and the Con's have a core of die-hard, right wing extremists, epi-centred in Alberta, of 33% that are the reason Harper is running this great nation of ours.
With their support Harper can introduce pretty much anything he wants that furthers his Con agenda and benefits his core support, to the detriment of Canada and Canadians as a whole. He will not lose the die-hards and perhaps even attract a few others hear and there - who knows even get a majority.
As long as the Harper policies do not consolidate the opposition then Harper can take the position 'Canadians be d[redacted]'.
Perhaps StatsCan can analyze Harper's Long Form to confirming that he has spent a greater % of his public career bent on tearing Canada asunder than Ignatieff has spent his outside Canada. - that would be violating Harper's privacy, wouldn't it?, or is this something we ought to know of our PM.
Harper, and the Con's have a policy of hiding, refusing to release, obstructing, obscuring, distorting, and MEP'ing information in order to surreptitiously implement their right wing extremist ideology. Apparently Harper is extending personal privacy rights to running the very public job of running this country.
Liberal and comprehensive rights to access information, available to all, unobstructed and vigilantly exercised, is a cornerstone of modern, open and free, democracy, protecting all from a closed, secretive government intent on using the powers entrusted to them for their self interest and interests contrary to the will of the people. This assumes there is information to access, if you undermine the information then there is no fear in giving people access to it.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- Alec Bruce, Turn on your Light, Let It shine, shine, shine, shine, shine
Now cometh the strong men, Alec Bruce, August 11th, 2010
http://timestranscript.canadaeast.com/opinion/article/1171329
Bruce, when you're right you're right (morally that is).
"In the waning days of a long, hot summer, Canada is coming perilously close to that which its history, traditions and civic sensibilities utterly despise: a nation ruled by a smug, self-satisfied coterie of
partisan strong men whose coarse manipulation of facts and rational argument supplants intelligent debate and resists effective opposition."
(Alec Bruce, www.thebrucereport.com)
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
http://timestranscript.canadaeast.com/opinion/article/1171329
Bruce, when you're right you're right (morally that is).
"In the waning days of a long, hot summer, Canada is coming perilously close to that which its history, traditions and civic sensibilities utterly despise: a nation ruled by a smug, self-satisfied coterie of
partisan strong men whose coarse manipulation of facts and rational argument supplants intelligent debate and resists effective opposition."
(Alec Bruce, www.thebrucereport.com)
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
10 August, 2010
- McQuaig, Turn on your Light, Let It shine, shine, shine, shine, shine
McQuaig: F-35 jets are useless without war, Linda McQuaig, Aug 10 2010
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/845780--mcquaig-f-35-jets-are-useless-without-war
McQuaig, when you're right you're right (morally that is).
"What makes this purchase bizarre is how little use the jets will be, unless we’re waging all-out war.
. . .
Asked at a news conference last month for 'specific examples of the uses of these aircraft,' MacKay mostly focused on what a great recruiting device they make.
'[I]t helps a great deal, I can assure you, in recruiting, to have new gear, new equipment, that is state of the art,' MacKay said. 'That is a very important part of our regeneration of personnel and pilots in particular. So having that platform capacity is something that is of great importance to the continued growth of the Canadian Forces and the development of our pilots.'"
The Star did not allow posts to this article and besides they have refrained from posting my submissions the last few times. I thought they were good - go figure.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/845780--mcquaig-f-35-jets-are-useless-without-war
McQuaig, when you're right you're right (morally that is).
"What makes this purchase bizarre is how little use the jets will be, unless we’re waging all-out war.
. . .
Asked at a news conference last month for 'specific examples of the uses of these aircraft,' MacKay mostly focused on what a great recruiting device they make.
'[I]t helps a great deal, I can assure you, in recruiting, to have new gear, new equipment, that is state of the art,' MacKay said. 'That is a very important part of our regeneration of personnel and pilots in particular. So having that platform capacity is something that is of great importance to the continued growth of the Canadian Forces and the development of our pilots.'"
The Star did not allow posts to this article and besides they have refrained from posting my submissions the last few times. I thought they were good - go figure.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- Harper Die-Hards Rally Round the Con
Posted: 12:06 PM on August 10, 2010 the Calgary Herald
Tories, Liberals in near dead heat: Poll, Norma Greenaway, Postmedia News August 9, 2010,
http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Tories+Liberals+near+dead+heat+Poll/3378094/story.html
Stephen Harper and the Con's have a 33% (within the margin of error) core of die-hard, right wing extremist supporters, epi-centre in Alberta. The last Ekos Polls is the first time in a long time that suggests that this may have some cracks in it. More likely they got caught on holidays and have now rallied around the cause. (Caught in a disproportionate degree that is, perhaps they have a higher disposable income even in this recession, being in Alberta and all that, or they simply reduced their contributions to the Conservative Party for a month and so can afford holidays in higher proportions that say Liberals, NDP or Green.)
This core support is the important thing since they are the ones keeping Harper and the Con's in power.
With their support Harper can introduce pretty much anything he wants that furthers his Con agenda and benefits his core support, to the detriment of Canada and Canadians as a whole. He will not lose the die-hards and perhaps even attract a few others hear and there - who knows even get a majority.
As long as the Harper policies do not consolidate the opposition then Harper can take the position 'Canada be d[redacted]'.
This, of course, explains Harper polices regarding the Long Form census, mega-billion dollar spending on 65 F35 jets, the G8-20 conference, increases in prisons for unreported crime, etc.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Tories, Liberals in near dead heat: Poll, Norma Greenaway, Postmedia News August 9, 2010,
http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Tories+Liberals+near+dead+heat+Poll/3378094/story.html
Stephen Harper and the Con's have a 33% (within the margin of error) core of die-hard, right wing extremist supporters, epi-centre in Alberta. The last Ekos Polls is the first time in a long time that suggests that this may have some cracks in it. More likely they got caught on holidays and have now rallied around the cause. (Caught in a disproportionate degree that is, perhaps they have a higher disposable income even in this recession, being in Alberta and all that, or they simply reduced their contributions to the Conservative Party for a month and so can afford holidays in higher proportions that say Liberals, NDP or Green.)
This core support is the important thing since they are the ones keeping Harper and the Con's in power.
With their support Harper can introduce pretty much anything he wants that furthers his Con agenda and benefits his core support, to the detriment of Canada and Canadians as a whole. He will not lose the die-hards and perhaps even attract a few others hear and there - who knows even get a majority.
As long as the Harper policies do not consolidate the opposition then Harper can take the position 'Canada be d[redacted]'.
This, of course, explains Harper polices regarding the Long Form census, mega-billion dollar spending on 65 F35 jets, the G8-20 conference, increases in prisons for unreported crime, etc.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
09 August, 2010
- Harper? Some Explaining To Do? Am I Reading This Right!
Submitted: 8:15am, PDT, 9 Aug.'10 The Toronto Star
PM has some explaining to do, Toronto Star, August 09, 2010
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/article/845338--pm-has-some-explaining-to-do#comments
"But first he has some explaining to do. "
As long as the Harper policies do not consolidate the opposition then he doesn't have to answer these questions, in a rational fashion based on facts, anyway.
The core of die-hard, right wing extremist supporters, epicentre in Alberta, is the important thing since they are keeping Harper in power. They do not require logic.
"Harper may want to present himself to Canadians as a strong financial manager who has steered the economy to recovery."
Harper's approach to the economy is let Canada grow out of it. Oh yah, and this will take 6 years, and, hey, we better not change course or scuttle this 'recovery' (i.e. we must keep Harper in power for 6 more years).
The recent Conference Board report indicates if we throw overboard the bizarre F-35's purchases, insane spending on prisons and fanatical 15% reduction in corporate taxes we may be out of deficit years earlier (assuming that Harper will ever get us out of deficit given the extreme spending with free abandon to entrench their extreme right wing agenda) - i.e. if you want to get out of deficit - get rid of Harper.
Lloyd MacILquham
PM has some explaining to do, Toronto Star, August 09, 2010
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/article/845338--pm-has-some-explaining-to-do#comments
"But first he has some explaining to do. "
As long as the Harper policies do not consolidate the opposition then he doesn't have to answer these questions, in a rational fashion based on facts, anyway.
The core of die-hard, right wing extremist supporters, epicentre in Alberta, is the important thing since they are keeping Harper in power. They do not require logic.
"Harper may want to present himself to Canadians as a strong financial manager who has steered the economy to recovery."
Harper's approach to the economy is let Canada grow out of it. Oh yah, and this will take 6 years, and, hey, we better not change course or scuttle this 'recovery' (i.e. we must keep Harper in power for 6 more years).
The recent Conference Board report indicates if we throw overboard the bizarre F-35's purchases, insane spending on prisons and fanatical 15% reduction in corporate taxes we may be out of deficit years earlier (assuming that Harper will ever get us out of deficit given the extreme spending with free abandon to entrench their extreme right wing agenda) - i.e. if you want to get out of deficit - get rid of Harper.
Lloyd MacILquham
- Harper, off grid? You can bet'cha He's Been Planning Something Special for this Fall
Submitted: 7:23am, PDT, 9 Aug.'10 the Toronto Star
Hébert: Michael Ignatieff’s tour recasts his image, August 09, 2010, Chantal Hébert
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/845356--hebert-ignatieff-s-tour-recasts-his-image#article
"The four-way split in the opposition vote that acts as a damper on Liberal fortunes is not going to be resolved by a summer tour. But the Liberals can only maximize their votes in the next election if they are seen as the only realistic alternative to Stephen Harper and the Conservative party. At this point, they enjoy enough of a lead on the New Democrats to at least sustain that assertion."
As long as the Harper policies do not consolidate the opposition then Harper can take the position 'Canada be d[redacted]'.
The core of die-hard, right wing extremist supporters, epi-centre in Alberta, is the important thing since they are the ones keeping Harper and the Con's in power. These supporters do not require logic.
With their support Harper can introduce pretty much anything he wants that furthers his Con agenda and benefits his core support, to the detriment of Canada and Canadians as a whole. He will not lose the die-hards and perhaps even attract a few others hear and there - who knows even get a majority, God forbid.
This, of course, explains Harper polices regarding the Long Form census, mega-billion dollar spending on 65 F35 jets, the G8-20 conference, increases in prisons for unreported crime, etc.
The solution is give Harper and his Con's the boot, and now, before he reeks more havoc on Canadian society. And you can bet'cha he's got something special planned for this Fall
Lloyd MacILquham
Hébert: Michael Ignatieff’s tour recasts his image, August 09, 2010, Chantal Hébert
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/845356--hebert-ignatieff-s-tour-recasts-his-image#article
"The four-way split in the opposition vote that acts as a damper on Liberal fortunes is not going to be resolved by a summer tour. But the Liberals can only maximize their votes in the next election if they are seen as the only realistic alternative to Stephen Harper and the Conservative party. At this point, they enjoy enough of a lead on the New Democrats to at least sustain that assertion."
As long as the Harper policies do not consolidate the opposition then Harper can take the position 'Canada be d[redacted]'.
The core of die-hard, right wing extremist supporters, epi-centre in Alberta, is the important thing since they are the ones keeping Harper and the Con's in power. These supporters do not require logic.
With their support Harper can introduce pretty much anything he wants that furthers his Con agenda and benefits his core support, to the detriment of Canada and Canadians as a whole. He will not lose the die-hards and perhaps even attract a few others hear and there - who knows even get a majority, God forbid.
This, of course, explains Harper polices regarding the Long Form census, mega-billion dollar spending on 65 F35 jets, the G8-20 conference, increases in prisons for unreported crime, etc.
The solution is give Harper and his Con's the boot, and now, before he reeks more havoc on Canadian society. And you can bet'cha he's got something special planned for this Fall
Lloyd MacILquham
08 August, 2010
- Siddiqui, Turn on your Light, Let It shine, shine, shine, shine, shine
Submitted (4 parts): 9:00, 9:02, 9:04, 9:05 am, PDT, 8 Aug.'10 The Toronto Star - it was not posted - go figure!
Siddiqui: Harper’s Ottawa becomes Republican la-la land, Haroon Siddiqui, Aug 8 2010,
http://www.thestar.com/article/845013--siddiqui-harper-s-ottawa-becomes-republican-la-la-land
Siddiqui, When you're right, you're right (morally that is).
The indicators leave little doubt that Harper and the Con's are not simply in 'Republican la-la land'. Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party that is running Canada and making decisions that affect all Canadians get their marching orders, as they say, and political analysis, policy instructions, strategies and even tactics (not the least of which is viscous personal character assassinations of anyone that dares stand up to them and their obstruction and disruption of the proper functioning of Parliament) for implementing their extremist right wing ideology from the extremist conservative Republican elements in the US, either directly or indirectly. Ask Harper what good books (and/or essays, memos, reports, briefs, directives, etc) he read on his 'holidays'.
And as you point out the similarities between Harper regime and the GW Bush regime are too close that even a statistical analysis by a de-rationalized StatsCan could not help but conclude the same.
You are also right (morally) to point out that all Canadians should " wonder what [Stephen Harper] plans to slash and burn to get there", especially those living Ontario.
You are also right (morally) to point out the connection between the Harper gang and the Harris gang, and conclude: "If you thought Harris wreaked devastation on Ontario, Harper may have bigger plans — and on a national scale", although I would use the future tense.
There is no room for Ontario in their Canada.
The solution is give Harper and his Con's the boot, and now, before he reeks more havoc on Canadian society. And you can bet'cha he's got something special planned for this Fall.
I posted to my blog (cicblog) on 25 May:
"It's hard to imagine that Harris dreamed it up himself (reality check: Mike Harris, single handedly in the 90's - early 2000's laid waste the Ontario infrastructure with a, typical, extreme right-wing heavy hand, resulting in tragedies like Walkerton, Ipperwash. Sorry, it wasn't exactly single handedly, he did have help from Jim Flaherty, John Baird, Tony Clement, Peter Van Loan, Guy Giorno)."
"These policies of Harper and the Con's are directed exactly for the benefit of their core of die-hard, right wing extremist supporters, epi-centre in Alberta. These supporters do not require logic they will support Harper no matter what.
This core of die-hard Con support is the important thing since they are the ones keeping Harper and the Con's in power. With their support Harper can introduce pretty much anything he wants that furthers his Con agenda and benefits his core support, to the detriment of Canada and Canadians as a whole. He will not lose the die-hards and perhaps even attract a few others hear and there - who knows even get a majority, God forbid.
This applies as long as the opposition remains so polarized. This, of course, explains Harper polices regarding the Long Form census, mega-billion dollar spending on 65 F35 jets, the G8-20 conference, increases in prisons for unreported crime, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
As long as these polices do not consolidate the opposition then Harper can take the position 'Canada be d[redacted]'."
(see my post to cicblog 06 Aug)
The solution is give Harper and his Con's the boot, and now, before he reeks more havoc on Canadian society. And you can bet'cha he's got something special planned for this Fall.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Siddiqui: Harper’s Ottawa becomes Republican la-la land, Haroon Siddiqui, Aug 8 2010,
http://www.thestar.com/article/845013--siddiqui-harper-s-ottawa-becomes-republican-la-la-land
Siddiqui, When you're right, you're right (morally that is).
The indicators leave little doubt that Harper and the Con's are not simply in 'Republican la-la land'. Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party that is running Canada and making decisions that affect all Canadians get their marching orders, as they say, and political analysis, policy instructions, strategies and even tactics (not the least of which is viscous personal character assassinations of anyone that dares stand up to them and their obstruction and disruption of the proper functioning of Parliament) for implementing their extremist right wing ideology from the extremist conservative Republican elements in the US, either directly or indirectly. Ask Harper what good books (and/or essays, memos, reports, briefs, directives, etc) he read on his 'holidays'.
And as you point out the similarities between Harper regime and the GW Bush regime are too close that even a statistical analysis by a de-rationalized StatsCan could not help but conclude the same.
You are also right (morally) to point out that all Canadians should " wonder what [Stephen Harper] plans to slash and burn to get there", especially those living Ontario.
You are also right (morally) to point out the connection between the Harper gang and the Harris gang, and conclude: "If you thought Harris wreaked devastation on Ontario, Harper may have bigger plans — and on a national scale", although I would use the future tense.
There is no room for Ontario in their Canada.
The solution is give Harper and his Con's the boot, and now, before he reeks more havoc on Canadian society. And you can bet'cha he's got something special planned for this Fall.
I posted to my blog (cicblog) on 25 May:
"It's hard to imagine that Harris dreamed it up himself (reality check: Mike Harris, single handedly in the 90's - early 2000's laid waste the Ontario infrastructure with a, typical, extreme right-wing heavy hand, resulting in tragedies like Walkerton, Ipperwash. Sorry, it wasn't exactly single handedly, he did have help from Jim Flaherty, John Baird, Tony Clement, Peter Van Loan, Guy Giorno)."
"These policies of Harper and the Con's are directed exactly for the benefit of their core of die-hard, right wing extremist supporters, epi-centre in Alberta. These supporters do not require logic they will support Harper no matter what.
This core of die-hard Con support is the important thing since they are the ones keeping Harper and the Con's in power. With their support Harper can introduce pretty much anything he wants that furthers his Con agenda and benefits his core support, to the detriment of Canada and Canadians as a whole. He will not lose the die-hards and perhaps even attract a few others hear and there - who knows even get a majority, God forbid.
This applies as long as the opposition remains so polarized. This, of course, explains Harper polices regarding the Long Form census, mega-billion dollar spending on 65 F35 jets, the G8-20 conference, increases in prisons for unreported crime, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
As long as these polices do not consolidate the opposition then Harper can take the position 'Canada be d[redacted]'."
(see my post to cicblog 06 Aug)
The solution is give Harper and his Con's the boot, and now, before he reeks more havoc on Canadian society. And you can bet'cha he's got something special planned for this Fall.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
07 August, 2010
- FYI: Harper and His band of Con's Must Go
Submitted: 10:10 & 10:16am, PDT, 7 Aug.'10 The Winnipeg Free Press
There are statistics, then Tory statistics, by: Staff Writer, 7/08/2010
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/fyi/there-are-statistics-then-tory-statistics-100178469.html
Simply put, Stephen Harper and Stockwell Day, Tony Clement and the other Con's are not interested in the least what the statistics, or more generally, the fact, are.
All their polices and actions are solely ideologically based, what furthers the cause, what benefits the small core of die-hard right wing extremists epi-centred in Alberta. These supporters do not require logic they will support Harper no matter what, as long as Harper leads the cause, that is.
Throwing out numbers and asserting 'statistics' they fail to substantiate is only to present a facade of rationality based government, one that is for the good of all Canadian - in a word a 'Con'. To call them on it each time is a mug's game, they simply ignore the realities they are being confronted with and go to the next 'Con'.
In reality, for Harper and his Con's it's very much 'our way and the good of Canada and Canadians be damned'.
When you detach government policies from the underlying facts and base them on ideology, when your motivation is to further that ideology and not what is for the good of the country and all its people as a whole, you create an environment where politically based 'crimes' and politically based criminal charges, arrests and detentions, witch hunts, kangaroo courts, in a word using the criminal justice system as an instrument for further political objectives, can take root.
I have done refugee claims from many 'third world' countries over many years and have seen much of this kind of thing, enough to be very concerned and to understand the need to stem it at the beginning before it gets enough momentum as we slide down that slippery slope.
It is difficult to believe that this kind of thing could happen in Canada. But, it could only 'not happen' if we don't let it, and we must be vigilant.
Throwing Harper out of power and putting another, non extremist, party in power, could not be so bad as to compel us to allow Harper to continue down the path he is taking us.
Their Tough on Crime is only one front that they are advancing their extremist campaign on. Harper and the Con's have been using administrative power to impose extremist values and polices without democratic consideration since elected - vis Tom Flanagan commenting on the elimination of the Long Form in the census: "I think it was an exercise in bad government to suddenly spring this on the public without any previous discussion, no consultation at all . . . You don't deal with the public that way in a democracy." (Montreal Gazette)." You need only read his book, published right after the '06 election, to understand the cold, calculating deliberateness of it all. Then there is the contemptible approach of Harper and the Con's towards our Parliamentary Democracy.
These actions by Harper illustrate just how much power the office of Prime Minster has in our system of government and why. However, the presumption is that the Prime Minister can be trusted to act in the best interests of the country and all Canadians. This is precisely where this system breaks down. Harper and the Con's simply do not operate in the best interest of the country or all Canadians, but only a small group - the die-hard Con supporters. Our Parliamentary system, (and to lesser extents, the Senate and ultimately the office of the Governor General) was designed to keep the Prime Minister in check. This polarization of opposition, this extreme resistance to consolidation, undermines Parliament and tends to render it ineffective. Our Parliamentary system was not designed for such uncompromising polarization, it was designed for compromise, for minorities to compromise to form majorities, just look at England in the last election, it took them less than two weeks to do this. This wasn't a media driven event, it was based on the many hundreds of years experience, knowing the importance of so doing and the damage of not.
This core of die-hard Con support is the important thing since they are the ones keeping Harper and the Con's in power. With their support Harper can introduce pretty much anything he wants that furthers his Con agenda and benefits his core support, to the detriment of Canada and Canadians as a whole. He will not lose the die-hards and perhaps even attract a few others hear and there - who knows even get a majority, God forbid.
This applies as long as the opposition remains so polarized.
This, of course, explains Harper polices regarding the Long Form census, mega-billion dollar spending on 65 F35 jets, the G8-20 conference, mega-billion dollar spending to increase prison capacity not only for their 'tough on crime policies that have been passed, but now, incredibly, for the "Day-Crimes'' - all those unreported crime as alleged by Stockwell Day.
On the other hand, perhaps Harper, Day, Vic Toews and all the other right wing extremists running this great country of ours are on the verge of implementing, without the support of the majority of Canadians, new, intrusive, extremist policies on crime that will tear out the very heart of our society and make us all criminals, or at least the 2/3rds that voted against them. And this is their way of 'softening us up'. It is hard to imagine that these statements by Stockwell Day, same for Tony Clement, were not very closely vetted by Harper before release, controlling the message is very important to them and it is incredulous that they would let these slip by somehow.
Just think if we spent all these billions of dollars on programs and implementing policies that went to the real root of the problem behind crime. Increased child care, child education, child poverty, increase universal health care are two.
Now that would be taking a liberal view on crime a liberal approach. But don't hold your breath while Harper and the Con's are running this country, as Stockwell Day admits, Harper and the Con's "can't take a liberal view to crime"
As long as these Harper polices do not consolidate the opposition then Harper can take the position 'Canada be d[redacted]'.
Surely, it time we got 'Tough on Con's' and gave Harper and his Conservative Party the boot.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
There are statistics, then Tory statistics, by: Staff Writer, 7/08/2010
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/fyi/there-are-statistics-then-tory-statistics-100178469.html
Simply put, Stephen Harper and Stockwell Day, Tony Clement and the other Con's are not interested in the least what the statistics, or more generally, the fact, are.
All their polices and actions are solely ideologically based, what furthers the cause, what benefits the small core of die-hard right wing extremists epi-centred in Alberta. These supporters do not require logic they will support Harper no matter what, as long as Harper leads the cause, that is.
Throwing out numbers and asserting 'statistics' they fail to substantiate is only to present a facade of rationality based government, one that is for the good of all Canadian - in a word a 'Con'. To call them on it each time is a mug's game, they simply ignore the realities they are being confronted with and go to the next 'Con'.
In reality, for Harper and his Con's it's very much 'our way and the good of Canada and Canadians be damned'.
When you detach government policies from the underlying facts and base them on ideology, when your motivation is to further that ideology and not what is for the good of the country and all its people as a whole, you create an environment where politically based 'crimes' and politically based criminal charges, arrests and detentions, witch hunts, kangaroo courts, in a word using the criminal justice system as an instrument for further political objectives, can take root.
I have done refugee claims from many 'third world' countries over many years and have seen much of this kind of thing, enough to be very concerned and to understand the need to stem it at the beginning before it gets enough momentum as we slide down that slippery slope.
It is difficult to believe that this kind of thing could happen in Canada. But, it could only 'not happen' if we don't let it, and we must be vigilant.
Throwing Harper out of power and putting another, non extremist, party in power, could not be so bad as to compel us to allow Harper to continue down the path he is taking us.
Their Tough on Crime is only one front that they are advancing their extremist campaign on. Harper and the Con's have been using administrative power to impose extremist values and polices without democratic consideration since elected - vis Tom Flanagan commenting on the elimination of the Long Form in the census: "I think it was an exercise in bad government to suddenly spring this on the public without any previous discussion, no consultation at all . . . You don't deal with the public that way in a democracy." (Montreal Gazette)." You need only read his book, published right after the '06 election, to understand the cold, calculating deliberateness of it all. Then there is the contemptible approach of Harper and the Con's towards our Parliamentary Democracy.
These actions by Harper illustrate just how much power the office of Prime Minster has in our system of government and why. However, the presumption is that the Prime Minister can be trusted to act in the best interests of the country and all Canadians. This is precisely where this system breaks down. Harper and the Con's simply do not operate in the best interest of the country or all Canadians, but only a small group - the die-hard Con supporters. Our Parliamentary system, (and to lesser extents, the Senate and ultimately the office of the Governor General) was designed to keep the Prime Minister in check. This polarization of opposition, this extreme resistance to consolidation, undermines Parliament and tends to render it ineffective. Our Parliamentary system was not designed for such uncompromising polarization, it was designed for compromise, for minorities to compromise to form majorities, just look at England in the last election, it took them less than two weeks to do this. This wasn't a media driven event, it was based on the many hundreds of years experience, knowing the importance of so doing and the damage of not.
This core of die-hard Con support is the important thing since they are the ones keeping Harper and the Con's in power. With their support Harper can introduce pretty much anything he wants that furthers his Con agenda and benefits his core support, to the detriment of Canada and Canadians as a whole. He will not lose the die-hards and perhaps even attract a few others hear and there - who knows even get a majority, God forbid.
This applies as long as the opposition remains so polarized.
This, of course, explains Harper polices regarding the Long Form census, mega-billion dollar spending on 65 F35 jets, the G8-20 conference, mega-billion dollar spending to increase prison capacity not only for their 'tough on crime policies that have been passed, but now, incredibly, for the "Day-Crimes'' - all those unreported crime as alleged by Stockwell Day.
On the other hand, perhaps Harper, Day, Vic Toews and all the other right wing extremists running this great country of ours are on the verge of implementing, without the support of the majority of Canadians, new, intrusive, extremist policies on crime that will tear out the very heart of our society and make us all criminals, or at least the 2/3rds that voted against them. And this is their way of 'softening us up'. It is hard to imagine that these statements by Stockwell Day, same for Tony Clement, were not very closely vetted by Harper before release, controlling the message is very important to them and it is incredulous that they would let these slip by somehow.
Just think if we spent all these billions of dollars on programs and implementing policies that went to the real root of the problem behind crime. Increased child care, child education, child poverty, increase universal health care are two.
Now that would be taking a liberal view on crime a liberal approach. But don't hold your breath while Harper and the Con's are running this country, as Stockwell Day admits, Harper and the Con's "can't take a liberal view to crime"
As long as these Harper polices do not consolidate the opposition then Harper can take the position 'Canada be d[redacted]'.
Surely, it time we got 'Tough on Con's' and gave Harper and his Conservative Party the boot.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
06 August, 2010
- Thus Spoke Zephen Harper
Posted: 12:07, 12:50 & 12:53 pm, 6 Aug.'10 The Ottawa Citizen
Stephen Harper's magical departure from reality, Dan Gardner, The Ottawa Citizen August 6, 2010 10:43 AM
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Stephen+Harper+magical+departure+from+reality/3365546/story.html
Commenting on Stephen Harper and his Con's reasons for eliminating the Long Form census and spending 10 billion on building new prisons for all the up-reported 'crime'
"But all that is so reality-based. Facts, evidence, logic. Irony. We're moved beyond that. I might even say we've evolved, but some of the guys in the purple van might not like that. So let's just say we've opened the doors of perception. We make reality, man. "
Right on Dude!
Ideologically based decision will always conflict with the truth and reality, by the very definition of "ideological". 'Extremist' just refers to the degree.
The foundation of accepting such decision is a "top-down" power structure, i.e. - it is right because I say it. This was, of course, the method of rule in the Dark Ages. It is anti-democratic by its very top-down nature (compare Tom Flanagan referring to Harper's decision on eliminating the Long Form from the census: "I think it was an exercise in bad government to suddenly spring this on the public without any previous discussion, no consultation at all . . . You don't deal with the public that way in a democracy." Montreal Gazette).
These policies of Harper and the Con's are directed exactly for the benefit of their core of die-hard, right wing extremist supporters, epi-centre in Alberta. These supporters do not require logic they will support Harper no matter what.
This core of die-hard Con support is the important thing since they are the ones keeping Harper and the Con's in power. With their support Harper can introduce pretty much anything he wants that furthers his Con agenda and benefits his core support, to the detriment of Canada and Canadians as a whole. He will not lose the die-hards and perhaps even attract a few others hear and there - who knows even get a majority, God forbid.
This applies as long as the opposition remains so polarized. This, of course, explains Harper polices regarding the Long Form census, mega-billion dollar spending on 65 F35 jets, the G8-20 conference, increases in prisons for unreported crime, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
As long as these polices do not consolidate the opposition then Harper can take the position 'Canada be d[redacted]'.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Stephen Harper's magical departure from reality, Dan Gardner, The Ottawa Citizen August 6, 2010 10:43 AM
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Stephen+Harper+magical+departure+from+reality/3365546/story.html
Commenting on Stephen Harper and his Con's reasons for eliminating the Long Form census and spending 10 billion on building new prisons for all the up-reported 'crime'
"But all that is so reality-based. Facts, evidence, logic. Irony. We're moved beyond that. I might even say we've evolved, but some of the guys in the purple van might not like that. So let's just say we've opened the doors of perception. We make reality, man. "
Right on Dude!
Ideologically based decision will always conflict with the truth and reality, by the very definition of "ideological". 'Extremist' just refers to the degree.
The foundation of accepting such decision is a "top-down" power structure, i.e. - it is right because I say it. This was, of course, the method of rule in the Dark Ages. It is anti-democratic by its very top-down nature (compare Tom Flanagan referring to Harper's decision on eliminating the Long Form from the census: "I think it was an exercise in bad government to suddenly spring this on the public without any previous discussion, no consultation at all . . . You don't deal with the public that way in a democracy." Montreal Gazette).
These policies of Harper and the Con's are directed exactly for the benefit of their core of die-hard, right wing extremist supporters, epi-centre in Alberta. These supporters do not require logic they will support Harper no matter what.
This core of die-hard Con support is the important thing since they are the ones keeping Harper and the Con's in power. With their support Harper can introduce pretty much anything he wants that furthers his Con agenda and benefits his core support, to the detriment of Canada and Canadians as a whole. He will not lose the die-hards and perhaps even attract a few others hear and there - who knows even get a majority, God forbid.
This applies as long as the opposition remains so polarized. This, of course, explains Harper polices regarding the Long Form census, mega-billion dollar spending on 65 F35 jets, the G8-20 conference, increases in prisons for unreported crime, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
As long as these polices do not consolidate the opposition then Harper can take the position 'Canada be d[redacted]'.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
05 August, 2010
- Harper: I Get By With a Lot of Help From My Friends (Core of Die Hard Supporters Epi-centre Alberta)
Submitted: 8:35am, PDT, 5 Aug.'10 CBCNews
Conservative lead dries up, poll suggests, CBC News, August 5, 2010
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/08/04/ekos-poll.html
If this poll is not simply an anomaly, it is very interesting.
It suggests not only is Con support decreasing but more importantly core die-hard support for the Con's may be eroding, even taking into account the margin of error.
One question is, of course, where has this core die-hard support eroded. According to this poll it may be Quebec. However, I am no so sure of this, their support has decreased there but that doesn't mean their core die-hard support has decreased there. Also, there is some suggestion that if Stephen Harper builds a hockey arena in Quebec City to bring in a NHL franchise the Con's may very well pick up 5 or 6 seats - sounds pretty cynical to me.
Alberta is the important region, next being Saskatchewan and parts of BC. There are no numbers on Alberta and so you cannot conclude that it is eroding there. That the Con support is from core die-hards can be inferred by the how many gave a second choice. There are no numbers on this (although I am sure this forms part of the actual results). However, 57.5% overall gave a second choice (add those for each party), implying that 42.5% didn't. Certainly this does not exclude Con die-hards not giving second choice and perhaps there are some other die-hards as well out there supporting other parties.
Another aspect that can affect the numbers is the % of those that answer the poll (no numbers on this, either) . This increasing amongst non Con's could account for the decrease of Con's in the poll, especially when the decrease is small. This can indicate a mobilization against Harper and the Con's, something that may take a poll of two for the Con die-hards to adjust to.
The core die-hard Con support is the important thing since they are the ones keeping Harper and the Con's in power. Up till now, it could be assumed they would vote Con no matter what, unless perhaps Harper changed his Party's name to Liberal. With their support Harper can introduce pretty much anything he wants that furthers his Con agenda and benefits his core support, to the detriment of Canada and Canadians as a whole. He would not lose the die-hards and perhaps even attract a few others hear and there - who knows even get a majority, God forbid.
This applies as long as the opposition remains so polarized, which this poll indicates it is. This, of course, explains Harper polices regarding the Long Form census, mega-billion dollar spending on 65 F35 jets, the G8-20 conference, increases in prisons, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
As long as these polices do not consolidate the opposition then Harper can take the position 'Canada be d[redacted]'.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Conservative lead dries up, poll suggests, CBC News, August 5, 2010
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/08/04/ekos-poll.html
If this poll is not simply an anomaly, it is very interesting.
It suggests not only is Con support decreasing but more importantly core die-hard support for the Con's may be eroding, even taking into account the margin of error.
One question is, of course, where has this core die-hard support eroded. According to this poll it may be Quebec. However, I am no so sure of this, their support has decreased there but that doesn't mean their core die-hard support has decreased there. Also, there is some suggestion that if Stephen Harper builds a hockey arena in Quebec City to bring in a NHL franchise the Con's may very well pick up 5 or 6 seats - sounds pretty cynical to me.
Alberta is the important region, next being Saskatchewan and parts of BC. There are no numbers on Alberta and so you cannot conclude that it is eroding there. That the Con support is from core die-hards can be inferred by the how many gave a second choice. There are no numbers on this (although I am sure this forms part of the actual results). However, 57.5% overall gave a second choice (add those for each party), implying that 42.5% didn't. Certainly this does not exclude Con die-hards not giving second choice and perhaps there are some other die-hards as well out there supporting other parties.
Another aspect that can affect the numbers is the % of those that answer the poll (no numbers on this, either) . This increasing amongst non Con's could account for the decrease of Con's in the poll, especially when the decrease is small. This can indicate a mobilization against Harper and the Con's, something that may take a poll of two for the Con die-hards to adjust to.
The core die-hard Con support is the important thing since they are the ones keeping Harper and the Con's in power. Up till now, it could be assumed they would vote Con no matter what, unless perhaps Harper changed his Party's name to Liberal. With their support Harper can introduce pretty much anything he wants that furthers his Con agenda and benefits his core support, to the detriment of Canada and Canadians as a whole. He would not lose the die-hards and perhaps even attract a few others hear and there - who knows even get a majority, God forbid.
This applies as long as the opposition remains so polarized, which this poll indicates it is. This, of course, explains Harper polices regarding the Long Form census, mega-billion dollar spending on 65 F35 jets, the G8-20 conference, increases in prisons, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
As long as these polices do not consolidate the opposition then Harper can take the position 'Canada be d[redacted]'.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
03 August, 2010
- If we really want to get rid of the deficit, give Harper and the Con's the Boot
Submitted: 7:02 & 7:26 am, PDT, 3 Aug.'10 The Toronto Star
PM’s actions, words at odds, Tue Aug 3 2010,
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/article/842900--pm-s-actions-words-at-odds
This article mentions nothing of the ideologically based 15% reduction in Corp taxes (the Conference Board came out last week with an analysis that emphasizes the important of Corp taxes to addressing the deficit - G&M 30 Jul.'10).
In fact, this does not benefit Canadians as a whole, but a small sector of our society, not the least of which being the large International oil companies in Alberta, where this reduction, along with maintaining the subsidies, can only mean a great percentage of profits will flow outside Canada,
Stephen Harper, Jim Fleherty's strategy to eliminate the deficit was essentially a do-nothing and we will grow out of it in 6 years (5 now, I guess).
First, why should we wait 6 years to eliminate the deficit. If Harper and the Con's were talking about the debt, then I could see this. But, the deficit simply adds to the debt and will continue to do so with Harper and his Con's for at least an additional 5 years.
However, as far as propaganda is concerned the message of 'we will grow out of the deficit' seems to have placated Canadian and lulled us into a false sense of security - he is telling us what we want to believe. This has given Harper the opportunity to spend like crazy.
The worst part is that this spending is totally partizan, designed to benefit a small per centage of people - Con supporters with epi-centre in Alberta, or enhance Harper's chances of getting a majority.
As Laurie Hawn is quoted: "Alberta and Cold Lake will certainly figure prominently in the life of the F-35"
You Got that 'Right' (ideologically as opposed to morally) Laurie.
Harper admonishing the other Western countries about reducing spending was, obviously, just Harper acting the 'big-shot' while in the International spotlight.
That the elimination of the Long Form in the Census is wholly ideologically based hardly needs stating at this point and is wholly for the consumption of Con supporters.
As far as this spending is concerned, Harper certainly wouldn't lose any of his core die-hard supporters, epi-centre in Alberta, and who knows perhaps he would pick up a few additional supporters here and there.
Mega billion dollar price tag? what does that matter, it is not Harper or the Con party that is paying the bill.
The question here is how much of Canadians' hard earned money can Harper and the Con's spend for partizan purposes before Canadians put a stop to it. Apparently, we have not reached that threshold yet.
If we really want to get rid of the deficit, give Harper and the Con's the Boot, and the sooner the better.
PS: this post number 500 - thanks Steve.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog
PM’s actions, words at odds, Tue Aug 3 2010,
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/article/842900--pm-s-actions-words-at-odds
This article mentions nothing of the ideologically based 15% reduction in Corp taxes (the Conference Board came out last week with an analysis that emphasizes the important of Corp taxes to addressing the deficit - G&M 30 Jul.'10).
In fact, this does not benefit Canadians as a whole, but a small sector of our society, not the least of which being the large International oil companies in Alberta, where this reduction, along with maintaining the subsidies, can only mean a great percentage of profits will flow outside Canada,
Stephen Harper, Jim Fleherty's strategy to eliminate the deficit was essentially a do-nothing and we will grow out of it in 6 years (5 now, I guess).
First, why should we wait 6 years to eliminate the deficit. If Harper and the Con's were talking about the debt, then I could see this. But, the deficit simply adds to the debt and will continue to do so with Harper and his Con's for at least an additional 5 years.
However, as far as propaganda is concerned the message of 'we will grow out of the deficit' seems to have placated Canadian and lulled us into a false sense of security - he is telling us what we want to believe. This has given Harper the opportunity to spend like crazy.
The worst part is that this spending is totally partizan, designed to benefit a small per centage of people - Con supporters with epi-centre in Alberta, or enhance Harper's chances of getting a majority.
As Laurie Hawn is quoted: "Alberta and Cold Lake will certainly figure prominently in the life of the F-35"
You Got that 'Right' (ideologically as opposed to morally) Laurie.
Harper admonishing the other Western countries about reducing spending was, obviously, just Harper acting the 'big-shot' while in the International spotlight.
That the elimination of the Long Form in the Census is wholly ideologically based hardly needs stating at this point and is wholly for the consumption of Con supporters.
As far as this spending is concerned, Harper certainly wouldn't lose any of his core die-hard supporters, epi-centre in Alberta, and who knows perhaps he would pick up a few additional supporters here and there.
Mega billion dollar price tag? what does that matter, it is not Harper or the Con party that is paying the bill.
The question here is how much of Canadians' hard earned money can Harper and the Con's spend for partizan purposes before Canadians put a stop to it. Apparently, we have not reached that threshold yet.
If we really want to get rid of the deficit, give Harper and the Con's the Boot, and the sooner the better.
PS: this post number 500 - thanks Steve.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog
02 August, 2010
- Afghanistan: Don't do as the Romans Do
Submitted: 8:37 & 8:38am, PDT, 2 Aug.'10 The Toronto Star
Why Afghanistan is not Vietnam, Bob Rae, 2 Aug.'10, The Toronto Star
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/842632--why-afghanistan-is-not-vietnam
"Corruption is deep and widespread, but curtailing it will depend on the Afghan people themselves insisting that things need to change, as well as our willingness to remain engaged."
I think Bob Rae is getting to the heart of the matter here. As in any country the government is always at the will of the people. One expression of this is democracy, but that is not the only expression (Harper runs Canada only because Canadians allow it, if the 2/3rds that voted against him got together he would be gone and quickly). A dictatorship can only exist if the people allow it - ask Marcos, and many others.
It seems that the time honoured strategy is to go in and 'defeat' the enemy. Afghanistan and Vietnam are similar in demonstrating that, for this to work, you must, "do as the Romans did" and conduct a full scale invasion and occupation, and no less, with all the devastation and misery associated with war. A long drawn out 'measured' military/police actions don't work, its like cutting off the Hydra's head. Also, modern International laws make this kind of military operation very difficult, unless of course you chose to ignore them.
When the troops go into the country the main objective should be to expose the people to the benefits of a higher standard of living, including education, health care and, yes, even Internet and other communications and entertainment. It should also demonstrate the possibilities of achieving these things and the importance democracy play in keeping them going and the destructiveness of war and the enemy.
Just think what might have been achieved if the United State, Europe, Canada Australia had taken the money spent on military actions and simply given it to the Afghan people, with a string attached here or there. I'll bet'ya there would be very few Taliban that would refuse to trade in their IED's for plows. And without support those 'hard-cores' can be dealt with.
With the people so empowered, I find it difficult that the corruption in government could persist, after all isn't this the reason we don't have corruption in Western countries. Afghanistan is unique because of the poppy trade. But this offers a good example, what if the UN forces had destroyed the poppy fields right at the beginning and given the farmers the means to grow and sell other crops. This in itself would have delivered a crippling blow to the Taliban. One can only wonder why this was never done, especially with GW Bush's drug wars.
You may criticize this suggestion all you want, but not matter what, would the Afghan situation have been any worse at this point and with an lot less losses by the UN forces.
The recently discovered trillion in natural resources for Afghanistan (see my post 16 Jun.'10, "Harper's Afghan Policy - If He Can't Play Soldier, He Wants to Takes His Marbles and Go Home":
"The previously unknown deposits — including huge veins of iron, copper, cobalt, gold and critical industrial metals like lithium — are so big and include so many minerals that are essential to modern industry that Afghanistan could eventually be transformed into one of the most important mining centers in the world, the United States officials believe",NYT, 13 Jun.'10)
could clearly play a huge role in a country like Canada coming up with a plan to draw on our experience and expertize in this field of endeavour and help the Afghan's in precisely the manner described (That this wealth is recently discovered is open to a lot of questions, as far as I am concerned).
Of course, the real question is whether the US wanted to put a quick resolution to Vietnam, and Afghanistan for that matter (at least while GW Bush was in office). If one assumes that it was the military-industrial complex (e.g. Dick Cheney's Halliburton) that was the driving force behind the US involvement in Vietnam (plus natural resources for Afghanistan and Iraq, for that matter) then a long drawn out military action that goes on and on without 'winning' makes an awful lot of sense. You don't need to occupy them, you just need to keep them occupied.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Why Afghanistan is not Vietnam, Bob Rae, 2 Aug.'10, The Toronto Star
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/842632--why-afghanistan-is-not-vietnam
"Corruption is deep and widespread, but curtailing it will depend on the Afghan people themselves insisting that things need to change, as well as our willingness to remain engaged."
I think Bob Rae is getting to the heart of the matter here. As in any country the government is always at the will of the people. One expression of this is democracy, but that is not the only expression (Harper runs Canada only because Canadians allow it, if the 2/3rds that voted against him got together he would be gone and quickly). A dictatorship can only exist if the people allow it - ask Marcos, and many others.
It seems that the time honoured strategy is to go in and 'defeat' the enemy. Afghanistan and Vietnam are similar in demonstrating that, for this to work, you must, "do as the Romans did" and conduct a full scale invasion and occupation, and no less, with all the devastation and misery associated with war. A long drawn out 'measured' military/police actions don't work, its like cutting off the Hydra's head. Also, modern International laws make this kind of military operation very difficult, unless of course you chose to ignore them.
When the troops go into the country the main objective should be to expose the people to the benefits of a higher standard of living, including education, health care and, yes, even Internet and other communications and entertainment. It should also demonstrate the possibilities of achieving these things and the importance democracy play in keeping them going and the destructiveness of war and the enemy.
Just think what might have been achieved if the United State, Europe, Canada Australia had taken the money spent on military actions and simply given it to the Afghan people, with a string attached here or there. I'll bet'ya there would be very few Taliban that would refuse to trade in their IED's for plows. And without support those 'hard-cores' can be dealt with.
With the people so empowered, I find it difficult that the corruption in government could persist, after all isn't this the reason we don't have corruption in Western countries. Afghanistan is unique because of the poppy trade. But this offers a good example, what if the UN forces had destroyed the poppy fields right at the beginning and given the farmers the means to grow and sell other crops. This in itself would have delivered a crippling blow to the Taliban. One can only wonder why this was never done, especially with GW Bush's drug wars.
You may criticize this suggestion all you want, but not matter what, would the Afghan situation have been any worse at this point and with an lot less losses by the UN forces.
The recently discovered trillion in natural resources for Afghanistan (see my post 16 Jun.'10, "Harper's Afghan Policy - If He Can't Play Soldier, He Wants to Takes His Marbles and Go Home":
"The previously unknown deposits — including huge veins of iron, copper, cobalt, gold and critical industrial metals like lithium — are so big and include so many minerals that are essential to modern industry that Afghanistan could eventually be transformed into one of the most important mining centers in the world, the United States officials believe",NYT, 13 Jun.'10)
could clearly play a huge role in a country like Canada coming up with a plan to draw on our experience and expertize in this field of endeavour and help the Afghan's in precisely the manner described (That this wealth is recently discovered is open to a lot of questions, as far as I am concerned).
Of course, the real question is whether the US wanted to put a quick resolution to Vietnam, and Afghanistan for that matter (at least while GW Bush was in office). If one assumes that it was the military-industrial complex (e.g. Dick Cheney's Halliburton) that was the driving force behind the US involvement in Vietnam (plus natural resources for Afghanistan and Iraq, for that matter) then a long drawn out military action that goes on and on without 'winning' makes an awful lot of sense. You don't need to occupy them, you just need to keep them occupied.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
01 August, 2010
- Conference Board Think Tank Report - Tanks, but Think Again
- Conference Board Think Tank Report - Tanks, but Think Again
Posted: 8/1/2010 12:55:09 PM The Globe and Mail
Deficit battle may end early: think tank, Julian Beltrame Ottawa — The Canadian Press, Jul. 30, 2010 4:18PM EDT
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/deficit-battle-may-end-early-think-tank/article1656411/ Tab 4
(see also: http://www.conferenceboard.ca/economics/hot_eco_topics/default/10-07-29/Canadian_Feds_Ahead_of_Plan_on_Fiscal_Rebalancing.aspx)
"The key point is that government revenues are much more directly tied to nominal GDP by way of higher corporate tax and income tax receipts
. . . nominal GDP has exploded thanks to a quick rebound in global commodity prices that has brought additional wealth into the country.
But he says that Ottawa can keep achieve its goals by reducing the size of the public service by 11,000 over the next three years.
Mr. Stewart cautioned that the estimates assume Ottawa will stick to its spending plans, including withdrawal of stimulus after this year."
There are a few things that are not clear in this report.
Harper and the Con's are implementing a Corporate tax reduction of 15%. So, if their projections are based on the nominal GDP and nominal GDP is so much directly tied to the Corporate tax rate, one can only wonder why they would not mention this very key factor and how they take it into account.
Perhaps, what they mean is, if Michael Ignatieff and the Liberals are elected soon enough, the deficit will be eliminated a year earlier - since Ignatieff has announced he would put a freeze on Corporate taxes (at 18%).
Also, it sounds like they are saying that their projection is based on the loss of 11,000 jobs in the public sector. If this is a Stephen Harper policy then he ought to come out and say it (yah, right, when h[redacted] freezes over, perhaps).
And, what does "stick to its spending plans" mean. Does this include the 16 billion on the 'eye-watering' (eye-watering? - MacKay you shouldn't stick your head out the window) 65 F-35's.
If it does take the Corp tax reduction and insane F35 procurement into account then does that mean if we give Harper and the Con's the boot, like right away, and put a freeze on these things that we will be able to eliminate the deficit two or three years earlier.
Also, these projections seem to be based on revenues from the sale of Alberta oil and gas - what if Alberta decides it doesn't want to support the rest of Canada so much, directly through oil revenues and indirectly through transfer payments (yah, like that would ever happen, especially with Stelmach now talking about a deficit), how will that impact their projections. And, if Alberta is facing a deficit, then what exactly is this report referring to by " commodity prices that has brought additional wealth into the country".
If this report by the Conference Board of Canada is supporting the Harper do nothing approach to reducing the deficit how does that help provinces like Ontario, which they are so considerate as to state it has a structural deficit, except perhaps implying that health care become private.
Keep in mind that the Conference Board of Canada is not without it controversies over the "independent, objective, and non-partisan" nature of its reports (Conference Board's Digital Economy Report, c. early '09).
Michael Geist, law professor at the University of Ottawa :
May 26, 2009 (first report):
"Indeed, they made no reference to the deBeer study in their report, a curious decision given that the Conference Board claims to be 'independent, objective, and non-partisan.'"
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4003/125/
but,
10 Feb.'10 (second report):
"While there is much to consider in this report, it certainly appears to be a good faith effort to examine the issues from a non-partisan perspective. The Conference Board points to the need for copyright reform, but does so in a manner with far more context and balance than was found in the withdrawn, plagiarized reports."
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4783/125/
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Posted: 8/1/2010 12:55:09 PM The Globe and Mail
Deficit battle may end early: think tank, Julian Beltrame Ottawa — The Canadian Press, Jul. 30, 2010 4:18PM EDT
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/deficit-battle-may-end-early-think-tank/article1656411/ Tab 4
(see also: http://www.conferenceboard.ca/economics/hot_eco_topics/default/10-07-29/Canadian_Feds_Ahead_of_Plan_on_Fiscal_Rebalancing.aspx)
"The key point is that government revenues are much more directly tied to nominal GDP by way of higher corporate tax and income tax receipts
. . . nominal GDP has exploded thanks to a quick rebound in global commodity prices that has brought additional wealth into the country.
But he says that Ottawa can keep achieve its goals by reducing the size of the public service by 11,000 over the next three years.
Mr. Stewart cautioned that the estimates assume Ottawa will stick to its spending plans, including withdrawal of stimulus after this year."
There are a few things that are not clear in this report.
Harper and the Con's are implementing a Corporate tax reduction of 15%. So, if their projections are based on the nominal GDP and nominal GDP is so much directly tied to the Corporate tax rate, one can only wonder why they would not mention this very key factor and how they take it into account.
Perhaps, what they mean is, if Michael Ignatieff and the Liberals are elected soon enough, the deficit will be eliminated a year earlier - since Ignatieff has announced he would put a freeze on Corporate taxes (at 18%).
Also, it sounds like they are saying that their projection is based on the loss of 11,000 jobs in the public sector. If this is a Stephen Harper policy then he ought to come out and say it (yah, right, when h[redacted] freezes over, perhaps).
And, what does "stick to its spending plans" mean. Does this include the 16 billion on the 'eye-watering' (eye-watering? - MacKay you shouldn't stick your head out the window) 65 F-35's.
If it does take the Corp tax reduction and insane F35 procurement into account then does that mean if we give Harper and the Con's the boot, like right away, and put a freeze on these things that we will be able to eliminate the deficit two or three years earlier.
Also, these projections seem to be based on revenues from the sale of Alberta oil and gas - what if Alberta decides it doesn't want to support the rest of Canada so much, directly through oil revenues and indirectly through transfer payments (yah, like that would ever happen, especially with Stelmach now talking about a deficit), how will that impact their projections. And, if Alberta is facing a deficit, then what exactly is this report referring to by " commodity prices that has brought additional wealth into the country".
If this report by the Conference Board of Canada is supporting the Harper do nothing approach to reducing the deficit how does that help provinces like Ontario, which they are so considerate as to state it has a structural deficit, except perhaps implying that health care become private.
Keep in mind that the Conference Board of Canada is not without it controversies over the "independent, objective, and non-partisan" nature of its reports (Conference Board's Digital Economy Report, c. early '09).
Michael Geist, law professor at the University of Ottawa :
May 26, 2009 (first report):
"Indeed, they made no reference to the deBeer study in their report, a curious decision given that the Conference Board claims to be 'independent, objective, and non-partisan.'"
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4003/125/
but,
10 Feb.'10 (second report):
"While there is much to consider in this report, it certainly appears to be a good faith effort to examine the issues from a non-partisan perspective. The Conference Board points to the need for copyright reform, but does so in a manner with far more context and balance than was found in the withdrawn, plagiarized reports."
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4783/125/
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- Harper Takes Cold War out of Cold Storage
Posted: 8/1/2010 11:35:32 AM the Globe and Mail
Russian jet confrontation a 'close one,'
Defence official says, Daniel Leblanc, 30 Jul.'10, The Globe and Mail
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/russian-jet-confrontation-a-close-one-defence-official-says/article1657338/ tab 94
[Tory talking points: "More proof that Michael Ignatieff isn't in it for Canadians. He's just in it for himself. "]
Anyone see the irony in this.
In fact, this is
"More proof that Stephen Harper isn't in it for Canadians. He's just in it for himself, the Con's and their small core of die-hard supporters with epi-centre in Alberta."
Spending 16 billion - as one person pointed out, before interest charges (and what about the HST? Oh, sorry, I mean import duties) - is for the benefit of this small core of die-hard right wing extremists.
As Laurie Hawk, sorry Hawn (I'm a little bleary-eyed on Sunday morning), pointed out: "Alberta and Cold Lake will certainly figure prominently in the life of the F-35,"
I guess in a way there is some kind of logic (of the political, partizan kind) behind it, after all, the money is from all the revenues flowing from Alberta to the Canadian Federal purse due to their oil and gas; and, Alberta is the reason Harper is in power.
Also, MacKay is stretching, severely, when he tries to use this as an excuse for spending 16 billion of our hard earned tax dollars, oh sorry, Alberta's hard earned oil revenues, on the 65 F-35's. He is trying to appeal to us on an emotional basis, as opposed to any type of rationality.
There is no indication that the Russian violated Canadian airspace, or Canadian sovereignty, to any extent. This was with the current jets, CF-18's, which by the way were just modernized to be good to go until 2017 (if it is all the latest 'eye watering' gadgets MacKay wants to provide our troops with, make DS's standard issue - although the cost of the games may rack up a billion or two as anyone with kids will know, this should reduce the 'eye-watering' bill for these toys).
So, doesn't this incident demonstrates very visibly that what we have now is sufficient.
Perhaps, Peter MacKay could do a rational analysis of this incident and why spending 16 billion, triple net, on 65 F-35 fighter jets would change this type of behaviour by the Russians, Canada's reaction to it, or the end result, one iota.
Unless, perhaps, MacKay is suggesting that we could have shot them out of the air.
In fact, if the Russian are doing it to see what our capabilities are, one might suspect that they would increase their activities if we have the F-35's.
And, it is not likely that we would try to shoot them out of the air, no matter what vintage jets we have.
The Russians were outside Canadian airspace, apparently had no intention of violating our airspace and apparently according to them they had a right to be there and had informed the Canadians before hand.
Also, these are propeller driven planes and why would our current jets not be able to 'intercept' them, or force/shoot them down if so desired. I don't care how fast a prop plane is it simply can't compare to a jet fighter, of any post war vintage.
This Con talking point is just another example of Con-MEP's.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Russian jet confrontation a 'close one,'
Defence official says, Daniel Leblanc, 30 Jul.'10, The Globe and Mail
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/russian-jet-confrontation-a-close-one-defence-official-says/article1657338/ tab 94
[Tory talking points: "More proof that Michael Ignatieff isn't in it for Canadians. He's just in it for himself. "]
Anyone see the irony in this.
In fact, this is
"More proof that Stephen Harper isn't in it for Canadians. He's just in it for himself, the Con's and their small core of die-hard supporters with epi-centre in Alberta."
Spending 16 billion - as one person pointed out, before interest charges (and what about the HST? Oh, sorry, I mean import duties) - is for the benefit of this small core of die-hard right wing extremists.
As Laurie Hawk, sorry Hawn (I'm a little bleary-eyed on Sunday morning), pointed out: "Alberta and Cold Lake will certainly figure prominently in the life of the F-35,"
I guess in a way there is some kind of logic (of the political, partizan kind) behind it, after all, the money is from all the revenues flowing from Alberta to the Canadian Federal purse due to their oil and gas; and, Alberta is the reason Harper is in power.
Also, MacKay is stretching, severely, when he tries to use this as an excuse for spending 16 billion of our hard earned tax dollars, oh sorry, Alberta's hard earned oil revenues, on the 65 F-35's. He is trying to appeal to us on an emotional basis, as opposed to any type of rationality.
There is no indication that the Russian violated Canadian airspace, or Canadian sovereignty, to any extent. This was with the current jets, CF-18's, which by the way were just modernized to be good to go until 2017 (if it is all the latest 'eye watering' gadgets MacKay wants to provide our troops with, make DS's standard issue - although the cost of the games may rack up a billion or two as anyone with kids will know, this should reduce the 'eye-watering' bill for these toys).
So, doesn't this incident demonstrates very visibly that what we have now is sufficient.
Perhaps, Peter MacKay could do a rational analysis of this incident and why spending 16 billion, triple net, on 65 F-35 fighter jets would change this type of behaviour by the Russians, Canada's reaction to it, or the end result, one iota.
Unless, perhaps, MacKay is suggesting that we could have shot them out of the air.
In fact, if the Russian are doing it to see what our capabilities are, one might suspect that they would increase their activities if we have the F-35's.
And, it is not likely that we would try to shoot them out of the air, no matter what vintage jets we have.
The Russians were outside Canadian airspace, apparently had no intention of violating our airspace and apparently according to them they had a right to be there and had informed the Canadians before hand.
Also, these are propeller driven planes and why would our current jets not be able to 'intercept' them, or force/shoot them down if so desired. I don't care how fast a prop plane is it simply can't compare to a jet fighter, of any post war vintage.
This Con talking point is just another example of Con-MEP's.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)