- A narrow, and/or extremist, purpose, or agenda, by its vary nature restricts individual freedom and democracy

posted to: Globe and Mail, “So, we're not a great power. Big deal – let's be a great nation”, J.L. Granatstein, 10 Aug.’09
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/so-were-not-a-great-power-big-deal-lets-be-a-great-nation/article1245345/

It seems to me that any country that is a multifaceted and diverse, tolerant, open democracy might seem “divided and diverse, unfocussed and ordinarily rudderless” to some who have a narrow and particular agenda.

However, our strength, and greatness, lies precisely in the ability to maintain a first world economy based democracy given this diversity and freedom. What other country in the history of mankind has enjoyed, or enjoys, our freedom, openness, diversity and tolerance.

A narrow, and/or extremist, purpose, or agenda, by its vary nature restricts individual freedom and democracy by imposing the will of a few on the many. This, of course, is one of the reasons Canada should be vigilant regarding extreme right wing ideologically based political parties such as Harper and the Cons.

In the current global economy this is not the end of the issue. We still must compete with countries that do have agendae, that put economic development at the forefront and do focus its people on the restricted purpose of competing and/or domination.

However, it is my firm belief that not only can Canada compete but succeed once we, as individuals, and not through the agenda of some small sector of the population or extremist government, put our minds to it. In fact, our diversity and openness, unfettered by extremist ideologies, will facilitate comprehensive, effective and imaginative solutions, thus demonstrating to the rest of the world what ‘national greatness’ really means. We merely have to “stand up and be counted”.

- One can only wonder to what extent the media (Rex is simply jumping on the band wagon) is being motivated by the ‘Noldrums [News Doldrums] of Summer

Posted to: Globe and Mail, "For pols, the livin' is never easy", Rex Murphy, 8 Aug.'09
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/for-pols-the-livin-is-never-easy/article1245339/

One can only wonder to what extent the media (Rex is simply jumping on the band wagon) is being motivated by the ‘Noldrums [=News Doldrums] of Summer’ in their demand for Ignatieff to make policy statements. Certainly Ignatieff has demonstrated that he feels it is vital to take real steps and real action to stimulate the economy. But, making press releases and statements simply so the news media can “sell papers and air time” is not necessarily in the best interests of this fair nation of ours, or the Liberal Party – both his charges.


Studied consideration of all the important factors to come up with a solution that is for the good of all and not one small sector is the name of the game, especially for Liberals:

“to build a nation where everyone can attain their potential and join together to help those that need help and protect those that need protection; through: informed, open and transparent discussion leading to a truly democratic solution for the good of all (Lloyd MacIlquham)” .


“Striking the right balance between ideals, expectations and consensus is an essential test of leadership” (John Acton). This takes time and reflection.

It seems to me that Ignatieff is taking the requisite time and effort to ensure that the right balance is struck.

Rock on, Iggy.

- Gerald Caplan - how SH of you

postedc to: Globe and mail, "Unsolicited advice for Michael Ignatieff", 8 Aug.'09, Garald Caplan
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/unsolicited-advice-for-ignatieff/article1245062/


Sounds like Iggy slam’n, Garald. You, obviously, have nothing real to say about Iggy so you refer to ‘rumour’ and mud slinging – how SH of you.

This article must be your contribution to the NDP buildup to the next election. One is left wondering what your source is, other than a fertile imagination and perhaps a bit of desperation for lack of anything concrete to use in your attack.

“No wonder so many Canadians get on their knees and thank heavens for the NDP, and look forward with such anticipation to the party's convention next week.” If this were really the case then why are the NDP considering changing their brand in an attempt to hoodwink voters into thinking that the NDP is not the same old NPD but somehow the US Democratic Party and that Jack Layton is not the same old Jack Layton but somehow Barack Obama. Certainly the NDP would need a miracle to achieve that objective.


The important thing is getting rid of Harper and his gang of Con’s. If that requires Iggy to promise a few star candidates cabinet positions to get them to run, then so be it. I have great difficulty in seeing any Liberal objecting to that and it would be very surprising if any Liberal were to put their own personal ambitions ahead of this purpose. Also, I would have thought that the NDP would want Harper out as well.

However, your article indicates that Layton and the NDP are, as before, only interested in power grubbing and gaining more seats and not the welfare of this great nation or the people of Canada. Getting rid of Harper and the Con’s will take hard work and a concerted effort by all Liberals. The NDP are either with the Liberals on this one or against them. Attacking Iggy can only help Harper and the Con’s.


“Striking the right balance between ideals, expectations and consensus is an essential test of leadership” (John Acton) – Rock on, Iggy.

- Harper and the Con’s political methods are an insult to the inteligence and integrity of all Canadians

excerpt submitted to: Toronto Star, "Tories paint Michael Ignatieff as purely political animal", James Travers, 4 Aug.'09
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/675712

Harper and the Con’s political methods are an insult to the inteligence and integrity of all Canadians and it is time for Harper and his methods to ‘hit the road’.

Harper and the Cons have developed and employ a propaganda machine the likes of which have not been seen in recent democratic countries. These character attacks nnot only deliberately misrepresent things but are designed to distract people from the real issues, issues that are vitally important to Canada, our way of life and our future. Harper’s only concern is acquiring and maintaining power for power’s sake and their right wing extremist purposes.


Harper and the Con’s disregard and distain for our Parliamentary institutions and System of government is a deliberate attempt to paralyze our system of government so that Harper may rule with impunity and distract people from their extreme right wing ideology.


Even Tom Flanigan refers to the political methods of the Romans, one of the most corrupt and degenerate ‘democracies’ ever, as historical justification for Harper and the Con’s extreme, negative ads.

- One of the biggest advantages, and safeguards, of EI is precisely that the rules can be made temporary and adjustable in accordance with the economy

Submitted to: Toronto Star, “Improving EI much better stimulus than infrastructureImproving EI much better stimulus than infrastructure",
Ken Georgetti, 3 Aug.’09
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/674961


It is incomprehensible to require that the EI rules must be the same when Canada’s economy is doing well and when it is doing poorly. Criticizing the Liberal government because in the mid 90’s it changed the rules to fit the then current economic circumstances smacks of crass political opportunism.

The government of the day ought to be continually vigilant with all policies to determine how they might be adjusted to better serve Canada and Canadians under the existing circumstances. This is something ideologues, especial right wing extremist like Harper and the Cons, simply can not handle – they are fixed in their ideology and their policies are designed to conform not to current realities, but to conform to their ideology. That’s why you get guys like Harper denying the recession and dragging their feet with releasing funds for the stimulus packages.

Current economically based societies must have a government that takes a very hands on approach to the economy. Not only because economic circumstances are always changing, but there are many very large and powerful economies, with which we are required to compete, so do. Harper’s hand’s off, sink-or-swim, laissez faire, no government ‘interference’ (as they call it) is exactly wrong and with likely catastrophic consequences in the long run.


Employment insurance does feed money into the economy by placing it in the hands of people who are going to spend it. It is also has the additional social benefit of help people who need help – a vital aspect of a modern democracy, something the Harper government simply doesn’t seem to understand or agree with.

It does all this in a direct fashion, quickly and with very little overhead. Further, once in place it is difficult for the current government to drag their feet. These are all problems with infrastructure spending.

Certainly there must be safeguards. But one of the biggest safeguards in the EI system is precisely that the rules are temporary and adjustable in accordance with the economic times.

The president of the Bank of Canada suggested last week that Canada is moving out of the recession. However, the general consensus seems to be that unemployment will continue at these high levels and increase for quite a while. Ontario will be especially affected and, in all likelihood never recover, or at least not for decades.

- Carol, you should read the Toronto Star, you might learn something.

Submitted to Toronto Star, “Michael Ignatieff paying a price for his silence“, Carol Goar, 3 Aug.’09
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/674959


Thomas Axworthy provided the explanation (through no fault of his own, mind you) as to what Micheal Ignatieff is doing in his opinion in yesterday’s Star (“19th century advice for today's Liberals19th century advice for today's Liberals’)

Axworthy quoted of John Edward Dalberg Acton, whom he referred to as “one of the greatest liberals of the Victorian age”:

“Striking the right balance between ideals, expectations and consensus is an essential test of leadership”

Well, Carol, Ignatieff is taking the requisite time and effort to ensure that the “right balance between ideals, expectations and consensus” is struck – Rock on Iggie.

- It seems to me that Ignatieff is taking the requisite time and effort to ensure that the “right balance” is struck – Rock on Iggie.

Tom,

It is very difficult to take political outlooks from the 19th century and require that they be applied in the 21st context.

Certainly we owe a great debt of gratitude to Acton for his observation: "power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely," and it is something that we ought to keep in the forefront in our current political context.

“Striking the right balance between ideals, expectations and consensus is an essential test of leadership” is a serious consideration. However, by using the phrase ‘right balance’ Acton, himself, ties the ‘balancing’ exercise into its context. We cannot take Acton’s context and use it to come to the right conclusions about that exactly that balance should be today.

Also, it is suggested that Dion erred precisely in not striking the right balance by not properly taking into account the current context in his political outlook. As an activist, or the leader of an NGO, Dion’s approach may have been the right approach. But, as the leader of a major party in a modern, free, democratic, diverse, tolerant and economy based first world country, and a Liberal party at that, he failed to even to engage in ‘striking the right balance’ and he certainly did not balance ideals with consensus, or expectations for that matter. The Liberal Party of Canada is not a NGO and does not have an agenda to promote to the exclusion of all other factors.

Studied consideration of all the important factors to come up with a solution that is for the good of all and not one small sector is the name of the game, especially for Liberals:

“to build a nation where everyone can attain their potential and join together to help those that need help and protect those that need protection; through: informed, open and transparent discussion leading to a truly democratic solution for the good of all (Lloyd MacIlquham)” .

It seems to me that Ignatieff is taking the requisite time and effort ot ensure that the “right balance” is struck – Rock on Iggie.

- There is only one source of power – people.

Commnet on: Toronto Star, "Political power is national but economic power is globalPolitical power is national but economic power is global", Angelo Persichilli
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/671644


There is only one source of power – people. For example without people the multi-nationals are empty shells with no place to go and nothing to do. The multi-nationals need people to work in their companies. They need people to ‘consume’ their products. Governments and rulers hold office at the ‘please’ of the people. If 15% of the people are animated to remove a government or ruler their days are numbered - time and time again we have seen this illustrated. Wealth is defined in terms of the wants, desires and needs of the people. Power is the ability to get people to do what you want. People do not need governments to extend their reach more internationally, they merely need to stand up and be counted.

- Con’d Again!

Posted to: Toronto Star, "Compared with last year's bullish caucus meeting, this week's retreat expected to be more 'grounded', Bruce Campion-Smith, Jul 27, 2009
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/672195


If Jim Flaherty says the recession is over then, I suggest everyone hunker down for some more bad times. One need only look at everything Flaherty, Harper and the Cons have been saying for the last two years to conclude if Harper or Flaherty say it, it just isn’t right.

Also, it may be that the economy might expand a bit, but what about all the damage and suffering that has already been, and will be, inflicted. It is something like saying that Katrina is over – maybe, but what about New Orleans. With Harper, Flaherty and the Con’s sink or swim, every person for themselves approach, I would think there is a lot of people in Canada that are not cheering Carney’s proclamation, even if it is not partisan.

- I want my Canada back

Posted (p.7) to: Globe and Mail, “Four blocks shape Canadian politics”, Jeffery Simpson, 28 Jul.’09

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/until-something-changes-the-road-to-majority-is-blocked/article1234181/


In our modern world, polls have replaced entrails readings and “Canadians now tell pollsters that they prefer majority government” is a harbinger of the change in the dynamics manifesting our current political constellation (away from the 4 ‘blocks’ as Simpson calls them).

Underlying this shift is the question that, presumably, a lot of Canadians (2/3rds anyway) are asking themselves: “Isn’t time we stopped the damage being done by Harper and the Con’s to Canada and our way of life”.

Any political analysis of when there will likely be an election and what will be at play must, in my opinion, take this into account.

- Rock on Iggie

Posted to: Globe and Mail, “Ignatieff plays fast and loose with liberal creed”, Neil Reynolds, 22 Jul.’09


To me, for any open, free and tolerant society:

The Purpose is:

to build a nation where everyone can attain their potential
and join together to help those that need help and protect those that need protection;
through:
informed, open and transparent discussion leading to a truly democratic solution for the good of all.
(Lloyd MacIlquham)

It seems to me that the Liberal values run along these lines.

However, Harper and the Con's extreme right wing brand of conservatism is very much a sink-or-swim, laisser faire, I'm big-you're small, every one for themselves approach.

Certainly "A liberal's disagreement with conservatives comes down to this: We both seek freedom but liberals believe no one can achieve it alone" captures this essential difference between the Liberal Party and Harper and the Cons’. Rock on Iggie.

– let get the bull out of the china shop.

posted to MacLeans, “Bogus’ peacekeeping?”, Nancy Macdonald, 18 Jul.’09
http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/07/17/%E2%80%98bogus%E2%80%99-peacekeeping/

A human right advocate on the International scale criticizing a country for a perceived lack of will to depart from self absorption and take a leading role in the fight against inhumanity globally in the post 9-11 era – so, what more can you want. Sounds like he was doing his job.

Clearly, Ignatieff has a very in depth, comprehensive and clear understanding of the dynamics of international affairs. Harper and the Con’s have shown us the opposite.

In this fragile, complex age of globalization not only of economies and human suffering but nuclear and terrorist threats I choose Ignatieff – let get the bull out of the china shop.

Lloyd MacIlquham, cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper and the Cons are very, very scary socially and politically

Posted to Globe and Mail, Column, Jeffrey Simpson, 15 Jul.’09
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/a-very-scary-pm-i-dont-believe-that-any-taxes-are-good-taxes/article1216778/

Stephen Harper: You know, there's two schools in economics on this. One is that there are some good taxes and the other is that no taxes are good taxes. I'm in the latter category. I don't believe that any taxes are good taxes.
(Stephen Harper, July 10 )


Jeffery Simpson: But anyone who says “no taxes are good taxes” and “I don't believe that any taxes are good taxes” is wrong economically, and very, very scary socially and politically
(Jeffery Simpson, G&M, 15 Jul.'09)

National Post: Needless to say, unravelling the long-run political and economic thought of Rev. Simpson is little like looking for consistency in papal encyclicals. Yesterday he again criticized Mr. Harper for cutting the GST. He has already called the GST cut "dumb, dumb," and now sees it as part of Mr. Harper's "scary, scary" tax policies, the product of his "right-wing ideological" tax cutting ways. The problem, he said, is that "the GST was the wrong tax to cut, as almost every qualified economist in the country has underscored."
(Terence Corcoran, Financial Post, Wednesday, July 15, 2009)


**********

The National Post today (15 July) attacks Simpson for this article, suggesting that he is inconsistent since when the GST was first being introduced Simpson was against it. But, now he is saying that it was a mistake to reduce it by 2%.

Many people spoke out against the GST when it was being introduced and many made very good points. Our open free and democratic system allows for this and in fact requires it.

The GST was, and is, a bad tax, as implemented, and we were, in retrospect, con’d by Mulnony and the PC government regarding its benefits.

The problem is that the GST tax cost billions of dollars to implement and after a number of years has become so embedded into our economies and government (1% = 6 billion in revenue !!!) that upon study it is very, very difficult to get rid of and very disruptive of our economy and implementation of government programs. Reducing the GST by 2% is generally considered, from what I can see, read and experience, as being essentially useless in stimulating the Canadian economy and removes from the Federal coffers $12 billion a year in revenues. It was, manifestly, introduced by Harper and the Con’s for its optics.

Sober Second Thought:
The GST tax highlights the damage that can be done by a particular government when they introduce a particular policy, and this was done by the right of middle, Progressive Conservative, party. It is ‘very, very scary socially and politically’ to think what damage an extreme right wing party like Harper and the Con’s can do. (The National Post article refers to it as “Brian Mulroney Conserviatives”. They may have be con’s but they were not Con’s – ask the right honourable Joe Clarke, Brian Mulroney, Bill Davis, et al.).

Anyone voting for Harper and the Cons, especially in Ontario and Quebec, should take this into consider when voting next time.

(Lloyd MacIlquham, cicblog.com/comments.html, 15 Jul.'09)

- James, You’re spinning counterclockwise this time

posted to Toronto Star, 14 Jul.’09, “Michael Ignatieff hurt by his own tactics”, 14 Jul.’09, James Travers
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/665630#Comments


James, You’re spinning counterclockwise this time.

The problem is that Harper and the Cons have made it very clear that they simply do not compromise. Unless, of course, they are taken to the brink of losing power.

This in-your-face, my-way-or-the-highway approach to governing by Harper and the Cons leaves the Opposition very little leverage except to use the ‘non-confidence’ card.

The best that Ignatieff could do is to force Harper to agree to confidence votes in the future so that even he, Harper, would have some difficulty in shutting parliament down to avoid such again. That’s the realities of the current circumstances. In such context, Ignatieff did exactly the right thing, not only for his own good and the good of the Liberal Party but the good of all Canadians, as time will tell.

Ignatieff this week demonstrated the type of compromise and decisions making that a modern democracy with a complex, open and tolerant, multi-and-competing interest, commerce based society requires. The I’m-right-your-wrong, I’m-big-your-small, sink-or-swim extreme right wing, ideologue approach of Harper, Flaherty and the Cons has no place in it.

(from my posting, 19 Jun.’09)

- It is very revealing that Harper and the Cons would turn to Roman politics for justification of their extremely negative attack ads

posted to: Globe and mail, “Have the Liberals gone soft? Why are they upset over attack ads?”, 13 Jul.’09, Tom Flanigan
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/have-the-liberals-gone-soft-why-are-they-upset-over-attack-ads/article1214605/


Hi Tom,

Good comparison, Tom.


- It is very revealing that Harper and the Cons would turn to Roman politics for justification of their extremely negative attack ads and other political methodologies.

Ever since the advent of Christianity, we have not turned to the Romans for our moral instructions.

The Roman method of politics lead to dictatorship and finally degradation and ruin. Not the best example for political instruction. As far as I can see for the last 2000 years our society has considered the Roman Republic and her politics corrupt in the extreme. Enter stage right Bush and Harper.

In fact Harper and the Cons have developed and employ a propaganda machine the likes of which have not been seen in recent democratic countries.

There is no comparison between the current application of negative ads by Harper and the Cons and anything previously employed. To suggest so conveniently muddies the waters, which is likely the intention.

I think most people remember the Mulroney years and if I were a Con I would be very reluctant to bring that period to the attention of the voters.

It would be interesting to hear your answer on the following two questions:

- Other than the extreme right wing elements in our society is there anyone supporting the use of the type of negative ads that Harper and the Cons are employing?

- As Scott Reid suggested last week. Are all these articles by yourself, Preston Manning, et al, as well as the literature being sent out in Quebec at the taxpayers’ expense some kind of effort to identify the extreme right wing elements in our society?

- Godsave Canada, if Harper were to lead Senate reform.

Posted to: Gloabe and mail, “Sober, effective and democratically legitimate”, 13 Jul.’09, Globe Editorial
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/sober-effective-and-democratically-legitimate/article1215814/


Godspeed Harper???

- Godsave Canada, if Harper were to lead Senate reform.

Harper and the Con’s since being elected have taken steps, systematically, to marginalize Parliament (all aspects, including in Champers and Committee), the Senate, access to information, transparency, openness and certainly have their sights on such other fundamental institutions and protectors of our democratic rights as the Supreme Court of Canada and the Judiciary, itself. The effect, and to me the manifest purpose, is to concentrate power in the Executive, in other words, the Prime Minister.

Harper and the Cons have turned Parliament into not much more than a smoke screen, a diversion and, much to the assault on the integrity of all Canadians, their own focus group for their attack ads. The longer Harper is in power the more he will become entrenched.

It would be interesting to know who wrote this ‘opinion’ and what political affiliations, connections they have.

- How much more damage must be done by Harper and the Cons to Canada and our society before they get the boot.

Posted to: G&M, “PM apologizes for Ignatieff attack”, 11 Jul.’09, Brian Laghi and Campbell Clark
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/pm-apologizes-for-ignatieff-attack/article1213930/


Harper, once more is using the international stage to promote himself and the Con’s at home in Canada and not to properly represent Canada in one of the most important meeting of Western leaders in a generation.

To make a personal attack on the leader of the opposition in Canada had absolutely no place at the G8 meeting. It should be an eyebrow raiser for all Canadians. Harper ought not to have raised this in his speech even if it were correctly attributed to Mr. Ignatieff.

His total lack of respect for the importance of the meeting and the participants is also clearly demonstrated when he appeared late for the photo. This, of course, is totally unacceptable. There is concerns that he may have been late deliberately to demonstrate to Canadians that he is the ‘boss’ at the meeting.

Once again an assistant of Harper is being blamed. It seems to me that this is a general scenario with Harper. In may be that an assistant gave him the misinformation but Harper ought to have the good judgment not to refer to it at all given it was at an international conference, and the G8 to boot.

Clearly Harper has no consideration for comity and protocol on the international stage. His only concern is political self-interest.

- How much more damage must be done by Harper and the Cons to Canada and our society before they get the boot.

- Preston, if you really want to restore confidence in Parliament – simple: Get rid of Harper and the Con’s

Posted to: Globe and Mail, “It's time for a fresh start in Parliament”, 2 July, 2009, Preston Manning
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/its-time-for-a-fresh-start-in-parliament/article1202622/


Harper and the Con’s since being elected have taken steps, systematically, to marginalize Parliament (all aspects, including in Champers and Committee), the Senate, access to information, transparency, openness and certainly have their sights on such other fundamental institutions and protectors of our democratic rights as the Supreme Court of Canada and the Judiciary, itself. The effect, and to me the manifest purpose, is to concentrate power in the Executive, in other words, the Prime Minister.

Harper and the Cons have turned Parliament into not much more than a smoke screen, a diversion and, much to the assault on the integrity of all Canadians, their own focus group for their attack ads. The longer Harper is in power the more he will become entrenched.

The legislation that Harper and the Cons have introduced is a hodge-podge intended not to generally promote any ideology, Conservative or otherwise, or address any serious social issues but are self-serving and/or designed for their ‘optics’ no matter how obviously bad they are (e.g., Flaherty ‘Fiscal Update’ last December and the reduction in GST). Clearly, the ‘more’ is not the ‘better’.

You suggest, “some agreement to alter the ‘confidence convention,’ so the only condition on which a government could be defeated in the House would be on an explicit motion of no-confidence moved for that purpose.” Clearly that would entrench Harper that much more, Preston, perhaps that is why you are suggesting it.

- It is the true will of the people that must be expressed.

Excerpt submitted to: Toronto Star, “Sham-Ocracy: Parliament's Fissures “, 27 June, 2009, James Traves,
http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/article/656838


Our current political situation is the net manifestation of all the forces that are at play, as is the case in any era. It is the inevitable effect of the number, nature and strength of these forces. There is not be meaningful change until these forces are identified and modified, in some cases harnessed, in other cases roped in and curtailed. Past generations have taken on this task, sometimes requiring catastrophic change. Surely it is our tern.

It is clear that one big problem is ‘Party’ politics. It is because the MP’s vote along party lines that gives the leader of the governing party all the power. Our Parliamentary system is based on MP’s representing their constituents. Voting on Party lines runs contrary to this and we can see the effect. This is particularly counterproductive when there is a minority government. Our parliamentary system, in some ways, was set up to have 308 ‘parties’ and not simply 4 or 5. However, this ‘Party’ politics is more the effect than the cause. Also, voting along party lines is not, per se, an ‘evil’. It is when this is done to the exclusion of all else. In other words, the balance has been distorted. This distortion has become increasingly pronounced over my lifetime, paralleling the increase in power and influence of the ‘News’ media since Watergate. Perhaps this is no co-incidence, thus identifying one of this ‘forces’ that has changed and upset the balance.

Another big problem is, of course, Transparency, Access to Information and the underlying force of Freedom of Information generally. Clearly this is one of the forces that must be strengthened and with easily predictable results. As I have suggested on numerous occasions, Freedom of Information ought to be enshrined in our Charter of Rights. Travers suggests that what Canada needs is a White Knight to champion the cause of Democracy. Certainly we need someone to fight, head-to-head and toe-to-toe the Black Knight, Steven Harper, but the change that is required will not likely come from ‘within’ the current political system. It is the true will of the people that must be expressed. Ironically, the ‘News’ media could play a very significant, and constructive role, if it so chose.

- ‘What If’ Harper and the Cons were to get a majority. All I can say is “then God Save Canada”

Excerpt submitted to:
Toronto Star, “Canadians are victims of a con game”, 26 June, 2009, James Travers


Harper and the Con’s since being elected have taken steps, systematically, to marginalize Parliament, the Senate, access to information, transparency, openness and certainly have their sights on such other fundamental institutions and protectors of our democratic rights as the Supreme Court of Canada and the Judiciary, itself. The effect, and to me the manifest purpose, is to concentrate power in the Executive, in other words, the Prime Minister.

Harper and the Cons have turned Parliament into not much more than a smoke screen, a diversion and, much to the assault on the integrity of all Canadians, their own focus group for their attack ads. The longer Harper is in power the more he will become entrenched.

Of course, Harper answers to the will of Parliament. So, we can turn to Parliament to protect us against dictatorial rule. And, then there is the Senate as well, with its sober second thought. Surely it will limit Harper and prevent him from implementing any right wing extremist ideologically based policies, especially those that lead to a de facto dictatorship. Harper himself told us that before he got elected. How could a dictator take over with Parliament and the Senate. Unless, of course, you dissolve Parliament when it goes to exercise its Will, call-to-arms a small but significant group of die-hard supporters, and abolish the Senate, or at least attack and hamstring it to the extent that it can’t protect itself, let alone Canada, all Canadians and our way of life. No Prime Minister would do such a thing. Would they?

- Tom, If it gets rid of Harper and the Cons then, even if it is another minority government, an election would be anything but ‘pointless’.

Posted to: Globe and Mail, Comments by Tom Flanagan, Monday, Jun. 22, 2009 09:57AM
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/coming-to-terms-with-minority-government/article1190248/


The only people that could benefit by downplaying this very serious political crisis are those that are in power, Harper and the Cons. As long as they are in power an election is ‘pointless’. Perhaps, this is why people like Tom Flanagan are referring to it as “pointless election”.

If Harper and the Cons were the Official Opposition, you can be sure they he, and they, would be yelling and screaming and obstructing and attacking and demanding an election like there was no tomorrow. And yes, Harper and the Cons would even walking out in Parliament in protest.

Harper and the Con’s since being elected have taken steps, systematically, to marginalize Parliament, the Senate, access to information, transparency, openness and certainly have their sights on such other fundamental institutions and protectors of our democratic rights as the Supreme Court of Canada and the Judiciary, itself. The effect, and to me the manifest purpose, is to concentrate power in the Executive, in other words, the Prime Minister.

Harper and the Cons have turned Parliament into not much more than a smoke screen, a diversion and, much to the assault on the integrity of all Canadians, their own focus group for their attack ads. The longer Harper is in power the more he will become entrenched.

With power concentrated in the hands of the Executive i.e. the Prime Minster, what Parliamentary constellation appears in Canada’s political cosmos is more astrology than astronomy. Unless of course, some catastrophic event occurred like Harper and the Cons got a majority – in which case if God created the Universe, then God save us.

Who is Prime Minister and what Party is in power does make a difference, whether there is a minority or a majority. It makes a huge difference, given the current imbalance of power in favour of the Executive (Prime Minister and governing party) over Parliament, the Senate and the Judiciary. Our parliamentary system was developed over hundreds of years to create a balance to protect our way of life and our freedoms. It is this balance that is being vigorously attacked by Harper and the Cons – e.g. dissolution of Parliament last December and his call-to-arms of his loyal supporters with his deliberately misleading and erroneous allegations on the workings of our Parliamentary System and those upholding it.

Fortunately, we still have elections (at least every four years … I think … we’ll have to see what Harper has in mind when the time comes).

- The problem is that Harper and the Cons have made it very clear that they simply do not compromise

Posted (excerpts) to:

20 June:
Saturday's Globe and Mail, Friday, Jun. 19, 2009 07:36PM EDT, Brian Laghi
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/shouldnt-this-man-be-smiling/article1190197/

19 June: Ottawa Citzen:
Ottawa Citzen, "The pause that doesn't refresh", 19 June, 2009, Susan Riley
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/pause+that+doesn+refresh/1711009/story.html#PostComment


You have it starkly wrong on Ignatieff’s position and actions this week. Generally, I found your article hard to follow.

The problem is that Harper and the Cons have made it very clear that they simply do not compromise. Unless, of course, they are taken to the brink of losing power.

This in-your-face, my-way-or-the-highway approach to governing by Harper and the Cons leaves the Opposition very little leverage except to use the ‘non-confidence’ card. Unfortunately there is a general feeling against another election right now. Anyone who forces an election right now runs a very serious risk of a voter backlash. If Ignatieff were to do so, there would be a very real risk of a Conservative majority, taking away the only leverage to force any type of bridle on Harper and the Cons in power.

Also, EI is very important and a very good and expedient way of getting money out to stimulate the economy. However, it is far from an ‘election defining issue’. Harper knew this and so did Ignatieff. Essentially Ignatieff leveraged a non-election issue into guarranteed non-confidence votes in the Fall where the battle can be waged on election defining issues, or a build-up of smaller issues, each by themself not sufficient to force an election.

The best that Ignatieff could do is to force Harper to agree to confidence votes in the future so that even he, Harper, would have some difficulty in shutting parliament down to avoid such again. That’s the realities of the current circumstances. In such context, Ignatieff did exactly the right thing, not only for his own good and the good of the Liberal Party but the good of all Canadians, as time will tell.

Ignatieff this week demonstrated the type of compromise and decisions making that a modern democracy with a complex, open and tolerant, multi-and-competing interest, commerce based society requires. The I’m-right-your-wrong, I’m-big-your-small, sink-or-swim extreme right wing, ideologue approach of Harper, Flaherty and the Cons has no place in it.

Lloyd MacIlquham, cicblog.com/comments.html

- If Harper and the Cons were to get a majority all I could say is “God save Canada”.

Comment on: Toronto Star, Opinion, 18 June, 2009, Bob Hepburn
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/652578

There is no question that Harper and the Cons need to be out’d and that Canada and all Canadians would be far, far better off.

However, I think that the polls accurately reflect the general mood that an election is not wanted right now.


A big consideration is, if Ignatieff calls an election now there may be a voter backlash against the Liberal Party and people might vote Conservative out of spite.


- If Harper and the Cons were to get a majority all I could say is “God save Canada”.

- Flaherty, lecturing the G8?

G&M, “Flaherty sees U.S. deficit as biggest threat to recovery”, 14 June, 2009, Eric Reguly

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/flaherty-sees-us-deficit-as-biggest-threat-to-recovery/article1181282/



Flaherty: “All participants realize the need to control public spending and control public involvement in the private sector”.

Sounds like a right-wing ideology to me – except that even before Harper and Flaherty were forced to admit there was a recession they were spending like crazy.

Does anyone really wonder why the stimulus spending hasn’t materialized yet. Clearly, Harper, Flaherty and the Cons are dragging their feet because their extreme right-wing ideology simply does allow for it. It simply doesn’t matter how many people lose their jobs, savings, homes, way of life, because of it – after all that’s what ‘sink-or-swim’ is really all about, isn’t it.

I guess Harper, Flaherty and the Cons are hoping for the recession to end or the US to do the spending for us.

- Cyclical ‘Dictatorship’ – The Harper Rule

excerpts submitted to:
- Toronto Star, “If Harper fixed his moat would we ever find out?”, 9 Jun.’09, James Travers
- Toronto Star, "Political apathy fuelled by diminishing role of our MPs and a lack of transparency", 21 Jun.'09, Bruce Campion-Smith



Never mind cyclical ‘deficit’. How about a cyclical ‘dictatorship’. Harper seems to think so. Fortunately we must have an election every four year, Harper himself made that law (or do we??? I’m not sure, ask Harper, I’m sure he will be more than willing to tell us, I think, sometime, or not, who knows).

One of the biggest defenses against dictatorial rule is Freedom of Information. This, of course, was one of the first things that Harper attacked, and vigorously, when he took office. It was not inadvertent or ancillary to good government.

What we need is a political leader, and party, to champion transparency, integrity openness in government and freedom of information. Wait a minute, wasn’t ‘transparency’ Stephen Harper and his Con’s battle cry before they got elected.

Of course, Harper answers to the will of Parliament. So, we can turn to Parliament to protect us against dictatorial rule. And, then there is the Senate as well, with its sober second thought. Surely it will limit Harper and prevent him from implementing any right wing extremist ideologically based policies, especially those that lead to a de facto dictatorship. Harper himself told us that before he got elected. How could a dictator take over with Parliament and the Senate. Unless, of course, you dissolve Parliament when it goes to exercise its Will, call-to-arms a small but significant group of die-hard supporters, and abolish the Senate, or at least attack and hamstring it to the extent that it can’t protect itself, let alone Canada, all Canadians and our way of life. No Prime Minister would do such a thing. Would they?

Lloyd MacIlquham

- Ignatieff should be implementing his own “Getting tough on Cons” policy (‘Cons’ = ‘The Harper Gang’).

submitted to: Toronto Star, "Liberal revolt", 5 June.'09, Susan Delacourt
http://thestar.blogs.com/politics/2009/06/liberal-revolt.html

If mandatory jail sentences do not reduce the frequency of the crime, then not only is there no point, it is counter-productive. It is very expensive and amounts to little more than a mandatory 2 year stint at Con U (for clarification, here ‘Con U’ refers to ‘Convict’s University’ - i.e. the converting of those convicted into hardened criminals while in prison and their learning how to do it right the next time - and not, say, the Conservative election camp) . Harper and the Cons ought to present the evidence to show that this policy is effective in reducing crime.

Harper and the Con’s mantra is “getting tough on crime”. But, how, exactly is Bill C-15 doing it. It may be getting tough on the criminals – i.e. those who are convicted of committing such crimes. But where is the empirical connection between that and getting tough on ‘crime’. When you consider that the evidence apparently in the US is that these measures don’t work then the onus is even more on Harper and the Cons to produce the underlying evidence in support. Otherwise, one can conclude little more than this is being done for the optics, comparable to reducing the GST by 2%. We all, as Canadians, ought to be demanding this of Harper, and not just Ignatieff and the Liberals. It is a question of integrity.

Clearly in the next election Harper and the Cons will be referring to their “tough on crime” stance and it may be very difficult for Ignatieff to say “where’s the proof” at that time. Ignatieff should be implementing his own “getting tough on Cons” policy and now.

- So, why has Harper taken so long to take any type of action

Posted to: Globe and Mail, “Premiers rally behind Harper in fight against Buy American”, 5 June, 2009, Brian Laghi, Campbell Clark, Steven Chase and Barrie Mckenna
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/premiers-rally-behind-harper-in-fight-against-buy-american/article1169850/



t seems to me the ‘buy American provisions’ have been ‘in the news’ since the introduction of the Stimulus package. It does not take specific examples to be able to foresee the huge and terrible economic impact on Canadian companies.

So, why has Harper taken so long to take any type of action. As suggested in the article by the time Harper gets around to doing anything the money will have been spent.

Harper and the Cons seem to be able to take the initiative and be very fast with their negative and very non-constructive attack ads.

Why is it when it comes to doing anything constructive to benefit Canada during this economic recession Harper and the Cons are in denial and simply drag their feet regarding taking any meaningful action …

It must be Harper’s and the Cons’ extreme right wing ideological agenda.

- Thank God Harper and the Cons don’t have a majority.

Comment submitted to:
Toronto Star, “Learning the lessons of power”, 4 June, 2009, James Travers
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/645311


If they did, they would not have to worry about any ‘learning curve’ they would simply commence implementing their extreme right wing ideologically based policies and the ‘Good of Canada be Damned!’.

Now at least they have to take it a bit slower. They also have to do it covertly, which leaves the very undesirable prospect of the Canadian electorate not really having much of a clear idea of what Harper and the Cons are really up to. Hopefully, some of the damage will be reversible when Harper and the Cons are turffed from office.

Lloyd MacIlquham

- If Harper and the Con’s Had Never Taken the Helm of the Good Ship Canada Our Deficit Would be less than 10 billion

Submitted to Toronto Star, “Tories wield the deficit truncheonTories wield the deficit truncheon”, Linda Mcquaig, 2 June, 2009
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/643832#Comments


Title: The problem is that Harper, despite having a minority and despite the necessity, logic and fairness of changing the IE benefits, is maintaining his ‘in your face … my way or the highway … Laissez-faire … sink or swim…if the Opposition Parties want it then I will oppose it … right wing extremist ideological …’ attitude.

Good Point:

The Harper and the Cons' self-serving and ill advised reduction of taxes solely to win votes amounts to $34 billion this year. Add in the huge increases in spending like to the military and other areas.

Conclusion: If Harper and the Cons had never taken office, the deficit would be a mere $10 billion or less.

Unfortunately we can’t just simply reverse the damage Harper and the Cons have done in this area, or any of the other areas.

It is very difficult to increase taxes and this, of course, is part of the Harper strategy – just compare some of the attack ads against Ignatieff (vis.: ‘Ignatieff calls himself a tax and spend Liberal’ – I don’t recall Ignatieff saying that, perhaps Harper can point to the sound bite where he says this). It is also very difficult to roll back spending.

This is why what the Liberals achieved in the ‘90’s – i.e. elimination of the deficit, is so outstanding. And, they will have to do it again.

Lloyd MacIlquham

- Ignatieff EI Changes verses Harper Stimulus Package

abridged version posted to:

G&M, “Wall adds voice to call for EI reform“, 31 May ’09, Bill Curry
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/wall-adds-voice-to-call-for-ei-reform/article1161074/


The Harper, self-professed ‘stimulus’, package as Ignatieff so aptly pointed out “the stimulus is not out the door”. Part of the reason is that for the infrastructure part, Harper has made it contingent on the provinces and municipalities matching the amounts. In reality Harper doesn’t want to spend the money and has put this equal contribution from the provinces as an excuse.

One question. If the stimulus is not out the door, then why do we have a deficit of over $50 billion. If this includes the necessary borrowing for the stimulus spending, then we have already borrowed the money and so, where is it.

On the other hand, if the Harper government has not yet borrowed the money, and given it would be imprudent to do so without the particular infrastucture, or other project, ready including the provincial contributions, then when it is borrowed just how much greater will the deficit be.

I can only say God help us!

On the other hand the general consensus is that EI benefits go very quickly right to the heart of the matter. It staves off bankruptcy by individuals who have lost their jobs and at the same time provides money that people will spend on all sorts of things and thus stimulate the economy in a fair, across-the-board fashion, without having to spend the huge overhead that is associated with any infrastructure project and concern that it is only going to Conservative friendly ridings simply to buy votes in the next election.


Ontario Finance Minister Dwight Dunca recently stated (on his way into a meeting with the Jim Flaherty and other provincial finance ministers):

"We prefer not to see an election right now, we prefer to see real change to provide fairness for the unemployed," he said on his way into a meeting with the Jim Flaherty and other provincial finance ministers.

The problem is that Harper, despite having a minority and despite the necessity, logic and fairness of changing the IE benefits, is maintaining his ‘in your face … my way or the highway … Laissez-faire … sink or swim…if the Opposition Parties want it then I will oppose it … right wing extremist ideological …’ attitude.

Lloyd MacIlquham
****************

5/31/2009 1:57:05 PM
The Harper, self-professed ‘stimulus’, package as Ignatieff so aptly pointed out “is not out the door”. Part of the reason is that for the infrastructure part, Harper has made it contingent on the provinces and municipalities matching the amounts.
_____________________________________________

One question. If the stimulus is not out the door, then why do we have a deficit of over $50 billion. If this includes the necessary borrowing for the stimulus spending, then we have already borrowed the money and so, where is it. If not what will the deficit be when they do.
_____________________________________________

General consensus is that EI benefits go very quickly to the heart of the matter. It staves off bankruptcy by individuals who have lost their jobs and at the same time provides money that people will spend on daily needs, stimulating the economy in a fair, across-the-board fashion, without having to spend the huge overhead that is associated with any infrastructure project and concern that it is only going to Conservative friendly ridings simply to buy votes in the next election.
_____________________________________________

"We prefer not to see an election right now, we prefer to see real change to provide fairness for the unemployed", Ontario Finance Minsiter
_____________________________________________

The problem is that Harper, despite having a minority and despite the necessity, logic and fairness of the proposed changing the IE benefits, is maintaining his ‘in your face … my way or the highway … Laissez-faire … sink or swim … if the Opposition Parties want it then I will oppose it … right wing extremist ideological …’ attitude.
_____________________________________________

Harper has demonstrated that he and the Cons have no intention of adopting the best policies for Canadians unless he is pushed to the edge and confronted with the real threat of losing power.
_____________________________________________

I can only say, ‘God save us’!

- Poll on Patriotism Probably Skewed by Die Hard Harperites

Post to G&M, "Harper's a Tims man, but Ignatieff inspires", 30 May '09, Brian Laghi

I think one needs to look at the methodology of a Poll when it indicates that Canadians consider Harper more patriotic, especially considering his general long term plan is to dismantle Federalism and protect Alberta’s interested to the exclusion of the rest of Canada.

…………………………………………………………………………………………

For example, what per centage of those with High School or less education were represented in the poll (this is important since the poll reveals such a wide margin between support in this group in favour of Harper). Also, what per centage of those from Alberta were represented in the poll. What about the wording of the question - if ‘patriotism’ somehow relates back to Alberta, then I can see the result.

…………………………………………………………………………………………

And, of course, there is a significant per centage of the Canadian population that are die hard supporters of Harper and the Cons. Who are not interested in the facts, reality or the good of the Canadian people but blindly support everything Harper and the Cons stand for. It is very likely that when asked in a poll they will all answer in favour of Harper, especially given the signals from Harper and the Cons that they are making ‘patriotism’ a major campaign issue. Whereas the general population will not be so one sided. This skewing probably accounts for the poll result on patriotism.

…………………………………………………………………………………………

The Poll explains why the Harper attack ads are designed to communicate to people on the lowest of denominators, fear mongering and in this case, Xenophobia as well. Such ‘propaganda’ are typical of extreme right wing idealogues with really no credentials except to appeal to a small segment of the population. I guess that’s what Harper and the Cons mean when they refer to their party as a ‘Populist’ party.

…………………………………………………………………………………………

Lloyd MacIlquham

- Liberals should do a response ad comparing Harper credentials, or lack thereof, with Ignatieff’s

Posted to: G&M, “Just answer the question, Iggy”, Rick Salutin, 29 May ‘09
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/just-answer-the-question-iggy/article1158499/#


5/29/2009 12:58:28 PM

I suspect that these attack ads are designed to obscure attention away from Harper himself – i.e. Harper’s background, or lack thereof, and his very close connection, actual and ideological, to the extreme right wing of the Republican Party in the US. One need simply compare Harper’s background to that of Ignatieff to see that Ignatieff outclasses Harper by a country mile, whatever that ‘country’ is. There is simply no comparison.

…………………………………………………………………………………………

Perhaps the Liberal should come out with an Ad that makes a comparison between Harper’s background and Ignatieff’s background. Then at least people would have something upon which they may base a rational decision and see Harper for what he really is – an extreme right wing idealogue with really no credentials except to appeal to a small segment of the population. I guess that’s what they mean when they call themselves a ‘Populist’ party.

…………………………………………………………………………………………

The Harper attack ads are designed to communicate to people on the lowest of denominators, fear mongering and in this case, Xenophobia as well. There is no intention of discourse on any type of meaningful level, above playing on people’s raw emotion. One need only observe that they are totally divest of any explanation as to why Ignatieff’s background outside Canada might be a drawback in leading our country. Of course, such ads, they used to be called propaganda, typically consisting of fear mongering and xenophobia, form one of the main pillars upon which all extreme right wing ideologue groups support their objectives.

…………………………………………………………………………………………

With Harper’s strong leaning to the United States and strong ideological ties to the extreme right wing of the Republican Party one might suspect that he will be looking for a job there when he ‘retires from office’. Perhaps as a lecturer at Harvard. Given his recent personal PR campaign in the States, at the tax payer’s expense, this is not such a far out thought.

…………………………………………………………………

- The open, transparent, free and unobstructed flow of information ought to be enshrined in our Charter of Rights.

Submitted to the Toronot Star, "Dark virus infects budget office", 23 May '09, James Travers.


The open, transparent, free and unobstructed flow of information ought to be enshrined in our Charter of Rights. Its obstruction and obscuration, and in the extreme, by Harper and the Con’s shows us the dire need for this

"How can you cast your vote intelligently if you don't know what's going on?"
(As Travers so aptly quotes Robert Marleau, information commissioner).

Liberal and comprehensive rights to access information, available to all, unobstructed and vigilantly exercised, is a cornerstone of modern, open and free, democracy, protecting all from a closed, secretive government intent on using the powers entrusted to them for their self interest and interests contrary to the will of the people.

Access to information affords the stuff whereby the individual may forge both sword and shield to uphold human rights, without which no amount legislation can guaranty these rights and so, should therefore stand on the same footing.



...

Many people criticize the media for not reporting fairly and accurately.

When information is obscured and perverted at the source by the government, such is what is happening now by Harper and the Con’s, this criticism is not merely blaming the messenger – since the media could make this a “cause de celebre”.

When the free flow is obstructed and curtailed it gives the government a leverage to gain influence in the media, by favouring one media outlet over another. The media is also to blame as well for this but then, they’re only human - aren’t they? I don’t know, ask Travers.

- Carbon Tax was a Non-Issue in the BC Election – The Real Issue was the Uselessness of Fixed date Elections

Globe and mail, “How a B.C. carbon tax rose from Dion's ashes“,Stewart Elgie And David Boyd And Chris Waddell, May 17, 2009 at 10:51 PM EDT
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090515.wcocarbon18/BNStory/specialComment/home


I am not sure that the election in BC supports all your conclusions. The BC election was not issue based, it was called simply because of legislation requiring an election every four years. The campaigns were very low key, to say the least. The electorate were very much disengaged. This non-necessary, non-issue, non-engaged, dis-interest was manifested in the lowest turnout in BC history (50%) and that the result were essentially the same as before.

Carol James tried to make the carbon tax an issue but, except getting the environmentalists mad at her, it really did nothing.

One might say that the economy so dominated the election that no other issue had much traction. But, I am not sure that this is at all accurate. For one thing, NDP, in my opinion anyway, is not viewed by the electorate as an “economy issues” party. So, in an election where the economy so dominated one would expect that it would be very one sided and result in a bigger majority for the Liberals. But it wasn’t and it didn’t.

On the other side, I don’t think you can conclude that there was a backlash against the Liberals for their handling of the economy, or for their carbon tax. Once again if this were the case you would expect that the NDP supporters would be motivated and mobilized, which the % of voters and the results does not bear out – nobody was motivated, in the least.

The real issue in this election, to me, is the requirement to have a fixed election date, set out in legislation. It may work for Americans but then, we’re not Americans, are we.

The carbon tax was pretty much irrelevant to the election or its results and so I can’t see how you can use the BC election to infer very much regarding the carbon tax issue or global warming generally.

Lloyd Maclquham

- Comment Posted to the G&M

http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/635530#Comments

About Lloyd MacIlquham at 11:37 AM Sunday, May 17 2009

His composition is superb and his point well made. I have no doubt I had, -- after a long time, -- a chance to read some lines of high wisdom.
Submitted by zoroni at 5:46 PM Sunday, May 17 2009

- History will look back at Harper and the Con’s as a pack of vicious, mean spirited, self-serving, power mongering, extreme right wing ideologues

submitted 17 May '09, 8:35am(PDT) to:
Toronto Star, “Knee-deep in political mud and still sinking”, 17 May ’09, Angelo Persichilli http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/635530

" Harper and the Con’s have built, and employ ‘liberally’, a propaganda machine the likes of which Western democracies have not seen in recent times."

I remember Mulroney and I remember Turner. I also remember Chrétien and of course, Martin. What I don’t remember is anything that comes anywhere near the blatant distortion of truth and unabashed slanderous attacks that Harper and the Con’s are doing. Harper has “ramped it up” to a level never seen before in Canadian politics. Harper and the Con’s have built, and employ ‘liberally’, a propaganda machine the likes of which Western democracies have not seen in recent times.

10 –15 years ago we may have referred to it as ‘attack” ads but when comparing it to what Harper and the Cons are doing it was nothing more than boy scouts talking around a camp fire. “The truth be told” it is as different as “an apple and a fridge”.

"History will look back at Stephen Harper and the Con’s as a pack of vicious, mean spirited, self-serving, power mongering, extreme right wing ideologues"

Also, I would like to point out that the Conservative Party of Stephen Harper is not that same party as the Progressive Conservative Party (PC’s) of Brian Mulroney and John Diefenbaker. Again, “The truth be told” they are as different as “an apple and a fridge”.

I never supported the PC’s but I acknowledge that the PC’s had a long and venerable history serving Canada with honour and distinction. They should be proud of their legacy and in fact most Canadians, I suggest, are.

When history looks back at Steven Harper and the Cons I cannot imagine that anyone would dream of suggesting the Harper and the Cons have served Canada with honour and distinction.

Rather, I suggest that history will look back at Stephen Harper and the Con’s as a pack of vicious, mean spirited, self-serving, power mongering, extreme right wing ideologues that attempted to systematically dismantled national unity and tear asunder the social fabric that we, through the PC’s and Liberals, spent over a century weaving.

- Harper and the Con’s have built, and employ ‘liberally’, a propaganda machine the likes of which Western democracies have not seen in recent times.

Comment posted to:
Globe and Mail, “Desperate times for Tories call for desperate attack ads”, May 14, 2009, Lawrence Martin
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090513.wcomartin14/BNStory/specialComment/home

For Harper and the Con’s to attack Ignatieff as they are, and will be, is sheer partisan politics and dishonest.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

One need only recall their ‘call-to-arms’ last December to see how potentially divisive and hurtful Harper and the Cons’ propaganda campaigns can be to the future of our country.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

The Harper, and the Con’s generally, style politics is of duplicity, deception, obscuration, suppression of truth and, slandering and mud slinging in lieu of serious and sober response to important issues.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

For Harper Parliament is little more than as a focus group to try out new attack strategies under the cover of Parliamentary privilege. He has already shown us his distain for Parliament and disrespect for the most fundamental of our Democratic institutions.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

The problem is that Harper and the Con’s style of politicking is so pervasive in the current landscape that some of us are unable to see clearly the fundamental destructiveness of it not only to our nation as a whole but our social fabric and self-image.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Hopefully all Canadians will let Harper know in no uncertain terms that we don’t go for his type of rules and government.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Although we have had a number of elections in close order and another would be painful, in the long run, the sooner we get rid of Harper and his Con’s the better for all Canadians and our way of life.

- Laissez-faire, ‘sink-or-swim’ approach has no place in a modern, complex, economy based society such as is Canada’s

My E-mail to lorrie.goldstein@sunmedia.ca
sent 10 May.'09:

Hi Lorrie Goldstein

The following is a comment on your article in the Toronto Sun, “A 'liberal' state of mind”, 10th May 2009, 3:49am
http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/lorrie_goldstein/2009/05/10/9410256-sun.html

I am quite surprised that, in this day and age, your newspaper does not allow people to post comments – both the Toronto Star and Globe and mail do.

I am posting this to my blog:
http://cicblog.com/comments.html

You may E-mail me, at this E-mail address, a response if you wish for my consideration.


“Freedom’ and ‘individual liberty, material security, voluntary co-operation and social order’ are all afforded by a good standard of living. One need only look to the deficiency of freedom, individual liberty, material security, voluntary co-operation and social order people in third world countries have, except those very few that have money. One need also only look at those living in poverty in the United States.

The foundation of a good standard of living is education. It is clear that education must start early in life. Education has the added benefit of produces well adjusted members of society who understand and have learned the need to co-operate and live in harmony with everyone else.

One need only look at the causes of the current and severe economic downturn to see the problems of allowing ‘entrepreneurial’ forces to run amuck and unchecked.

Dr. Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr., may be a good psychiatrist, I have no idea, but simply testifying at thousands of trials in the United States neither means, per se, he is good (one need only look at Dr. Charles Smith in Ontario) nor that he has any understanding of the Canadian social or political context. Canadian society, precisely in this regard, is very much distinct to US society.

For example, in my observation, Canadians believe firmly in the social safety net actively established and maintained by government policies. The Americans subscribe to a far more laissez-faire, ‘sink-or-swim’ approach to society and their economy. This by itself is fatal to relying on his opinion in these matters as they apply to the Canadian context and one need not go further to investigate his competence to give an informed opinion on political matters, or the merits of said opinions.

It seems to me that this is more a testament to the power of education and social freedom in a country like the United States – i.e. no matter what the opinion, you can find someone with high credentials expounding it, just watch some of the ‘Infomercials’, or read, or listen to, some of their media editorials.

On the other hand I can see how those subscribing to a right wing extremist ideology might be tempted to blindly embrace his ruminations with or without an objective assessment of their merits or relevance to the Canadian context.

If I recall it seems to me the comment by Scott Reid had to do with the Harper government shirking the responsibility of our Federal government regarding day care and adopting the ‘sink-or-swim’ approach the American seems to embrace so much. Day care is a serious and important element of our society, and our future, and the education of our young. $100 a month does not come close to paying for it (If you can do it, please let me know how I can and I would be more than happy to retract this statement). Realistically, the only way that meaningful, quality Day-Care will be available to all Canadians, and not just those with a high income, is a program established and maintained by the government. Such government initiatives work, we all know that.

It seems to me that "winners," as opposed to "losers," is referring to Harper’s Minister of Finance, Jim Flaherty’s statement regarding refusing to helping out the Ford Motor Company in Jan.’08 – vis.: “quite frankly, politicians aren't very good at picking business winners and losers" (G&M, 16 Jan.’08, “No bailout for Ford, Flaherty says”).

When looked at in the current economic context we see just how wrong Flaherty was, and the extent to which blindly and dogmatically applying this laissez-faire, right wing, extremist ideology expounded by Dr. Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr., is out of step and damaging in a modern, complex, economy based society such as Canada has. On the other hand, if Flaherty was speaking for himself, Harper and the Con’s then, I am sure, he got their inability to take an active approach to running the country right – one need only look at the events as they have been unfolding since Jan.’08.

Lloyd MacIlquham, Nanaimo, BC,

- Harper’s Ham-Stringing and Strong-Arming Our Parliamentary and Administrative Watch-Dogs

comment on: Toronto Star, “Another victory for hired guns”, May 09, 2009 04:30 AM, James Travers
http://www.thestar.com/canada/columnist/article/631673


There I no doubt that Harper is systematically and deliberately ham-stringing and strong-arming the various Parliamentary and administrative institutions whose purpose is to ‘keep the government honest’ by ensuring the people of Canada know the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and in timely fashion. That “bureaucrats helped the government deliver an essentially misleading economic update while mixing public policy and political provocation” is alarming and should be a warning to all Canadians.


This of course is an integral part of his general suppression of information and hiding and distorting the truth. This is also reflected in his total distain for integrity of Parliament. The goal is, obviously and as suggested, to concentrate power in his hands alone, without regard for the will of Parliament or the will of the people of Canada.

Lloyd MacIlquham

- The only thing that has hit the mark here is that Ignatieff is a fast learner - whereas, Harper, and the Cons’s, is a fast deceiver - and this is a

Submitted to: Toronto Star, "Ignatieff's Turner problem", May 09, 2009 04:30 AM, Thomas Walkom
http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/article/631587


If you look at the examples given in this article the only problem Ignatieff might have is being open, transparent, logical, and, basically, being a straight shooter.

It is certainly out of step with the Harper, and the Con’s generally, style politics of duplicity, deception, obscuration, suppression of truth and, slandering and mud slinging in lieu of serious and sober response to important issues.

But to suggest that that makes him out of touch with Canada is perverse and, fortunately, erroneous.

Also, implied is that somehow Lester B. Pearson is a leader that we all, as Canadians, ought not to turn to as an example of the type of competence and integrity that we should not only desire in our leader but demand in our leader.

The problem is that the Harper and Con’s style of politicking is so pervasive in the current landscape that some of us are unable to see clearly the fundamental destructiveness of it not only to our nation as a whole but our social fabric and self-image.

The only thing that has hit the mark here is that Ignatieff is a fast learner - whereas, Harper, and the Cons’s, is a fast deceiver - and this is a good thing.

Lloyd MacIlquham

- Reply to My Comments posted to Toronto Star, 7 May '09 - see below

To Lloyd MacIlquham

Your posting under "Without transparency..." is one of the best I have seen in the Star. I hope that a lot of people read it, especially those Conservative (Reform/Alliance) supporters who want to put Harper on a pedestal so they can prostrate themselves before him.
Submitted by E.B. at 12:50 PM Thursday, May 07 2009

http://www.thestar.com/canada/columnist/article/630362#Comments

- Without transparency and the free, undistorted and unobstructed access to information the line between ‘Education’ and ‘Propaganda’ can be blurred

submitted to:
Toronto Star, 'Education our only magic elixir', May 07, 2009 04:30 AM, James Travers
http://www.thestar.com/canada/columnist/article/630362#Comments


Just Look at Harper and the Con’s

Harper and the Con’s have built, and employ ‘liberally’, a propaganda machine the likes of which Western democracies have not seen in recent times. They consider it ‘Educating the Public to Conservative Values’ (compare Harper’s statement at the beginning of the last election).

Like any propaganda machine ‘obscuration and obstruction’ of access to the truth is fundamental. Harper and the Con’s deliberate and extensive restricting and obstructing access to information is well documented. So to are his, and their, hiding and distorting the truth; responding to serious, reasonable and legitimate questions with personal attacks and slurs; and, their dark-ages attitude to Science and Scientific research.

I think education is vital but we must make sure that what people are applying it to is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and that they have free, undistorted and unobstructed access to it.

Lloyd MacIlquham

- You choose: Ignatieff – help those that need help v. Harper – sink or swim

Submitted 6 May.’09 8:02am (PDT) to:
Toronto Star,'Why Ignatieff's Liberals changed their tune on EI', Chantal Hébert, 6 May.'09
http://www.thestar.com/canada/columnist/article/629664

Suggesting that the Liberals’ emphasis on EI is based on ‘electoral credit’ has things backwards. EI is part of Canada’s social safety net which is a defining feature of our society and an integral part of our social fabric. In a recession more people require EI and require it to a greater extent. Thus, EI becomes more important to more people. As noted this is particularly true in Ontario.

A fundamental aspect of government is to protect those that need protection and help those that need help. That Ignatieff and the Federal Liberals feel that it is their duty to do exactly this, especially when Harper and the Con’s fundamental ideology incorporates a ‘sink or swim’ approach, can hardly be said to be politicing to voters.

Lloyd MacIlquham

- Harper’s basic strategies is to marginalize Parliament and concentrate all power in his hands.

submitted to the Toronto Star, 5 May'09: '
Election chatter: Don't go there', James Travers, TS, 5 May'09
http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/628967


If the Liberal formed a government Harper would be just as disruptive, divisive, belligerent and disrespectful, if not more so, of the comity of Parliament, a fundamental principle of Westminster democracies, as the was when Martin was PM, when he disrespected its laws, which he himself initiated, by calling an early election last Fall and, when he shirked the will Parliament by suspending it. One need only recall the ‘call-to-arms’ and threat of division that Harper and the Con’s fostered in their build-up to his disbanding of Parliament.

It is clear that one of Harper’s basic strategies is to marginalize Parliament and concentrate all power in his hands. For him Parliament is little more than as a focus group to try out new attack strategies under the cover of Parliamentary privilege. To this end, Harper and the Con’s have developed and implement a propaganda machine the likes of which have not been seen in Western democracies in recent times.


Although we have had a number of elections in close order and another would be painful, in the long run, the sooner we get rid of Harper and his Con’s the better for all Canadians and our way of life.

Lloyd MacIlquham

- “Just Watch Me”

submitted, 4 May ’09, 7:15am (PDT) in response to the Times article about whether Ignatieff will b able to make the transition from intellectual to politician.

From The Times, May 4, 2009, 'The Avenue of Mulberries - Combining the life of the mind with politics is difficult'
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article6216204.ece?Submitted=true




In the words of another outstanding Canadian intellect and politician , “Just watch me”.

Lloyd MacIlquham

- In Ontario: Conservatives rise 8% and NDP at 1% - Am I reading this Right!

Submitted 2 May’09
Comment on: Ignatieff takes hit for tax remarks
http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/627872

In Ontario: Conservatives rise 8% and NDP at 1%. At first blush I’d say there is something wrong with the polling and I would be very hesitant to rely on it. Perhaps it is that one time out 20 – The Star and La Presse might ask Nanos how many polls Nanos Research done lately. To me this is significant and I think that this should have been commented on in the article and an explanation given.

However, if true, it seems the Liberals are not out of the wood in Ontario. It is not likely that the NDP would get 1% of the vote in Ontario if there were and election. It is also hard to see people turning away from the Con’s to the NDP. So, an NDP rise, which would be at least 10% - 15% and inevitable, would represent a significant decrease for the Liberals, even to the extent of putting them far behind the Con’s and comparable to Oct.’08, 34%, from the current poll’s 43%. However, the Green seem to be fairly solid at around 4 – 8% and would likely only give 2 – 3% to the NDP.

Lloyd MacIlquham

- ave atque vale, Stéphane

Catullus

Latin text
1 Multās per gentēs et multa per aequora vectus
2 adveniō hās miserās, frāter, ad īnferiās,
3 ut tē postrēmō dōnārem mūnere mortis
4 et mūtam nēquīquam alloquerer cinerem.
5 quandoquidem fortūna mihī tētē abstulit ipsum.
6 heu miser indignē frāter adēmpte mihi,
7 nunc tamen intereā haec, prīscō quae mōre parentum
8 trādita sunt trīstī mūnere ad īnferiās,
9 accipe frāternō multum mānantia flētū,
10 atque in perpetuum, frāter, avē atque valē.

- Ignatieff’s Stance on Taxes

Coment on TS, "Bracing honesty or a `gotcha' moment?",
Apr 20, 2009 04:30 AM
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/620467


For Harper and the Con’s to attack Ignatieff on this is sheer partisan politics, dishonest and hurtful to the future of our country – just like his “steady as she goes” approach in the lest election.

Deficit means that we are spending more than we are taking in. We can only do that by borrowing the money. This borrowed money must be paid back – anyone who has figured a way around this, legally anyway, let me know. Either we pay it back sooner or we pay it back later – and if it is later, of course, we must pay much more. If we pay it sooner the money either comes from increased revenues based on current tax regime and government spending or we increase the taxes and/or cut out government spending. If we pay it back later then the “we” refers, actually, not to us personally but future generations i.e. our children. Harper and the Con’s by making the huge ideological tax cuts prior to admitting we were entering into a recession increases the likelihood that taxes, e.g. the hated GST, be increased again.

These are the realities and exactly what Ignatieff is talking about.

Lloyd MacIlquham

- Harper and the Con’s suppressing free speech – tell me something I don’t know.

Commentary on the Harper Government banning British MP George Galloway from entering Canada.


Perhaps Harper is afraid the Galloway will come into Canada and start passing our humanitarian aid to members of the Oppositions Parties. After all, he did try to have financial assistance by the government banned and they haven’t even been declared terrorist organizations – but lets wait and see.


Lloyd MacIlquham

- let the trial being - Using ‘Gay Rights’ as an example of the evils that will befall our society and covert Xenophobia won’t make it.

Comment on "First decriminalization, then plural marriages", Tom Flanagan, 23 mar.'09, G&M
“http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090320.wcopoly23/BNStory/specialComment/home


What Tom Flanagan seems to be criticizing is the Canadian Courts’, especially the Supreme Court of Canada, clarification of our basic human rights as enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights. In other words it is really our Charter of Rights and its application by our Courts in protecting our basic human rights, and religious freedom is a basic, fundamental human right, and our Supreme Court of Canada, that he is attacking.


This has been one of the big concerns about Harper and the Con’s and their extreme right wing ideology, and probably we are quite fortunate that they do not have a majority. Given Tom has been so closely connected to Harper and the Con’s in the past, at least, this attack on our Charter of Rights is very predictable and perhaps being done to “test the waters” so to speak.


Section 15(1) of the Charter states, in part: “Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on … religion…”. Sounds good to me.


Generally the Canadian Courts enforce, as far as I can see, our laws against bigamy, and polygamy is just an example. From what I have read and heard in the media, this case certainly raises the issues of the right to practice one’s religion and religious beliefs.


If the application of our laws against bigamy, in the case at hand, infringes s.15(1) of the Charter, then by a proper interpretation of Section 2 of the Charter it is up to the Government of Canada to prove that this infringement, in the particular case at hand, is “demonstrably justified”. So, let the trial begin. To me using ‘Gay Rights’ as an example of the evils that will befall our society and covert Xenophobia won’t make it.


Lloyd MacIlquham

- Harper and the Con’s To Be Made Accountable – That’s a Good Thing

Comment on T. Star, “Public at tipping point on bailouts”, http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/606056#Comments

Just think, the people of Canada demanding that Harper act in an open, fair and transparent fashion, helping those that need help and protecting those that need protection. Sounds good to me.

It also sounds exactly like what Ignatieff has been demanding and the whole purpose of the periodic reviews that the Liberals forced Harper and the Con’s to adopt. As Ignatieff puts it Harper is ‘on probation’ and that's a good thing.

Lloyd MacIlquham

- Mister Science Minister, Do the Right Thing and Resign:

Comment on the G&M article: Minister won't confirm belief in evolution
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090317.wgoodyear16/BNStory/National/home


It is in the highest scientific tradition to state that you do not accept a theory as “scientific fact” and to debate it – just ask Albert Einstein. But to refuse to even discuss it on religious grounds drags us back to the dark ages where they prosecuted Galileo as a heretic for suggesting that the Sun not the Earth was the center of the Universe.


The separation of religion and the state is vital to our society, its development and our basic freedoms. For Harper to put in place a Science Minister that refuses to even comment on, on a scientific level that is, any generally established scientific theory based on religious beliefs is not only indicative of an extreme right wing ideology but outright dangerous.


There is nothing wrong with having strong religious beliefs, of course, but when they pose the real possibility of interfering with the proper execution of his job, and in the case at hand I think the indications are that there is, then he should do the right thing and resign.

Lloyd MacIlquham

- When You’re Right – You’re Right!

Comment on:
“Carney hedges economic rebound prediction”
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090314.wg20wrestle0314/BNStory/Business/home


Reading this article one might think that Flaherty is the main driving force in the global economic recovery. Flaherty’s statements are little more than a ‘cheap shot’ for the purpose of grandstanding. There is nothing constructive or informative about it.


Listening to Flaherty, and Harper, one gets the impression that the Canadian Banks being in such good shape is all their doing. Harper and Flaherty, of course, had nothing to do with it. They inherited it from the good management of previous governments, like they did the very healthy Federal Fiscal status. In fact, the laissez-faire, hands off, ‘steady-as-she-goes’ reduction in government interference with the economy, approach, so much a part of Harper’s right wing agenda, overt or covert, is generally accepted as at the foundation of the finacial crises and is one of the main thrusts of the Ecomonic G-20 meeting. Where’s Flaherty’s statement on increasing international regulation of financial institutions.


One need only read the G&M article “Canada's place is on the B list”, 13 Mar.’09, to get a real idea of how Flaherty, Harper and the Con’s are viewed on the Int’l Financial stage as far as them being “movers and shakers”. The British PM doesn’t even consider Flaherty and Harper as important enough for Canada to ‘merit “intensive diplomatic lobbying and engagement” ahead of the [London summit” on April 2]’. The British PM put Flaherty, Harper and the Con government in the same sphere of influence as such international economic policy leaders as: Turkey, Indonesia, Mexico and Argentina. To Gordon Brown: when you’re right – you’re right!


Lloyd MacIlquham

- Access to Information is Vital to an Open, Free and Tolerant Society

submitted to:
TS, 5 Mar.'09, "Watchdog seeking to lift veil on cabinet", Bruce Campion-Smith
http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/596832#Comments


Liberal and comprehensive rights to access information, available to all, unobstructed and vigilantly exercised, is a cornerstone of modern, open and free, democracy, protecting all from a closed, secretive government intent on using the powers entrusted to them for their self interest and interests contrary to the will of the people.

Access to information affords the stuff whereby the individual may forge both sword and shield to uphold human rights, without which no amount legislation can guaranty these rights and so, should therefore stand on the same footing.

- Get Ready for More of the Harper attack ads the likes of which have not been seen in Western democracies in Recent Years

Comment post to:
Liberals preparing for a fight if Tories run anti-Ignatieff attack ads
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090304.wignatieff04/BNStory/politics/home


As far as comparing someone’s current opinions with what they have expressed in the past might I quote that modern day philosopher-king Mohammad Ali:

“A man who views the world the same at fifty as he did at twenty has wasted thirty years of his life.”

That Harper and the Con’s would be monitoring what Michael Ignatieff says now and comparing it what he has said throughout his illustrious career in order to fabricate attack adds is beyond belief. Well, not really beyond belief when you consider that Harper and the Con’s have subjected the Canadian people to propaganda campaigns the likes of which has not been seen in Western democracies in recent times. Hopefully all Canadians will let Harper know in no uncertain terms that we don’t go for his type of rules and government.

Lloyd MacIlquham

- Harper Filling the Conservative Leadership Vacuum in North America

I submitted the following Comment to:
WSJ, ‘Stephen Harper A Resolute Ally in the War on Terror’, 28 Feb.’09
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123578347494598289.html


Being Canadian, the most important part of your article is your statement ” There is a vacuum in conservative leadership in North America and on the world stage, and Mr. Harper is stepping into it”.

I have no doubt that Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party’s overall objectives are just that. However, for many Canadians, and I suggest a majority of at least 63% (those that voted against him being Prime Minister in the last election), this is not a good thing. Harper was obviously a puppet to President G.W. Bush while he was in office and is a George wanna-be now. One need only consider Harper’s statements just prior to the Obama visit to Canada regarding the Harper and Conservative government’s position on Global Warming (and I will let your readers do the research) – essentially it was a Mea Culpa blaming G.W. Bush, in effect saying (although for clarity not actually saying) “the devil made me do it”.

Also, I take exception and I have no doubt there are many Canadians that are of similar view, to your statement “…this prime minister and his Conservative Party have restored Canada's international prestige by increasing military funding and tenaciously supporting Canada's dangerous NATO mission in the Afghan province of Kandahar”. Canada has had for many years and especially since Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson considerable international prestige as peacekeepers and international mediators (and again, I will let your readers do the research). We have been very proud of this. Increasing military spending may be the American way but not the Canadian way and hopefuly it never will be.

Lloyd MacIlquham, Nanaimo, BC

The Stephen Harper Mea Culpa on his lack of Action on Global Warming “The devil made me do it”

My comments posted to:

http://policywiki.theglobeandmail.com/tiki-index.php?page=Carbon+Capture+Briefing+Note



Canada can not couple its efforts to reduce GHG emission to the United States, whether with respect to CCS technology or otherwise. For one, the sources of GHG are different and these differences have a direct impact on the feasibility of such technologies as CCS. This issue was discussed in the Toronto Star article, “Carbon capture no silver bullet for tar sands”, 27 Feb.’09, Gerald Butts, president and CEO of WWF Canada – vis.: “Specifically, the science tells us that it may be technically feasible (though exceedingly expensive) to capture 90 per cent of the carbon emitted by a new coal-fired generator, but just 10 per cent of the greenhouse gases associated with oil from tar sands.”

For another reason, of course, you get statements like Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s saying that Canada’s hand’s had been tied regarding taking action to reduce GHG’s because of President’ Bush’s position. In other words, Harper’s Mea Culpa on failure to properly address the GW was essentially “The devil made me do it!”.

Clearly, we as Canadians can not allow this to happen. By coupling our efforts we will in effect abdicate our responsibility to clean up our own act. It is fallacy to think that if coupled we will be able to tell the US how to do things or we will be able to implement any policies that would address our specific problems unless it is a benefit to the Americans.

Also, President G.W. Brush’s position was, it seems to me, to be: don’t worry science will save us. It may be that somewhere down the road there may be some kind of scientific breakthrough or development that will save the world from global warming and/or its effects. But, given the real, and present, potential for cataclysmic disaster worldwide, certainly we must take a course of action that we, at this point in time, know will have a real and meaningful impact.

We simply cannot afford to put all our hopes in the possibility of future scientific developments. That is not to say that we should not, at the same time, pursue this future scientific salvation and do so rigorously. But, to put all our hopes in this is, to me, to say the least, not prudent. CCS is an attractive idea suggesting that we may continue our activities “steady as she goes” and avoid having to take the harsh steps that will, in fact, have a meaningful reduction on GHG’s. However, if we place all our hopes on this and this idea does not come to fruition, we’re doomed.

On the other hand, with the economic downturn and the governments looking to stimulate the economy it is an excellent time to commence such projects. After all, we cannot expect that everyone who loses their job can transfer to bridge building or other infrastructure projects. Also, as suggested, it is an opportunity to put Canada at the forefront of a developing technology. It seems to me that much greater efforts should be made into development of alternative energy motivated automobiles. Certainly coming up with an economically feasible car that using electricity, hydrogen, or the like, would have a much greater impact on our economy, our environment and our position on the international stage regarding leading edge science and technology. So, go ahead and put a few million into CCS research. But, put a few billion or even tens of billions into alternative energy automobiles, and other such areas.

Lloyd MacIlquham

- Harper appealing to the middle of the road, that would be an Extreme Makeover.

Comments on TS “Politicians mine middle class for success”, 14 Feb.’09, Bruce Campion-Smith, http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/587562


Middle class also means middle of the road in Canadian politics, it seems to me.

For Harper to appeal to the middle class either Harper will have to move to the center from the extreme right – not bloody likely, no matter how many makeovers, extreme or otherwise.

Or the middle will have to move to the extreme right – God help us.

It appears that Harper’s plan is to appear more middle of the road in order to get the middle class vote and retain power but to surely and steadily pull all Canadians and Canadian society more and more to the extreme right politically (compare Harper’s speech in Fredericton at the beginning of the last election – 13 Sep.’08).

- It is the people that suffer from recession and it is the people that must take action.

[Comments on the TS article
Leaders too willing to sit on sidelines, James Travers, Feb 12, 2009 04:30 AM,
http://www.thestar.com/Canada/Columnist/article/586348]


It is we the people of Canada that must take action to pull ourselves out of economic ruin. It does no good to turn to the government and expect them to do the things that will, magically, make everything all right. It doesn’t matter what the government does, if all of us, individually, and as a nation, are not willing to take the necessary action.

Simply passing off huge debt to future generations, as attractive and simple a concept as it is, is not the solution and represents an abdication of responsibility. Someone once explained to me that the people in Canada and United States would never stand for another Depression. However, this is apparently not true.

A look at Obama’s rhetoric is very much addressing this issue and if he is able to change people’s attitudes then they may have some hope. Canadians must take charge and responsibility for their own future.

Lloyd MacIlquham

- There should be a Public Inquiry into Harper bringing the Libel suit against the Liberal Party

The Harper libel lawsuit is framed as a private matter as far as the courts are concerned. However, it is very serious matter as far as the people of Canada are concerned. Although the court has dismissed the case it is far too important politically for the people of Canada to dismiss. The suggestions seem to be that Harper brought this case for political reasons. My reading of this article is that Prof. Magnet suggests that it may be the case that it was brought to “push the problem down the line in time”. Down the line in time might be “after the next election”, which when reviewing the chronology of the case makes one wonder.

Also, apparently, an opinion of University of Toronto professor Peter Russell, was filed as expert opinion by the Liberal Party in the related injunction case in which he states "…The prime minister's legal actions are an attempt to use the courts to interfere with the official opposition's freedom of political expression and thereby give his party an advantage over his principal political opponents …". (29 Aug.’08, CTV article).

****************
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080829/Harper_Cadman_080828

Harper cross-examined in Cadman tape libel case
Updated Fri. Aug. 29 2008 6:13 PM ET

Tim Naumetz , The Canadian Press

****************


Another political dimension of the case is the sheer cost of defending the case and the amount of the award. Given the Liberal Party’s dire financial straights at the time and the impending election, one might wonder if this were also a factor in bringing the law suit. In Tom Flanagan’s G&M article of 28 Aug.’08, he states, “…the Conservatives would appear to have a viable long-term strategy: force the Liberals to exhaust their limited resources in repeated battles…”. I asked Mr. Flanagan directly if he thought the Cadman libel law suit were an application of this strategy. His answer was “…I can't believe he would sue simply for that reason.” I guess after reading what Prof Magnet and Prof Russell have to say I can’t say I think he sued “simply for that reason” either. This is re-inforced, of course, when one looks at the Economic update presented to Parliament in November by Harper and the Con’s and its undermining of finances to the opposition parties.


For the Prime Minister of our country surely is not simply a question of propriety but the appearance of propriety. I think there should be a public inquiry to resolve this matter once and for all.


Lloyd MacIlquham

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080828.wcoelection0828/BNStory/specialComment/
The Grits won't die - they'll just fade away
And if they're not careful, they could end up in a financial pit
· Article
· Comments ( 169)
·
TOM FLANAGAN
From Thursday's Globe and Mail
August 28, 2008 at 9:11 AM EST
Carthago delenda est.
- Cato the Elder


For the complete Tom Flanagan question and answer please go to: http://cicblog.com/comments.html
(The articles referred to above have not been reproduced due to copyright considerations)

Lloyd MacIlquham (Nanaimo, B.C.): Hi Mr. Flanagan. In your G&M article article, "The Grits won't die - they'll just fade away," Aug. 28, 2008, you conclude: "Against this backdrop, the Conservatives would appear to have a viable long-term strategy: force the Liberals to exhaust their limited resources in repeated battles." In your opinion, what is the likelihood that Harper's $3.5 million lawsuit against the Liberals is an application of this long-term strategy, both with respect to legal fees required to be expended and actual awards; and, to what extent, if any, does it play a part?

Tom Flanagan: Please bear in mind that I'm not working for Mr. Harper any longer, so when I write I am just expressing my own views. Forcing the Liberals into a war of attrition is my own view of strategy, not that of anyone else. Mr. Harper's lawsuit against the Liberals does indeed impose some financial burdens on that party (as it does on the Conservative Party, which also has large legal fees to handle). But knowing Mr. Harper as I do, I can't believe he would sue simply for that reason. As when Peter Lougheed successfully sued the CBC, it's because the injured party genuinely feels he's been defamed.

- Harper and the Con’s Insidious Neo-Conservative Agenda

My Comment, posted 7 Feb.’09, to “Job losses won't alter stimulus plan, Harper says“
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090206.wjobs07/BNStory/Business/home:

These job loses are extreme, unanticipated and the worst in recorded in recorded history – three time higher than the 40,000 expected; 71,000 in Ontario alone. What is Harper’s response “not blown off tract every time there is some bad news”. If this is your ‘run-of-the-mill’ bad news that does not call for special consideration, then God help us.

That Harper would not do anything to adjust to this new and drastic acceleration in economic worsening is indicative of someone who actions are motivated by something other than protecting Canadian against this economic disaster. He took the same position during the election i.e. ‘steady as she goes’ and his economic update in November was, of course, ridiculously devoid of any action to address this extreme situation. The only way he would do anything was by the Opposition Parties threatening to throw him out of office – Impeachment Canadian style. Fortunately Ignatieff and the Liberals forced Harper and the Cons to include the periodic review of their actions on the economy.

It is becoming clearer and clearer that the Harper and the Con’s real agenda may very well be to take advantage of a disaster to implement their extreme right wing extremist agenda. We can only wait to see how bad things must get before Harper feels it is time to act. Unfortunately, it will likely be far too later to do anything about our current situation, surprise, surprise, and the action he takes may by quite shocking to anyone who has grown accustom to our way of life.

Lloyd MacIlquham