Lloyd Macilquham cicblog
(see below)
1:34 PM on December 15, 2011
To Pool or Pond and Canusa81 who were kind enough to show me the 'light' . . . or, sorry, I meant 'right'
in replying to my post (Lloyd Macilquham cicblog 10:45 AM on December 15, 2011)
in which I wrote:
"So, tell me, which is worse.
Trudeau calling Peter Kent a 'piece of sh**'
or, in the International community having the withdrawal from Kyoto called:
'dishonest and cowardly'
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,803670,00."
Attn.:
What the International Community thinks is important.
If you don't think the person making the comment quoted , "dishonest and cowardly", regarding Canada's withdrawing from Kyoto carries weight.
how about Desmond Tutu:
"Canada, you were once considered a leader on global issues like human rights and environmental protection. Today you’re home to polluting tar sands oil, speeding the dangerous effects of climate change. For us in Africa, climate change is a life and death issue. By dramatically increasing Canada’s global warming pollution, tar sands mining and drilling makes the problem worse, and exposes millions of Africans to more devastating drought and famine today and in the years to come. It’s time to draw the line. We call on Canada to change course and be a leader in clean energy and to support international action to reduce global warming pollution."
Desmond Tutu Begs Canada to Abandon Tar Sands
http://gas2.org/2011/12/12/desmond-tutu-begs-canada-to-abandon-tar-sands/
For more of what Mr. Tutu has to say:
http://www.amandlapublishers.co.za/special-features/climate-change/999-the-devil-in-the-tar-sands--by-desmond-tutu-a-jody-williams
Underlying these statements are, of course, the liabilities Canada may be attracting down the road for which our children and our children's children may be held to account. For example, International law suits that would make the Tobacco law suits look like small claims court; or, otherwise.
In which case, "a piece of s[redacted]t" may seem like an euphemism.
But then, Canusa81 your right (literally and figurative),
What do Harper and the Con's care - "absolutely nothing", nyet, لا شيء, 没有
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
15 December, 2011
- Harper's Choice on Kyoto
Posted: 10:45 AM on December 15, 2011
Justin Trudeau’s S-bomb: Is it wrong to swear on the job?
adriana barton, Globe and Mail Update, Posted on Wednesday, December 14, 2011 8:47PM EST
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/the-hot-button/justin-trudeaus-s-bomb-is-it-wrong-to-swear-on-the-job/article2271690/
So, tell me, which is worse.
Trudeau calling Peter Kent a 'piece of sh**'
or, in the International community having the withdrawal from Kyoto called:
"dishonest and cowardly"
vis.:
"Eva Bulling-Schröter, head of the German parliament's environmental committee and a
member of the far-left Left Party, called the withdrawal "dishonest and cowardly."
Bulling-Schröter also accused Canada of using a "flimsy excuse" to shirk its climate
protection responsibilities."
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,803670,00.html
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Justin Trudeau’s S-bomb: Is it wrong to swear on the job?
adriana barton, Globe and Mail Update, Posted on Wednesday, December 14, 2011 8:47PM EST
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/the-hot-button/justin-trudeaus-s-bomb-is-it-wrong-to-swear-on-the-job/article2271690/
So, tell me, which is worse.
Trudeau calling Peter Kent a 'piece of sh**'
or, in the International community having the withdrawal from Kyoto called:
"dishonest and cowardly"
vis.:
"Eva Bulling-Schröter, head of the German parliament's environmental committee and a
member of the far-left Left Party, called the withdrawal "dishonest and cowardly."
Bulling-Schröter also accused Canada of using a "flimsy excuse" to shirk its climate
protection responsibilities."
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,803670,00.html
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
18 October, 2011
- Canada - $55b in Military Spending, Am I Reading that Right
Posted: 10:43 AM on October 18, 2011
Harper’s team keeps hands off $35-billion shipbuilding hot potato
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/harpers-team-keeps-hands-off-35-billion-shipbuilding-hot-potato/article2203643/
Hopefully what all Canadians will not allow Harper to dodge is, of course, not where these ships will be built but
why do we need $25billion in "combat" vessels
when you combine this with $30 billion for 65 F-35 combat fighters
The real question is what is Canada's military objectives and who are we planning to go to war with.
Isn't there better things to spend $50 billion dollars upon.
Prediction:
- One will receive a $25-billion contract to build combat vessels:
Halifax - that's a no-brain'r
- $8-billion to build ice breakers and a naval supply ship:
Vancouver - of course
- $2-billion for smaller vessels:
Parry Sound—Muskoka - you tell me
comments Lloyd MacILquham cicblog
Harper’s team keeps hands off $35-billion shipbuilding hot potato
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/harpers-team-keeps-hands-off-35-billion-shipbuilding-hot-potato/article2203643/
Hopefully what all Canadians will not allow Harper to dodge is, of course, not where these ships will be built but
why do we need $25billion in "combat" vessels
when you combine this with $30 billion for 65 F-35 combat fighters
The real question is what is Canada's military objectives and who are we planning to go to war with.
Isn't there better things to spend $50 billion dollars upon.
Prediction:
- One will receive a $25-billion contract to build combat vessels:
Halifax - that's a no-brain'r
- $8-billion to build ice breakers and a naval supply ship:
Vancouver - of course
- $2-billion for smaller vessels:
Parry Sound—Muskoka - you tell me
comments Lloyd MacILquham cicblog
15 October, 2011
'Dark matter' - now there's "such stuff as dreams are made on"
The articles at: Science Daily, support what I have been saying, big-time.
Neutrinos Are Likely Half as Massive as Previous Estimates Suggested
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100712115104.htm
"Although neutrinos are very light and interact with matter very rarely, they are so numerous that they can have a significant effect on the evolution of the material distribution in the universe.
. . .
There are restrictions on the information the map can provide, in part because there are three varieties of neutrinos (electron, muon, and tau neutrinos), each of which likely have different masses. As a result, MegaZ can only estimate the sum of the three neutrino masses."
Yah, got it, they're these mystical 'particles' (and I use the word 'particles' loosely), 3-in-1, but can switch around and also exist on their own, pass through everything, apparently uninhibited, well almost, (not that I might draw a parallel with the 'Trinity' concept), but have mass - except we don't seem to be able to measure it, and apparently travel at the speed of light but also even faster but we don't seem to be able to measure its speed either.
Sounds like a perception problem to me.
I just wonder if they really want to 'solve' the mystery of the 'neutrino' - since then they would have one less 'Imp' and would leave the theory psychologically ungratifying, as if there were something missing - like Norse mythology without Loki
***************
Scientists Shed Light On a Mysterious Particle, the Neutrino
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091215141512.htm
'Dr Di Lodovico says: "T2K will quickly advance our understanding of the strange properties of the enigmatic neutrino to unprecedented precision. Within a year, we will be able explore neutrino properties beyond the reach of the current experiments and shed light on the unknown."'
Dr. Di is talking in terms of 'Folklore' and I am surprised he, himself, didn't refer to them as 'Imps'
**********
"Dark matter" - now there's the stuff dreams are made of.
something like "anti-mater" i.e. opposite of matter
If 'anti-matter' didn't exist someone would invent it - how can you understand 'plus' without 'minus', 'male' without 'female', 'yin' without 'yang'.
Dark Matter May Be Lurking at Heart of the Sun
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100721132407.htm
"Dark matter makes up more than 80 per cent of the total mass of the universe. We know that dark matter exists but to date it has never been produced in a laboratory or directly observed in any experiment, as a result we have very little information about what it actually is."
Now there's a mystery.
What they try to 'spin' into something positive: "We know that dark matter exists"
is in reality: dark matter is hypothesized in order to make the equations work.
Here's a hint from the article: "to date it has never been produced in a laboratory or directly observed in any experiment" - Oh, then I guess it must exist! It surely, then, couldn't be a figment of someone's imagination, a manifestation of some deep rooted primordial image hard-wired into our brains.
Check out Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
"In astronomy and cosmology, dark matter is matter that neither emits nor scatters light or other electromagnetic radiation, and so cannot be directly detected via optical or radio astronomy.[1] Its existence is inferred from gravitational effects on visible matter and gravitational lensing of background radiation, and was originally hypothesized to account for discrepancies between calculations of the mass of galaxies, clusters of galaxies and the entire universe made through dynamical and general relativistic means, and calculations based on the mass of the visible "luminous" matter these objects contain: stars and the gas and dust of the interstellar and intergalactic medium."
PS:
By the way, neutrino's were invented to make the equations work.
Now they have been "detected' - sounds like a self-fulfilling prophecy to me.
Check out Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/neutrinos
"Pauli's proposal
The neutrino[nb 1] was first postulated in 1930 by Wolfgang Pauli to preserve the conservation of energy, conservation of momentum, and conservation of angular momentum in beta decay. This was done by adding an undetected particle that Pauli termed a "neutron" to the proton and electron already known to be products of beta decay:[4][nb 2]
He theorized that an undetected particle was carrying away the observed difference between the energy, momentum, and angular momentum of the initial and final particles."
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Neutrinos Are Likely Half as Massive as Previous Estimates Suggested
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100712115104.htm
"Although neutrinos are very light and interact with matter very rarely, they are so numerous that they can have a significant effect on the evolution of the material distribution in the universe.
. . .
There are restrictions on the information the map can provide, in part because there are three varieties of neutrinos (electron, muon, and tau neutrinos), each of which likely have different masses. As a result, MegaZ can only estimate the sum of the three neutrino masses."
Yah, got it, they're these mystical 'particles' (and I use the word 'particles' loosely), 3-in-1, but can switch around and also exist on their own, pass through everything, apparently uninhibited, well almost, (not that I might draw a parallel with the 'Trinity' concept), but have mass - except we don't seem to be able to measure it, and apparently travel at the speed of light but also even faster but we don't seem to be able to measure its speed either.
Sounds like a perception problem to me.
I just wonder if they really want to 'solve' the mystery of the 'neutrino' - since then they would have one less 'Imp' and would leave the theory psychologically ungratifying, as if there were something missing - like Norse mythology without Loki
***************
Scientists Shed Light On a Mysterious Particle, the Neutrino
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091215141512.htm
'Dr Di Lodovico says: "T2K will quickly advance our understanding of the strange properties of the enigmatic neutrino to unprecedented precision. Within a year, we will be able explore neutrino properties beyond the reach of the current experiments and shed light on the unknown."'
Dr. Di is talking in terms of 'Folklore' and I am surprised he, himself, didn't refer to them as 'Imps'
**********
"Dark matter" - now there's the stuff dreams are made of.
something like "anti-mater" i.e. opposite of matter
If 'anti-matter' didn't exist someone would invent it - how can you understand 'plus' without 'minus', 'male' without 'female', 'yin' without 'yang'.
Dark Matter May Be Lurking at Heart of the Sun
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100721132407.htm
"Dark matter makes up more than 80 per cent of the total mass of the universe. We know that dark matter exists but to date it has never been produced in a laboratory or directly observed in any experiment, as a result we have very little information about what it actually is."
Now there's a mystery.
What they try to 'spin' into something positive: "We know that dark matter exists"
is in reality: dark matter is hypothesized in order to make the equations work.
Here's a hint from the article: "to date it has never been produced in a laboratory or directly observed in any experiment" - Oh, then I guess it must exist! It surely, then, couldn't be a figment of someone's imagination, a manifestation of some deep rooted primordial image hard-wired into our brains.
Check out Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
"In astronomy and cosmology, dark matter is matter that neither emits nor scatters light or other electromagnetic radiation, and so cannot be directly detected via optical or radio astronomy.[1] Its existence is inferred from gravitational effects on visible matter and gravitational lensing of background radiation, and was originally hypothesized to account for discrepancies between calculations of the mass of galaxies, clusters of galaxies and the entire universe made through dynamical and general relativistic means, and calculations based on the mass of the visible "luminous" matter these objects contain: stars and the gas and dust of the interstellar and intergalactic medium."
PS:
By the way, neutrino's were invented to make the equations work.
Now they have been "detected' - sounds like a self-fulfilling prophecy to me.
Check out Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/neutrinos
"Pauli's proposal
The neutrino[nb 1] was first postulated in 1930 by Wolfgang Pauli to preserve the conservation of energy, conservation of momentum, and conservation of angular momentum in beta decay. This was done by adding an undetected particle that Pauli termed a "neutron" to the proton and electron already known to be products of beta decay:[4][nb 2]
He theorized that an undetected particle was carrying away the observed difference between the energy, momentum, and angular momentum of the initial and final particles."
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
09 October, 2011
- There are More Things In Heaven and Earth, Horatio, Than Are Hard Wired In Your Brain
On 01 October, 2011 I wrote:
- What Imps These Particles Be
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
"The assumption that the real world conforms to the Real number system reached a high water mark with Newtonian mechanics. However, that the real number continuum represents the real world arose, it seems to me, from perception (e.g. underlying Zeno's Dichotomy Paradox - i.e. to get to the end you must reach the ½ way point, to get to the ½ way point you must reach its ½ way point, etc. - this is, of course, one of the integral properties of the Real Number System, and Zeno was not only assuming that going from point 'A' to point 'B' could be represented by a Real number line, it was so much a part of his perception that he, apparently, was totally unaware that his 'paradox' was based on it).
The nature of Quantum mechanics suggests, to me, that perhaps the Real (Complex) Number System may not be suitable and finding a better one might, perhaps, simplify contemplation and expression."
Zeno's Dichotomy Paradox has, to some, been resolved by suggesting that to go half the distance takes half the time, etc., and when you add up all these increments you get a finite answer which happens to be the same amount of time as calculated using t=d/v.
This works for the Real Number line, but the issue is whether the space between two points is represented by the Real Number line - i.e. in 'real' (by naming the number system the 'Real' number system somehow it takes on a meaning of its own and becomes 'real' - as with giving the imp its name: 'neutrino') space, given two separate points can you find a point that is half way between - in other words, in going from point A to point B do you necessarily pass through a midway point.
Our perception tells us we can and do. That perception is the result of millions of years of evolution developing our senses to obtain information of our surrounding and developing a brain to process it, and presumably the underlying motivator is survival as opposed to reality and very small distances simply are not a factor. This may underlie the position some take - well, it is useful, so who cares.
In other words we are hard wired to perceive our surrounding as being a continuum. That the Real Number system expresses this is, in reality, a manifestation of this phenomenon. (Another concept of Physics where this may very well come into play is electrical charges i.e. being positive and negative, attraction and repulsion. In other words, the parallel between that and the very human reality of male-female, yin-yang, may not be a co-incidence, but our brains are hard wired to only be able to interpret such observations and perceive such effects in such terms - we understand our observations of our surrounding by relating them to pre-existing hard-wired psychological structures (I know, I know, sounds like Jung) and what we have already associated with them. This might explain why the concept of 'imp' comes into our world view. (It may also touch on why to some their concept of God might include very human characteristics - human characteristics I understand, God I don't).
Similarly, this applies to time as well.
Our concept of time and distance is based on the assumption that it is represented by the Real Number line; thus, so to velocity and momentum (since it also depends on mass, for which a similar argument applies, it is doubly implicated).
For distances that we are familiar with, assuming reality is represented by the Real Number System works quite well (in that we have been able to survive). However, in small distances we simply don't know. Is it any wonder that in the world of Quantum Physics they have trouble with position, momentum, time, etc.
Until they determine the mechanism by which an object actually gets from point A to point B in space - in which, it seems self evident, would be included just exactly what is 'space' anyway - I can't see them making huge progress. It seems to me that in current theories they have somehow swept this under the rug, so to speak, perhaps deliberately to avoid the issue.
Perhaps, between any two objects there are only a finite number of intermediary points which the objects could occupy. It is hard to imagine, but then that's viewed from our perception. Inertia and mass could possibly be a manifestation of 'drag' as we go through each one of these points (or the time it takes to materialize at that point then dematerialize - for fear of sounding too Trekky). It may be that objects are somehow draw to a point and then it takes something push them off. To express it in pre-conceived notions, perhaps the pushing is what requires energy (which is saved up in the pulling), and that is what takes the time, with the switching to being attracted to the next point occurring instantaneously (or the speed of light???, etc.) - and considering there is nothing in between - why not.
Or, perhaps, the number of points between two objects is a function of the two objects, where say, larger masses cause more points, or what we call 'mass' is a manifestation of those properties of objects that cause more points or longer times from point to point.
Each object having its own set of points which somehow combine with those of other objects. Perhaps objects with great mass have more closely spaced points
In such case, certainly the Real Number System may not be the best choice and a number system that is more discrete may be better.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- What Imps These Particles Be
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
"The assumption that the real world conforms to the Real number system reached a high water mark with Newtonian mechanics. However, that the real number continuum represents the real world arose, it seems to me, from perception (e.g. underlying Zeno's Dichotomy Paradox - i.e. to get to the end you must reach the ½ way point, to get to the ½ way point you must reach its ½ way point, etc. - this is, of course, one of the integral properties of the Real Number System, and Zeno was not only assuming that going from point 'A' to point 'B' could be represented by a Real number line, it was so much a part of his perception that he, apparently, was totally unaware that his 'paradox' was based on it).
The nature of Quantum mechanics suggests, to me, that perhaps the Real (Complex) Number System may not be suitable and finding a better one might, perhaps, simplify contemplation and expression."
Zeno's Dichotomy Paradox has, to some, been resolved by suggesting that to go half the distance takes half the time, etc., and when you add up all these increments you get a finite answer which happens to be the same amount of time as calculated using t=d/v.
This works for the Real Number line, but the issue is whether the space between two points is represented by the Real Number line - i.e. in 'real' (by naming the number system the 'Real' number system somehow it takes on a meaning of its own and becomes 'real' - as with giving the imp its name: 'neutrino') space, given two separate points can you find a point that is half way between - in other words, in going from point A to point B do you necessarily pass through a midway point.
Our perception tells us we can and do. That perception is the result of millions of years of evolution developing our senses to obtain information of our surrounding and developing a brain to process it, and presumably the underlying motivator is survival as opposed to reality and very small distances simply are not a factor. This may underlie the position some take - well, it is useful, so who cares.
In other words we are hard wired to perceive our surrounding as being a continuum. That the Real Number system expresses this is, in reality, a manifestation of this phenomenon. (Another concept of Physics where this may very well come into play is electrical charges i.e. being positive and negative, attraction and repulsion. In other words, the parallel between that and the very human reality of male-female, yin-yang, may not be a co-incidence, but our brains are hard wired to only be able to interpret such observations and perceive such effects in such terms - we understand our observations of our surrounding by relating them to pre-existing hard-wired psychological structures (I know, I know, sounds like Jung) and what we have already associated with them. This might explain why the concept of 'imp' comes into our world view. (It may also touch on why to some their concept of God might include very human characteristics - human characteristics I understand, God I don't).
Similarly, this applies to time as well.
Our concept of time and distance is based on the assumption that it is represented by the Real Number line; thus, so to velocity and momentum (since it also depends on mass, for which a similar argument applies, it is doubly implicated).
For distances that we are familiar with, assuming reality is represented by the Real Number System works quite well (in that we have been able to survive). However, in small distances we simply don't know. Is it any wonder that in the world of Quantum Physics they have trouble with position, momentum, time, etc.
Until they determine the mechanism by which an object actually gets from point A to point B in space - in which, it seems self evident, would be included just exactly what is 'space' anyway - I can't see them making huge progress. It seems to me that in current theories they have somehow swept this under the rug, so to speak, perhaps deliberately to avoid the issue.
Perhaps, between any two objects there are only a finite number of intermediary points which the objects could occupy. It is hard to imagine, but then that's viewed from our perception. Inertia and mass could possibly be a manifestation of 'drag' as we go through each one of these points (or the time it takes to materialize at that point then dematerialize - for fear of sounding too Trekky). It may be that objects are somehow draw to a point and then it takes something push them off. To express it in pre-conceived notions, perhaps the pushing is what requires energy (which is saved up in the pulling), and that is what takes the time, with the switching to being attracted to the next point occurring instantaneously (or the speed of light???, etc.) - and considering there is nothing in between - why not.
Or, perhaps, the number of points between two objects is a function of the two objects, where say, larger masses cause more points, or what we call 'mass' is a manifestation of those properties of objects that cause more points or longer times from point to point.
Each object having its own set of points which somehow combine with those of other objects. Perhaps objects with great mass have more closely spaced points
In such case, certainly the Real Number System may not be the best choice and a number system that is more discrete may be better.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
04 October, 2011
- Finally, The Antidote to Con'ism - Take A Pill, oh, Sorry, I Meant Mushroom
Posted: 10:01am PDT, 4 Oct.'11
"Magic mushrooms can cause long-term personality changes" adriana barton, Monday, October 3, 2011 8:45PM EDT
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/the-hot-button/magic-mushrooms-can-cause-long-term-personality-changes/article2189697/
Finally (unfortunately too late for the last election), The Antidote to Con'ism - Take A Pill, oh, Sorry, I Meant Mushroom
"Want to Feel Younger, More Open? 'Magic Mushrooms' Trigger Lasting Personality Change", Maia Szalavitz Monday, October 3, 2011
http://healthland.time.com/2011/10/03/want-to-feel-younger-more-open-magic-mushrooms-trigger-lasting-personality-change/#ixzz1ZlLo6vpJ
"drug [the psychedelic drug psilocybin - 'Magic Mushroom'] showed increases in the key personality dimension of openness — being amenable to new ideas, experiences and perspectives."
The article goes on to explain that these personality changes were contrary to what is expected when people get older. Instead of becoming less and less open to new ideas and experiences, those who took the magic mushroom and obtained a "full mystical experience," a shift towards increase openness was observed.
At least one observed that they had become "much more forgiving of friends and strangers"
Wow, need I say more.
Peace Man!
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
"Magic mushrooms can cause long-term personality changes" adriana barton, Monday, October 3, 2011 8:45PM EDT
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/the-hot-button/magic-mushrooms-can-cause-long-term-personality-changes/article2189697/
Finally (unfortunately too late for the last election), The Antidote to Con'ism - Take A Pill, oh, Sorry, I Meant Mushroom
"Want to Feel Younger, More Open? 'Magic Mushrooms' Trigger Lasting Personality Change", Maia Szalavitz Monday, October 3, 2011
http://healthland.time.com/2011/10/03/want-to-feel-younger-more-open-magic-mushrooms-trigger-lasting-personality-change/#ixzz1ZlLo6vpJ
"drug [the psychedelic drug psilocybin - 'Magic Mushroom'] showed increases in the key personality dimension of openness — being amenable to new ideas, experiences and perspectives."
The article goes on to explain that these personality changes were contrary to what is expected when people get older. Instead of becoming less and less open to new ideas and experiences, those who took the magic mushroom and obtained a "full mystical experience," a shift towards increase openness was observed.
At least one observed that they had become "much more forgiving of friends and strangers"
Wow, need I say more.
Peace Man!
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
03 October, 2011
- Nothing New Under the Sun
Further Comment on Below:
"What Imps These Particles Be"
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
01 October, 2011
I suggested that using 'Imp' instead of 'Particle' to describe quantum particles, including neutrino's, was a good fit since:
" the word 'Imp' = a mythical creature of German folklore that caused mischief - which pretty much says it all for a lot of particles."
This raises the specter that perhaps a thousand years from now people will be referring to neutrino's and other sub-atomic 'particles' as:
"mythical creatures of Western folklore from the Dawn of Science epoch [that caused mischief . . .]"
Is this an insignificant 'thought experiment'.
Well any self-respecting Scientist (in my opinion) would say perhaps not.
Perhaps there is a deeper underlying fact of the human condition being expressed here.
Perhaps, these are simply the manifestation of the human condition, archetype(s) with re-occurrence in every epoch, a human necessity in any collective world view.
To suggest that they (current theories) are supported by "mathematics" and "rigorous science" is, of course, missing the point.
To us it is "mathematics" and "rigorous science".
Or, a more general way of expressing it, "it is in conformity with the rules and methodologies generally agreed upon by us at this point in time to be used in describing our world".
(compare: spelling and grammar - just because a sentence has all its words spelled correctly and conforms to the grammerical (for all those who think it is 'grammatical' - just wait a while) rules does not mean that the underlying concept truly reflects reality. Also, as we are living thru today, spelling and rules of grammar change).
Well perhaps 1000 years ago the concept of 'Imp' satisfied this condition as well.
To suggest that our current theories possess predictability also misses the point. Predictability is a very subjective concept, and very much dependent on our current condition and what we are willing to accept.
Clearly current theories don't possess the property of predictability, since that would imply perfection, which is very unlikely.
Also, even today it is generally accepted that our theories are not totally satisfactory.
Further, perhaps also a 1000 years ago it was quite acceptable to blame 'mischief' on Imp's thus providing empirical support for their existence.
I have no doubt that in the last 100,000 years the human condition has undergone many such re-workings of our collective world view, however, all with imp's in them.
This would also explain why the media gave so much play to the experiment regarding neutrino's going faster than light - what better story than those impish neutrino's not behaving themselves again.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
"What Imps These Particles Be"
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
01 October, 2011
I suggested that using 'Imp' instead of 'Particle' to describe quantum particles, including neutrino's, was a good fit since:
" the word 'Imp' = a mythical creature of German folklore that caused mischief - which pretty much says it all for a lot of particles."
This raises the specter that perhaps a thousand years from now people will be referring to neutrino's and other sub-atomic 'particles' as:
"mythical creatures of Western folklore from the Dawn of Science epoch [that caused mischief . . .]"
Is this an insignificant 'thought experiment'.
Well any self-respecting Scientist (in my opinion) would say perhaps not.
Perhaps there is a deeper underlying fact of the human condition being expressed here.
Perhaps, these are simply the manifestation of the human condition, archetype(s) with re-occurrence in every epoch, a human necessity in any collective world view.
To suggest that they (current theories) are supported by "mathematics" and "rigorous science" is, of course, missing the point.
To us it is "mathematics" and "rigorous science".
Or, a more general way of expressing it, "it is in conformity with the rules and methodologies generally agreed upon by us at this point in time to be used in describing our world".
(compare: spelling and grammar - just because a sentence has all its words spelled correctly and conforms to the grammerical (for all those who think it is 'grammatical' - just wait a while) rules does not mean that the underlying concept truly reflects reality. Also, as we are living thru today, spelling and rules of grammar change).
Well perhaps 1000 years ago the concept of 'Imp' satisfied this condition as well.
To suggest that our current theories possess predictability also misses the point. Predictability is a very subjective concept, and very much dependent on our current condition and what we are willing to accept.
Clearly current theories don't possess the property of predictability, since that would imply perfection, which is very unlikely.
Also, even today it is generally accepted that our theories are not totally satisfactory.
Further, perhaps also a 1000 years ago it was quite acceptable to blame 'mischief' on Imp's thus providing empirical support for their existence.
I have no doubt that in the last 100,000 years the human condition has undergone many such re-workings of our collective world view, however, all with imp's in them.
This would also explain why the media gave so much play to the experiment regarding neutrino's going faster than light - what better story than those impish neutrino's not behaving themselves again.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
02 October, 2011
- Liberals - "Been There Done That" - Not!
see below
Submitted: 8:05pm (PDT) 2 Oct.'11
Reply to: MapleMiss,
The brass ring is grabbed by the person most able to think, and bold enough to act, outside the box.
Also,
Extreme times call for extreme actions
etc., etc., etc.
You could only be referring to Ignatieff as the 'not looking from within'.
Ignatieff, to my understanding, has been a Liberal all his life and so, can hardly say 'not from within'. What he wasn't was a long time politician.
Your reasoning would also exclude Bob Rae as a consideration for Liberal leader, which I suspect is not very likely.
The fact of the matter is that the dynamics are far different now, if in nothing else, in their extremeness, even from when Iggie was made leader, for the Liberal Party and the solution must be based on an analysis of matter as they stand now.
"Been there, done that" simply does not apply.
The Liberals have never 'been there' where they are now and so could not have 'done that', whatever 'that' solution be.
One thing for sure is, if they don't get it right (oops!) I mean correct there's nothing left (oops again) I mean there will be no 'there' to be to.
comments Lloyd MacILquham cicblog
Submitted: 8:05pm (PDT) 2 Oct.'11
Reply to: MapleMiss,
The brass ring is grabbed by the person most able to think, and bold enough to act, outside the box.
Also,
Extreme times call for extreme actions
etc., etc., etc.
You could only be referring to Ignatieff as the 'not looking from within'.
Ignatieff, to my understanding, has been a Liberal all his life and so, can hardly say 'not from within'. What he wasn't was a long time politician.
Your reasoning would also exclude Bob Rae as a consideration for Liberal leader, which I suspect is not very likely.
The fact of the matter is that the dynamics are far different now, if in nothing else, in their extremeness, even from when Iggie was made leader, for the Liberal Party and the solution must be based on an analysis of matter as they stand now.
"Been there, done that" simply does not apply.
The Liberals have never 'been there' where they are now and so could not have 'done that', whatever 'that' solution be.
One thing for sure is, if they don't get it right (oops!) I mean correct there's nothing left (oops again) I mean there will be no 'there' to be to.
comments Lloyd MacILquham cicblog
- Mulcair - Liberal Leader - I Must Be Dreaming
Posted: 1:01 PM on October 2, 2011 (TO time)
Mulcair concedes he faces uphill battle in NDP leadership race, daniel leblanc, Globe and Mail, Sep. 21, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/mulcair-concedes-he-faces-uphill-battle-in-ndp-leadership-race/article2172139/
submitted: 10:19am (PDT) 2 Oct.'11
Paul Dewar to join NDP leadership race, CBC News, Oct 2, 2011
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/10/02/ndp-leadership-dewar.html
I think it is a question of priorities with the NDP.
If the top priority is winning the next election I don't think there is much doubt that with Thomas Mulcair the NDP could possibly do it.
If their priority is, instead, maintaining and supporting the status quo, emphasis on ideology, winning the election not a consideration (i.e. business as usual), then Brian Topp
To me Mulcair is more Liberal leader material, Brian Topp NDP.
The Liberals should be chomping at the bit at the opportunity to woo Mulcair over and Mulcair should be giving such serious consideration.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Mulcair concedes he faces uphill battle in NDP leadership race, daniel leblanc, Globe and Mail, Sep. 21, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/mulcair-concedes-he-faces-uphill-battle-in-ndp-leadership-race/article2172139/
submitted: 10:19am (PDT) 2 Oct.'11
Paul Dewar to join NDP leadership race, CBC News, Oct 2, 2011
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/10/02/ndp-leadership-dewar.html
I think it is a question of priorities with the NDP.
If the top priority is winning the next election I don't think there is much doubt that with Thomas Mulcair the NDP could possibly do it.
If their priority is, instead, maintaining and supporting the status quo, emphasis on ideology, winning the election not a consideration (i.e. business as usual), then Brian Topp
To me Mulcair is more Liberal leader material, Brian Topp NDP.
The Liberals should be chomping at the bit at the opportunity to woo Mulcair over and Mulcair should be giving such serious consideration.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
01 October, 2011
- What Imps These Particles Be
Below I wrote:
"It is the initial conditions, equipment, procedures and methodologies, observations and theory that is 'a neutrino'.
This is, of course, "such stuff as dreams are made on".
However, once this whole is given a name it is somehow cut free of these defining realities, takes on an existence all it's own, and becomes 'a particle'. "
(Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html: "such stuff as dreams are made on", 01 October, 2011)
"Particle"
It should really be called a 'Set' or an 'Empirical Set' or 'Empirical Particle' or in the new vernacular 'E-Particle'.
Perhaps, Imaginary Particle, or I-Particle, gets the message across better -applying Ockhams Razor the correct name should then be 'Im-P'.
'Im-P' has the added advantage of once it is cut free from its context it will take on the added common meaning of the word 'Imp' = a mythical creature of German folklore that caused mischief - which pretty much says it all for a lot of particles.
Current quantum mechanics reminds me of the theories of Epicycles and the Ptolemaic Universe. These complex systems were the result of the then perception that the Earth was the centre of the Universe. Once this perception was dispelled the much simpler Copernican heliocentrism took precedence. Basically it is a change in the frame of reference, not in the observation, but in the contemplation or means of expression.
What current perception might give rise to the complexities observed in Quantum Physics. This is, of course, hard to know since it involves how you think about the world.
Personally I would look first at the Real Line - the use of the Real (Complex) Number System in the expression of observations.
The assumption that the real world conforms to the Real number system reached a high water mark with Newtonian mechanics. However, that the real number continuum represents the real world arose, it seems to me, from perception (e.g. underlying Zeno's Dichotomy Paradox - i.e. to get to the end you must reach the ½ way point, to get to the ½ way point you must reach its ½ way point, etc. - this is, of course, one of the integral properties of the Real Number System, and Zeno was not only assuming that going from point 'A' to point 'B' could be represented by a Real number line, it was so much a part of his perception that he, apparently, was totally unaware that his 'paradox' was based on it).
The nature of Quantum mechanics suggests, to me, that perhaps the Real (Complex) Number System may not be suitable and finding a better one might, perhaps, simplify contemplation and expression.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
"It is the initial conditions, equipment, procedures and methodologies, observations and theory that is 'a neutrino'.
This is, of course, "such stuff as dreams are made on".
However, once this whole is given a name it is somehow cut free of these defining realities, takes on an existence all it's own, and becomes 'a particle'. "
(Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html: "such stuff as dreams are made on", 01 October, 2011)
"Particle"
It should really be called a 'Set' or an 'Empirical Set' or 'Empirical Particle' or in the new vernacular 'E-Particle'.
Perhaps, Imaginary Particle, or I-Particle, gets the message across better -applying Ockhams Razor the correct name should then be 'Im-P'.
'Im-P' has the added advantage of once it is cut free from its context it will take on the added common meaning of the word 'Imp' = a mythical creature of German folklore that caused mischief - which pretty much says it all for a lot of particles.
Current quantum mechanics reminds me of the theories of Epicycles and the Ptolemaic Universe. These complex systems were the result of the then perception that the Earth was the centre of the Universe. Once this perception was dispelled the much simpler Copernican heliocentrism took precedence. Basically it is a change in the frame of reference, not in the observation, but in the contemplation or means of expression.
What current perception might give rise to the complexities observed in Quantum Physics. This is, of course, hard to know since it involves how you think about the world.
Personally I would look first at the Real Line - the use of the Real (Complex) Number System in the expression of observations.
The assumption that the real world conforms to the Real number system reached a high water mark with Newtonian mechanics. However, that the real number continuum represents the real world arose, it seems to me, from perception (e.g. underlying Zeno's Dichotomy Paradox - i.e. to get to the end you must reach the ½ way point, to get to the ½ way point you must reach its ½ way point, etc. - this is, of course, one of the integral properties of the Real Number System, and Zeno was not only assuming that going from point 'A' to point 'B' could be represented by a Real number line, it was so much a part of his perception that he, apparently, was totally unaware that his 'paradox' was based on it).
The nature of Quantum mechanics suggests, to me, that perhaps the Real (Complex) Number System may not be suitable and finding a better one might, perhaps, simplify contemplation and expression.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
"such stuff as dreams are made on"
(see my post: "Neutrinos - Earth shattering???"
23 September, 2011 - below
It is the initial conditions, equipment, procedures and methodologies, observations and theory that is 'a neutrino'.
This is, of course, "such stuff as dreams are made on".
However, once this whole is given a name it is somehow cut free of these defining realities, takes on an existence all it's own, and becomes 'a particle'.
Vis.:
Prospero:
Our revels now are ended. These our actors,
As I foretold you, were all spirits, and
Are melted into air, into thin air:
And like the baseless fabric of this vision,
The cloud-capp'd tow'rs, the gorgeous palaces,
The solemn temples, the great globe itself,
and yea, even neutrinos,
Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve,
And, like this insubstantial pageant faded,
Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff
As dreams are made on; and our little life
Is rounded with a sleep.
see: Shakespeare, The Tempest Act 4, scene 1, 148–158
compare Einstein:
“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
23 September, 2011 - below
It is the initial conditions, equipment, procedures and methodologies, observations and theory that is 'a neutrino'.
This is, of course, "such stuff as dreams are made on".
However, once this whole is given a name it is somehow cut free of these defining realities, takes on an existence all it's own, and becomes 'a particle'.
Vis.:
Prospero:
Our revels now are ended. These our actors,
As I foretold you, were all spirits, and
Are melted into air, into thin air:
And like the baseless fabric of this vision,
The cloud-capp'd tow'rs, the gorgeous palaces,
The solemn temples, the great globe itself,
and yea, even neutrinos,
Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve,
And, like this insubstantial pageant faded,
Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff
As dreams are made on; and our little life
Is rounded with a sleep.
see: Shakespeare, The Tempest Act 4, scene 1, 148–158
compare Einstein:
“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
30 September, 2011
Communities - To Be or Not To Be
I wrote this 26 Jun, '11
If we want to talk about communities, it is important to understand just exactly what is referred to, what is the essence of Community, that which is so desired and to which such high value placed. But, what in reality can be a mere mirage, a projection our collective unconscious, reaching back to a primordial time before 'self' awareness. [I changed the grammar a bit - hope it reads a bit better now - Comments are something that should be banged out on the key board in 1/2 hr or so and 'damner the grammar' - 2 Oct.'11].
Community exists when the whole is greater than the sum of its parts and is defined and exists to that extent only. It is made up of that part of our existence that goes beyond the 'self', the 'me'. It occurs when we think, not what is good for me, but what is good for the whole and its boundaries are defined to the extent that we are willing to make such consideration beyond ourselves. It is the opposite of 'sink or swim', 'everyone for themselves', 'only the strong survive', 'the law of the jungle', 'might is right'. It was encapsulated in "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country". It is the stuff that allows us to survive a Great Depression, World Wars. It motivates us to pool our resources together to help those that need help and protect those that need protect.
During the Great Depression people helped on an individual basis, and the governments took a hands off approach (until near the end). With this and the 2nd World War fresh in their memories, people turned more and more to their governments to organize social programs to assist others, and willing to pay increased taxes to implement such programs. However, at the same time they transferred the responsibility, the direct contact and exposure to the point of disassociation. It freed their consciences to pursue a 'everyone for themself' attitude (and perhaps that was what JFK was addressing) and let the government take care it. The problem with this is when you have a government that wants to implement a hand off approach, an 'everyone one for themselves', reduce government, reduce taxes so that the individual may have more disposable income. With this both sides of the equation say 'me'. The result is: there is no 'Community', there is no 'social' there is no common ground or bonds, there is no identification with 'you', there is no 'us' (even if it is 'us against them'). There is only 32 million points, without significance in a Universe of billions.
I was at a Church on Friday evening and on the wall was a plaque that set what makes for a Community. I would reproduce here but for copy right laws. However, one thing it suggested was "Buy from local merchants". This seems innocuous. However, perhaps if people did buy 'local' as opposed to say, importing, even though it might be more expensive, we may not be able to afford all this stuff. But, when combined with the very 'me' attitude of spending beyond our means, how do you think this recession would look to us, to all those in our 'Community' who have lost their jobs, had their lives destroyed, live substandard lives, are unable to provide the opportunity to their children to allow them to reach their potential (and make us, as a whole, stronger).
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
If we want to talk about communities, it is important to understand just exactly what is referred to, what is the essence of Community, that which is so desired and to which such high value placed. But, what in reality can be a mere mirage, a projection our collective unconscious, reaching back to a primordial time before 'self' awareness. [I changed the grammar a bit - hope it reads a bit better now - Comments are something that should be banged out on the key board in 1/2 hr or so and 'damner the grammar' - 2 Oct.'11].
Community exists when the whole is greater than the sum of its parts and is defined and exists to that extent only. It is made up of that part of our existence that goes beyond the 'self', the 'me'. It occurs when we think, not what is good for me, but what is good for the whole and its boundaries are defined to the extent that we are willing to make such consideration beyond ourselves. It is the opposite of 'sink or swim', 'everyone for themselves', 'only the strong survive', 'the law of the jungle', 'might is right'. It was encapsulated in "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country". It is the stuff that allows us to survive a Great Depression, World Wars. It motivates us to pool our resources together to help those that need help and protect those that need protect.
During the Great Depression people helped on an individual basis, and the governments took a hands off approach (until near the end). With this and the 2nd World War fresh in their memories, people turned more and more to their governments to organize social programs to assist others, and willing to pay increased taxes to implement such programs. However, at the same time they transferred the responsibility, the direct contact and exposure to the point of disassociation. It freed their consciences to pursue a 'everyone for themself' attitude (and perhaps that was what JFK was addressing) and let the government take care it. The problem with this is when you have a government that wants to implement a hand off approach, an 'everyone one for themselves', reduce government, reduce taxes so that the individual may have more disposable income. With this both sides of the equation say 'me'. The result is: there is no 'Community', there is no 'social' there is no common ground or bonds, there is no identification with 'you', there is no 'us' (even if it is 'us against them'). There is only 32 million points, without significance in a Universe of billions.
I was at a Church on Friday evening and on the wall was a plaque that set what makes for a Community. I would reproduce here but for copy right laws. However, one thing it suggested was "Buy from local merchants". This seems innocuous. However, perhaps if people did buy 'local' as opposed to say, importing, even though it might be more expensive, we may not be able to afford all this stuff. But, when combined with the very 'me' attitude of spending beyond our means, how do you think this recession would look to us, to all those in our 'Community' who have lost their jobs, had their lives destroyed, live substandard lives, are unable to provide the opportunity to their children to allow them to reach their potential (and make us, as a whole, stronger).
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
23 September, 2011
- Neutrinos - Earth shattering???
Continuation of the last post - below
Particles found to break speed of light
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/22/us-science-light-idUSTRE78L4FH20110922
submitted: 23 Sep.'11 at 9:58am (PDT)
I submitted a comment yesterday but apparently it is not being posted - perhaps they thought I was making 'light' of such an 'Earth-shattering' experiment.
(you may read my comment at: cicblog.com/comments.html
"- Little Known or Understood Exception to the Speed of Light")
To dispel such impressions I would like to add:
If I recall my Prof from my 1st year Physics class (UofT '72 - that's 1972) explaining that Einstein's Special Theory implied that it would take an infinite amount of energy to raise an object (with mass) to the speed of light. This, of course, is a simple application of the Lorentz factor:
γ = (1 − v2/c2)−1/2 (i.e. power -1/2)
Vis.:
e=γmc2
where m is the rest mass.
He went on to point out, quite rightly, that this inferred prohibition was based on the assumption that the object had 'rest mass' and was going less than the speed of light and so did not apply to either objects without 'rest mass' or objects with 'rest mass' but whose speed was not less than the speed of light - obviously since light travels at the speed of light and has mass (apparently). If I recall he mentioned something about neutrinos - but that was a long time ago and I would have to review my notes to confirm.
Basically, the mass equation above has a singularity at v=c and as we know, in physics it can not be assumed that the theory extends to this point or beyond.
As we also know this equation has only been verified for speeds less than the speed of light and only within experimental accuracy. It is meaningless to the theory to say it has been verified for speeds up to .9999999c due to the general principle in Physics (and life generally: a miss is as near as a mile - i.e. you give me a degree of accuracy and I am confident that I could find - well I used to be able to do that kind of thing anyway - an equation that will approximate the Lorentz equation to within existing experimental accuracies but that does not have the speed of light as a singularity)
It seems to me that what is Earth-shattering about this experiment is not the neutrinos - which as we 'know' (ha ha ha, little joke) do not shatter Earth - is that the technology of measurements has advanced to such a degree that they have the technical ability to measure these events and of such short periods of time. It reminds me of the Michelson- Morley experiment in the late 1800's that concluded that the speed of light was constant, which of course set everything off. One must always be skeptical of the conclusion that the speed of light is constant, of course, but the fact that they were able to make such measurements was absolutely 'Earth-shattering', at the time.
Personally, I am not convinced that neutrino's are no more than a figment of our imaginations but then, in the immortal words of the Sage himself:
“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”
Albert Einstein
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Particles found to break speed of light
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/22/us-science-light-idUSTRE78L4FH20110922
submitted: 23 Sep.'11 at 9:58am (PDT)
I submitted a comment yesterday but apparently it is not being posted - perhaps they thought I was making 'light' of such an 'Earth-shattering' experiment.
(you may read my comment at: cicblog.com/comments.html
"- Little Known or Understood Exception to the Speed of Light")
To dispel such impressions I would like to add:
If I recall my Prof from my 1st year Physics class (UofT '72 - that's 1972) explaining that Einstein's Special Theory implied that it would take an infinite amount of energy to raise an object (with mass) to the speed of light. This, of course, is a simple application of the Lorentz factor:
γ = (1 − v2/c2)−1/2 (i.e. power -1/2)
Vis.:
e=γmc2
where m is the rest mass.
He went on to point out, quite rightly, that this inferred prohibition was based on the assumption that the object had 'rest mass' and was going less than the speed of light and so did not apply to either objects without 'rest mass' or objects with 'rest mass' but whose speed was not less than the speed of light - obviously since light travels at the speed of light and has mass (apparently). If I recall he mentioned something about neutrinos - but that was a long time ago and I would have to review my notes to confirm.
Basically, the mass equation above has a singularity at v=c and as we know, in physics it can not be assumed that the theory extends to this point or beyond.
As we also know this equation has only been verified for speeds less than the speed of light and only within experimental accuracy. It is meaningless to the theory to say it has been verified for speeds up to .9999999c due to the general principle in Physics (and life generally: a miss is as near as a mile - i.e. you give me a degree of accuracy and I am confident that I could find - well I used to be able to do that kind of thing anyway - an equation that will approximate the Lorentz equation to within existing experimental accuracies but that does not have the speed of light as a singularity)
It seems to me that what is Earth-shattering about this experiment is not the neutrinos - which as we 'know' (ha ha ha, little joke) do not shatter Earth - is that the technology of measurements has advanced to such a degree that they have the technical ability to measure these events and of such short periods of time. It reminds me of the Michelson- Morley experiment in the late 1800's that concluded that the speed of light was constant, which of course set everything off. One must always be skeptical of the conclusion that the speed of light is constant, of course, but the fact that they were able to make such measurements was absolutely 'Earth-shattering', at the time.
Personally, I am not convinced that neutrino's are no more than a figment of our imaginations but then, in the immortal words of the Sage himself:
“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”
Albert Einstein
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- Little Known or Understood Exception to the Speed of Light
Submitted: 22 Sep.'11
Particles found to break speed of light
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/22/us-science-light-idUSTRE78L4FH20110922
"neutrinos moving 60 nanoseconds quicker than light over a distance of 730 km between Geneva and Gran Sasso"
It was actually Berlusconi trying to get away from the media - a very fundamental part of Einstein's theory, not well known, or understood, but very well documented, is that politicians running for cover when the sh... starts flying is an exception to the general rule.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Particles found to break speed of light
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/22/us-science-light-idUSTRE78L4FH20110922
"neutrinos moving 60 nanoseconds quicker than light over a distance of 730 km between Geneva and Gran Sasso"
It was actually Berlusconi trying to get away from the media - a very fundamental part of Einstein's theory, not well known, or understood, but very well documented, is that politicians running for cover when the sh... starts flying is an exception to the general rule.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
01 May, 2011
- Re-Instate Democracy, Send Harper Back From Whence He Came - unabridged
Posted: 1:23 PM on May 1, 2011
‘Happy warrior’ Ignatieff pushes to get Liberals to vote, Jane Taber, Globe and Mail, May. 01, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/happy-warrior-ignatieff-pushes-to-get-liberals-to-vote/article2005679/comments/
see below]
It is very important that all Canadians know just exactly what Harper and his Con's have in mind after the election results.
If Harper gets a majority it is easy to predict:
4 years of light-speed implementation of right-wing extremist policies based solely on the Harper and Con'ism ideology supported by little more than 1/3rd of Canadians, with no foundation in rationality, or what is best for all Canadians
As far as any promises made during the election suggesting respecting the views of the Moderate Majority - it would be ' all bets are off ' for Harper after all 'it is the will of the people'
even if it is 'the will' of only just over 1/3 of the population - anyone that doesn't think this must explain, for example, Harper's Income Trust reversal
If Harper ends up with more seats but not a majority.
You can betcha he will not give up power willingly. We only have to see what he has said in the past.
'Losers don't form governments'
And, Harper will not seek the support of other parties.
There is very little chance the Harper would go cap-in-hand to another Party to seek their support and even if he did he has poisoned the well to such an extent and made it very clear that he could not and would not work with any other party, it is strictly the Harper way or no way, it is very hard to see any other party taking any overtures seriously.
Canadian Democratic traditions - the same that require the PM to have the confidence of Parliament - indicate that the Party that was in power before the election continue after the election until they relinquish power by going to the Governor General.
If the PM does not voluntarily go to the GG then it is precipitated by a non Confidence vote.
Look for Harper delaying in recalling parliament - like he has never done that before - the question is how long - it seems to me that Constitutionally he must call Parliament once a year, and practically speaking to pass spending bills.
If you want to understand what Harper is capable of, look at what he did last time in Dec.'08:
When faced with non-confidence in Dec.'08 and losing power:
"we will fight it with every means that we have"
(In Parliament on 2 Dec.'08 and Peter McKay this is in Hansard),
Also, keep in mind that this is the GG that Harper appointed and yet to demonstrate his hold on Canadian Democracy
The best solution for Canada and all Canadians is to have the Moderate Majority engage, get out and vote and close off Harper continuing to abuse Democracy and the Canadian way and
send Harper back from whence he came.
excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
‘Happy warrior’ Ignatieff pushes to get Liberals to vote, Jane Taber, Globe and Mail, May. 01, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/happy-warrior-ignatieff-pushes-to-get-liberals-to-vote/article2005679/comments/
see below]
It is very important that all Canadians know just exactly what Harper and his Con's have in mind after the election results.
If Harper gets a majority it is easy to predict:
4 years of light-speed implementation of right-wing extremist policies based solely on the Harper and Con'ism ideology supported by little more than 1/3rd of Canadians, with no foundation in rationality, or what is best for all Canadians
As far as any promises made during the election suggesting respecting the views of the Moderate Majority - it would be ' all bets are off ' for Harper after all 'it is the will of the people'
even if it is 'the will' of only just over 1/3 of the population - anyone that doesn't think this must explain, for example, Harper's Income Trust reversal
If Harper ends up with more seats but not a majority.
You can betcha he will not give up power willingly. We only have to see what he has said in the past.
'Losers don't form governments'
And, Harper will not seek the support of other parties.
There is very little chance the Harper would go cap-in-hand to another Party to seek their support and even if he did he has poisoned the well to such an extent and made it very clear that he could not and would not work with any other party, it is strictly the Harper way or no way, it is very hard to see any other party taking any overtures seriously.
Canadian Democratic traditions - the same that require the PM to have the confidence of Parliament - indicate that the Party that was in power before the election continue after the election until they relinquish power by going to the Governor General.
If the PM does not voluntarily go to the GG then it is precipitated by a non Confidence vote.
Look for Harper delaying in recalling parliament - like he has never done that before - the question is how long - it seems to me that Constitutionally he must call Parliament once a year, and practically speaking to pass spending bills.
If you want to understand what Harper is capable of, look at what he did last time in Dec.'08:
When faced with non-confidence in Dec.'08 and losing power:
"we will fight it with every means that we have"
(In Parliament on 2 Dec.'08 and Peter McKay this is in Hansard),
Also, keep in mind that this is the GG that Harper appointed and yet to demonstrate his hold on Canadian Democracy
The best solution for Canada and all Canadians is to have the Moderate Majority engage, get out and vote and close off Harper continuing to abuse Democracy and the Canadian way and
send Harper back from whence he came.
excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- Solution: Moderate Majority engage, consolidate, get out and vote, and send Harper back from whence he came
Submitted: 9:58am, PDT, 1 May '11 CBC
Harper rebuffs talk of government 'hypotheticals', Tory leader makes pitch for Liberal voters, CBC News Posted: Apr 30, 2011
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/30/cv-election-saturday-campaign.html#
Canadians must understand
what Harper will do
what Harper is capable of
after the election
we need only look at what he has said and done in the past - right-wing extremists do not lose their spots
If Harper gets a majority it is easy to predict:
4 years of light-speed implementation of right-wing extremist policies based solely on the Harper and Con'ism ideology supported by little more than 1/3rd of Canadians, with no foundation in rationality, or what is best for all Canadians
As far as any promises made during the election suggesting respecting the views of the majority - it would be ' all bets are off ' for Harper after all 'it is the will of the people'
even if it is 'the will' of only just over 1/3 of the population - anyone that doesn't think this must explain, for example, Harper's Income Trust reversal
If Harper ends up with more seats but not a majority
You can betcha he will not give up power willingly - vis.:
'Losers don't form governments'
Harper will not seek the support of other parties - co-operation means you do what I want
If the PM does not voluntarily go to the GG then it is precipitated by a non Confidence vote
Look for Harper delaying in recalling Parliament
If you want to understand what Harper is capable of look at what he said last time in Parliament on 2 Dec.'08 When faced with losing power:
"we will fight it with every means that we have"
Harper will continue to abuse Democracy and have Contempt for the duly elected representatives of the Moderate Majority, and tear asunder Canadian values and way of life, unless he is soundly defeated.
Solution:
Moderate Majority engage, consolidate, get out and vote, and send Harper back from whence he came.
comments Lloyd MacILquham cicblog
Harper rebuffs talk of government 'hypotheticals', Tory leader makes pitch for Liberal voters, CBC News Posted: Apr 30, 2011
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/30/cv-election-saturday-campaign.html#
Canadians must understand
what Harper will do
what Harper is capable of
after the election
we need only look at what he has said and done in the past - right-wing extremists do not lose their spots
If Harper gets a majority it is easy to predict:
4 years of light-speed implementation of right-wing extremist policies based solely on the Harper and Con'ism ideology supported by little more than 1/3rd of Canadians, with no foundation in rationality, or what is best for all Canadians
As far as any promises made during the election suggesting respecting the views of the majority - it would be ' all bets are off ' for Harper after all 'it is the will of the people'
even if it is 'the will' of only just over 1/3 of the population - anyone that doesn't think this must explain, for example, Harper's Income Trust reversal
If Harper ends up with more seats but not a majority
You can betcha he will not give up power willingly - vis.:
'Losers don't form governments'
Harper will not seek the support of other parties - co-operation means you do what I want
If the PM does not voluntarily go to the GG then it is precipitated by a non Confidence vote
Look for Harper delaying in recalling Parliament
If you want to understand what Harper is capable of look at what he said last time in Parliament on 2 Dec.'08 When faced with losing power:
"we will fight it with every means that we have"
Harper will continue to abuse Democracy and have Contempt for the duly elected representatives of the Moderate Majority, and tear asunder Canadian values and way of life, unless he is soundly defeated.
Solution:
Moderate Majority engage, consolidate, get out and vote, and send Harper back from whence he came.
comments Lloyd MacILquham cicblog
30 April, 2011
- The Harper solution to the undreamt of Oil price and at the pump Gas prices: it's a great time to buy shares in the Oil companies
Submitted: 9:27am, PDT, 30 Apr.'11 CBC
Re-submitted: 1:01pm, PDT, 30Apr.'11 CBC go figure
NDP cap-and-trade plan would hike gas prices: Pembina
CBC News Posted: Apr 29, 2011
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/29/cv-election-ndp-gas-prices.html#
I might, but I have to buy food and cloths for my family.
Just look at who is benefiting from these unheard of prices and you'll learn who Harper is in it for.
Its certainly not the manufacturing industry of Ontario and Quebec
and it's certainly not for Canadians who are poised to be hit by another economic tsunami
"Gross domestic product declined 0.2 per cent . . . The weakness in manufacturing is directly tied to the strong Canadian dollar and the slow U.S. Recovery." (G&M, 29 Apr.'11)
Our recovery is directly tied to the US.
(I know, I know, you all thought it was the 'do-nothing' policies of Flaherty and Harper)
Keep in mind, if we believe Harper that his reckless spending in the last couple years actually had a positive impact on the economy, albeit much less than ought to have been realized from the amount spent, this impact is coming to an end - I pray
We are faced with, yet another, perfect wave scenario:
- unheard of, sky-is-the-limit increased costs of Gas.
- unheard of, sky-is-the-limit increased costs of goods, especially food and the necessities of life
- reduced demand from the US causing decrease in exports and thus manufacturing.
- increased Can dollar due to Oil prices causing decrease in exports and thus manufacturing.
What is the Harper government doing to protect us from this
Nothing.
That's the Harper economic policy in a word - "do-nothing"
Just look at his budget, and the Harper campaign promises.
Or, in the immoral (sorry, slip of the pen, I meant to write, immortal . . ., or not)
words of Jim Flaherty: "de nada"
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Re-submitted: 1:01pm, PDT, 30Apr.'11 CBC go figure
NDP cap-and-trade plan would hike gas prices: Pembina
CBC News Posted: Apr 29, 2011
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/29/cv-election-ndp-gas-prices.html#
I might, but I have to buy food and cloths for my family.
Just look at who is benefiting from these unheard of prices and you'll learn who Harper is in it for.
Its certainly not the manufacturing industry of Ontario and Quebec
and it's certainly not for Canadians who are poised to be hit by another economic tsunami
"Gross domestic product declined 0.2 per cent . . . The weakness in manufacturing is directly tied to the strong Canadian dollar and the slow U.S. Recovery." (G&M, 29 Apr.'11)
Our recovery is directly tied to the US.
(I know, I know, you all thought it was the 'do-nothing' policies of Flaherty and Harper)
Keep in mind, if we believe Harper that his reckless spending in the last couple years actually had a positive impact on the economy, albeit much less than ought to have been realized from the amount spent, this impact is coming to an end - I pray
We are faced with, yet another, perfect wave scenario:
- unheard of, sky-is-the-limit increased costs of Gas.
- unheard of, sky-is-the-limit increased costs of goods, especially food and the necessities of life
- reduced demand from the US causing decrease in exports and thus manufacturing.
- increased Can dollar due to Oil prices causing decrease in exports and thus manufacturing.
What is the Harper government doing to protect us from this
Nothing.
That's the Harper economic policy in a word - "do-nothing"
Just look at his budget, and the Harper campaign promises.
Or, in the immoral (sorry, slip of the pen, I meant to write, immortal . . ., or not)
words of Jim Flaherty: "de nada"
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- Harper on a Good Day, can't be Believed. But, on a Good 'Con' Day, All Trustworthiness Is Cast Aside
submitted: 9:09am, PDT, 30 Apr.'11 CBC
NDP cap-and-trade plan would hike gas prices: Pembina
CBC News Posted: Apr 29, 2011
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/29/cv-election-ndp-gas-prices.html#
It is just counter-intuitive a Cap-and-Trade system would not add to the cost of gas at the pump.
But,
If Harper says $.10 a litre I feel very confident that it would, in reality, be much less.
If $.10 a litre were a reasonable estimate, Harper would, on a good day, be claiming it would add $.15 cents, and on a good Con day, claiming $.20
The question about Cap and Trade is whether the system put in place is revenue neutral
Right now it is the price of gas that we must be concerned about.
The biggest threat to our recovering economy is the increases in Oil and Gas and the inevitable sky-rocketing costs of everything else because of it
Not only do the previously undreamt of prices at the pump suck the money money right out of our pockets like someone stuck a vacuum cleaner in them
But also, the money flows outside Canada to some of the largest and wealthiest International Companies in the world
Exxon Mobil Corp. "led an investor-friendly but politically charged oil industry earnings parade Thursday with its quarterly profit of $10.7-billion (U.S.)." (G&M, 29 Apr.'11)
- that's after tax - why do they need a tax break, I need a Petrol break.
and the cost of everything increases accordingly since it takes gas to get the raw materials to the factory and the value added goods to the consumer.
Along with the inflation will come loss of jobs, reduced standard of living, increase in the number of families that can't make ends meet
It's just that simple.
Harper's strategy can be summed up in three words:
Nada-Nada-Nyet
'Nada' for the tax the Oil companies should pay
'Nada' for the regulation towards environmental control
and
'Nyet' for the help to Canadians who need it.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
NDP cap-and-trade plan would hike gas prices: Pembina
CBC News Posted: Apr 29, 2011
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/29/cv-election-ndp-gas-prices.html#
It is just counter-intuitive a Cap-and-Trade system would not add to the cost of gas at the pump.
But,
If Harper says $.10 a litre I feel very confident that it would, in reality, be much less.
If $.10 a litre were a reasonable estimate, Harper would, on a good day, be claiming it would add $.15 cents, and on a good Con day, claiming $.20
The question about Cap and Trade is whether the system put in place is revenue neutral
Right now it is the price of gas that we must be concerned about.
The biggest threat to our recovering economy is the increases in Oil and Gas and the inevitable sky-rocketing costs of everything else because of it
Not only do the previously undreamt of prices at the pump suck the money money right out of our pockets like someone stuck a vacuum cleaner in them
But also, the money flows outside Canada to some of the largest and wealthiest International Companies in the world
Exxon Mobil Corp. "led an investor-friendly but politically charged oil industry earnings parade Thursday with its quarterly profit of $10.7-billion (U.S.)." (G&M, 29 Apr.'11)
- that's after tax - why do they need a tax break, I need a Petrol break.
and the cost of everything increases accordingly since it takes gas to get the raw materials to the factory and the value added goods to the consumer.
Along with the inflation will come loss of jobs, reduced standard of living, increase in the number of families that can't make ends meet
It's just that simple.
Harper's strategy can be summed up in three words:
Nada-Nada-Nyet
'Nada' for the tax the Oil companies should pay
'Nada' for the regulation towards environmental control
and
'Nyet' for the help to Canadians who need it.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
29 April, 2011
- Harper's Con Of Convenience
Submitted: 6:58am, PDT, 29 Apr.'11 The Toronto Star
Exclusive: Majority out of reach, Tories say, Robert Benzie, Toronto Star, 29 Apr.'11
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/982356--exclusive-majority-out-of-reach-tories-say#comments
Harper also Explained That The Decisions Are Not all Snake Oil
The Big Question Is Just How Much Of Harper Is Snake Oil
I'd Say Pretty Much 100%
One of the biggest "snake oil" pitches of Harper is that if he gets a minority of seats but more than the other parties, and even if he only gets approx 1/3 of the vote, he has the right to run this great nation of ours.
That may be 'Right' in a right-wing extremist sort of way and a 'con' of convenience for Harper.
But it is not right constitutionally, morally or according to the will of the Canadian people.
The election is to vote for representatives to Parliament, they're referred to as "MP's".
In the election there are 308 winners in a first past the post system.
However, the Prime Minister and the party, or parties, that end up governing are then elected by these our representatives and hold power as long as they enjoy the Confidence these representatives.
We are accountable to our children and our children's children
who would very well regret that we were ever given a turn at the helm because we allowed Harper power.
How about spending $30 billions, and counting, on 65 F-35 strike force super-jets - which are designed specifically and really may only be used to anywhere near their capacity in a full pitched war.
How about the 10's billions in implementing Harper's criminal legislation which has no foundation in rationality but only in right-wing ideology, designed to fear monger votes.
Then we have the Healthcare negotiations in '14
- how many generations will it take to undo the damage Harper would do to the Canadian way of life and our social fabric if Harper is allowed to privatize, sorry I meant, renegotiate Healthcare in '14.
If Harper gets a majority - God save Canada
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Exclusive: Majority out of reach, Tories say, Robert Benzie, Toronto Star, 29 Apr.'11
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/982356--exclusive-majority-out-of-reach-tories-say#comments
Harper also Explained That The Decisions Are Not all Snake Oil
The Big Question Is Just How Much Of Harper Is Snake Oil
I'd Say Pretty Much 100%
One of the biggest "snake oil" pitches of Harper is that if he gets a minority of seats but more than the other parties, and even if he only gets approx 1/3 of the vote, he has the right to run this great nation of ours.
That may be 'Right' in a right-wing extremist sort of way and a 'con' of convenience for Harper.
But it is not right constitutionally, morally or according to the will of the Canadian people.
The election is to vote for representatives to Parliament, they're referred to as "MP's".
In the election there are 308 winners in a first past the post system.
However, the Prime Minister and the party, or parties, that end up governing are then elected by these our representatives and hold power as long as they enjoy the Confidence these representatives.
We are accountable to our children and our children's children
who would very well regret that we were ever given a turn at the helm because we allowed Harper power.
How about spending $30 billions, and counting, on 65 F-35 strike force super-jets - which are designed specifically and really may only be used to anywhere near their capacity in a full pitched war.
How about the 10's billions in implementing Harper's criminal legislation which has no foundation in rationality but only in right-wing ideology, designed to fear monger votes.
Then we have the Healthcare negotiations in '14
- how many generations will it take to undo the damage Harper would do to the Canadian way of life and our social fabric if Harper is allowed to privatize, sorry I meant, renegotiate Healthcare in '14.
If Harper gets a majority - God save Canada
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
28 April, 2011
- Harper's Nada-Nada-Nyet Policy
Submitted: 11:33am, PDT, 28 Apr.'11 CBC
see below
and
Submitted: 2:47 PM on April 28, 2011 The Globe and Mail
Harper predicts pain
at gas pumps should Layton grab share of power, STEVEN CHASE, Globe and Mail, April 28, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/harper-predicts-pain-at-gas-pumps-should-layton-grab-share-of-power/article2002089/
The biggest threat to our recovering economy is the increases in Oil and Gas and the inevitable sky-rocketing costs of everything else because of it
And
Harper's Nada-Nada-Nyet Policy:
Nada for the tax,
Nada for the regulation
and
Nyet for the help to Canadians who need it.
Along with the inflation will come loss of jobs, reduced standard of living, increase in the number of families that can't make ends meet, . . .
What is the Harper government doing to protect us from this
Nothing.
Harper is actually giving more to the Oil companies through subsidies and the tax reduction to the most profitable corporations - 30 -50% of which are Oil companies and Bank.
Neither the Oil companies nor the Banks require additional incentives to be in Canada.
The Banks are Canadian and like it here. However, they take the billions in profits they reap from us and invest it in other markets.
The Oil companies not only are they making huge, undreamt of profits, but Harper already gives them subsidies and now undreamt of tax breaks.
Also, these profits flow more quickly and more unobstructedly out of Canada than the Oil.
Will the Oil companies and Banks pull up stakes and leave Canada if they didn't receive the Harper tax breaks - not in our lifetimes.
The only protection we as Canadians have is to work together to help those that need help - that's what Federalism is all about.
Eliminate the subsidies to the Oil companies and roll back the Corporate taxes and apply the funds to assist Canadians that need help.
To Harper and his kind, this makes Canada "a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term . . ."
But, I suggest, to the Moderate Majority of Canadian this is what makes Canada strong, proud and a place where all the people are free to carry out their dreams and not bound to financial servitude.
comments Lloyd MacILquham cicblog
see below
and
Submitted: 2:47 PM on April 28, 2011 The Globe and Mail
Harper predicts pain
at gas pumps should Layton grab share of power, STEVEN CHASE, Globe and Mail, April 28, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/harper-predicts-pain-at-gas-pumps-should-layton-grab-share-of-power/article2002089/
The biggest threat to our recovering economy is the increases in Oil and Gas and the inevitable sky-rocketing costs of everything else because of it
And
Harper's Nada-Nada-Nyet Policy:
Nada for the tax,
Nada for the regulation
and
Nyet for the help to Canadians who need it.
Along with the inflation will come loss of jobs, reduced standard of living, increase in the number of families that can't make ends meet, . . .
What is the Harper government doing to protect us from this
Nothing.
Harper is actually giving more to the Oil companies through subsidies and the tax reduction to the most profitable corporations - 30 -50% of which are Oil companies and Bank.
Neither the Oil companies nor the Banks require additional incentives to be in Canada.
The Banks are Canadian and like it here. However, they take the billions in profits they reap from us and invest it in other markets.
The Oil companies not only are they making huge, undreamt of profits, but Harper already gives them subsidies and now undreamt of tax breaks.
Also, these profits flow more quickly and more unobstructedly out of Canada than the Oil.
Will the Oil companies and Banks pull up stakes and leave Canada if they didn't receive the Harper tax breaks - not in our lifetimes.
The only protection we as Canadians have is to work together to help those that need help - that's what Federalism is all about.
Eliminate the subsidies to the Oil companies and roll back the Corporate taxes and apply the funds to assist Canadians that need help.
To Harper and his kind, this makes Canada "a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term . . ."
But, I suggest, to the Moderate Majority of Canadian this is what makes Canada strong, proud and a place where all the people are free to carry out their dreams and not bound to financial servitude.
comments Lloyd MacILquham cicblog
Harper: "Get the big decisions wrong and it will take a generation to dig ourselves out" - You've Got That Right
Submitted: 7:37am, PDT, 28 Apr.'11 CBC
Final campaign push before royal wedding, CBC News Posted: Apr 28, 2011
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/28/cv-election-day34.html#
"Get the big decisions wrong and it will take a generation to dig ourselves out"
Ironical or what!
Harper, when you're right, you're right - of course, you're always 'Right' - in a right-wing extremist ideological sort of way.
Give Harper a Majority and Our Children and Our Children's Children Will be Digging themselves Out for Generations.
How about spending $30 billions, and counting, on 65 F-35 strike force super-jets - which are designed specifically and really may only be used to anywhere near their capacity in a full pitched war.
How about the 10's billions in implementing Harper's criminal legislation which has no foundation in rationality but only in right-wing ideology, designed to fear monger votes.
How about Harper turning his back on seniors, students health care top give the Oil companies and banks increased profits - we don't need to increase profits, which flow out of Canada faster than the oil, to attract these companies they are already here and doing very well, at our expense - at least by taxing them we recoup some of the money they fleece from us.
Then we have the Healthcare negotiations in '14
- how many generations will it take to undo the damage Harper would do to the Canadian way of life and our social fabric if Harper is allowed to privatize, sorry I meant, renegotiate Healthcare.
Giving the reigns of power to someone like Harper can only prove, and has proved, disastrous to the Canadian way of life, and our very social fiber,
which our forefathers spent their blood, sweat and tears building
and for which we are accountable to our children and our children's children
who will very well regret that we were ever given a turn at the helm because we allowed Harper power.
If Harper gets a majority - God save Canada
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Final campaign push before royal wedding, CBC News Posted: Apr 28, 2011
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/28/cv-election-day34.html#
"Get the big decisions wrong and it will take a generation to dig ourselves out"
Ironical or what!
Harper, when you're right, you're right - of course, you're always 'Right' - in a right-wing extremist ideological sort of way.
Give Harper a Majority and Our Children and Our Children's Children Will be Digging themselves Out for Generations.
How about spending $30 billions, and counting, on 65 F-35 strike force super-jets - which are designed specifically and really may only be used to anywhere near their capacity in a full pitched war.
How about the 10's billions in implementing Harper's criminal legislation which has no foundation in rationality but only in right-wing ideology, designed to fear monger votes.
How about Harper turning his back on seniors, students health care top give the Oil companies and banks increased profits - we don't need to increase profits, which flow out of Canada faster than the oil, to attract these companies they are already here and doing very well, at our expense - at least by taxing them we recoup some of the money they fleece from us.
Then we have the Healthcare negotiations in '14
- how many generations will it take to undo the damage Harper would do to the Canadian way of life and our social fabric if Harper is allowed to privatize, sorry I meant, renegotiate Healthcare.
Giving the reigns of power to someone like Harper can only prove, and has proved, disastrous to the Canadian way of life, and our very social fiber,
which our forefathers spent their blood, sweat and tears building
and for which we are accountable to our children and our children's children
who will very well regret that we were ever given a turn at the helm because we allowed Harper power.
If Harper gets a majority - God save Canada
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- Harper: "Not All Snake Oil" - Maybe, But, Just How Much Of You Is Not "All Snake Oil"
Submitted: 7:28am, PDT, 28 Apr.'11 CBC
Final campaign push before royal wedding, CBC News Posted: Apr 28, 2011
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/28/cv-election-day34.html#
'not all snake oil'???
Talk about a Freudian slip
Harper subconscious contacting voters directly to warn us of just who we might be voting for.
Something like the release of the Harper quotations the other day
There is some force at work in the Universe trying to warn Canadians about Harper.
Perhaps Harper could specify just how much of what he says or does is 'snake oil'
That would be good to know when you're deciding who to vote for.
- my estimate is pretty much 100% - except the part about refusing to co-operate with the duly elected representatives of the Moderate Majority of Canadians
One of Harper's fundamental plays is to take a weakness and try to make it a strength.
The results is some of the most ironic, to say the least, and hypocritical to be a bit more blunt, statements in the annals of Canadian political history
This is right up there with Harper's Fundamental Principle of Con'ism:
"it doesn't have to be true, it only has to sound plausible"
Something like Harper referring to Trudeau, one of the greatest supporters of Democracy and individuals freedoms in Canadian history
Mr. Harper, The Charter of Rights And Freedoms is not something that has taken a generation to dig out of - unless you are a right wing extremist, contemptuous of Canadian Democracy.
Only Harper and the Con's could show such contempt for basic Democracy in Canada.
A favorite of mine is Harper commenting on Democracy and how the media should shine its light on the dark corners of government.
Hay Stevo, how about releasing the Afghan Detainee Transfer Scandal Report or the have the Summit Spending Scandal Report released.
Or, how about releasing what you know about the real costs of the 65 F-35's and the real costs of implementing your criminal legislation.
Of course, we all know the reason Harper doesn't want the light of Democracy shining on these matters
- he would lose the election.
It's just that simple.
However,
"not all snake oil"???
- my estimate is pretty much 100% - except that part about refusing to work with the other Parties, if there is no majority. Harper and the Con's didn't work with the other Parties before the election, if fact to such an extent that he was manifestly in contempt of our most important of Democracy institutions and the only one for which we have a direct input and represents us.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Final campaign push before royal wedding, CBC News Posted: Apr 28, 2011
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/28/cv-election-day34.html#
'not all snake oil'???
Talk about a Freudian slip
Harper subconscious contacting voters directly to warn us of just who we might be voting for.
Something like the release of the Harper quotations the other day
There is some force at work in the Universe trying to warn Canadians about Harper.
Perhaps Harper could specify just how much of what he says or does is 'snake oil'
That would be good to know when you're deciding who to vote for.
- my estimate is pretty much 100% - except the part about refusing to co-operate with the duly elected representatives of the Moderate Majority of Canadians
One of Harper's fundamental plays is to take a weakness and try to make it a strength.
The results is some of the most ironic, to say the least, and hypocritical to be a bit more blunt, statements in the annals of Canadian political history
This is right up there with Harper's Fundamental Principle of Con'ism:
"it doesn't have to be true, it only has to sound plausible"
Something like Harper referring to Trudeau, one of the greatest supporters of Democracy and individuals freedoms in Canadian history
Mr. Harper, The Charter of Rights And Freedoms is not something that has taken a generation to dig out of - unless you are a right wing extremist, contemptuous of Canadian Democracy.
Only Harper and the Con's could show such contempt for basic Democracy in Canada.
A favorite of mine is Harper commenting on Democracy and how the media should shine its light on the dark corners of government.
Hay Stevo, how about releasing the Afghan Detainee Transfer Scandal Report or the have the Summit Spending Scandal Report released.
Or, how about releasing what you know about the real costs of the 65 F-35's and the real costs of implementing your criminal legislation.
Of course, we all know the reason Harper doesn't want the light of Democracy shining on these matters
- he would lose the election.
It's just that simple.
However,
"not all snake oil"???
- my estimate is pretty much 100% - except that part about refusing to work with the other Parties, if there is no majority. Harper and the Con's didn't work with the other Parties before the election, if fact to such an extent that he was manifestly in contempt of our most important of Democracy institutions and the only one for which we have a direct input and represents us.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
27 April, 2011
- if we want to get rid of Harper we must take a cold hard look at the realities and decide accordingly
Lloyd Macilquham cicblog
4:02 PM on April 27, 2011
My Response to mikerobinson3 Reply, 1:46 PM on April 27, 2011, to my post: Lloyd Macilquham cicblog
1:21 PM on April 27, 2011:
If we want Harper out, we must look at the realities.
The problem is that at this position we do not know what will happen and what the end result will be. If we did deciding how to vote would be easy.
We may only speculate, based on rationality and the fundamentals.
To say the NDP could take the place of the Liberals is a possibility. But, if they do the likelihood of Harper re-gaining power is pretty much assured.
But, if we want to get rid of Harper we must take a cold hard look at the realities and decide accordingly.
We cannot take a chance on the possibility that Layton and the NDP will make such a great surge as to form the government.
In fact, Layton and the NDP best chance at participating in governance is the Moderate Majority vote Liberal, resulting in a minority government supported by Liberals and NDP
It may be that Layton will for the next government but the chances are remote and if he fall short, it will put Harper back in power.
Your scenario represents a collapse of the current Political spectrum into a two party system of NDP and Con. This is possible but not very likely.
First it would have to get thru that 25% core support of the Liberals, especially in Ontario, and I don't think that can be inferred from the Polls. Whereas the NDP have a core of 18%.
Liberals are middle of the road, and Ontarians are more likely to vote Liberal than NDP. In fact, at this point it appears they are more likely to vote Con than NDP, or Liberal for that matter.
The Poll illustrates this (Con: 46.9, Lib: 25.7, NDP: 21)
If we base our decisions merely on hopes and speculations we will end up with Harper again. In fact looking at the Polls it looks like the damage of Layton's long standing desire to be the leader of the Official Opposition has already done its damage - in Ontario the Con's are perched for a landslide - according to this Poll.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
4:02 PM on April 27, 2011
My Response to mikerobinson3 Reply, 1:46 PM on April 27, 2011, to my post: Lloyd Macilquham cicblog
1:21 PM on April 27, 2011:
If we want Harper out, we must look at the realities.
The problem is that at this position we do not know what will happen and what the end result will be. If we did deciding how to vote would be easy.
We may only speculate, based on rationality and the fundamentals.
To say the NDP could take the place of the Liberals is a possibility. But, if they do the likelihood of Harper re-gaining power is pretty much assured.
But, if we want to get rid of Harper we must take a cold hard look at the realities and decide accordingly.
We cannot take a chance on the possibility that Layton and the NDP will make such a great surge as to form the government.
In fact, Layton and the NDP best chance at participating in governance is the Moderate Majority vote Liberal, resulting in a minority government supported by Liberals and NDP
It may be that Layton will for the next government but the chances are remote and if he fall short, it will put Harper back in power.
Your scenario represents a collapse of the current Political spectrum into a two party system of NDP and Con. This is possible but not very likely.
First it would have to get thru that 25% core support of the Liberals, especially in Ontario, and I don't think that can be inferred from the Polls. Whereas the NDP have a core of 18%.
Liberals are middle of the road, and Ontarians are more likely to vote Liberal than NDP. In fact, at this point it appears they are more likely to vote Con than NDP, or Liberal for that matter.
The Poll illustrates this (Con: 46.9, Lib: 25.7, NDP: 21)
If we base our decisions merely on hopes and speculations we will end up with Harper again. In fact looking at the Polls it looks like the damage of Layton's long standing desire to be the leader of the Official Opposition has already done its damage - in Ontario the Con's are perched for a landslide - according to this Poll.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- To The Moderate Majority: The Real Battleground is Ontario and Harper and the Con's are perched to make a sweep
Posted: 1:21 PM on April 27, 2011 The Globe and Mail
Nanos Poll
Layton jumps well ahead of Ignatieff as voters get off ‘the political couch’, Jane Taber, Globe and Mail,
April 27, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/layton-jumps-well-ahead-of-ignatieff-as-voters-get-off-the-political-couch/article2000297/comments/
For all those Moderate Majority for whom getting rid of Harper is paramount we must look at the situation realistically and decide what is the most likely to happen.
Any voters for whom putting an end to the Harper regime is paramount, voting Liberal is the only realistic way of doing it.
And, it is, realistically, the only way to have Layton and the NDP participate in the governance of this great country of ours.
The real battleground is Ontario and if one were to believe this Poll Harper and the Con's are perched to make a sweep, resulting in a majority.
At this point the only way to prevent it is voting and voting Liberal. The NDP serge can only operate to prevent this and result in a Harper majority.
Layton is campaigning to become the Official Opposition
However, Layton becoming Official Opposition, would, with a high likelihood, cause Harper to get more seats than now or a majority.
Either way Layton becoming the leader of the Official Opposition would, in reality, mean Harper re-gains power over Canada.
The chances that Layton will get a majority is existent but remote.
The chances that Layton will end up ahead of Harper are, again remote.
The facts are:
Harper has a core of 33%
Liberals have a core of at least 25% - and that is the bare core.
The NDP have a core of 18% and that is on the high side.
For Layton to get a majority there would have to be a total collapse of the Canadian political spectrum into two parties, with one being NDP and the other Con - not even remotely possible, in this election anyway, especially given the Liberal core support.
It is possible that Layton could finish second, but as pointed out above, he would not be first. In this scenario it could only be, in reality, with Harper finishing first.
To surpass the Liberals there would be a high amount of vote splitting between NDP and Liberal. The likely outcome is Harper winning seats in riding he would other not resulting in an increase in seats. Or, seats switching from Lib to NDP, not affecting Harper's seat total.
In other words Harper can only win.
(In Quebec, this applies to vote splitting with the Bloc in Quebec although it may be preferable to have the seats NDP than Bloc, but no matter what it would not likely result in less seats for Harper, or only one or two. The only Province where the NDP could cause Harper to significantly lose seats is BC. It may be possible for a few and that would be a good thing. But, Que & BC would not likely put the NDP in a position of participating in the governance of this great country of ours)
And, either way, Layton and the NDP would not be given any chance to take part in the governance of Canada.
Harper has made it abundantly clear that he will not share power with any of the other parties to exercise power over Canada - and, given his track record, this is one of the only things that I find believable from Harper.
So, any voters for whom putting an end to the Harper regime is paramount, voting Liberal is the only realistic way of doing it.
And, it is, realistically, the only way to have Layton and the NDP participate in the governance of this great country of ours.
excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Nanos Poll
Layton jumps well ahead of Ignatieff as voters get off ‘the political couch’, Jane Taber, Globe and Mail,
April 27, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/layton-jumps-well-ahead-of-ignatieff-as-voters-get-off-the-political-couch/article2000297/comments/
For all those Moderate Majority for whom getting rid of Harper is paramount we must look at the situation realistically and decide what is the most likely to happen.
Any voters for whom putting an end to the Harper regime is paramount, voting Liberal is the only realistic way of doing it.
And, it is, realistically, the only way to have Layton and the NDP participate in the governance of this great country of ours.
The real battleground is Ontario and if one were to believe this Poll Harper and the Con's are perched to make a sweep, resulting in a majority.
At this point the only way to prevent it is voting and voting Liberal. The NDP serge can only operate to prevent this and result in a Harper majority.
Layton is campaigning to become the Official Opposition
However, Layton becoming Official Opposition, would, with a high likelihood, cause Harper to get more seats than now or a majority.
Either way Layton becoming the leader of the Official Opposition would, in reality, mean Harper re-gains power over Canada.
The chances that Layton will get a majority is existent but remote.
The chances that Layton will end up ahead of Harper are, again remote.
The facts are:
Harper has a core of 33%
Liberals have a core of at least 25% - and that is the bare core.
The NDP have a core of 18% and that is on the high side.
For Layton to get a majority there would have to be a total collapse of the Canadian political spectrum into two parties, with one being NDP and the other Con - not even remotely possible, in this election anyway, especially given the Liberal core support.
It is possible that Layton could finish second, but as pointed out above, he would not be first. In this scenario it could only be, in reality, with Harper finishing first.
To surpass the Liberals there would be a high amount of vote splitting between NDP and Liberal. The likely outcome is Harper winning seats in riding he would other not resulting in an increase in seats. Or, seats switching from Lib to NDP, not affecting Harper's seat total.
In other words Harper can only win.
(In Quebec, this applies to vote splitting with the Bloc in Quebec although it may be preferable to have the seats NDP than Bloc, but no matter what it would not likely result in less seats for Harper, or only one or two. The only Province where the NDP could cause Harper to significantly lose seats is BC. It may be possible for a few and that would be a good thing. But, Que & BC would not likely put the NDP in a position of participating in the governance of this great country of ours)
And, either way, Layton and the NDP would not be given any chance to take part in the governance of Canada.
Harper has made it abundantly clear that he will not share power with any of the other parties to exercise power over Canada - and, given his track record, this is one of the only things that I find believable from Harper.
So, any voters for whom putting an end to the Harper regime is paramount, voting Liberal is the only realistic way of doing it.
And, it is, realistically, the only way to have Layton and the NDP participate in the governance of this great country of ours.
excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- Layton seems to be Campaigning to become the Official Opposition, resulting with Harper Re-taking Power
Submitted: 8:02am, PDT 27 Apr,.'11 CBC
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/27/cv-election-day33.html#
Ignatieff steps up attack on NDP
CBC News Posted: Apr 27, 2011 5:49 AM ET Last Updated: Apr 27, 2011 10:06 AM ET Read 452 comments452 Back to accessibility links
Late election campaigning makes for great media
but
The Moderate Majority
- those 66% of Canadian that do not want Harper and the Con's running this great nation of ours any longer -
must keep three things in mind:
- Harper and the Con's have 33% right-wing extremist die-hard supporters.
They will get out and vote and vote for Harper no matter what,
the lower the voter turnout the greater % of the vote the Con die-hards make up .
- The Moderate Majority are not engaged and don't vote - at least until now.
- The Moderate Majority are not consolidated.
It's just that simple.
Harper has been running this country only because the Moderate Majority have not been engaged enough to vote
and have not consolidated
just look at the results of the last election.
All the Moderate Majority must ask themselves whether ensuring Harper out of office is paramount. If it is then they must vote
but,
just as importantly, if not more:
they must consolidate
Vote splitting will give Harper a minority
The only way Harper will lose power is the Moderate Majority consolidate giving a minority government supported by the Liberal and NDP.
The reality is voting Liberal is the only way to ensure consolidation and not vote splitting.
But, it is, in reality, the only way the NDP can share in governing this great country of ours.
Layton seems to be Campaigning to become the Official Opposition, resulting with Harper re-taking power.
Left leaning Canadians should be voting to so that the NDP may share governance.
If nothing else it gets rid of Harper and that's a good thing.
comments Lloyd MacILquham cicblog
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/27/cv-election-day33.html#
Ignatieff steps up attack on NDP
CBC News Posted: Apr 27, 2011 5:49 AM ET Last Updated: Apr 27, 2011 10:06 AM ET Read 452 comments452 Back to accessibility links
Late election campaigning makes for great media
but
The Moderate Majority
- those 66% of Canadian that do not want Harper and the Con's running this great nation of ours any longer -
must keep three things in mind:
- Harper and the Con's have 33% right-wing extremist die-hard supporters.
They will get out and vote and vote for Harper no matter what,
the lower the voter turnout the greater % of the vote the Con die-hards make up .
- The Moderate Majority are not engaged and don't vote - at least until now.
- The Moderate Majority are not consolidated.
It's just that simple.
Harper has been running this country only because the Moderate Majority have not been engaged enough to vote
and have not consolidated
just look at the results of the last election.
All the Moderate Majority must ask themselves whether ensuring Harper out of office is paramount. If it is then they must vote
but,
just as importantly, if not more:
they must consolidate
Vote splitting will give Harper a minority
The only way Harper will lose power is the Moderate Majority consolidate giving a minority government supported by the Liberal and NDP.
The reality is voting Liberal is the only way to ensure consolidation and not vote splitting.
But, it is, in reality, the only way the NDP can share in governing this great country of ours.
Layton seems to be Campaigning to become the Official Opposition, resulting with Harper re-taking power.
Left leaning Canadians should be voting to so that the NDP may share governance.
If nothing else it gets rid of Harper and that's a good thing.
comments Lloyd MacILquham cicblog
Low Voter Turn Out = Low Moderate Majority Turnout = Harper Minority or Even Majority.
Submitted: 7:07am, 27 Apr/'11 CBC
Advance poll numbers soar 34% from 2008, Friday, Monday busiest advance poll days ever, CBC News Posted: Apr 26, 2011
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/26/cv-election-advance-polls.html#
It's just that simple.
Harper and the Con's have 33% right-wing extremist die-hard supporters who will both vote and vote for the Con's
the lower the voter turnout the greater percentage of the vote they make up (you can throw in a small amount of soft vote but they are subject to the same problems as the opposition parties - voter turn out and voting the same as their prior intentions).
Harper has been running this country only because the Moderate Majority have not been engaged enough to vote and have not consolidated.
In the '08 election the biggest factor was the low voter turnout overall and for the Liberals, especially. Harper and the Con's were pretty much the same as the previous election:
Voter turnout was down from the previous election (approx 6.6% less) and Liberals received 850,000 less votes (or approx 19% less)
but Con's received approximately the same number of votes (actually 165,000 less or approx 3% less) as the previous election but ended up with 37.7%
and in the recent Vaughan by-election
where voter turnout was way down (32.5%), the Liberals were down approx 10,000 votes and the Con's received approximately the same number of votes
One good thing about the perceived 'NDP surge', it is getting people's attention and presumably animating them to get out and vote. It is difficult to rely on Polls - you simply don't know if they are accurately reflecting the mood of Canadian voters until after the election
and the all important voter turnout
The task now is getting their base motivated to get the vote out on election day. The Liberals have the most to do and the most to gain, or loss.
comments Lloyd MacILquham cicblog
Advance poll numbers soar 34% from 2008, Friday, Monday busiest advance poll days ever, CBC News Posted: Apr 26, 2011
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/26/cv-election-advance-polls.html#
It's just that simple.
Harper and the Con's have 33% right-wing extremist die-hard supporters who will both vote and vote for the Con's
the lower the voter turnout the greater percentage of the vote they make up (you can throw in a small amount of soft vote but they are subject to the same problems as the opposition parties - voter turn out and voting the same as their prior intentions).
Harper has been running this country only because the Moderate Majority have not been engaged enough to vote and have not consolidated.
In the '08 election the biggest factor was the low voter turnout overall and for the Liberals, especially. Harper and the Con's were pretty much the same as the previous election:
Voter turnout was down from the previous election (approx 6.6% less) and Liberals received 850,000 less votes (or approx 19% less)
but Con's received approximately the same number of votes (actually 165,000 less or approx 3% less) as the previous election but ended up with 37.7%
and in the recent Vaughan by-election
where voter turnout was way down (32.5%), the Liberals were down approx 10,000 votes and the Con's received approximately the same number of votes
One good thing about the perceived 'NDP surge', it is getting people's attention and presumably animating them to get out and vote. It is difficult to rely on Polls - you simply don't know if they are accurately reflecting the mood of Canadian voters until after the election
and the all important voter turnout
The task now is getting their base motivated to get the vote out on election day. The Liberals have the most to do and the most to gain, or loss.
comments Lloyd MacILquham cicblog
26 April, 2011
- Harper Quotes - In Bulk - Links
http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/86540-harper-dossier-part-1.html
http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/86540-harper-dossier-part-2.html
http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/86540-harper-dossier-part-3.html
http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/86540-harper-dossier-part-4.html
CBC 26 Apr.'11
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/inside-politics-blog/2011/04/the-harper-quotes-dossier-a-sample.html
http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/86540-harper-dossier-part-2.html
http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/86540-harper-dossier-part-3.html
http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/86540-harper-dossier-part-4.html
CBC 26 Apr.'11
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/inside-politics-blog/2011/04/the-harper-quotes-dossier-a-sample.html
- But, Harper is 'reformed' - wait, Harper always was Reform'd
Submitted: 7:52am, PDT, 26 Apr.'11 CBC
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/inside-politics-blog/2011/04/the-harper-quotes-dossier-a-sample.html
The Harper quotes dossier: a sample
April 25, 2011
You might ask yourself why this book is coming to light now.
Obviously there is someone, or persons, that have played a very significant role in the rise of Harper and Con's that are very concerned that Canadian know just exactly how Harper in his heart of hearts feels before they give him a majority.
We're not talking in the 60's, 70's or 80's
We're talking current, right up till Harper gained power - what would Freud say about such repressed emotions.
-From the June 26, 2003 update, page 5 - on health:
"The federal government doesn't run the health-care system, it didn't create it and it's not going to fix it." April 12, 2001
You've got the 'Right' - in a right-wing, extremist ideological, 'Harper-Right' sort of way, that is.
Anyone who thinks that Harper would have Canadians' best interests at heart in negotiating the Health Care with the Provinces in '14 will be sorrily (literally, as well as figuratively) mistaken and should keep this in mind.
Harper quotes about Alberta, the West and his accusations against the rest of Canada, Ontario and Quebec, in particular, demonstrates the very divisive, fear mongering brand of politics Harper plays.
- on the Canadian Alliance: "This political party stands for values that are eternal ... this country will either adopt our values or it will fail." Dec. 20, 2001
Now, there's a self-fulfilling prophesy - if we give Harper enough time in power, or a majority
- on the Liberal Party:
"The fundamental strategy of the Liberal party for the last 30 years remains screw the West, get the rest." - 06/2003 (date partially cut off)
- on Alberta:
"We [Alberta] are the only province in Canada keeping pace with the top tier countries in the world. Now we must show that we will not stand for a second-tier country run by a third-world leader with fourth-class values." 02/2001
-From April 11, 2003 Harper Quotations, p. 11 - on western alienation:
"I too am one of these angry westerners. The Liberals demonized the West and Alberta in particular ... we may love Canada, but Canada does not love us ... let's make the province strong enough that the rest of the country is afraid to threaten us." Dec. 18, 2000
[ there is also:
Stephen Harper's speech to the Council for National Policy, June 1997:
"First, facts about Canada. Canada is a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term . . ."
Apparently, when confronted with what he say a while ago he quipped that he was just joking - some joke. When you read the speech it doesn't sound like he's joking.
]
Anyone that thinks Harper has Canadians best interest, other than the West that is, at heart should keep these quotes, and there are others, in mind. This applies especially to people in Ontario and Quebec
Oh, sorry, Harper is 'reformed' - wait, Harper always was Reform'd and still is at heart a right-wing extremist ideologue, bent on the West, to the exclusion of the rest of Canada and with no hesitation to use division and fear mongering to mobilize his core.
It also illustrates the importance, significance and reality of the following observation.
Harper and the Con's have a core of 33% die-hard supporters. People who are at the extreme right of Canadian social, economic and political values. They have and will support Harper pretty much no matter what, provided he does not abandon his right-wing extremist views and intentions.
They have been very patient in the last 5 years while Harper has had a minority government and even 'understanding' that Harper could not simply come out and in the first 100 days, radically change the social landscape of Canada to the extreme right of the spectrum of Canadian values.
After all it's better to in power than out.
However, with a majority Harper will have the absolute and unstoppable power and will have to Pay the Piper.
These right-wing extremists will demand their social agenda be implemented and Harper 'can not and will not' refuse.
It's just that simple.
The above reflects what really lurks in the hearts of Harper and his Con's, the fundamental belief that lies at the heart of Harper and his supporters.
This may have been covered up in some kind of cosmetic way, while Harper has a minority in order for his to maintain power.
But, you can betcha, it will be uncovered, and pronto, if Harper were to get a majority.
excerpt: comments Lloyd MacILquham cicblog
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/inside-politics-blog/2011/04/the-harper-quotes-dossier-a-sample.html
The Harper quotes dossier: a sample
April 25, 2011
You might ask yourself why this book is coming to light now.
Obviously there is someone, or persons, that have played a very significant role in the rise of Harper and Con's that are very concerned that Canadian know just exactly how Harper in his heart of hearts feels before they give him a majority.
We're not talking in the 60's, 70's or 80's
We're talking current, right up till Harper gained power - what would Freud say about such repressed emotions.
-From the June 26, 2003 update, page 5 - on health:
"The federal government doesn't run the health-care system, it didn't create it and it's not going to fix it." April 12, 2001
You've got the 'Right' - in a right-wing, extremist ideological, 'Harper-Right' sort of way, that is.
Anyone who thinks that Harper would have Canadians' best interests at heart in negotiating the Health Care with the Provinces in '14 will be sorrily (literally, as well as figuratively) mistaken and should keep this in mind.
Harper quotes about Alberta, the West and his accusations against the rest of Canada, Ontario and Quebec, in particular, demonstrates the very divisive, fear mongering brand of politics Harper plays.
- on the Canadian Alliance: "This political party stands for values that are eternal ... this country will either adopt our values or it will fail." Dec. 20, 2001
Now, there's a self-fulfilling prophesy - if we give Harper enough time in power, or a majority
- on the Liberal Party:
"The fundamental strategy of the Liberal party for the last 30 years remains screw the West, get the rest." - 06/2003 (date partially cut off)
- on Alberta:
"We [Alberta] are the only province in Canada keeping pace with the top tier countries in the world. Now we must show that we will not stand for a second-tier country run by a third-world leader with fourth-class values." 02/2001
-From April 11, 2003 Harper Quotations, p. 11 - on western alienation:
"I too am one of these angry westerners. The Liberals demonized the West and Alberta in particular ... we may love Canada, but Canada does not love us ... let's make the province strong enough that the rest of the country is afraid to threaten us." Dec. 18, 2000
[ there is also:
Stephen Harper's speech to the Council for National Policy, June 1997:
"First, facts about Canada. Canada is a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term . . ."
Apparently, when confronted with what he say a while ago he quipped that he was just joking - some joke. When you read the speech it doesn't sound like he's joking.
]
Anyone that thinks Harper has Canadians best interest, other than the West that is, at heart should keep these quotes, and there are others, in mind. This applies especially to people in Ontario and Quebec
Oh, sorry, Harper is 'reformed' - wait, Harper always was Reform'd and still is at heart a right-wing extremist ideologue, bent on the West, to the exclusion of the rest of Canada and with no hesitation to use division and fear mongering to mobilize his core.
It also illustrates the importance, significance and reality of the following observation.
Harper and the Con's have a core of 33% die-hard supporters. People who are at the extreme right of Canadian social, economic and political values. They have and will support Harper pretty much no matter what, provided he does not abandon his right-wing extremist views and intentions.
They have been very patient in the last 5 years while Harper has had a minority government and even 'understanding' that Harper could not simply come out and in the first 100 days, radically change the social landscape of Canada to the extreme right of the spectrum of Canadian values.
After all it's better to in power than out.
However, with a majority Harper will have the absolute and unstoppable power and will have to Pay the Piper.
These right-wing extremists will demand their social agenda be implemented and Harper 'can not and will not' refuse.
It's just that simple.
The above reflects what really lurks in the hearts of Harper and his Con's, the fundamental belief that lies at the heart of Harper and his supporters.
This may have been covered up in some kind of cosmetic way, while Harper has a minority in order for his to maintain power.
But, you can betcha, it will be uncovered, and pronto, if Harper were to get a majority.
excerpt: comments Lloyd MacILquham cicblog
25 April, 2011
- Quebec Margin of Error, +/- 64% ??? That's One Big Error
Posted: 12:38 PM on April 25, 2011
Nanos Poll
Strength in Ontario puts ‘squeaker of a majority’ within Harper’s reach, Jane Taber, Globe and Mail Update, April 25, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/strength-in-ontario-puts-squeaker-of-a-majority-within-harpers-reach/article1997430/
The Polls methodologies may be suspect, both in its questioning and how they take their samples.
"Allan Gregg, chairman of Harris-Decima, which provides political polling for the Canadian Press. He is also a regular member of The National's At Issue panel on CBC TV.
Gregg has been doing political polling since the 1970s . . .
'there's broad consensus among pollsters that proliferating political polls suffer from a combination of methodological problems, commercial pressures and an unhealthy relationship with the media.
'The dirty little secret of the polling business,' he went on, 'is that our ability to yield results accurately from samples that reflect the total population has probably never been worse in the 30 to 35 years that the discipline has been active in Canada.'"
(CBC, 25 Apr.'11)
Gregg explains that 30 years ago 70-80 % of people called by phone answered the polls now it is 15%. Also, with cell phones the sampling can be worse.
One would expect that with only 15% answering the Polls a proportionately larger % that answer are highly motivated politically. This may explain the high numbers for the Con's as well as the large fluctuations in their numbers.
NDP are also typified by highly motivated supporters that one would expect would also jump at the opportunity to express their views.
Internet Polls or polls that are passively open to people to answer may, obviously, be biased. For example the Crop Poll that started this whole thing about an NDP 'surge' in Quebec.
Then, of course, there is taking a National Poll, one designed for National use and restricting the results to a Province.
If Polls are sensitive to questioning and sampling methodologies and even adjusted to take these things into account.
Then how in the world can someone justify taking National results and restricting it to Provincial results.
It is not simply a question of increasing the Margin Of Error because the sample size is decreased. The results of a Poll may vary greatly because of the design of the questioning from Province to Province as well as the sampling methodologies.
If anything, the Polls should be done the other way around - take separate Provincial Polls and combine them to make a National Poll - but what Polling Company would spend the money on doing that.
Oh and by the way, did I mention this article states:
"In Quebec . . . (There is a margin of error of plus or minus 64 percentage points, 19 times out of 20, for the provincial sample.)"
Taber - That's one big error.
excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Nanos Poll
Strength in Ontario puts ‘squeaker of a majority’ within Harper’s reach, Jane Taber, Globe and Mail Update, April 25, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/strength-in-ontario-puts-squeaker-of-a-majority-within-harpers-reach/article1997430/
The Polls methodologies may be suspect, both in its questioning and how they take their samples.
"Allan Gregg, chairman of Harris-Decima, which provides political polling for the Canadian Press. He is also a regular member of The National's At Issue panel on CBC TV.
Gregg has been doing political polling since the 1970s . . .
'there's broad consensus among pollsters that proliferating political polls suffer from a combination of methodological problems, commercial pressures and an unhealthy relationship with the media.
'The dirty little secret of the polling business,' he went on, 'is that our ability to yield results accurately from samples that reflect the total population has probably never been worse in the 30 to 35 years that the discipline has been active in Canada.'"
(CBC, 25 Apr.'11)
Gregg explains that 30 years ago 70-80 % of people called by phone answered the polls now it is 15%. Also, with cell phones the sampling can be worse.
One would expect that with only 15% answering the Polls a proportionately larger % that answer are highly motivated politically. This may explain the high numbers for the Con's as well as the large fluctuations in their numbers.
NDP are also typified by highly motivated supporters that one would expect would also jump at the opportunity to express their views.
Internet Polls or polls that are passively open to people to answer may, obviously, be biased. For example the Crop Poll that started this whole thing about an NDP 'surge' in Quebec.
Then, of course, there is taking a National Poll, one designed for National use and restricting the results to a Province.
If Polls are sensitive to questioning and sampling methodologies and even adjusted to take these things into account.
Then how in the world can someone justify taking National results and restricting it to Provincial results.
It is not simply a question of increasing the Margin Of Error because the sample size is decreased. The results of a Poll may vary greatly because of the design of the questioning from Province to Province as well as the sampling methodologies.
If anything, the Polls should be done the other way around - take separate Provincial Polls and combine them to make a National Poll - but what Polling Company would spend the money on doing that.
Oh and by the way, did I mention this article states:
"In Quebec . . . (There is a margin of error of plus or minus 64 percentage points, 19 times out of 20, for the provincial sample.)"
Taber - That's one big error.
excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- Polls - Who Need Polls to Predict - If the Moderate Majority don't vote and don't consolidate their vote Harper will likely finish ahead in seat numbers and perhaps even get a majority.
Posted: 12:27 PM on April 25, 2011
Nanos Poll
Strength in Ontario puts ‘squeaker of a majority’ within Harper’s reach, Jane Taber, Globe and Mail Update, April 25, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/strength-in-ontario-puts-squeaker-of-a-majority-within-harpers-reach/article1997430/
I think everyone should take the Polls with a grain, or numerous grains of salt.
The problem is that they make great 'sound bites' for the media and with people turning to the media for their due diligence on voting, it become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
'everyone loves and underdog' 'it's a horse race', etc., so the media plays it up or even look for drama where drama may not actually exist.
The media does get people engaged, but to me should de-emphasize Polls, or emphasize their shortcomings and possible undue influence on people.
Even if the Polling is accurate people focus on the numbers and not the ranges.
For example, 20 Apr.'11, Nanos Poll:
BQ CON GRN LIB NDP ERROR±
7.5 39 3.4 26.7 22.1 3.1
Perhaps Nanos could confirm that it is just as legitimate to say that:
BQ CON GRN LIB NDP
10.6 35.9 3.4 29.8 19
For example, 24 Apr.'11, Nanos Poll:
BQ CON GRN LIB NDP ERROR±
6.5 39.2 3.6 25.6 23.6 +/- 3.1
Undecided 17.5
Perhaps Nanos could also confirm that it is just as legitimate to say that:
BQ CON GRN LIB NDP
9.6 36.1 3.4 28.7 20.5
Undecided 20.6
And the interesting thing is that this is approx what Polls have been indicating, generally, for more than a year
And puts Nanos in line with the Ekos and Forum Polls as far as the Con's are concerned.
So, is the Nanos Poll wrong - not if you know how to read Polls.
However, the average person may take it to means that the Con's actually have 39% support and the NDP have 22% and the NDP are experiencing a huge 'surge'.
Also, without stating what the undecided and refusal to respond, etc., is, the results of the Poll can be become quite deceptive.
Voter turn out is vital in predicting the results of the election and a low voter turnout was basically the reasons the Con's got so many seats.
Harper and the Con's have 33% right-wing extremist die-hard supporters who will both vote and vote for the Con's.
The lower the voter turn out the higher the % for Harper.
This phenomenon was accentuated in the last election
where voter turnout was down from the previous election (approx 6.6% less) and Liberals received 850,000 less votes (or approx 19% less)
but Con's received approximately the same number of votes (actually 165,000 less or approx 3% less) as the previous election but ended up with 37.7%
If the Moderate Majority don't vote and don't consolidate their vote Harper will likely finish ahead in seat numbers and perhaps even get a majority.
Vote splitting amongst the Moderate Majority only makes this more of a likelihood.
excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Nanos Poll
Strength in Ontario puts ‘squeaker of a majority’ within Harper’s reach, Jane Taber, Globe and Mail Update, April 25, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/strength-in-ontario-puts-squeaker-of-a-majority-within-harpers-reach/article1997430/
I think everyone should take the Polls with a grain, or numerous grains of salt.
The problem is that they make great 'sound bites' for the media and with people turning to the media for their due diligence on voting, it become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
'everyone loves and underdog' 'it's a horse race', etc., so the media plays it up or even look for drama where drama may not actually exist.
The media does get people engaged, but to me should de-emphasize Polls, or emphasize their shortcomings and possible undue influence on people.
Even if the Polling is accurate people focus on the numbers and not the ranges.
For example, 20 Apr.'11, Nanos Poll:
BQ CON GRN LIB NDP ERROR±
7.5 39 3.4 26.7 22.1 3.1
Perhaps Nanos could confirm that it is just as legitimate to say that:
BQ CON GRN LIB NDP
10.6 35.9 3.4 29.8 19
For example, 24 Apr.'11, Nanos Poll:
BQ CON GRN LIB NDP ERROR±
6.5 39.2 3.6 25.6 23.6 +/- 3.1
Undecided 17.5
Perhaps Nanos could also confirm that it is just as legitimate to say that:
BQ CON GRN LIB NDP
9.6 36.1 3.4 28.7 20.5
Undecided 20.6
And the interesting thing is that this is approx what Polls have been indicating, generally, for more than a year
And puts Nanos in line with the Ekos and Forum Polls as far as the Con's are concerned.
So, is the Nanos Poll wrong - not if you know how to read Polls.
However, the average person may take it to means that the Con's actually have 39% support and the NDP have 22% and the NDP are experiencing a huge 'surge'.
Also, without stating what the undecided and refusal to respond, etc., is, the results of the Poll can be become quite deceptive.
Voter turn out is vital in predicting the results of the election and a low voter turnout was basically the reasons the Con's got so many seats.
Harper and the Con's have 33% right-wing extremist die-hard supporters who will both vote and vote for the Con's.
The lower the voter turn out the higher the % for Harper.
This phenomenon was accentuated in the last election
where voter turnout was down from the previous election (approx 6.6% less) and Liberals received 850,000 less votes (or approx 19% less)
but Con's received approximately the same number of votes (actually 165,000 less or approx 3% less) as the previous election but ended up with 37.7%
If the Moderate Majority don't vote and don't consolidate their vote Harper will likely finish ahead in seat numbers and perhaps even get a majority.
Vote splitting amongst the Moderate Majority only makes this more of a likelihood.
excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
24 April, 2011
- Polls the same For Harper and the Liberals as last Election = Low Moderate Majority Turnout = Harper Minority
- Polls the same For Harper and the Liberls as last Election - Suggests Low Moderate Majority Turnout
No Quebec-style bump in polls for NDP in Ontario, GLORIA GALLOWAY, Globe and Mail, April 24, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/no-quebec-style-bump-in-polls-for-ndp-in-ontario/article1996858/
Harper and the Con's as well as the Liberals have approx the same % of support amongst committed voters as the the results of the '08 election
Suggests that there may very well be another low voter turnout overall as well as a major low voter turnout for the Liberals.
And the result may very well be the same as last time too - Harper getting more seats than the other parties, despite have almost 2/3 Canadians voting against him.
In the '08 election the biggest factor was the low voter turnout overall and for the Liberals. Harper and the Con's were pretty much the same as the previous election:
Harper and the Con's have 33% right-wing extremist die-hard supporters who will both vote and vote for the Con's
the lower the voter turnout the greater percentage of the vote they make up you can throw in a small amount of soft vote but they are subject to the same problems as the opposition parties - voter turn out and voting the same as their prior intentions.
This phenomenon was accentuated in the last election
where voter turnout was down from the previous election (approx 6.6% less) and Liberals received 850,000 less votes (or approx 19% less)
but Con's received approximately the same number of votes (actually 165,000 less or approx 3% less) as the previous election but ended up with 37.7%
and in the Vaughan by-election a few months ago
where voter turnout was way down (32.5%), the Liberals were down approx 10,000 votes and the Con's received approximately the same number of votes
Harper and the Con's have been running this country only because the Moderate Majority have not been engaged enough to vote and have not consolidated.
This poll suggest pretty much the same thing this time around.
All I can say is God save Canada
The only difference this time is the general awareness that the party that governs must be elected by Parliament which in turn is made up of our representatives which we have elected.
Harper is saying that Canadians will be surprised if the 'winner' of the election does not form the government.
This is a deliberate misrepresentation of our Democratic system - to his own convenience, of course.
In this election there are 308 winners and it is these winners who then elect, as our representatives in Parliament, which party will form the government.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
No Quebec-style bump in polls for NDP in Ontario, GLORIA GALLOWAY, Globe and Mail, April 24, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/no-quebec-style-bump-in-polls-for-ndp-in-ontario/article1996858/
Harper and the Con's as well as the Liberals have approx the same % of support amongst committed voters as the the results of the '08 election
Suggests that there may very well be another low voter turnout overall as well as a major low voter turnout for the Liberals.
And the result may very well be the same as last time too - Harper getting more seats than the other parties, despite have almost 2/3 Canadians voting against him.
In the '08 election the biggest factor was the low voter turnout overall and for the Liberals. Harper and the Con's were pretty much the same as the previous election:
Harper and the Con's have 33% right-wing extremist die-hard supporters who will both vote and vote for the Con's
the lower the voter turnout the greater percentage of the vote they make up you can throw in a small amount of soft vote but they are subject to the same problems as the opposition parties - voter turn out and voting the same as their prior intentions.
This phenomenon was accentuated in the last election
where voter turnout was down from the previous election (approx 6.6% less) and Liberals received 850,000 less votes (or approx 19% less)
but Con's received approximately the same number of votes (actually 165,000 less or approx 3% less) as the previous election but ended up with 37.7%
and in the Vaughan by-election a few months ago
where voter turnout was way down (32.5%), the Liberals were down approx 10,000 votes and the Con's received approximately the same number of votes
Harper and the Con's have been running this country only because the Moderate Majority have not been engaged enough to vote and have not consolidated.
This poll suggest pretty much the same thing this time around.
All I can say is God save Canada
The only difference this time is the general awareness that the party that governs must be elected by Parliament which in turn is made up of our representatives which we have elected.
Harper is saying that Canadians will be surprised if the 'winner' of the election does not form the government.
This is a deliberate misrepresentation of our Democratic system - to his own convenience, of course.
In this election there are 308 winners and it is these winners who then elect, as our representatives in Parliament, which party will form the government.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
23 April, 2011
- Harper Majority Not Opening the Abortion Debate - That's Not Right!
Posted: - not able to post
Behind Harper’s reluctance to revisit abortion issue
JOHN IBBITSON, Globe and Mail, Apr. 23, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/behind-harpers-reluctance-to-revisit-abortion-issue/article1996398/
Harper and the Con's have a core of 33% die-hard supporters. People who are at the extreme right of Canadian social, economic and political values. They have and will support Harper pretty much no matter what, provided he does not abandon his right-wing extremist views and intentions.
They have been very patient in the last 5 years while Harper has had a minority government and even 'understanding' that Harper could not simply come out and in the first 100 days, radically change the social landscape of Canada to the extreme right of the spectrum of Canadian values.
After all it's better to in power than out.
However, with a majority Harper will have the absolute and unstoppable power and will have to Pay the Piper.
These right-wing extremists will demand their social agenda be implemented and Harper 'can not and will not' refuse.
It's just that simple.
Harper answer on the abortion issue sounds like Ignatieff's answer on a co-alition.
Harper still doesn't believe Ignatieff - that's the way Harper thinks, his world view - statements are only made to attain power, once power is attained they mean nothing - just compare what Harper has said in '97 and '04 regarding coalitions and his party attaining power albeit with less seats than the Liberals. Or, the Income trust betrayal, etc.
If we want to see what an uninhibited Harper would do with a majority
We must view Harper in the same lens he views the world. His statements now mean nothing once he acquires a majority.
We simply should not believe Harper when he says otherwise now.
Also,
What happened to the Harper Summit money squandering in Clement's riding scandal and the Auditor General's Report
and the Report on the Afghan Detainee Scandal
Harper may find these 'too complex' to be discussed during an election and if I were Harper I might feel the same way.
But, these are vital to Canadians determining whether we can trust Harper in power and especially with a majority.
These Reports may very well tell us whether we can believe Harper on the abortion issue or anything. But then that's way we don't have them.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Behind Harper’s reluctance to revisit abortion issue
JOHN IBBITSON, Globe and Mail, Apr. 23, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/behind-harpers-reluctance-to-revisit-abortion-issue/article1996398/
Harper and the Con's have a core of 33% die-hard supporters. People who are at the extreme right of Canadian social, economic and political values. They have and will support Harper pretty much no matter what, provided he does not abandon his right-wing extremist views and intentions.
They have been very patient in the last 5 years while Harper has had a minority government and even 'understanding' that Harper could not simply come out and in the first 100 days, radically change the social landscape of Canada to the extreme right of the spectrum of Canadian values.
After all it's better to in power than out.
However, with a majority Harper will have the absolute and unstoppable power and will have to Pay the Piper.
These right-wing extremists will demand their social agenda be implemented and Harper 'can not and will not' refuse.
It's just that simple.
Harper answer on the abortion issue sounds like Ignatieff's answer on a co-alition.
Harper still doesn't believe Ignatieff - that's the way Harper thinks, his world view - statements are only made to attain power, once power is attained they mean nothing - just compare what Harper has said in '97 and '04 regarding coalitions and his party attaining power albeit with less seats than the Liberals. Or, the Income trust betrayal, etc.
If we want to see what an uninhibited Harper would do with a majority
We must view Harper in the same lens he views the world. His statements now mean nothing once he acquires a majority.
We simply should not believe Harper when he says otherwise now.
Also,
What happened to the Harper Summit money squandering in Clement's riding scandal and the Auditor General's Report
and the Report on the Afghan Detainee Scandal
Harper may find these 'too complex' to be discussed during an election and if I were Harper I might feel the same way.
But, these are vital to Canadians determining whether we can trust Harper in power and especially with a majority.
These Reports may very well tell us whether we can believe Harper on the abortion issue or anything. But then that's way we don't have them.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
22 April, 2011
- Let Not Our Children Regret We Were Ever Given A Turn At the Helm In Allowing Harper Power
- Let Not Our Children Regret We Were Ever Given A Turn At the Helm In Allowing Harper Power
Posted: 11:20 AM on April 22, 2011
(see below)
In response to the reply by jesse261 at 10:53am, to my post at: 10:50 AM on April 22, 2011
Without commenting on your bald assertions about Martin
The difference between Martin and Harper
Harper is a right wing extremist ideologue intolerant of anything and anyone that is not the same or gets in his way.
Giving the reigns of power to someone like Harper can only prove, and has proved, disastrous to the Canadian way of life, and our very social fiber,
which our forefathers spent their blood, sweat and tears building
and for which we are accountable to our children and our children's children
who will very well regret that we were ever given a turn at the helm because we allowed Harper power.
If Harper gets a majority - God save Canada
excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Posted: 11:20 AM on April 22, 2011
(see below)
In response to the reply by jesse261 at 10:53am, to my post at: 10:50 AM on April 22, 2011
Without commenting on your bald assertions about Martin
The difference between Martin and Harper
Harper is a right wing extremist ideologue intolerant of anything and anyone that is not the same or gets in his way.
Giving the reigns of power to someone like Harper can only prove, and has proved, disastrous to the Canadian way of life, and our very social fiber,
which our forefathers spent their blood, sweat and tears building
and for which we are accountable to our children and our children's children
who will very well regret that we were ever given a turn at the helm because we allowed Harper power.
If Harper gets a majority - God save Canada
excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- And as long as the Moderate Majority don't consolidate and don't vote, Harper will continue to drag Canada to the Right Extreme
Posted: 10:50 AM on April 22, 2011 The Globe and Mail
The Supreme Court: How a Harper majority could really change Canada, Adam Radwanski, Globe and Mail, April 22, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/the-supreme-court-how-a-harper-majority-could-really-change-canada/article1995432/
Choosing who sits on the Supreme Court of Canada is only one example of the exercise of executive power by the Prime Minister.
Appointing Senators is another - as we have all seen, ever after Harper promised that he would not simply appoint them.
(Toronto Star, 23 Dec.'08 - when Harper's future as PM was in doubt)
"Harper senators have blue hue
. . .
Harper whined on the weekend that he wanted to appoint elected people to the Senate but the provinces wouldn't go along with him, so he had no choice. But one is reminded of what Mulroney said to then prime minister John Turner about Senate appointments in a televised debate: 'You had an option, sir. You could have said "I'm not going to do that, it's wrong for Canada."'"
There are many, many examples, and a myriad of positions, of where the exercise of executive power by the Prime Minister is unchecked, unvetted, unannounced and in cases, unbeknownst to any kind of oversight by the people of Canada or their representatives.
In this insidious way Harper has been, and is, dragging Canada to the "Right' (ideologically speaking, as opposed to say morally) extreme
Harper can do this because he is Prime Minister and head of the Executive Branch Government, which in Canada can have a far greater impact on our lives than Parliament or the Judiciary (the two other branches).
These branches were intended to counterbalance each other.
However, the exercise of power by the PM pre-supposes that the PM has the best interest of all Canadians at heart and not a small minority lying at an extreme of our political spectrum.
Up until Harper this was generally the case.
But Harper is in power because
He and the Con's have a core (33%) of die-hard right-wing supporters who will support Harper no matter what - even if he appointed Carson Minister of Justice - someone make Harper promise he won't
And as long as the Moderate Majority don't consolidate and don't vote, Harper will continue to drag Canada to the Right extreme.
Just think if Harper had a majority - we could expect much, much worse.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
The Supreme Court: How a Harper majority could really change Canada, Adam Radwanski, Globe and Mail, April 22, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/the-supreme-court-how-a-harper-majority-could-really-change-canada/article1995432/
Choosing who sits on the Supreme Court of Canada is only one example of the exercise of executive power by the Prime Minister.
Appointing Senators is another - as we have all seen, ever after Harper promised that he would not simply appoint them.
(Toronto Star, 23 Dec.'08 - when Harper's future as PM was in doubt)
"Harper senators have blue hue
. . .
Harper whined on the weekend that he wanted to appoint elected people to the Senate but the provinces wouldn't go along with him, so he had no choice. But one is reminded of what Mulroney said to then prime minister John Turner about Senate appointments in a televised debate: 'You had an option, sir. You could have said "I'm not going to do that, it's wrong for Canada."'"
There are many, many examples, and a myriad of positions, of where the exercise of executive power by the Prime Minister is unchecked, unvetted, unannounced and in cases, unbeknownst to any kind of oversight by the people of Canada or their representatives.
In this insidious way Harper has been, and is, dragging Canada to the "Right' (ideologically speaking, as opposed to say morally) extreme
Harper can do this because he is Prime Minister and head of the Executive Branch Government, which in Canada can have a far greater impact on our lives than Parliament or the Judiciary (the two other branches).
These branches were intended to counterbalance each other.
However, the exercise of power by the PM pre-supposes that the PM has the best interest of all Canadians at heart and not a small minority lying at an extreme of our political spectrum.
Up until Harper this was generally the case.
But Harper is in power because
He and the Con's have a core (33%) of die-hard right-wing supporters who will support Harper no matter what - even if he appointed Carson Minister of Justice - someone make Harper promise he won't
And as long as the Moderate Majority don't consolidate and don't vote, Harper will continue to drag Canada to the Right extreme.
Just think if Harper had a majority - we could expect much, much worse.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- All Canadians should be asking themselves these questions and then voting
Posted: 10:03 AM on April 22, 2011 Globe and Mail
The senator, the port authority and the ‘big boss’ in Quebec, Daniel LeBlanc, Globe and Mail, Apr. 22, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/the-senator-the-tape-recordings-and-the-big-boss-in-quebec/article1995433/
The first thing to say is, of course, people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. And that applies to this case as well.
(that's what I said about the In-Out scandal as well in Feb. It also applies to Carson, etc.)
However, when you read statements like the one attributed to Saudas yesterday regarding the funding, or lack thereof, of International Planned Parenthood:
"'Organizations like International Planned Parenthood or others that are willing to work with our government, we look forward to working with them as well on this important initiative,' he said."
(Winnipeg Free Press, 21 Apr.'11)
and all the other stuff you read about Saudas.
And Harper himself on whether he delivers on campaign promises:
(see: the video of Harper Q&A 21 Apr. at: http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/Canada/NL/1279609329/ID=1892271885)
[at 25:50]
when asked by the local CBC reporter regarding whether his commitment on the loan guaranty on the Muskrat Falls project was in jeopardy if Harper did not get a majority and his local candidates did not get elected
"a strong Conservative majority government will be able to deliver on those commitments. A minority Parliament where effectively a majority of seats is held by the Liberals, NDP and Bloc, can not and will not deliver on that commitment."
[at: 27:36 - 28:36]
What's a guy to think.
You have to ask yourself just exactly what is the real message behind Saudas saying
"willing to work with our government, we look forward to working with them"
in the context of funding
and Harper's statement regarding his campaign promises that without a strong majority he ". . . will not deliver on that commitment"
All Canadians should be asking themselves these questions and then voting.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
The senator, the port authority and the ‘big boss’ in Quebec, Daniel LeBlanc, Globe and Mail, Apr. 22, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/the-senator-the-tape-recordings-and-the-big-boss-in-quebec/article1995433/
The first thing to say is, of course, people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. And that applies to this case as well.
(that's what I said about the In-Out scandal as well in Feb. It also applies to Carson, etc.)
However, when you read statements like the one attributed to Saudas yesterday regarding the funding, or lack thereof, of International Planned Parenthood:
"'Organizations like International Planned Parenthood or others that are willing to work with our government, we look forward to working with them as well on this important initiative,' he said."
(Winnipeg Free Press, 21 Apr.'11)
and all the other stuff you read about Saudas.
And Harper himself on whether he delivers on campaign promises:
(see: the video of Harper Q&A 21 Apr. at: http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/Canada/NL/1279609329/ID=1892271885)
[at 25:50]
when asked by the local CBC reporter regarding whether his commitment on the loan guaranty on the Muskrat Falls project was in jeopardy if Harper did not get a majority and his local candidates did not get elected
"a strong Conservative majority government will be able to deliver on those commitments. A minority Parliament where effectively a majority of seats is held by the Liberals, NDP and Bloc, can not and will not deliver on that commitment."
[at: 27:36 - 28:36]
What's a guy to think.
You have to ask yourself just exactly what is the real message behind Saudas saying
"willing to work with our government, we look forward to working with them"
in the context of funding
and Harper's statement regarding his campaign promises that without a strong majority he ". . . will not deliver on that commitment"
All Canadians should be asking themselves these questions and then voting.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
21 April, 2011
- Harper Approach - You Want Funding - Support His Right Wing Extremist Agenda
Posted: 10:59 AM on April 21, 2011
Ottawa cutting funds to Planned Parenthood, Tory MP says, ADRIAN MORROW, Globe and Mail, Apr. 21, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-cutting-funds-to-planned-parenthood-tory-mp-says/article1993971/comments/
As long as Harper and the Con's are in power they don't need to bring in legislation against abortion.
Harper and the Con's merely have to cut funding to reputable organizations that include abortion, and that is what they have been doing.
Soudas on the 'Muskoka Initiative' on child and maternal health.
'we have clearly laid out what our G8 initiative will focus on. Organizations like International Planned Parenthood or others that are willing to work with our government, we look forward to working with them as well on this important initiative,'"
The code words here are "willing to work with our government"
What exactly is Harper's approach to abortion as part of Muskoka Initiative - seems to me that it has been very emphatically excluded by Harper.
The Harper message is - if you include abortion you will not be supported by a Harper government.
Isn't that what was at the heart of the Oda 'not' contempt of Parliament scandal was all about - refusing finding to Kairos on ideological bases
"The organization [Kairos] promotes major actions to combat climate change . . .
Leading KAIROS member Churches, the United Church of Canada and the Anglican Church of Canada, have a history of strong support for abortion access and for homosexual "marriage" and the acceptance of homosexual behaviour."
(Lifesitenews 22 Dec.'09)
excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Ottawa cutting funds to Planned Parenthood, Tory MP says, ADRIAN MORROW, Globe and Mail, Apr. 21, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-cutting-funds-to-planned-parenthood-tory-mp-says/article1993971/comments/
As long as Harper and the Con's are in power they don't need to bring in legislation against abortion.
Harper and the Con's merely have to cut funding to reputable organizations that include abortion, and that is what they have been doing.
Soudas on the 'Muskoka Initiative' on child and maternal health.
'we have clearly laid out what our G8 initiative will focus on. Organizations like International Planned Parenthood or others that are willing to work with our government, we look forward to working with them as well on this important initiative,'"
The code words here are "willing to work with our government"
What exactly is Harper's approach to abortion as part of Muskoka Initiative - seems to me that it has been very emphatically excluded by Harper.
The Harper message is - if you include abortion you will not be supported by a Harper government.
Isn't that what was at the heart of the Oda 'not' contempt of Parliament scandal was all about - refusing finding to Kairos on ideological bases
"The organization [Kairos] promotes major actions to combat climate change . . .
Leading KAIROS member Churches, the United Church of Canada and the Anglican Church of Canada, have a history of strong support for abortion access and for homosexual "marriage" and the acceptance of homosexual behaviour."
(Lifesitenews 22 Dec.'09)
excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- Planned Parenthood Funding Scandal - Here's a Bit of a Backgrounder
Posted: 10:58 AM on April 21, 2011
Ottawa cutting funds to Planned Parenthood, Tory MP says, ADRIAN MORROW, Globe and Mail, Apr. 21, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-cutting-funds-to-planned-parenthood-tory-mp-says/article1993971/comments/
Here's a bit of a backgrounder:
October 2009 – Brad Trost, Conservative MP, Saskatoon-Humboldt launches a Petition to Stop Federal Funding of Planned Parenthood:
“Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present in the House today petitions… They are calling upon this House to promote the values they cherish, which are Canadian values in support of pre-born life. They are particularly calling upon the Government of Canada to stop the funding of Planned Parenthood by CIDA, the Canadian International Development Agency, believing that CIDA should be concentrating on dealing with fighting poverty instead of concentrating on destroying human life.”
(MP Brad Trost, Hansard, October 5, 2009)
(http://theannaproject.ca/category/liberal/)
excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Ottawa cutting funds to Planned Parenthood, Tory MP says, ADRIAN MORROW, Globe and Mail, Apr. 21, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-cutting-funds-to-planned-parenthood-tory-mp-says/article1993971/comments/
Here's a bit of a backgrounder:
October 2009 – Brad Trost, Conservative MP, Saskatoon-Humboldt launches a Petition to Stop Federal Funding of Planned Parenthood:
“Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present in the House today petitions… They are calling upon this House to promote the values they cherish, which are Canadian values in support of pre-born life. They are particularly calling upon the Government of Canada to stop the funding of Planned Parenthood by CIDA, the Canadian International Development Agency, believing that CIDA should be concentrating on dealing with fighting poverty instead of concentrating on destroying human life.”
(MP Brad Trost, Hansard, October 5, 2009)
(http://theannaproject.ca/category/liberal/)
excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- Harper - Just Exactly What Is He Planning For After The Election
Submitted: 10:48am, PDT, 21 Apr.'11 CBC
12:34pm, PDT, 21 Apr.'11 CBC
Trust me to keep N.L promises: Harper, CBC News Posted: Apr 21, 2011 11:42 AM NT Last Updated: Apr 21, 2011
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2011/04/21/nl-harper-secondvisit-421.html
and
2:35 PM on April 21, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/any-and-all-anti-abortion-legislation-will-be-defeated-harper-declares/article1994462/comments/
What Harper said
see: the video at: http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/Canada/NL/1279609329/ID=1892271885
[at 25:50]
when asked by the local CBC reporter regarding whether his commitment on the loan guaranty on the Muskrat Falls project was in jeopardy if Harper did not get a majority and his local candidates did not get elected
"a strong Conservative majority government will be able to deliver on those commitments. A minority Parliament where effectively a majority of seats is held by the Liberals, NDP and Bloc, can not and will not deliver on that commitment."
[at: 27:36 - 28:36]
There is nothing, I have heard anyway, about the Liberals, NDP or Bloc stating that they would not support this project
so when Harper says "will not deliver on that commitment"
he can only be referring to himself.
And, what he means when he says he "will not deliver on that commitment" - he won't even introduce it to try to get it passed if he has a minority of seats.
Harper is insisting that he will re-introduce his budget unchanged and uncompromising even if he has a minority and it is the main stay of his platform.
Harper should state just exactly what he is planning if he gets a minority of seats, especially if he is not going to try to implement his platform.
There is very little of more importance to this election than the answer to that question.
Will Harper delay to re-call Parliament - he's done that type of thing before.
Will Harper demand another election
effectively saying that the majority of Canadian can not have their representatives determine who runs this country - as he has been saying all along.
All Canadians need to know this, now, before it's too late.
excerpt: comments Lloyd MacILquham cicblog
12:34pm, PDT, 21 Apr.'11 CBC
Trust me to keep N.L promises: Harper, CBC News Posted: Apr 21, 2011 11:42 AM NT Last Updated: Apr 21, 2011
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2011/04/21/nl-harper-secondvisit-421.html
and
2:35 PM on April 21, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/any-and-all-anti-abortion-legislation-will-be-defeated-harper-declares/article1994462/comments/
What Harper said
see: the video at: http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/Canada/NL/1279609329/ID=1892271885
[at 25:50]
when asked by the local CBC reporter regarding whether his commitment on the loan guaranty on the Muskrat Falls project was in jeopardy if Harper did not get a majority and his local candidates did not get elected
"a strong Conservative majority government will be able to deliver on those commitments. A minority Parliament where effectively a majority of seats is held by the Liberals, NDP and Bloc, can not and will not deliver on that commitment."
[at: 27:36 - 28:36]
There is nothing, I have heard anyway, about the Liberals, NDP or Bloc stating that they would not support this project
so when Harper says "will not deliver on that commitment"
he can only be referring to himself.
And, what he means when he says he "will not deliver on that commitment" - he won't even introduce it to try to get it passed if he has a minority of seats.
Harper is insisting that he will re-introduce his budget unchanged and uncompromising even if he has a minority and it is the main stay of his platform.
Harper should state just exactly what he is planning if he gets a minority of seats, especially if he is not going to try to implement his platform.
There is very little of more importance to this election than the answer to that question.
Will Harper delay to re-call Parliament - he's done that type of thing before.
Will Harper demand another election
effectively saying that the majority of Canadian can not have their representatives determine who runs this country - as he has been saying all along.
All Canadians need to know this, now, before it's too late.
excerpt: comments Lloyd MacILquham cicblog
- NDP Surge In Quebec? - Ask The Campaign Teams There
Submitted: 6:48am, PDT, 21 Apr.'11 CBC
Bloc changes tactics to deal with NDP surge, CBC News Posted: Apr 21, 2011, 21 Apr.'11 CBC
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/21/cv-election-ndp-quebec-803.html#
The Crop poll Showing an NDP Surge in Quebec is obviously unreliable.
However, the campaign teams for the Province and the various riding in Quebec would have to observe such a serge, if it is indeed real. And perhaps that explains why Layton is not getting carried away - which would be a mistake with possible disastrous results anyway, he is keeping on track which is what he should be doing.
On the other hand, this kind of thing can be a self-fulfilling prophecy - people think that the NDP are surging and jump on the band-wagon. You can't buy better PR that that, and it's not even an attack ad.
The issue is if there is a NDP surge are they simply taking votes away from the Liberal and Bloc or are they threatening to reduce the number of seats for the Harper and the Con's.
Obviously if they are causing a more serious splits in the opposition parties votes such a surge could actually work in Harper's favour and give him and the Con's more seats or even a majority.
excerpt: comments Lloyd MacILquham cicblog
Bloc changes tactics to deal with NDP surge, CBC News Posted: Apr 21, 2011, 21 Apr.'11 CBC
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/21/cv-election-ndp-quebec-803.html#
The Crop poll Showing an NDP Surge in Quebec is obviously unreliable.
However, the campaign teams for the Province and the various riding in Quebec would have to observe such a serge, if it is indeed real. And perhaps that explains why Layton is not getting carried away - which would be a mistake with possible disastrous results anyway, he is keeping on track which is what he should be doing.
On the other hand, this kind of thing can be a self-fulfilling prophecy - people think that the NDP are surging and jump on the band-wagon. You can't buy better PR that that, and it's not even an attack ad.
The issue is if there is a NDP surge are they simply taking votes away from the Liberal and Bloc or are they threatening to reduce the number of seats for the Harper and the Con's.
Obviously if they are causing a more serious splits in the opposition parties votes such a surge could actually work in Harper's favour and give him and the Con's more seats or even a majority.
excerpt: comments Lloyd MacILquham cicblog
20 April, 2011
- Harper's Post Election Strategy - All Canadians Need To Know, Now
Submitted: 9:34am, PDT, 20 Apr.'11 CBC
Tories to Ignatieff: 'Misquote us? Misquote you!' The transcript flap, blow-by-blow, April 19, 2011
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/inside-politics-blog/2011/04/tories-to-ignatieff-misquote-me-misquote-you.html
What is Harper's post election strategy.
We must all demand that Harper answer that question.
If the Con's gets a minority of seats
Harper will, obviously, demand to be made Prime Minister or demand another election - immediately.
But,
Who recalls Parliament and when does it have to be recalled.
This is not some theoretical musing.
As far as I know Parliament is only required by the Constitution to be called once a year (and practically speaking once a year is also needed to pass spending bills).
But does this apply to an election.
As we have seen in the past Harper is not above suspending Parliament in order to grasp and maintain power.
The party that was in power before the election remains in power after the election until Parliament elects a Party to select a Prime Minister.
This implies that it will be totally under the control of Harper.
If you think that Harper will easily simply say "ok guys, your turn", then you're simply completely out of touch with what's been going on in the last 5 years with Harper and his desire for power.
The phrase "who wins the election" is a misnomer
The election is for PM's who then represent us in Parliament.
Parliament, based on a majority of MP's then elects a Prime Minster.
If one party get a majority of seats then it is a done deal (normally).
But if no party gets a majority of seats the Party that runs the country must rely on other parties to obtain a majority of MP's to support them and it is by no means automatic.
Harper of course has so poisoned the relationships with the other Parties, to the point they could no longer tolerate his Contempt for Parliament and slight of Canadian Democracy and withdrew its confidence in him and his Con's
Harper obviously feels he will not be able to bring himself to approach another party with cap in hand to support him and his Con's.
So, what then.
Harper refusing to recall Parliament for fear he will not be voted in as Prime Minister and the parties that are truly supported by the majority of people prevented from taking their rightly place leading this great country of ours.
Or,
Harper demanding another election right after the end of this one.
All Canadians need to know this, now, before it's too late.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Tories to Ignatieff: 'Misquote us? Misquote you!' The transcript flap, blow-by-blow, April 19, 2011
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/inside-politics-blog/2011/04/tories-to-ignatieff-misquote-me-misquote-you.html
What is Harper's post election strategy.
We must all demand that Harper answer that question.
If the Con's gets a minority of seats
Harper will, obviously, demand to be made Prime Minister or demand another election - immediately.
But,
Who recalls Parliament and when does it have to be recalled.
This is not some theoretical musing.
As far as I know Parliament is only required by the Constitution to be called once a year (and practically speaking once a year is also needed to pass spending bills).
But does this apply to an election.
As we have seen in the past Harper is not above suspending Parliament in order to grasp and maintain power.
The party that was in power before the election remains in power after the election until Parliament elects a Party to select a Prime Minister.
This implies that it will be totally under the control of Harper.
If you think that Harper will easily simply say "ok guys, your turn", then you're simply completely out of touch with what's been going on in the last 5 years with Harper and his desire for power.
The phrase "who wins the election" is a misnomer
The election is for PM's who then represent us in Parliament.
Parliament, based on a majority of MP's then elects a Prime Minster.
If one party get a majority of seats then it is a done deal (normally).
But if no party gets a majority of seats the Party that runs the country must rely on other parties to obtain a majority of MP's to support them and it is by no means automatic.
Harper of course has so poisoned the relationships with the other Parties, to the point they could no longer tolerate his Contempt for Parliament and slight of Canadian Democracy and withdrew its confidence in him and his Con's
Harper obviously feels he will not be able to bring himself to approach another party with cap in hand to support him and his Con's.
So, what then.
Harper refusing to recall Parliament for fear he will not be voted in as Prime Minister and the parties that are truly supported by the majority of people prevented from taking their rightly place leading this great country of ours.
Or,
Harper demanding another election right after the end of this one.
All Canadians need to know this, now, before it's too late.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)