Since John Edwards' untimely defeat in the primaries, I would have thought there would be a vacuum in candidacy of Democrats wanting REAL change. After all, Edwards was a true liberal in every sense of the word. He was definitely someone who stood for the little guy - against big corporations.
With Edwards out, there is really only one choice - and also someone who would bring historic CHANGE - Barack Obama. Obama has exceptional elocution skills. He has a commanding presence in a room. He can get a crowd going. But more than that, Mr. Obama has also NOT been bought out by healthcare, insurance, or defense contractors...
Obama brings a new perspective on looking at things. His election will bring real change - as never seen before in the US. It will not necessarily be a change in policy (although we see him moving on Iraq, and having some clear ideas on other things - including corporate interference in national progress). It will be a change in the American psyche that delineates his candidacy. An American psyche that - thus far - has felt that a visible minority could not be president. For years people said it would be a woman first (remember Geraldine Ferraro?). Either would be good for America. Someone has to tone down the chauvinistic, paternal, hormonally charged, rhetorical discussion carried by the American nation as a whole. Seriously - the nation has become a young teenager charged with a testosterone-induced rage. The machismo needs to be toned down a little, and a woman or a visible minority President would more than likely set the tone from the top, with focus on other issues aside from "making war". Obama would probably make strides in tackling poverty in America, as well as corporate responsibility. He may also be able to make real changes to healthcare - without being tied down by healthcare campaign funding. Most bets are that Hilary would also bring a softer tone to the White House.
Up North - here in Canada - we need to be watchful of more conservative attempts to bring that raging "American psyche" up here. A new President down South will certainly help cool conservative heels up here. If these Northern bad-boys start behaving more like Joe's Tories (or even Mulroney's - in policy - not integrity), we would be a much better nation for it...
We may learn something from the US in the next few years. Wouldn't that be a change. Perhaps the changes down South will help us perpetuate changes up here. That's usually the way it goes - and it wouldn't be bad either.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Monday, February 11, 2008
Afghanistan - What Next?
Now that we're at a crossroads on the Afghan question, maybe we can start taking a more objective look at the possible solutions. A lot of people have put up the idea of Canada moving to more of a "peace-keeping" role. Abdicating responsibility to the US is another possibility. Still another is to have other UN powers "rotate" through the combat-intensive roles.
The key item of importance here is that Afghanistan NEEDS the West's help - if not for anything else other than to clean up the schmozzle we helped create with the US - leaving a vacuum after bombing them further back into the stone age. The Taliban has to go. I don't think the Liberals and Conservatives are far apart on that one. There still remain questions as to whether the NDP want to defeat the Taliban, or "negotiate" with them. Not sure where the Bloc stands, since they don't exactly register outside of Quebec.
Canada in a peacekeeping role is the best solution - as long as we can fill the void (and NATO - with the US's leadership must). Our senior General Staff were all field officers back through decades of Canadian peacekeeping missions. They are at their best in that milieu. Having said that, we are also adept at "real" battlefield ops. We (even with less superior machinery) routinely trounced the US in simulated conflicts and exercises. British Commonwealth soldiers simply are better fighters than American armies - and we've seen that down through the past few hundred years - after the American Revolution, of course. Still, we are best "exercised" at peacekeeping - and we've tooled our army for that. To decide to start building our forces for frontal combat in a complex warzone is folly. We would need to spend billions $$$ just to retool our forces. Then the training - for counter-insurgency would be required. This would take years. This is probably we Liberals had a deadline for the time spent in the Khandahar region by our troops.
So who in the world is best suited to fighting insurgents? One thing needs to be kept in mind when considering this: insurgents - if representing the feelings of a particular community, in a particular region of the world - tend to win out. It may take decades, and even outside help, but it is hard to oppress people and keep them down. The Taliban represents a vast swath of Afghani tribal areas. It is their home - even if some of their commanders/advisors are outsiders. You don't easily whoop someone in their own back yard. So who would best be suited to such a role? Here are a few nations which could take on a combat role, letting Canada get back to our area of expertise in peacekeeping and nation-building (not saying these nations would agree to go along with it):
1) Russia - The Russians have fought insurgents around the world (during the Cold War), including right in Afghanistan. They have mercilessly pounded Chechnya. They have a hardened experienced core of soldiers who know how to survive an insurgency. Even with all the experience, the Russians have experienced one bloody nose after another fighting the insurgencies.
2) Columbia - America's allies in South America. This army has been fighting FARC to a standstill for years. They aren't exactly winning, but with US military aid they are at least surviving. The US should easily be able to buy a small force from the Columbians after all the help Bush gave them.
3) South Africa - Although it's been years since they were seriously involved in places like Namibia, they still have the tools and the training to take on insurgencies. Their entire army was built to take down tribal insurgencies, rebels in neighboring propped-up states, and civilian uprisings. Their older general staff would have pretty clear recollections on what to do.
4) Indonesia - The Indonesian Army is large, well-equipped, and well suited to counter-insurgency measures. Forget about them coming out though - they have enough trouble stomping out civilian unrest in their own back yard.
5) India - India has fought an Islamic insurgency in Kashmir for years. They have also fought several other insurgencies (Sri Lanka, Assam, Punjab, Tamil Nadu) over the years. Indian counter-insurgency forces are seasoned, well-trained, and capable. We're not sure they would want to get involved in a regional dispute that may not have a "friendly" conclusion - especially with nuclear Pakistan and Iran closeby - both of whom have covertly or overtly supported the Taliban.
6) Blackwater - Can they fight a war? Damned straight! They're doing it in Iraq right now. As far back as March of 06 Blackwater has been ready for real combat operations. According to Cofer Black (Vice-Chairman of Blackwater) at a 2006 military fair: "We're low-cost and fast, the issue is, who's going to let us play on their team?"
Apart from this, nations like Pakistan have always benefited from the existence of the Afghan militants. These very same forces - along with Pakistan's ISI - have worked together to destabilize India's Kashmir region for years. The Saudi's have a lot of internal problems. Remember how they jumped to help in Gulf War I? Where are they now? They won't help chase after one of their native sons (Osama). Remember the Saudis bankrolled the whole Osama gang. The Egyptians won't risk domestic instability to venture into this quagmire.
It will be very hard to get Muslim nations on the ground in that land. And remember - there are some former Soviet Republics helping now (who happen to be predominantly Muslim). These nations could have been involved on the ground, but chose not too... and Al Quaida hides out in their back yard - in those countries - in the mountains.
The most practical solution may be for us to save $billions by hiring Blackwater - with US help and NATO financing - for the frontal role (they would train Karzai's army quite well), then use our forces to secure the main cities and the Khandahar Airport, while beginning the human process of rebuilding, and winning hearts and minds. Of course, then we'd have to contend with Blackwater's "collateral damage" every day.
Afghanistan will most likely end up being sub-divided after a civil war which the UN will be hard-pressed to stop. We have to hope the old "Northern Alliance" will reign supreme - although this kind of war will really come down to who wants it more. Already Karzai is doing everything he can to appear not too close to the West. The last thing he wants is to appear to be a Western puppet. We all recall what happened to the old regime the Soviets tried to prop up...
Harper has painted himself into a corner on this one - and it can only get worse. The longer we wait, the more Canadian casualties, and less world interest in jumping in feet first. Too bad theres no oil in Afghanistan. Only Karzai's opium.
The key item of importance here is that Afghanistan NEEDS the West's help - if not for anything else other than to clean up the schmozzle we helped create with the US - leaving a vacuum after bombing them further back into the stone age. The Taliban has to go. I don't think the Liberals and Conservatives are far apart on that one. There still remain questions as to whether the NDP want to defeat the Taliban, or "negotiate" with them. Not sure where the Bloc stands, since they don't exactly register outside of Quebec.
Canada in a peacekeeping role is the best solution - as long as we can fill the void (and NATO - with the US's leadership must). Our senior General Staff were all field officers back through decades of Canadian peacekeeping missions. They are at their best in that milieu. Having said that, we are also adept at "real" battlefield ops. We (even with less superior machinery) routinely trounced the US in simulated conflicts and exercises. British Commonwealth soldiers simply are better fighters than American armies - and we've seen that down through the past few hundred years - after the American Revolution, of course. Still, we are best "exercised" at peacekeeping - and we've tooled our army for that. To decide to start building our forces for frontal combat in a complex warzone is folly. We would need to spend billions $$$ just to retool our forces. Then the training - for counter-insurgency would be required. This would take years. This is probably we Liberals had a deadline for the time spent in the Khandahar region by our troops.
So who in the world is best suited to fighting insurgents? One thing needs to be kept in mind when considering this: insurgents - if representing the feelings of a particular community, in a particular region of the world - tend to win out. It may take decades, and even outside help, but it is hard to oppress people and keep them down. The Taliban represents a vast swath of Afghani tribal areas. It is their home - even if some of their commanders/advisors are outsiders. You don't easily whoop someone in their own back yard. So who would best be suited to such a role? Here are a few nations which could take on a combat role, letting Canada get back to our area of expertise in peacekeeping and nation-building (not saying these nations would agree to go along with it):
1) Russia - The Russians have fought insurgents around the world (during the Cold War), including right in Afghanistan. They have mercilessly pounded Chechnya. They have a hardened experienced core of soldiers who know how to survive an insurgency. Even with all the experience, the Russians have experienced one bloody nose after another fighting the insurgencies.
2) Columbia - America's allies in South America. This army has been fighting FARC to a standstill for years. They aren't exactly winning, but with US military aid they are at least surviving. The US should easily be able to buy a small force from the Columbians after all the help Bush gave them.
3) South Africa - Although it's been years since they were seriously involved in places like Namibia, they still have the tools and the training to take on insurgencies. Their entire army was built to take down tribal insurgencies, rebels in neighboring propped-up states, and civilian uprisings. Their older general staff would have pretty clear recollections on what to do.
4) Indonesia - The Indonesian Army is large, well-equipped, and well suited to counter-insurgency measures. Forget about them coming out though - they have enough trouble stomping out civilian unrest in their own back yard.
5) India - India has fought an Islamic insurgency in Kashmir for years. They have also fought several other insurgencies (Sri Lanka, Assam, Punjab, Tamil Nadu) over the years. Indian counter-insurgency forces are seasoned, well-trained, and capable. We're not sure they would want to get involved in a regional dispute that may not have a "friendly" conclusion - especially with nuclear Pakistan and Iran closeby - both of whom have covertly or overtly supported the Taliban.
6) Blackwater - Can they fight a war? Damned straight! They're doing it in Iraq right now. As far back as March of 06 Blackwater has been ready for real combat operations. According to Cofer Black (Vice-Chairman of Blackwater) at a 2006 military fair: "We're low-cost and fast, the issue is, who's going to let us play on their team?"
"Unlike national and multinational armies, which tend to get bogged down by political and logistical limitations, Black said, Blackwater could have a small, nimble, brigade-size force ready to move into a troubled region on short notice."
"Black's remarks were reported by Defense News, a military publisher that sponsored the conference where he spoke, the Special Operations Forces Exhibition."
The "two forces" idea is one I advocated over the past few years: one engaging the enemy, while the other "builds the nation". There are some problems in involving Muslim nations: Most of them are concerned about Al Quaida sympathizers in their own back yards, and won't do anything to agitate them (see Pakistan). Even the Muslim nations more likely to support world peace-keeping operations (Malaysia, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Morocco) have to be really worried about their own "home grown" sympathizers. For them to tread ground in Afghanistan won't happen too quickly.Apart from this, nations like Pakistan have always benefited from the existence of the Afghan militants. These very same forces - along with Pakistan's ISI - have worked together to destabilize India's Kashmir region for years. The Saudi's have a lot of internal problems. Remember how they jumped to help in Gulf War I? Where are they now? They won't help chase after one of their native sons (Osama). Remember the Saudis bankrolled the whole Osama gang. The Egyptians won't risk domestic instability to venture into this quagmire.
It will be very hard to get Muslim nations on the ground in that land. And remember - there are some former Soviet Republics helping now (who happen to be predominantly Muslim). These nations could have been involved on the ground, but chose not too... and Al Quaida hides out in their back yard - in those countries - in the mountains.
The most practical solution may be for us to save $billions by hiring Blackwater - with US help and NATO financing - for the frontal role (they would train Karzai's army quite well), then use our forces to secure the main cities and the Khandahar Airport, while beginning the human process of rebuilding, and winning hearts and minds. Of course, then we'd have to contend with Blackwater's "collateral damage" every day.
Afghanistan will most likely end up being sub-divided after a civil war which the UN will be hard-pressed to stop. We have to hope the old "Northern Alliance" will reign supreme - although this kind of war will really come down to who wants it more. Already Karzai is doing everything he can to appear not too close to the West. The last thing he wants is to appear to be a Western puppet. We all recall what happened to the old regime the Soviets tried to prop up...
Harper has painted himself into a corner on this one - and it can only get worse. The longer we wait, the more Canadian casualties, and less world interest in jumping in feet first. Too bad theres no oil in Afghanistan. Only Karzai's opium.
Friday, February 08, 2008
Harper Daring Libs To Go
In a "not-so-dangerous" game of chicken (I mean, c'mon, if they lose, we may get rid of them), PMSH (aka Cartman) is pushing for an election campaign.
I don't think Harper is rolling dice on this one. It's pretty calculated. They are trying to pull the same thing as we did to them with elections before the new leader is ready... Calculated strategic thinking. This time it's backed up by a few other things:
1) Weakening economy - usually goes against incumbents, but this time it is the incumbents who've created the perfect conditions for economic turmoil (this guys an economist???). The Conservatives have ran up spending, almost eliminating our huge, mega-billion surpluses. Mind you, they didn't run these up to make us recession-proof with safety nets for workers, businesses, etc.; and they didn't do what families traditionally do when tough times are comin' - pay down debt. Nooooosireee... they decided to spend massive amounts on the military, and tax cuts - including the stupid idea of a consumption tax cut - rather than an income tax cut (that would have helped Canadian families in possible tough times coming). On top of his ridiculous spending (typically Conservative if one checks back in history), Harper decided to destroy many seniors' savings with his income trust "brainwave".
2) Dion's starting to get better. Yes, our leader has made strides in his public persona, and with each moment he grows stonger. It's easier to fight off a "wimp" image or "not a leader", vs. what Day had to fight (incompetent religious zealot), or Harper (hidden agenda, closet dictator, did we say secret hidden agenda?).
3) Conservative scandals are brewing, or have already gone public. Mulroney-Schreiber-Harper PMO; election campaign financing (at a huge scale); "Poll-gate"; etc.
Since they're headed down in the polls (probably also in the millions of internal polls they commissioned), they are deciding to go now, before it gets worse. If they don't get their way with an election, at the very least they will get their way with the confidence votes. "Win/win", or so they think...
I'm one to believe that we don't compromise OUR principles on these issues, but that we also make this VERY PUBLIC, so it is very clear that we are sticking to our guns (bit of a conservative analogy there, but...). It may be time to fight an election - because PM Harper wants one so badly. If we go through the exercise and it's another minority, the public ISN'T going to be happy at all. Thanks Stevie.
I don't think Harper is rolling dice on this one. It's pretty calculated. They are trying to pull the same thing as we did to them with elections before the new leader is ready... Calculated strategic thinking. This time it's backed up by a few other things:
1) Weakening economy - usually goes against incumbents, but this time it is the incumbents who've created the perfect conditions for economic turmoil (this guys an economist???). The Conservatives have ran up spending, almost eliminating our huge, mega-billion surpluses. Mind you, they didn't run these up to make us recession-proof with safety nets for workers, businesses, etc.; and they didn't do what families traditionally do when tough times are comin' - pay down debt. Nooooosireee... they decided to spend massive amounts on the military, and tax cuts - including the stupid idea of a consumption tax cut - rather than an income tax cut (that would have helped Canadian families in possible tough times coming). On top of his ridiculous spending (typically Conservative if one checks back in history), Harper decided to destroy many seniors' savings with his income trust "brainwave".
2) Dion's starting to get better. Yes, our leader has made strides in his public persona, and with each moment he grows stonger. It's easier to fight off a "wimp" image or "not a leader", vs. what Day had to fight (incompetent religious zealot), or Harper (hidden agenda, closet dictator, did we say secret hidden agenda?).
3) Conservative scandals are brewing, or have already gone public. Mulroney-Schreiber-Harper PMO; election campaign financing (at a huge scale); "Poll-gate"; etc.
Since they're headed down in the polls (probably also in the millions of internal polls they commissioned), they are deciding to go now, before it gets worse. If they don't get their way with an election, at the very least they will get their way with the confidence votes. "Win/win", or so they think...
I'm one to believe that we don't compromise OUR principles on these issues, but that we also make this VERY PUBLIC, so it is very clear that we are sticking to our guns (bit of a conservative analogy there, but...). It may be time to fight an election - because PM Harper wants one so badly. If we go through the exercise and it's another minority, the public ISN'T going to be happy at all. Thanks Stevie.
Harper PMO's Attitude on Racism: "Who Gives a $h!t"
Just glanced over at Warren Kinsella's website, and wasn't really shocked to find this story here. Seems the PMO heard about a racist comment on a bathroom wall in Parliament, and emailed an answer (Warren provides the IP address of the sender, and lookup) which showed the REAL Conservative opinion on racism...
I've locked antlers with some of these folks out on the Prairies - so I know exactly what type of attitudes a lot of them have - but, I think their glossy PR campaigns and pro-Conservative media bias (CanWest/Nat Post, almost every major Canadian Daily, etc.) really helps hide their warts. Time we put them out on full display.
I've locked antlers with some of these folks out on the Prairies - so I know exactly what type of attitudes a lot of them have - but, I think their glossy PR campaigns and pro-Conservative media bias (CanWest/Nat Post, almost every major Canadian Daily, etc.) really helps hide their warts. Time we put them out on full display.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Gomery Throttles PM's "Record of Accountability"
John Gomery says "Stephen Harper seems to have abandoned any commitment to transparent government" according to TorStar. Gomery indicates that most of his recommendations were rejected outright by the PM and the Conservatives. He claimed most of his recommendations fell into a "black hole".
Gomery's report on some improprieties by a handful of Quebecers who happened to be members of the Liberal Party (although some were also involved with the federal Conservatives), was what caused the downfall of the Liberal gov't - and it was all the Conservatives had in the way of a policy platform ("blah, blah, blah, Gomery, blah, blah, blah, accountability" was all they had to say - meaning it, or NOT). Now it seems the Conservatives are doing the very same things (see election funding investigations), and beyond (see PMO knowledge of Schreiber-Mulroney affair, Gurmant Grewal resignation, interference in the bureaucracy, Prisoner Transfer-gate, nuclear safety, etc.).
According to Gomery: "The government was saying at the time that transparency was very important and that they wanted to improve the transparency. In practice it's been an exact reverse". Coming from a man who the Conservatives held to be a "mini-god" when they were in Opposition, this means a lot. Especially since they can't criticize him for being biased.
In the past few days Sheila Fraser has also come out with very serious concerns about the secrecy and lack of transparency of the Harper Conservatives. In a recent television interview she talked about her views on the two-faced nature of the Conservative gov't on matters of accountability and transparency.
Time for Opposition MPs to start hammering the Conservatives on their lack of accountability, and their fear of adopting Gomery measures. What are the Conservatives afraid of?
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Greater Vancouver Blizzard - "Global Warming Doesn't Exist" (Random Reform-Conservative MP)
Woke up this morning thinking I was back in Saskatchewan again. Well... err... okay... maybe not in Saskatchewan, but the Lower Mainland and Greater Vancouver were starting to look a lot more like home this morning. The pics above include a shot out my front door, my drive past Tynehead Regional Park (near home) on a snow-covered road, and a shot of the traffic jam on the Trans-Canada Highway - just East of the Port Mann Bridge (where it crosses the Fraser from Surrey to Port Coquitlam).
So... I just slapped my Tacoma into 4x4 and had some fun - being very careful of Vancouver drivers in their Priuses and Hybrid Civics on summer tires. What's interesting out here is that you get some "not so bright people" driving around in SUVs with 20" wheels with basically racing slicks. These geniuses think just because they have a 4x4 they can drive their "gansta-mobile" (usually an Escalade, Hummer, or Lincoln) like it's on skates. Funny to see so many of them in ditches.
Folks around here can't remember the last time there was snow like this, or like what we've seen the past couple of years. Sure it will melt in a day or two... but it's just not "normal". Go figure. Climate change is real. There is an expectation of more frequent and more powerful storm systems. While last night's storm in Vancouver was nothing for a flatlander like myself, it certainly caused some angst for 'Couverites.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Harper's Anti-City, Rural-Based Party Is Still Anti-City
Stephen Harper came to town (wearing his stetson backwards, with an "under-sized" vest), and launched "Canada's New Government". Two years later he is still sticking it to the city dwellers. Harper's and the Conservatives' disdain for cities is pretty obvious in his party's stance on urban issues. His dumping of Liberal urban initiatives is a symptom of the Conservative Party's disease: They are mainly a rural-based, Prairie-powered party. Even their "urban" ridings are centered in Prairie cities OR lie on the fringe of cities in the rest of Canada.
PM Harper is a perfect example of one of those concerned conservatives who despises city life so much he chooses to live on the very outskirts of suburbia... call it "sub-suburban". The PM chooses not to live in Calgary - in the riding he represents (my old riding of Calgary SW), but in a small town outside of Calgary - about 35km from his riding - in the town of Cochrane. Like conservative opinions I've heard in the past (Conservative MLA/Minister Grant "X" in Sask), there is a need - no- a desire, to live as far away from "those people" as possible. The former Sask. Minister made a comment about foreigners in his neighborhood, and commented about "the smell of their cooking". Typically conservative.
Ultra-cons tend to distance themselves from the city with purported fear of crime (on the decline, in reality - while small towns are hotbeds for drug activity, and drug crime), their disdain for things different from them (immigrants and minorities), their need to live the "no trespassing, private property, two Pit-bull, gun-toting, lifestyle". How can these narrow-minded people represent anyone from a truly urban riding?
The rural-urban split is fairly typical of the differentiation between conservative and liberal. Anywhere you go liberals tend to hail from urban, or more progressive and changing areas, while conservatives tend to be more rural - and more aptly, isolationist in thought (still, there are many liberals living in rural areas, just as there are conservative supporters living in urban centers). The ideologies tend to have their "heartlands". For the Cons, in Canada, it is the rural prairie. For Canadian Liberals, it is pretty much urban centers coast to coast - Calgary being the one conservative nut the libs haven't cracked (yet), and Eastern rural areas. The Liberals do have a significant rural backing, but it is in the less populated Northern ridings (which have traditionally benefited from Liberal gov'ts more than any other).
With the voting pattern of the urban and rural areas, it is fairly clear that the Conservatives will continue to kowtow to rural issues and demands - gun "freedom"; perceived crime; "corporatization" of farms; traditional family appeals (since rural families tend to be more traditional than urban ones); etc., while continuing to ignore urban demands. Being of a more closed-minded, conservative (ie: resistant to change) ideology, Conservatives will never be very likely to adopt policies which broadly appeal to urban Canada. Unlike Liberals - who will try (at least) to reach out to the other's bases (on left and right - hence our power/political center growing or shrinking), conservatives typically don't like to reach out to, or appeal to people unlike them, or to anyone who would require them to change their own ideology.
PM Harper is a perfect example of one of those concerned conservatives who despises city life so much he chooses to live on the very outskirts of suburbia... call it "sub-suburban". The PM chooses not to live in Calgary - in the riding he represents (my old riding of Calgary SW), but in a small town outside of Calgary - about 35km from his riding - in the town of Cochrane. Like conservative opinions I've heard in the past (Conservative MLA/Minister Grant "X" in Sask), there is a need - no- a desire, to live as far away from "those people" as possible. The former Sask. Minister made a comment about foreigners in his neighborhood, and commented about "the smell of their cooking". Typically conservative.
Ultra-cons tend to distance themselves from the city with purported fear of crime (on the decline, in reality - while small towns are hotbeds for drug activity, and drug crime), their disdain for things different from them (immigrants and minorities), their need to live the "no trespassing, private property, two Pit-bull, gun-toting, lifestyle". How can these narrow-minded people represent anyone from a truly urban riding?
The rural-urban split is fairly typical of the differentiation between conservative and liberal. Anywhere you go liberals tend to hail from urban, or more progressive and changing areas, while conservatives tend to be more rural - and more aptly, isolationist in thought (still, there are many liberals living in rural areas, just as there are conservative supporters living in urban centers). The ideologies tend to have their "heartlands". For the Cons, in Canada, it is the rural prairie. For Canadian Liberals, it is pretty much urban centers coast to coast - Calgary being the one conservative nut the libs haven't cracked (yet), and Eastern rural areas. The Liberals do have a significant rural backing, but it is in the less populated Northern ridings (which have traditionally benefited from Liberal gov'ts more than any other).
With the voting pattern of the urban and rural areas, it is fairly clear that the Conservatives will continue to kowtow to rural issues and demands - gun "freedom"; perceived crime; "corporatization" of farms; traditional family appeals (since rural families tend to be more traditional than urban ones); etc., while continuing to ignore urban demands. Being of a more closed-minded, conservative (ie: resistant to change) ideology, Conservatives will never be very likely to adopt policies which broadly appeal to urban Canada. Unlike Liberals - who will try (at least) to reach out to the other's bases (on left and right - hence our power/political center growing or shrinking), conservatives typically don't like to reach out to, or appeal to people unlike them, or to anyone who would require them to change their own ideology.
Harper Got What He Needed From Manley; Notes On The Afghan Mission
(Thanks to the Globe&Mail - Canada's National Newspaper [note gratuitous plug] - for this image).While Stephen Harper didn't exactly get what he wants from John Manley, he got what he needs. Harper would have liked a rubber stamp on the Afghan mission. Instead Manley gave him some choices.
What it amounts to, however, is exactly what Harper needs to continue the mission. Now he steps onto the public stage - pre-election - and praises the report, indicating he will accept the recommendations.
What Harper got, was this: Indefinite extension of the mission - with the one "parachute" any "war-time" leader needs - an "opt-out clause". That's right. Harper got what LBJ didn't have in Vietnam - the ability to luck across conditions which would let him pull the plug without losing face. In Harper's case he can call his American Overlords to drop in some Marines, pretend that the helicopters that come with them are for our use, and stay as long as he looks good. Harper the "war-time PM". We know he just loves that image. If Harp sees things start to go badly, he'll just "cut and run" - of course, then he'll call it a "calculated withdrawal".
The one thing the Manley Report seems to miss the plate on, is this: NOTHING replaces troops on the ground. That is classic military doctrine. The public - and especially our non-informed media - seem to think the troops will just magically fly over those nasty insurgents and road-side ambushes. Yup - that's just great. Especially when we are looking to actually WORK ON THE GROUND and win the hearts and minds of the locals. Helicopters are great when coordinating an invasion to take out a fixed enemy and points of control that are clearly defined. The typical modern blitzkreig of jets, gunships, artillery, and overwhelming land force works well in these traditional scenarios. Afghanistan (or Afghanisnam, as some bloggers have called it) is not such a textbook campaign. We are fighting insurgents who are intimately familiar with the terrain, and have fought numerous campaigns there - against even better armed enemies (the old Soviets came with a huge force - bigger than anything NATO has brought). I hope that the Manley group made this recommendation on their own accord - and not at the advice of our generals, as this would show some deficiencies.
Our job in Afghanistan is to ensure we "secure the ground", and flying over potential trouble spots won't do it. Sure the choppers will help move troops around quickly, but don't let the media - or Harper's gang - tell us that the added helicopters will miraculously stop casualties from ambushes and roadside IEDs. We need to engage those threats DIRECTLY and ensure the security of both our troops and innocent local civilians. That will require continued ground action, and continued jaunts across the deserts, through mountain passes, and treacherous city streets.
One more thing: I support a UN-sanctioned action in Afghanistan. I'm not happy that NATO is carrying the load, as it causes a perception of "the WEST" against the locals. A real UN rapid reaction force (of the kind that is needed in a lot of world hot spots) would include forces FROM that part of the world - maybe even Iranian, Pakistani, and Uzbek forces. People who hail from the region are useful in two ways: 1) they understand the conflict and the locals better, and 2) they help keep the mission from looking like a "Western invasion". We need to help the Afghani people find peace, but we need to do it the proper way, rather than a random NATO mop-up force riding in on the coattails of an unsuccessful US man-hunt.
Monday, January 21, 2008
A Little About Canada's Reform-A-Tories
So let's review what these wolves-in-sheep's clothing, neo-Con, Reform-a-Tories are all about...
We all know about the Cons' climate change denial - it's been a political reality for them for years. They constantly talked about not believing in the "science of climate change", and the "science of Kyoto". Later - once needing a majority became important - their position became one of bashing a former government for not doing enough (while continuing to do nothing - nay, even fighting solutions - themselves). They also started to vocalize for a "solution" which put any efforts into the distant future - much more distant than anything Kyoto offered - and also a much lesser effort (practically going backwards from gains already made).
War-mongering... What can we say about that? Well, in typical Conservative fashion, the Reformers/Alliance MPs supported the US's illegal (war crimes anyone?) invasion of Iraq. Instead of the right solution: taking the Saudis to task on 9/11, and taking out Afghan's Taliban Regime (well that partly succeeded) and their Pakistani supporters, they supported the trillion dollar (FROM the gov'ts TO the defense industry) light show known as Iraq II. Now, almost 500,000 civilian casualties later (all Iraqi), the neo-Con chicken-hawks are admitting it was an abject failure. Sorry - let me correct that last line: the chicken-hawks NOT earning anything from sitting on defense contractor boards, or future/past lobbyist roles are admitting failure.
Sexist bent has always existed in conservative movements. It is part and parcel of the definition of "conservative". One who believes strongly in the male-dominated "old ways", and wishes for a return to the "good old days". Current federal Conservative policy is geared to keeping women at home. In a very real effort to get all "old school biblical" on Canadian Society, Harper's thugs have unleashed legislation to support stay-at-home moms (nothing wrong with that), at the expense of programs that helped poor mothers and single moms (something really wrong with that).
In the past day or two we've learned that the federal Conservatives support torture (seemingly so, based on their tossing aside of internal documents indicating the certain allies' use of torture). The Foreign Affairs Dept. had a pretty detailed document expressing concern of the use of torture in allied countries (including our Southern neighbor). On Saturday Maxime Bernier decided to ignore this report to prevent any "bad pub" for these allies. The statement has angered Amnesty International's Canadian Secretary General. It has also infuriated Maher Arar's lawyer - Lorne Waldman, as well as human rights advocates everywhere.
What scares me... and I've started to accept the potential inevitable conclusion, is that these right wing ideologues may successfully hide their true feelings from the Canadian public until they are successfully ensconced in a majority. As a party WE need to get our act together. We need to go on the attack. We need to express our thoughts on the issues CLEARLY. We need to voice the liberal opinion - which is the MODERATE, center-of-the-road Canadian way. We need to speak to voters on the benefits of liberal ideology. We can't let platform politics stunt voter education. When voters have nothing to look at but a platform, a "current" election promise-list, and the latest 7 second news clip of our leader trying to get an idea out, we miss our mark.
I believe - as Liberals - we need to clearly post our ideals on the FIRST page of our website. A clear statement of worldwide liberal ideology - which won't change, no matter whom we chose to lead us, or what the current "issues" are during an election. This manifesto of ideas should become public knowledge so voters know exactly WHO WE ARE, and what our GUIDING PRINCIPLES are. When Canadians see clearly who we are, they will, once again, begin to see us as the only truly moderate choice in Canadian politics.
We all know about the Cons' climate change denial - it's been a political reality for them for years. They constantly talked about not believing in the "science of climate change", and the "science of Kyoto". Later - once needing a majority became important - their position became one of bashing a former government for not doing enough (while continuing to do nothing - nay, even fighting solutions - themselves). They also started to vocalize for a "solution" which put any efforts into the distant future - much more distant than anything Kyoto offered - and also a much lesser effort (practically going backwards from gains already made).
War-mongering... What can we say about that? Well, in typical Conservative fashion, the Reformers/Alliance MPs supported the US's illegal (war crimes anyone?) invasion of Iraq. Instead of the right solution: taking the Saudis to task on 9/11, and taking out Afghan's Taliban Regime (well that partly succeeded) and their Pakistani supporters, they supported the trillion dollar (FROM the gov'ts TO the defense industry) light show known as Iraq II. Now, almost 500,000 civilian casualties later (all Iraqi), the neo-Con chicken-hawks are admitting it was an abject failure. Sorry - let me correct that last line: the chicken-hawks NOT earning anything from sitting on defense contractor boards, or future/past lobbyist roles are admitting failure.
Sexist bent has always existed in conservative movements. It is part and parcel of the definition of "conservative". One who believes strongly in the male-dominated "old ways", and wishes for a return to the "good old days". Current federal Conservative policy is geared to keeping women at home. In a very real effort to get all "old school biblical" on Canadian Society, Harper's thugs have unleashed legislation to support stay-at-home moms (nothing wrong with that), at the expense of programs that helped poor mothers and single moms (something really wrong with that).
In the past day or two we've learned that the federal Conservatives support torture (seemingly so, based on their tossing aside of internal documents indicating the certain allies' use of torture). The Foreign Affairs Dept. had a pretty detailed document expressing concern of the use of torture in allied countries (including our Southern neighbor). On Saturday Maxime Bernier decided to ignore this report to prevent any "bad pub" for these allies. The statement has angered Amnesty International's Canadian Secretary General. It has also infuriated Maher Arar's lawyer - Lorne Waldman, as well as human rights advocates everywhere.
What scares me... and I've started to accept the potential inevitable conclusion, is that these right wing ideologues may successfully hide their true feelings from the Canadian public until they are successfully ensconced in a majority. As a party WE need to get our act together. We need to go on the attack. We need to express our thoughts on the issues CLEARLY. We need to voice the liberal opinion - which is the MODERATE, center-of-the-road Canadian way. We need to speak to voters on the benefits of liberal ideology. We can't let platform politics stunt voter education. When voters have nothing to look at but a platform, a "current" election promise-list, and the latest 7 second news clip of our leader trying to get an idea out, we miss our mark.
I believe - as Liberals - we need to clearly post our ideals on the FIRST page of our website. A clear statement of worldwide liberal ideology - which won't change, no matter whom we chose to lead us, or what the current "issues" are during an election. This manifesto of ideas should become public knowledge so voters know exactly WHO WE ARE, and what our GUIDING PRINCIPLES are. When Canadians see clearly who we are, they will, once again, begin to see us as the only truly moderate choice in Canadian politics.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
BC's Homeless - Canada's "Problem"
Walking down East Hastings in Vancouver, or through one of the many other main drags in cities in the Lower Mainland, something curious strikes you (besides the colorful scenery and sometimes foul odors)... These people aren't "from" here... Sure a lot of the Lower Mainland and Vancouver Island homeless are from parts of BC. The thing is, walking around and asking where they're from, you'll get a lot of interesting stories... "I'm from Calgary", "I'm from Edmonton", "I'm from Fort MacMurray", "I'm from Winnipeg"...
I was not that shocked to find that so many of the homeless were from "somewhere else". After all, the warm climate, accessibility to (cheaper/abundant) drugs, and excellent social services (did I say warm climate?) makes a huge difference. It really helps if you don't freeze to death outside. Add to this certain Prairie Premiers from oil-rich provinces providing free bus fare to Vancouver...
Citizens of the Lower Mainland and the Island end up paying huge sums to house, cloth, and feed a lot of these homeless inter-provincial immigrants. The typical Vancouverite pays a huge sum annually in property, local, income, and sales taxes. Guess where a lot of this money goes? Yes, that's right - trying to stick a finger into the dyke of homelessness.
What's wrong with this picture? How do we justify BCers - mainly in the Lower Mainland, and on the Island - being yolked with the burden of caring for Canada's homeless?
Now before I go much further, I assure you my heart bleeds for my homeless countrymen/women... I just feel that: 1) enough is not being done about the causes; 2) enough is not being done by other provinces (in comparison to BC, and maybe Ontario and Sask); 3) BC should not be taking on this challenge alone.
What exactly am I saying? The cities in the Lower Mainland, & on the Island, need higher levels of gov't assisting in resolving this problem. Victoria alone cannot solve and/or fund this issue. Mr. Campbell needs to start asking Mr. Harper that, now that they've killed all the federal Liberals' "City Initiatives", what does he intend to do (in way of funding) to help BC's homeless? This issue HAS to be brought to the national forefront. Harper is doing nothing for homeless people or the poor in Canada (including the working poor).
If Harper and the Conservatives refuse to help Canada's poor and homeless, then Mr. Campbell needs to approach Mr. Dion and the Federal Liberals - as well as the Federal NDP - to ensure that the homeless problem becomes a part of the national debate.
BC, being Canada's only "fair weather" province, needs to have additional support from the Federal Government in dealing with the homeless situation. Mr. Martin's "City Initiatives" would have been a welcome help, but we know the results of the last election. Too bad.
I can probably write an epic about what to do to combat homelessness, but suffice it to say, throwing money at the problem won't fix it. A concerted effort has to made at federal, provincial, and municipal levels to curb the social, mental (yes mental), and urban challenges which cause homelessness. We know that lack of beds in hospitals, drug treatment facilities, and mental institutions are a key part of the problem. We suffer at the hands of a gov't. which would much rather jail drug abusers, than try to wean them off the substances. Conservative types would rather spend billions on extra policing, than investment in the critical urban infrastructure (like treatment centers and hospitals) required to get people off the streets. While everyone out there doesn't suffer from a substance abuse issue, most do. Bringing back the urban support infrastructure would help.
The next step would be addressing the lack of opportunities in rural areas. Too often the homeless start out in small towns, either being abusers, or involved in situations of abuse - or bordering on abuse. Rural joblessness needs to be addressed.
Finally (well, maybe not "finally"), more needs to be done to ensure youth have "something to do". This also has to be a priority, and a national effort. Too many problems in today's society have to do with youth, and today's culture of "gansta hero". Federal Liberal university assistance programs (promised in the last election) - including paid tuition for 1st and final years - would have been a huge help. None of us like the conservative "fear mongers" talking about "increasing crime", when rates are down to record lows when compared to rates over the past 30 to 40 years, BUT, the fact is crime rates ARE all DOWN. Only youth crime seems to be on the rise. There are solutions - but they need to be national.
Time to get some national focus on local urban matters. Upcoming federal election(s) may just be the right venue for airing these concerns at a national level. Trying to get them airtime along with the "cool" issues like the environment, and Afghanistan may not be that easy...
I was not that shocked to find that so many of the homeless were from "somewhere else". After all, the warm climate, accessibility to (cheaper/abundant) drugs, and excellent social services (did I say warm climate?) makes a huge difference. It really helps if you don't freeze to death outside. Add to this certain Prairie Premiers from oil-rich provinces providing free bus fare to Vancouver...
Citizens of the Lower Mainland and the Island end up paying huge sums to house, cloth, and feed a lot of these homeless inter-provincial immigrants. The typical Vancouverite pays a huge sum annually in property, local, income, and sales taxes. Guess where a lot of this money goes? Yes, that's right - trying to stick a finger into the dyke of homelessness.
What's wrong with this picture? How do we justify BCers - mainly in the Lower Mainland, and on the Island - being yolked with the burden of caring for Canada's homeless?
Now before I go much further, I assure you my heart bleeds for my homeless countrymen/women... I just feel that: 1) enough is not being done about the causes; 2) enough is not being done by other provinces (in comparison to BC, and maybe Ontario and Sask); 3) BC should not be taking on this challenge alone.
What exactly am I saying? The cities in the Lower Mainland, & on the Island, need higher levels of gov't assisting in resolving this problem. Victoria alone cannot solve and/or fund this issue. Mr. Campbell needs to start asking Mr. Harper that, now that they've killed all the federal Liberals' "City Initiatives", what does he intend to do (in way of funding) to help BC's homeless? This issue HAS to be brought to the national forefront. Harper is doing nothing for homeless people or the poor in Canada (including the working poor).
If Harper and the Conservatives refuse to help Canada's poor and homeless, then Mr. Campbell needs to approach Mr. Dion and the Federal Liberals - as well as the Federal NDP - to ensure that the homeless problem becomes a part of the national debate.
BC, being Canada's only "fair weather" province, needs to have additional support from the Federal Government in dealing with the homeless situation. Mr. Martin's "City Initiatives" would have been a welcome help, but we know the results of the last election. Too bad.
I can probably write an epic about what to do to combat homelessness, but suffice it to say, throwing money at the problem won't fix it. A concerted effort has to made at federal, provincial, and municipal levels to curb the social, mental (yes mental), and urban challenges which cause homelessness. We know that lack of beds in hospitals, drug treatment facilities, and mental institutions are a key part of the problem. We suffer at the hands of a gov't. which would much rather jail drug abusers, than try to wean them off the substances. Conservative types would rather spend billions on extra policing, than investment in the critical urban infrastructure (like treatment centers and hospitals) required to get people off the streets. While everyone out there doesn't suffer from a substance abuse issue, most do. Bringing back the urban support infrastructure would help.
The next step would be addressing the lack of opportunities in rural areas. Too often the homeless start out in small towns, either being abusers, or involved in situations of abuse - or bordering on abuse. Rural joblessness needs to be addressed.
Finally (well, maybe not "finally"), more needs to be done to ensure youth have "something to do". This also has to be a priority, and a national effort. Too many problems in today's society have to do with youth, and today's culture of "gansta hero". Federal Liberal university assistance programs (promised in the last election) - including paid tuition for 1st and final years - would have been a huge help. None of us like the conservative "fear mongers" talking about "increasing crime", when rates are down to record lows when compared to rates over the past 30 to 40 years, BUT, the fact is crime rates ARE all DOWN. Only youth crime seems to be on the rise. There are solutions - but they need to be national.
Time to get some national focus on local urban matters. Upcoming federal election(s) may just be the right venue for airing these concerns at a national level. Trying to get them airtime along with the "cool" issues like the environment, and Afghanistan may not be that easy...
Harpo and Mularkey: Just A Reminder...
We always want to remind ourselves that these two clowns are possibly involved in the biggest scandal in Canadian political history - the pay-off of a PM and/or sitting MP (one getting the payoff, and the other one trying to cover up the scandal, and the inevitable link to his party and perhaps Foreign Affairs Min.).
Now we are seeing the ruling Conservatives gleefully clapping their hands as the Opposition parties push the inquiry through a hurried-up process. Canadians demand to know the truth, and want to know what Harper/Harper's office knew, and when they knew it.
Let's get back with the program. Polls show there WON'T be an election. We need to call all the witnesses and evidence forward and have a fair inquiry. Rushing to get through it is not the way...
Now we are seeing the ruling Conservatives gleefully clapping their hands as the Opposition parties push the inquiry through a hurried-up process. Canadians demand to know the truth, and want to know what Harper/Harper's office knew, and when they knew it.
Let's get back with the program. Polls show there WON'T be an election. We need to call all the witnesses and evidence forward and have a fair inquiry. Rushing to get through it is not the way...
Monday, January 07, 2008
Edwards To "Pull A Dion"
Rumor has it John Edwards will mimic Canadian liberal politics in the next few months... It may seem early, but old Johnny is going to go from 3rd/4th to 1st. He may even get a hand from a Kennedy along the way...
As the US electoral process trudges along for the next several eons, voters will continue to jettison thoughts of a Hillary White House... Obama will surge, but like bright, savvy, upstarts before him (even in Canada), he will invariably attract the "Anything but Obama" vote (remind you of something?). Bright young Barack - he of the "fresh face" - will go down to defeat... Who's left? Why, the "safe" choice - John Edwards - of course!
This blogger has written good things about John Edwards previously, and I do continue with my support. His quest for an end to corporate greed has piqued my interest.
; )
As the US electoral process trudges along for the next several eons, voters will continue to jettison thoughts of a Hillary White House... Obama will surge, but like bright, savvy, upstarts before him (even in Canada), he will invariably attract the "Anything but Obama" vote (remind you of something?). Bright young Barack - he of the "fresh face" - will go down to defeat... Who's left? Why, the "safe" choice - John Edwards - of course!
This blogger has written good things about John Edwards previously, and I do continue with my support. His quest for an end to corporate greed has piqued my interest.
; )
Thursday, January 03, 2008
John Edwards: Promising To Be Tough On Corporate Greed
A great excerpt from John Edward's blog tonight: "You have the power to decide whether we will continue to let corporate greed run our country, or whether we take a stand on behalf of working people and the voiceless. Whether we take a stand for our Constitution."
Democratic Primaries - Thoughts
So tonight our friends and neighbors to the South will embark on the process to clean out the White House. I'm not going to touch on the Republican side, as I don't think any of us really care what the American Religious Right will pass along as a "passable" conservative representative. Our passion is liberal democratic politics, and that is what I've looked at on this blog today.
There are three fairly solid candidates seeking the Presidency: Hillary Clinton; Barack Obama; and John Edwards. All three have been darlings of the Democratic Party faithful at one time or another. That's basically where the similarities end. Here is WesternGrit's take on the candidates, and what they may represent...
Hillary Clinton: Hillary was an "uber-feminist", and rights advocate for many years. Even while in the White House with Bill, she was the mind behind many good ideas - including the push for better health care (although a Republican-dominated House, and strong Medico lobby killed it). Sounds like she is a great choice, right? Sure, if she didn't sell out all her principles. The only way she has stood up for women recently, is by BEING one. Sorry Hillary, that's not enough. Then, there's the invasion of Iraq. Hillary stood up and endorsed this illegal war, not once, not twice, but multiple times. She supported the Bushies, even though the World, and any logical, moderate person could see the war was misdirected. Hillary also caved in to the Big Drug Cos. and softened her stance on universal healthcare. Sorry Hillary, you're a sell-out.
Barack Obama: I like Barack. He's young, he's extremely intelligent, he's articulate - beyond any of the others, and best of all: he's African American, and it's about bloody time. Barack seems (on first look), however, to be a little too cozy with the big corporations, and is the benefactor of almost as many corporate dollars as Hillary. We have some questions about his "working with the insurance companies" on healthcare approach. Yeah, the American people need to be robbed by insurance companies and drug companies any more than they already have... We hope this is simply a way for him to deflect any right wing criticism until he is in the White House.
John Edwards: Yeah, the middle aged "mainstream" male. How cliche'. Yet, John is the most progressive of any of the candidates (in the big three). He is charismatic (perhaps not quite as charismatic as Obama), and he is intelligent too. He is the only candidate who closely resembles true liberal democrats around the world (ie, Canada and Europe). He has not been heavily bought out by corporate donors. He has, in fact, spoken out against the big corps. Now these are refreshing words coming from a politician in the US - heck, even in Canada: "I absolutely believe to my soul that this corporate greed and corporate power has an ironclad hold on our democracy." Never even heard one of our Liberal leaders utter these very true - and frightening - words.
John Edwards seems to clearly be the consummate liberal. He is outspoken - and not afraid to speak. It's about time we saw more politicians who weren't afraid of big corporations. Edwards has actually said he will go after the big oil and drug companies. Bravo. In Canada it seems our politicos are busy currying favor with private interests - especially on the conservative side of the spectrum. P3s are all the vogue. Nice to see some of our neighbors to the South claiming a new political reality.
Government "for the people" - what a concept. We need more politicians like John Edwards, and Barack Obama. If not Edwards, then Obama for sure (as long as he rethinks his healthcare plan - which I'm sure he will).
There are three fairly solid candidates seeking the Presidency: Hillary Clinton; Barack Obama; and John Edwards. All three have been darlings of the Democratic Party faithful at one time or another. That's basically where the similarities end. Here is WesternGrit's take on the candidates, and what they may represent...
Hillary Clinton: Hillary was an "uber-feminist", and rights advocate for many years. Even while in the White House with Bill, she was the mind behind many good ideas - including the push for better health care (although a Republican-dominated House, and strong Medico lobby killed it). Sounds like she is a great choice, right? Sure, if she didn't sell out all her principles. The only way she has stood up for women recently, is by BEING one. Sorry Hillary, that's not enough. Then, there's the invasion of Iraq. Hillary stood up and endorsed this illegal war, not once, not twice, but multiple times. She supported the Bushies, even though the World, and any logical, moderate person could see the war was misdirected. Hillary also caved in to the Big Drug Cos. and softened her stance on universal healthcare. Sorry Hillary, you're a sell-out.
Barack Obama: I like Barack. He's young, he's extremely intelligent, he's articulate - beyond any of the others, and best of all: he's African American, and it's about bloody time. Barack seems (on first look), however, to be a little too cozy with the big corporations, and is the benefactor of almost as many corporate dollars as Hillary. We have some questions about his "working with the insurance companies" on healthcare approach. Yeah, the American people need to be robbed by insurance companies and drug companies any more than they already have... We hope this is simply a way for him to deflect any right wing criticism until he is in the White House.
John Edwards: Yeah, the middle aged "mainstream" male. How cliche'. Yet, John is the most progressive of any of the candidates (in the big three). He is charismatic (perhaps not quite as charismatic as Obama), and he is intelligent too. He is the only candidate who closely resembles true liberal democrats around the world (ie, Canada and Europe). He has not been heavily bought out by corporate donors. He has, in fact, spoken out against the big corps. Now these are refreshing words coming from a politician in the US - heck, even in Canada: "I absolutely believe to my soul that this corporate greed and corporate power has an ironclad hold on our democracy." Never even heard one of our Liberal leaders utter these very true - and frightening - words.
John Edwards seems to clearly be the consummate liberal. He is outspoken - and not afraid to speak. It's about time we saw more politicians who weren't afraid of big corporations. Edwards has actually said he will go after the big oil and drug companies. Bravo. In Canada it seems our politicos are busy currying favor with private interests - especially on the conservative side of the spectrum. P3s are all the vogue. Nice to see some of our neighbors to the South claiming a new political reality.
Government "for the people" - what a concept. We need more politicians like John Edwards, and Barack Obama. If not Edwards, then Obama for sure (as long as he rethinks his healthcare plan - which I'm sure he will).
Monday, December 31, 2007
Peace: Here's To The Future (Let's Have One)
Well, another year has passed. We Liberals do have a lot to look forward to this next year. The Mulroney-Schreiber-Harper-MacKay Scandal should get some more play. We'll need to hear from Harp, his Justice Minister, and MacKay as well (both of them). There are a lot of reasons for Opposition Parties to want to defeat this gov't., and we'll just need to be patient and play our cards when the time is right.
What does the world look like right now? Hundreds of small wars, populations starving or lacking clean water, ideological warfare abounds, an increasingly toxic environment. We really need to wake up as a species. We need to appreciate that this is not OUR planet any more than it was the dinosaurs' planet. A burgeoning population and limited resources mean we have to make some REAL efforts to clean up our little corner of the Universe. Humankind has to rethink our basic most fundamental ways of life, to ensure future humans will have lives at all. Science fiction movies often have hordes of aggressive aliens who pillage planets for their resources, then move on. We need to realize WE are those aggressive aliens laying waste to any newly exploitable resources we find.
As a party that strikes a balance between fiscal responsibility and caring for our world, neighbors, and surroundings, we need to be leaders in the fight for our planet. We need to be leaders in peace, responsibility, and humanity. We need to stand out as liberal democrats. Our political principles are a perfect fit for this needy world right now.
The best of the Season to everyone, and a very happy and prosperous 2008.
What does the world look like right now? Hundreds of small wars, populations starving or lacking clean water, ideological warfare abounds, an increasingly toxic environment. We really need to wake up as a species. We need to appreciate that this is not OUR planet any more than it was the dinosaurs' planet. A burgeoning population and limited resources mean we have to make some REAL efforts to clean up our little corner of the Universe. Humankind has to rethink our basic most fundamental ways of life, to ensure future humans will have lives at all. Science fiction movies often have hordes of aggressive aliens who pillage planets for their resources, then move on. We need to realize WE are those aggressive aliens laying waste to any newly exploitable resources we find.
As a party that strikes a balance between fiscal responsibility and caring for our world, neighbors, and surroundings, we need to be leaders in the fight for our planet. We need to be leaders in peace, responsibility, and humanity. We need to stand out as liberal democrats. Our political principles are a perfect fit for this needy world right now.
The best of the Season to everyone, and a very happy and prosperous 2008.
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
When You Send A Bonehead To Do A Statesman's Job
So Peter MacKay gets shipped off to Afghanistan to lay on some classic conservative military patronizing - and keep him from commenting on Schreiber-Mulroney-Harper-MacKay-gate. So what does "el-dorko" (he of the inappropriate comments about a certain lady from down South) do? He decides he should spout off about Iran backing the Taliban with supplies.
There are a few serious problems with this: You don't come out to give a message of peace and support to the troops, and use the time as a platform for your own political gain (the cons LOVE to pretend the military is their baby - even though we know Pierre Trudeau spent more on defense than they do); You don't use such an occasion to take random potshots at another sovereign state - without the appropriate diplomacy and evidence; Looking like some imbeciles simply carting in the standard US messaging has never been Canada's place - we've always been more objective, and it allowed us (even being a NATO and Commonwealth member) to be respected for our opinions. Joining in blindly with the "you're with us, or you're 'agin' us" mentality is a sure-fire way to get hated really fast.
There are ways to approach a nation which could explode at any time - and being the schoolyard bully is not it. Someone will step up and be the peace-broker in this region. Unfortunately, a nation that is shamelessly aligning itself with one of the aggressor sides is not going to be that broker. A nation like Sweden is more likely.
I hope fellow Canadians are starting to realize what a shameful mockery these Conservatives are making of Canada's proud international reputation.
There are a few serious problems with this: You don't come out to give a message of peace and support to the troops, and use the time as a platform for your own political gain (the cons LOVE to pretend the military is their baby - even though we know Pierre Trudeau spent more on defense than they do); You don't use such an occasion to take random potshots at another sovereign state - without the appropriate diplomacy and evidence; Looking like some imbeciles simply carting in the standard US messaging has never been Canada's place - we've always been more objective, and it allowed us (even being a NATO and Commonwealth member) to be respected for our opinions. Joining in blindly with the "you're with us, or you're 'agin' us" mentality is a sure-fire way to get hated really fast.
There are ways to approach a nation which could explode at any time - and being the schoolyard bully is not it. Someone will step up and be the peace-broker in this region. Unfortunately, a nation that is shamelessly aligning itself with one of the aggressor sides is not going to be that broker. A nation like Sweden is more likely.
I hope fellow Canadians are starting to realize what a shameful mockery these Conservatives are making of Canada's proud international reputation.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Partisan Witch Hunt, My @$$
Canada's Conservatives. How can these guys pretend they're different from the federal PCs of old - when they always WERE federal PCs?
So the Cons want to try to tell the world that the Mulroney-Schreiber-Harper Inquiry is a "partisan witch hunt". Hmmm... I thought (according to Harpies everywhere) Mr. Mulroney was part of a party which ceased to exist a few years ago when they united with the Reform-Alliance? I mean the "new" conservatives keep stating how they are not the same as the "old" conservatives - even though they spent much of the last couple of years trying to convince voters they were just that... a "united right". So now, when the obvious relationship between the two (actually one and the same) is hurtful to the government, they want to distance themselves.
Thing is... they keep saying the Opposition trying to find the truth is a "partisan witch hunt". Which means, as is obvious to all Canadians, they are admitting Mulroney is one of theirs'(as is obvious to all Canadians). Mulroney is a conservative, and so are they. A "united right".
"Conservative MP Russ Hiebert (South Surrey-White Rock-Cloverdale, B.C.) last week emerged from the committee meeting with Mr. Mulroney and read from a prepared statement, which said further committee hearings into the affair were not necessary because they amounted to a "partisan witch hunt." Mr. Hiebert said the views were his own, not scripted by the PMO, and were written during the committee meeting. But CP reporter Jennifer Ditchburn aptly pointed out that Mr. Hiebert read from computer-printed notes with bullets. (thanks Yappa Ding Ding).
If this is a "partisan witch hunt" as the Conservatives say it is, then it is truly a Conservative scandal - linked to their party and their name.
So the Cons want to try to tell the world that the Mulroney-Schreiber-Harper Inquiry is a "partisan witch hunt". Hmmm... I thought (according to Harpies everywhere) Mr. Mulroney was part of a party which ceased to exist a few years ago when they united with the Reform-Alliance? I mean the "new" conservatives keep stating how they are not the same as the "old" conservatives - even though they spent much of the last couple of years trying to convince voters they were just that... a "united right". So now, when the obvious relationship between the two (actually one and the same) is hurtful to the government, they want to distance themselves.
Thing is... they keep saying the Opposition trying to find the truth is a "partisan witch hunt". Which means, as is obvious to all Canadians, they are admitting Mulroney is one of theirs'(as is obvious to all Canadians). Mulroney is a conservative, and so are they. A "united right".
"Conservative MP Russ Hiebert (South Surrey-White Rock-Cloverdale, B.C.) last week emerged from the committee meeting with Mr. Mulroney and read from a prepared statement, which said further committee hearings into the affair were not necessary because they amounted to a "partisan witch hunt." Mr. Hiebert said the views were his own, not scripted by the PMO, and were written during the committee meeting. But CP reporter Jennifer Ditchburn aptly pointed out that Mr. Hiebert read from computer-printed notes with bullets. (thanks Yappa Ding Ding).
If this is a "partisan witch hunt" as the Conservatives say it is, then it is truly a Conservative scandal - linked to their party and their name.
Is This... What They Call Poetic Justice???
Stevie Harper and the Reform-a-tories fought long to convince moderate Canada that they were really, truly, a united right, and the rebirth of the old Mulroney 'populist rush'. They ceaselessly argued with anyone who tried to say that the right wing Reformers had taken over the old PC/Conservative Party. They even paraded the great Brian Mulroney around during the last election, to help with federalist votes in Quebec. The tireless efforts and millions of dollars spent by the Conservative campaign machine did help them convince enough voters to win a small minority.
Recent revelations in the Mulroney-Schrieber-Harper affair are causing some serious problems with Harper's remade 'Mulroney Coalition'. Mr. Harper would like to extricate himself from the PC/old conservative ties. Unfortunately (for him) his team did too good a job convincing Canadians that Harper's "new" team and the Mulroney team were one and the same. The Conservatives now expect Canadians to separate the two conservative parties in their minds. C'mon. These two are "kissing cousins". They all came from the same conservative beast. If one looks at who works in the backrooms of Ottawa, you'll find a lot of old Mulroney era Tories working under Harper and his MPs.
This scandal didn't require Opposition MPs pointing out links to the Harper PMO - Stephen Harper basically created those links himself. A fate well deserved. Let's hope the mud continues to stick to this idea-less, regressive group of neo-cons.
Recent revelations in the Mulroney-Schrieber-Harper affair are causing some serious problems with Harper's remade 'Mulroney Coalition'. Mr. Harper would like to extricate himself from the PC/old conservative ties. Unfortunately (for him) his team did too good a job convincing Canadians that Harper's "new" team and the Mulroney team were one and the same. The Conservatives now expect Canadians to separate the two conservative parties in their minds. C'mon. These two are "kissing cousins". They all came from the same conservative beast. If one looks at who works in the backrooms of Ottawa, you'll find a lot of old Mulroney era Tories working under Harper and his MPs.
This scandal didn't require Opposition MPs pointing out links to the Harper PMO - Stephen Harper basically created those links himself. A fate well deserved. Let's hope the mud continues to stick to this idea-less, regressive group of neo-cons.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Turkish Bombs Good For Kurds? Saddam's Bombs Bad?
Yes... a preposterous headline. Yet, it seems this is what the American-block would like the world to think about the plight of Kurdistan. If it's an American enemy bombing the Kurds, then it's "deplorable" and a "crime against humanity", BUT if it's an American ally...
Let's see:
Saddam I (Pre-Kuwait): "Good Saddam" (hugs for Rumsfeld, etc.). Go ahead and bomb the Kurds Saddam - we'll even provide the bombs and helicopters.
Saddam II (Post Kuwait): "Bad Saddam". Saddam is the anti-Christ. He is an evil dictator, and he'll pay for these crimes.
Iran (under the Shaw): Kurds? What Kurds?
Iran (under the mullahs): The plight of the Kurdish people is of the utmost importance to the American people.
Turkey (NATO member state): Bombs away! We don't see you. The Kurds being bombed are "terrorists" conspiring to destabilize Iraq and the whole region.
Sometimes the overt geo-political hypocrisy is so obvious it's a wonder "Joe Public" doesn't just see right through it. It seems the days of competent, concerned leaders - who actually cared about the plight of the weak and suffering - are gone. No more great statesmen in the world anymore. You can't speak out on an issue without being colored a color (left, right, capitalist, socialist, terrorist fighter, terrorist supporter, God-fearing, atheist, etc.).
The world needs more true statesmen... not empty-headed ideologues who only care for themselves, their corporate/industrial backers, or their marriage to some oblique philosophy which doesn't work in today's world. We need brave leaders not afraid to speak out against the status quo.
Let's see:
Saddam I (Pre-Kuwait): "Good Saddam" (hugs for Rumsfeld, etc.). Go ahead and bomb the Kurds Saddam - we'll even provide the bombs and helicopters.
Saddam II (Post Kuwait): "Bad Saddam". Saddam is the anti-Christ. He is an evil dictator, and he'll pay for these crimes.
Iran (under the Shaw): Kurds? What Kurds?
Iran (under the mullahs): The plight of the Kurdish people is of the utmost importance to the American people.
Turkey (NATO member state): Bombs away! We don't see you. The Kurds being bombed are "terrorists" conspiring to destabilize Iraq and the whole region.
Sometimes the overt geo-political hypocrisy is so obvious it's a wonder "Joe Public" doesn't just see right through it. It seems the days of competent, concerned leaders - who actually cared about the plight of the weak and suffering - are gone. No more great statesmen in the world anymore. You can't speak out on an issue without being colored a color (left, right, capitalist, socialist, terrorist fighter, terrorist supporter, God-fearing, atheist, etc.).
The world needs more true statesmen... not empty-headed ideologues who only care for themselves, their corporate/industrial backers, or their marriage to some oblique philosophy which doesn't work in today's world. We need brave leaders not afraid to speak out against the status quo.
Monday, December 17, 2007
Harpo-Mularkey Image of the Day...
Harpo: "Not now, Brian. Get your hand out of my hip pocket."Mularkey: "Remember our meeting with Boeing grasshopper? Gordie O worked hard to arrange that. Aren't those transports just what we needed?".
Both Laugh Vigorously...
Harpo: "How could I forget? George whispered it in my ear when we got up this morning".
Mularkey: "Does George do that funny thing with his hip like my Cowboy Ronnie used to do?"
Harpo: "Ever wonder why Georgie's bow-legged?"
Both: "Snicker, snicker..."
Mularkey: "I had to sleep with Maggie to try to score those Harriers... Never did materialize"
Harpo: "Ain't workin' Maggie's farm no more... (snicker, snicker)? I guess that beats being a target for the Godfather (Cheney) when I went to ask for them to recognize us as friends last year..."
Mularkey: "Yeah, I had to pull buckshot outta my backside for a year after I met him in the 80s. Why are you Reformer-types so high on guns again? We almost banned them in the 80s"
Harpo: "Brian! Gun's are our God-given right. You can't take away our guns. Outta our cold dead hands Brian!"
Mularkey: "Temper, temper. What did I tell you about hiding that temper in public? Every time you throw a tanturn you lose poll points".
Harpo: "Those polls are great, aren't they? We're trying to hide the cost, but that stupid report came out..."
Mularkey: "Don't worry. You'll be at least 2 yrs out of gov't before the media decides to tackle you over that one. Ask me... or better yet, lil' Kimmy."
Harpo: "She really took the fall for you guys, didn't she? I still laugh when I think of that... 2 seats... LOL".
Mularkey: "Hey! Show some respect Shrub. Without my 'populist rush' plan, you guys wouldn't have a sniff in Quebec. We know how your Reform buddies sponsored all those anti-Quebec bumper stickers in the 80s and 90s"
Harpo: "Yeah... I had one. 'No to C68, No to Wheat Board, No to Quebec' Looked good on my Suburban..."
Friday, December 14, 2007
Steve & Brian - Best Friends... A Photo Album
We weren't surprised when Mr Harper made public in the last election campaign that one Brian Mulroney was his mentor and key Quebec advisor. Harper served in the Mulroney/Campbell gov't - as an MP's assistant. We're sure the youngster left a mark on big Brian. We know the relationship goes back further than either will admit publicly. Then there is the MacKay link. We wonder why Peter MacKay went back on his written agreement NOT to break up the old PROGRESSIVE Conservative Party. What did Harper have on MacKay that made him turn back on his written agreement? Did the Harper crew threaten to destroy MacKay's political career if he didn't help destroy the PCs? After all, under a young, non-lying Peter MacKay (the old PC's "golden boy"), or Bernard Lord, the PCs' collective hopes were on the upswing. The Reformers had been around along enough, and unsuccessfully, that they were really ready to bust after another election loss - or continue to be relegated to a "regional rump".
Is there a deeper relationship than what appears on the surface? Isn't there always?
Canada's Role In Global Warming - Next Steps...
We've had some challenges (to say the least) in beginning our battle on global warming and greenhouse gases. The Conservative gov't is creating even more roadblocks on the way to undermining the whole Kyoto process - simply to appease their American "overlords".
What comes next for Canada? The obvious choice is a liberal-democratic gov't., versus a neo-conservative one with clear designs on stopping any real movement on climate change. The best bet for the world would be this: All nations who want to sign, sign on. The ones who don't sign would be such a small number (US, China, India, maybe Canada), that practically the whole world would be united in the plan. One further step would assure us that the US, China, and India would sign on. It's really simple if the world really wanted to see real action: Trade measures or levies on goods produced in "non-green" countries. Even the US would come onside with this last measure, with the amount of production they're losing to China. The "new Kyoto" agreement would supercede the WTO, so China would have no recourse but to move quickly to becoming green. Just don't buy their stuff. I'm sure American and Canadian manufacturing sector workers would love this plan. The speed-bump will be the large, US-owned multi-nationals - like Walmart. They are hooked on cheap Chinese stuff. It's time our MNCs' "needs" come after our citizens'. After all, the MNCs are the ones who pushed all the production to China in the first place - leaving millions of North American workers out of work.
I do have further details on how such a plan would work - and work "extra-WTO", and will post more on future "New Kyoto" blog posts...
What comes next for Canada? The obvious choice is a liberal-democratic gov't., versus a neo-conservative one with clear designs on stopping any real movement on climate change. The best bet for the world would be this: All nations who want to sign, sign on. The ones who don't sign would be such a small number (US, China, India, maybe Canada), that practically the whole world would be united in the plan. One further step would assure us that the US, China, and India would sign on. It's really simple if the world really wanted to see real action: Trade measures or levies on goods produced in "non-green" countries. Even the US would come onside with this last measure, with the amount of production they're losing to China. The "new Kyoto" agreement would supercede the WTO, so China would have no recourse but to move quickly to becoming green. Just don't buy their stuff. I'm sure American and Canadian manufacturing sector workers would love this plan. The speed-bump will be the large, US-owned multi-nationals - like Walmart. They are hooked on cheap Chinese stuff. It's time our MNCs' "needs" come after our citizens'. After all, the MNCs are the ones who pushed all the production to China in the first place - leaving millions of North American workers out of work.
I do have further details on how such a plan would work - and work "extra-WTO", and will post more on future "New Kyoto" blog posts...
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Dinosaurs: Big Oil Stooges, Or Do They Really Believe This Stuff?
For years the Canadian Conservative Movement (backed by Big Oil) has shouted down Kyoto. With help from their big media supporters the Cons were able to make substantial noise about "the science" they didn't agree with, to create some public doubt - especially in Alberta. After creating enough noise and blockages in Parliament (while in opposition), they proceeded to turn around (once elected as "Canada's New Gov't.) and blame the Liberals - who ratified Kyoto (signing on to an international agreement) for "inaction". That's like the bully who kept the school kid from coming in from recess, then pointing out to the teacher that "he was late".
Luckily most Canadians support Kyoto, and feel strongly about our environment.
Now, in a new - most likely American-inspired - effort to appease Big Oil, the "Reform-a-Tory" bullies are trying to "disrupt class" by being the most vocal opponent of reasonable attempts to stop climate change. Once again being shills for Big Oil, the "Reform-a-Tory" bullies are loudly screaming out their opposition to Kyoto, or anything Kyoto-like, instead pushing for the useless shell-game efforts the US and Australia also support. Do nothing, rather than anything that might hurt the deep pockets of Big Oil.
Looking at the "Reform-a-Tory's" "evolution" (devolution?) from Federal PCs, to Reformers, to Reformers who destroyed and took over the last vestiges of "progressive" on the right, one wonders if they are just happy to be on the corporate payroll (via political support and future jobs), or are they really dull enough to believe what 2.13% of oil-company sponsored scientists say?
We always knew Conservatives were heavy on the corporate cheer-leading, but could it be that they really believe this stuff? Being a former resident of Alberta, and knowing a lot of conservatives personally (yeah, I'll admit it - they were nice when we were talking sports - except for their unnatural hatred for Toronto-based sports teams), I'll have to say "yeah" a lot of these guys actually do believe it. Cerebral, intellectual Liberals scratch our collective noggins when we attempt to fathom the victory of "pop culture/pop science" over real science. Being someone who has a science background - right up to grad school - I find it easy to read and understand "the science" (I hate when they call it that) of Kyoto. Perhaps a lot of the loudest, angriest (don't know why they're still angry - they've been in power for 2yrs now) conservatives just don't have the aptitude to understand Kyoto, or climate change and global warming. Like the slowest dinosaurs they didn't realize the world was changing around them until it was too late... And, isn't that what we call conservatives that are non-progressive and stuck in their early 20th century ways? Dinosaurs.
NDP - The "No Damn-use Party": Masters of The Witch Hunt? I Guess Not...
So now NDP MPs are falling over each other to get some of the spotlight that fellow brethren, Pat Martin is getting... Hmmm... Where do they start? How about accuse a Con MP of looking at pictures of his girlfriend. Now, being someone who's worked in the corporate/business world for quite a few years, I would say it is entirely inappropriate to be looking at anything like that in a workplace - no matter whom it comes from - let alone in our nation's Parliament. So, while their heart's were in the right place, their tactics were all wrong. I do stand behind the member's offense taken at having to see the images while at work. Pictures of scantily clad women - or men - are unacceptable in the workplace. I'm thinking that the MP was trying to openly display his lack of interest in the debate that was going on. He chose the wrong way of displaying it. The NDP MP should have made a better case about inappropriate images in the workplace... She failed to do so, and ended up apologizing to Parliament.
Next case: NDP candidate in Abbottsford, BC accuses Liberal candidate of trying to buy him out of running. Allegations turn out to be false, but the Liberal candidate's reputation is tarnished, and so are his chances of being elected. Just goes to show, you need to get your facts straight before randomly accusing people of things. In this case there should be more than just an apology from the NDP to the former Liberal candidate... They should be apologizing to the people of the riding. We also should be looking into what role the former NDP candidate is playing in the party. Is he still in the position to influence voters? To campaign and disseminate campaign information?
NDP marching orders must be something like: "Let's pretend we're the non-corrupt ones, while we accuse the other guys of being dishonest and sleazy... Use any means at your disposal... All we need to do is sling a lot of mud and maybe we can finish 3rd in the next election."
Men of substance - like Tommy Douglas - must be rolling over in their graves. Where is the NDP of the 60s and 70s - the party that used to focus on issues that mattered to average, working class Canadians?
Next case: NDP candidate in Abbottsford, BC accuses Liberal candidate of trying to buy him out of running. Allegations turn out to be false, but the Liberal candidate's reputation is tarnished, and so are his chances of being elected. Just goes to show, you need to get your facts straight before randomly accusing people of things. In this case there should be more than just an apology from the NDP to the former Liberal candidate... They should be apologizing to the people of the riding. We also should be looking into what role the former NDP candidate is playing in the party. Is he still in the position to influence voters? To campaign and disseminate campaign information?
NDP marching orders must be something like: "Let's pretend we're the non-corrupt ones, while we accuse the other guys of being dishonest and sleazy... Use any means at your disposal... All we need to do is sling a lot of mud and maybe we can finish 3rd in the next election."
Men of substance - like Tommy Douglas - must be rolling over in their graves. Where is the NDP of the 60s and 70s - the party that used to focus on issues that mattered to average, working class Canadians?
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
Harper Not Nearly As Tough As Trudeau On Defense
Well, the National Pest - Conservative PR-rag that it is - has finally given Liberals our due when it comes to the field of national defense. Like in every other field, we Liberals are true patriots when it comes to defense:
(from the National Post):
"Former prime minister Pierre Trudeau may still be widely reviled in the military community as a "pinko" who slashed the budget of the Canadian Forces in the '70s, but a new analysis done by Parliament's research branch ranks him as the top spender on defence in the last 37 years.
The figures, detailing the defence budget as a percentage of the country's gross domestic product, indicates Trudeau even outspent Progressive Conservative prime minister Brian Mulroney, who brought in a hawkish defence policy in the late '80s.
The figures also show the Harper Conservatives, who have portrayed themselves as being strong on defence, have a long way to go to match Trudeau's levels.
The spending dipped only slightly in the first few years of Mulroney's tenure and then started dropping as cutbacks were brought in under the Conservatives.
Liberal Senator Colin Kenny said the figures show the Harper government has to start doing more in terms of military spending.
"They talk the talk but when it comes time to walk the walk they're just not there," said Kenny. "They don't even come close to the so-called pinko days of Mr. Trudeau. Mr. Harper's got a long long way to go to match that."
In terms of spending on national defence as a percentage of federal government expenditures, Trudeau again leads the pack at 13.3% in 1970.
The Defence Department has made presentations to Treasury Board which would see its budget increased from a little more than $18-billion to $36-billion by 2025.
That figure would be about 1.3% of the country's projected GDP.
By comparison, Trudeau's defence spending came in at 2% of Canada's GDP."
We all know where that Liberal swagger comes from - not to mention our Party colours. Kudos to other bloggers who've pointed this out as well!
Anyone See The Size Of Schreiber's Harper File? Is Mr. Harper Lying?
This morning I watched in awe as Mr. Schreiber handed the committee a large (3"?) binder containing his correspondence with a certain Mr. Stephen Harper - who happens to reside at 24 Sussex Dr.
As with any Canadian with even a shred of intelligence, I find it VERY hard to believe that one piece of stationary did not find it's way to the PMO, considering it would have been delivered there. It is totally unbelievable that Mr. Harper was not at least AWARE of the letters via updates from staffers. I've been around political circles long enough to know that staffers will always update MPs, Ministers, and PMs on any matters of urgency, matters which may cause ... eh... "problems", and persistent writers. We know that Mr. Schrieber contacted Harper's office repeatedly.
For Mr. Harper to stand up in Parliament and state that he knew nothing of this, is blatantly false. He - at the very least - knew that his office was receiving letters, and his staffers would have updated him on details - even if he never opened the mail himself. If his staffers (all loyal Conservative hacks) did not apprise Mr. Harper of the details, then there is a Conservative cover-up of this affair. It's that simple. Harper either lied - or his "Team Conservative" is busy covering up his involvement (or protecting him from involvement). Either way it's a Conservative scandal.
As with any Canadian with even a shred of intelligence, I find it VERY hard to believe that one piece of stationary did not find it's way to the PMO, considering it would have been delivered there. It is totally unbelievable that Mr. Harper was not at least AWARE of the letters via updates from staffers. I've been around political circles long enough to know that staffers will always update MPs, Ministers, and PMs on any matters of urgency, matters which may cause ... eh... "problems", and persistent writers. We know that Mr. Schrieber contacted Harper's office repeatedly.
For Mr. Harper to stand up in Parliament and state that he knew nothing of this, is blatantly false. He - at the very least - knew that his office was receiving letters, and his staffers would have updated him on details - even if he never opened the mail himself. If his staffers (all loyal Conservative hacks) did not apprise Mr. Harper of the details, then there is a Conservative cover-up of this affair. It's that simple. Harper either lied - or his "Team Conservative" is busy covering up his involvement (or protecting him from involvement). Either way it's a Conservative scandal.
Monday, December 03, 2007
Conservative Language Bigotry?
Being a "son of the Prairies" I not-so-fondly recall Conservative hatred for our second national language. I recall the bumper stickers (which can still be seen on some pickups in AB and SK), and buttons. The anger that swept the Reform/Cons into seats across the Prairies included this anti-French, anti-immigrant, and pretty much anti-anything different xenophobia...
Reading this story today, I was reminded that the xenophobia still exists... Oh yeah, anti-political correctness mavens like to call these bigoted comments "jokes". Ha ha.
If a child in a school playground was subjected to such insolence and hatred, we'd be hauling off the instigators into counseling sessions and race relations seminars.
While I also feel that "political correctness" can be taken a bit far sometimes (for example, the Australian Santa's "ho-ho-hos"), there IS a point where the movement against political correctness/social justice crosses the boundary between "saying it like it is", and bigotry. While the media now-a-days seems to agree with these "straight-shooters" who "say it like it is" (in their perception), a lot of their comments are hateful, and do perpetuate racism, sexism, etc.
Reading this story today, I was reminded that the xenophobia still exists... Oh yeah, anti-political correctness mavens like to call these bigoted comments "jokes". Ha ha.
If a child in a school playground was subjected to such insolence and hatred, we'd be hauling off the instigators into counseling sessions and race relations seminars.
While I also feel that "political correctness" can be taken a bit far sometimes (for example, the Australian Santa's "ho-ho-hos"), there IS a point where the movement against political correctness/social justice crosses the boundary between "saying it like it is", and bigotry. While the media now-a-days seems to agree with these "straight-shooters" who "say it like it is" (in their perception), a lot of their comments are hateful, and do perpetuate racism, sexism, etc.
Harper To Danny Williams: Suck On This, Danny Boy!
After a "cordial" (according to PMO staff) meeting, Danny Williams and PM Harper "agreed to disagree" (according to Williams) on issues concerning offshore resource revenues and "revenue sharing".
Newfoundland feels it is being deprived of $10 Billion over the next 14yrs due to Harper's refusal not to honor a promise to exclude oil and gas revenues from formulas used to calculate federal support payments under equalization.
Harpo - in typical Harpo fashion - refused to speak to media after the meeting.
Is Caesar unhappy?
*Thanks to the blogger who posted this image... ; )
Kudos To Australia! Fresh Thinking Pushes Aside Big Oil Conservatism
In what is most likely to be a HUGE embarrassment to Conservative big-oil backers everywhere, the newly elected Australian PM, Kevin Rudd, pushed forward with his first major policy initiative today - ratifying Kyoto.
Like the podium in front of Mr. Rudd says, "Fresh Thinking". Fresh, as in the opposite of "conservative"...
Take that Shrub & Bush! Your Big Oil masters must be shaking in their boots...
More Conservative Scandal
J-P Blackburn - Federal Conservative Labour Minister feels he can tool around the country on taxpayer's dollars. According to Torstar, Blackburn used private jets (no Air Canada for us, no sir!) to travel between his riding and Ottawa, and sent the bill to Canadian taxpayers via the Economic Development Agency of Canada - a department under his responsibility, no less.
According to Torstar Blackburn spent around $68,000 of our tax-paid dollars to shuttle mostly himself - all alone on most flights - on 14 aircraft rentals between April and August - not even a whole year. To put that in perspective a Federal Cabinet Minister generally earns roughly $150,000 per year. To add (from taxpayer's coffers) almost 50% to your salary - in only 5 months - in the way of perks is a crime against taxpayers across the country. Flight records - according to Torstar - indicate JP was the LONE PASSENGER on most of these flights.
Where's the accountability Mr. Harper? Maybe it only matters when Liberals are in government? Don't let the bitter irony bite you on the ass in your search for "accountability".
According to Torstar Blackburn spent around $68,000 of our tax-paid dollars to shuttle mostly himself - all alone on most flights - on 14 aircraft rentals between April and August - not even a whole year. To put that in perspective a Federal Cabinet Minister generally earns roughly $150,000 per year. To add (from taxpayer's coffers) almost 50% to your salary - in only 5 months - in the way of perks is a crime against taxpayers across the country. Flight records - according to Torstar - indicate JP was the LONE PASSENGER on most of these flights.
Where's the accountability Mr. Harper? Maybe it only matters when Liberals are in government? Don't let the bitter irony bite you on the ass in your search for "accountability".
Liberal House Leader, Ralph Goodale Visits Surrey
STAR Liberal MP (and former multi-role Cabinet Minister) Ralph Goodale visited Surrey this past Friday to attend Sukh Dhaliwal's annual riding appreciation dinner. The event was very entertaining, and well-attended by a large (several hundred people) and diverse crowd. Several key Lower Mainland Liberals were in attendance. The Grand Taj Banquet Hall put on a good spread - as usual - and the service was exceptional.
Mr. Goodale's speech was well-received, as he shared stories about his involvement in the South Asian Community, the Liberal Party's strong ethnic support, and missed opportunities by the Harper Conservatives. He also touched on the perils of the conservative agenda.
I laud Mr. Goodale on his efforts to spread his message of liberal moderation right across Canada. He has taken considerable time on his weekends to share the Liberal message of progress and nation-building with Canadians who are eagerly searching for an alternative to the angry neo-con government we currently have in place.
Friday, November 23, 2007
Conservative Scandal - What Did Harper Know, and When Did He Know It?
All together now... C-O-N-S-E-R-V-A-T-I-V-E Scandal. Let's make sure these words are on our lips every time we speak... Doesn't matter what the issue. Using the Gomery affair as the ridiculous example, it doesn't matter how "connected" (or not) the matters are to the party or it's leadership, let's make sure we learned a lesson from the slick Conservative PR machine and use this phrase ("Conservative scandal") at every turn. Throw in the "what did Harper know" every now and then for good measure.
I challenge Liberal bloggers to ensure the use of this phrase in every blog they write for the foreseeable future.
Repeat after me...
Conservative scandal,
Conservative scandal,
Conservative scandal...
Has a kind of comfortable ring to it, doesn't it?
I challenge Liberal bloggers to ensure the use of this phrase in every blog they write for the foreseeable future.
Repeat after me...
Conservative scandal,
Conservative scandal,
Conservative scandal...
Has a kind of comfortable ring to it, doesn't it?
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Senate Referendum
What the h@ll is everyone's problem with our body of "sober second thought". The Cons hope to taint the institution, then tie it to us exclusively. It's time we Liberals did something to raise public awareness on the importance of the Senate. It's easy to criticize something no-one properly understands...
We are horrible at educating the public on liberal (small l) values. Time to get to work and convince the people of Canada that we ARE a Liberal nation.
We are horrible at educating the public on liberal (small l) values. Time to get to work and convince the people of Canada that we ARE a Liberal nation.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Fall 2007 Federal Election Debate Coverage...
"When All Other Means Have Failed, It Is But Righteous To Raise The Sword..." And with those words Canada's "Natural Governing Party" decides to go to war to defend Canadian interests.
Stephen Harper wants the fight - he wants it badly. It was so obvious with his move to "prime time" for the throne speech. He wanted all Canadians to watch a gentle lady deliver his "toned down" throne speech. Can anyone recall the last time a throne speech was delivered in "prime time"? Mr. Harper wants us all to think we're listening to a "State of The Nation Address" South of our (still divided) border. Mr. Harper, we still do things the Canadian way up here!
Dion to Harper should sound like this: "Mr. Harper - you wanted this election so badly, you rolled out your platform planks in a throne speech delivered unnaturally during prime time - JUST so the largest number of Canadians could hear it. Please be honest with Canadians and admit this election was YOUR choice."
Stephen Harper wants the fight - he wants it badly. It was so obvious with his move to "prime time" for the throne speech. He wanted all Canadians to watch a gentle lady deliver his "toned down" throne speech. Can anyone recall the last time a throne speech was delivered in "prime time"? Mr. Harper wants us all to think we're listening to a "State of The Nation Address" South of our (still divided) border. Mr. Harper, we still do things the Canadian way up here!
Dion to Harper should sound like this: "Mr. Harper - you wanted this election so badly, you rolled out your platform planks in a throne speech delivered unnaturally during prime time - JUST so the largest number of Canadians could hear it. Please be honest with Canadians and admit this election was YOUR choice."
Thursday, October 04, 2007
China Beckons...
With the US economy tanking, it's time for us Canadians to look elsewhere as our key trading partner (something this blogger has believed firmly for a long time). Conservatives would love to see us "embed" ourselves further into the US. One can recall the calls to adopt the US currency, and further merge our economies.
Chile recently saw a jump in 140% in it's exports by signing a free trade pact with China - the first nation in the Americas to do so. China has now replaced (get this) the US as Chile's top trading partner.
Times are a-changin'... Time for us to change with them. The next great step in the Canadian experience has to be to rise above the region-specificity we learned from bodies like NATO, and truly become a "world nation". We are loved and respected by the whole world. There is much to gain from expanding that relationship. Closer ties to the Far East, South Asia, and the EU should be key planks in any Liberal foreign policy platform.
Chile recently saw a jump in 140% in it's exports by signing a free trade pact with China - the first nation in the Americas to do so. China has now replaced (get this) the US as Chile's top trading partner.
Times are a-changin'... Time for us to change with them. The next great step in the Canadian experience has to be to rise above the region-specificity we learned from bodies like NATO, and truly become a "world nation". We are loved and respected by the whole world. There is much to gain from expanding that relationship. Closer ties to the Far East, South Asia, and the EU should be key planks in any Liberal foreign policy platform.
Bernier Asks for UN Assistance???
What??? The very same Conservatives who endlessly bashed the United Nations; who did everything they could to ridicule the body and call it ineffective; who attacked the body at every turn during the Gulf War (II) and the lead-up to it... These very same Cons are now sucking up to the UN... Why? To ask for a "special envoy" to Afghanistan... Remember that "special envoys" to Iraq who they listened to so well? They wouldn't even listen to the majority of UN states when they opposed the illegal invasion of a sovereign state (Iraq).
Nice to see Conservatives finding some use for the UN - even if it is just to help justify a presence of Canadian troops in that country. Why can't NATO finish the job? Is NATO that weak, indecisive, incapable? Is NATO a watered-down body that's lost it's bite? Oh wait - am I using adjectives for NATO that some right wing individuals used to describe the UN a few years ago? My how times have changed...
Nice to see Conservatives finding some use for the UN - even if it is just to help justify a presence of Canadian troops in that country. Why can't NATO finish the job? Is NATO that weak, indecisive, incapable? Is NATO a watered-down body that's lost it's bite? Oh wait - am I using adjectives for NATO that some right wing individuals used to describe the UN a few years ago? My how times have changed...
Monday, July 16, 2007
Cuba Pt. 2 (or Left vs. Right, the Ideological Battle Continues
PM Cartman's recent foray into "America's back yard" gives one reason to think... What are the "New American Century" bunch up to now? Striking out in Iraq and Afghanistan, with a road-block in Iran means "let's find something closer to home" - maybe find another Cold War - yeah... that's the ticket..."
It's a simple (or not so simple) left vs. right thing. To the NeoCon world of Bush and Harper, right wing dictators are OK, while left wing dictators are not. Death squads in Columbia have been much more open and callous in their actions than the results of Chinese prisons, however, I think both are equally bad. Being a Liberal - one who embraces the CENTER of the political spectrum I choose not to embrace either left wing or right wing nut cases.
Harper will follow his NeoCon "New American Century" friends, and embrace all the South/Central American petty dictators. You see, America now sees a threat much closer than Iraq, South Korea, or China... It is people like Chavez. Castro is no longer a threat, but his ideological descendants are. Especially since they are now armed with more than Kalashnikovs... Now they have economic power. Harper, Bush, Cheney, et al need to shore up local oil reserves, and protect this hemisphere. Their NeoCon paranoia is now focused on perceived "threats" in this hemisphere (where it is easier to send troops and money - and exchange guns for drugs if necessary). "Must stop the spread of socialism". There needs to be a "clear and present danger" to confront the military industrial complex.
If it wasn't all so obviously transparent it would be funny. The battle of ideologues goes on. Left wing wackos vs. right wing wackos. If these f'n idiots have their way, there would be no moderation left in the world, only the ideological battle between "left and right", "communism and capitalism", "good vs. evil", "black vs. white", "East vs. West". This is what drives the cogs of their conservative-owned military industrial complex. We must sell more widgets to "tribe X" in "Eastern Blah-blah land". The only way to do that is to guarantee regional stability and rampant free enterprise with little or no controls (not even to protect consumers, if we can get away with it). Oh yeah, and personal freedoms, quality of life, and the environment can all go by the wayside. Share-holder value all the way!
It's a simple (or not so simple) left vs. right thing. To the NeoCon world of Bush and Harper, right wing dictators are OK, while left wing dictators are not. Death squads in Columbia have been much more open and callous in their actions than the results of Chinese prisons, however, I think both are equally bad. Being a Liberal - one who embraces the CENTER of the political spectrum I choose not to embrace either left wing or right wing nut cases.
Harper will follow his NeoCon "New American Century" friends, and embrace all the South/Central American petty dictators. You see, America now sees a threat much closer than Iraq, South Korea, or China... It is people like Chavez. Castro is no longer a threat, but his ideological descendants are. Especially since they are now armed with more than Kalashnikovs... Now they have economic power. Harper, Bush, Cheney, et al need to shore up local oil reserves, and protect this hemisphere. Their NeoCon paranoia is now focused on perceived "threats" in this hemisphere (where it is easier to send troops and money - and exchange guns for drugs if necessary). "Must stop the spread of socialism". There needs to be a "clear and present danger" to confront the military industrial complex.
If it wasn't all so obviously transparent it would be funny. The battle of ideologues goes on. Left wing wackos vs. right wing wackos. If these f'n idiots have their way, there would be no moderation left in the world, only the ideological battle between "left and right", "communism and capitalism", "good vs. evil", "black vs. white", "East vs. West". This is what drives the cogs of their conservative-owned military industrial complex. We must sell more widgets to "tribe X" in "Eastern Blah-blah land". The only way to do that is to guarantee regional stability and rampant free enterprise with little or no controls (not even to protect consumers, if we can get away with it). Oh yeah, and personal freedoms, quality of life, and the environment can all go by the wayside. Share-holder value all the way!
Monday, June 11, 2007
Remember THIS face. Remember the name. Remember this Scandal
O'Connor - Santa Claus For Defense Contractors???
"Scathing Report Shows Rampant Conservative Sole-Sourcing of Military Contracts
Seems like I recall posting a personal editorial regarding Conservative defense contracts - back in October...
Hmmm... Here's the link...
http://westerngrit.blogspot.com/2006_06_01_archive.html
"Scathing Report Shows Rampant Conservative Sole-Sourcing of Military Contracts
June 11, 2007
OTTAWA - The Harper government must place billions of dollars in military purchases on hold in light of a scathing report that shows a spike in sole-sourced military contracts under the former defence lobbyist who is now Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor, Liberal Defence Critic Denis Coderre said. "Seems like I recall posting a personal editorial regarding Conservative defense contracts - back in October...
Hmmm... Here's the link...
http://westerngrit.blogspot.com/2006_06_01_archive.html
Saturday, June 09, 2007
Bono blasts Harper, accuses him of blocking progress on Africa aid
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/g8_summit_africa
Gotta love Bono. He doesn't pull any punches. Really like these lines:
"We know who's causing the trouble and who isn't. And we know that Canada blocked progress. We know that Harper blocked it."
Well, well, well. If the cajone-less Canadian media didn't take a bold shot at Harper, at least Bono is still there...
Gotta love Bono. He doesn't pull any punches. Really like these lines:
"We know who's causing the trouble and who isn't. And we know that Canada blocked progress. We know that Harper blocked it."
He described the prime minister as out of step with Canadians who enjoy a prosperous economy and surplus public finances and would like to help others."
Bono said he doesn't believe the prime minister was too busy to meet with him at the summit - the leaders of the United States, Germany, France and Britain managed to do so.
"It's not the pop stars he doesn't want to meet. It's the movement that we represent," Bono said.
"I said some years ago that the world needs more Canadas, and I meant it. I can't believe that this Canada has become a laggard. I think he's out of sync with the people."
Well, well, well. If the cajone-less Canadian media didn't take a bold shot at Harper, at least Bono is still there...
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Is It Just Me...?
Is it just me, or has the environment ceased being an "issue"? Is Harper winning on this front? Has he been successful in convincing Canadians, that like the fabled "Kaiser Sose", the environment doesn't exist? I can see Kevin Spacey right now doing the "and poof, he's gone" thing with his fingers when we talk about the E-N-V-I-R-O-N-M-E-N-T.
Harper managed to produce a rambling budget that had a lot of Canadians scratching our collective skulls saying, "just what is he trying to do here"...
Here's what he's done:
1) Removed the environment as an "issue"
2) When was the last time anyone heard of health care???
3) Created so much confusion on the Hill, that his MPs don't even get noticed
Pretty nice trifecta so far. Once we start doing something (if we find the cash), Harper's little charade may be up... Here's to hoping we have what it takes.
Harper managed to produce a rambling budget that had a lot of Canadians scratching our collective skulls saying, "just what is he trying to do here"...
Here's what he's done:
1) Removed the environment as an "issue"
2) When was the last time anyone heard of health care???
3) Created so much confusion on the Hill, that his MPs don't even get noticed
Pretty nice trifecta so far. Once we start doing something (if we find the cash), Harper's little charade may be up... Here's to hoping we have what it takes.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Harper's Angry Conservative Outburst No Mistake...
Stephen Harper clearly planned his "sensational" shot at all Liberals today - how else would you distract our "sound-byte happy" media from a crappy budget into which you threw ALL your "best" conservative and stolen liberal ideas???
All Harper did was buy a few days of news away from a truly "limp" budget. While his idea may have worked on the budget front, PM Wimpy has cast more light on the "lying Defense Minister affair".
Wouldn't we all love to be flies on the wall of Harpo's office today? A budget that was as pointless and lame as one could get - one destined to lead Canada steps closer to budget deficits in the near future. A media focused on he - the great leader/dictator - because his caucus and cabinet are a bunch of mutes who could never divert attention away from him. A Defense Minister (and former officer) who it appears lies to Parliament and to Canadians (who knows what other deceit the former defense industry lobbyist hides?). A party living a lie (for how long?)...
If it wasn't so typically anal-retentively conservative this would almost be funny...
All Harper did was buy a few days of news away from a truly "limp" budget. While his idea may have worked on the budget front, PM Wimpy has cast more light on the "lying Defense Minister affair".
Wouldn't we all love to be flies on the wall of Harpo's office today? A budget that was as pointless and lame as one could get - one destined to lead Canada steps closer to budget deficits in the near future. A media focused on he - the great leader/dictator - because his caucus and cabinet are a bunch of mutes who could never divert attention away from him. A Defense Minister (and former officer) who it appears lies to Parliament and to Canadians (who knows what other deceit the former defense industry lobbyist hides?). A party living a lie (for how long?)...
If it wasn't so typically anal-retentively conservative this would almost be funny...
Monday, March 19, 2007
"Reformers" Hate Quebec: Why We Should Be Afraid Of A Harper Majority
For 13 years we watched as "full-of-hate" members of the West-centric Reform Party (turned Alliance, turned whatever that thing is that took over the federal PCs) evangelized about how much they hated things: minority rights; immigration; women's rights; "special interest groups"; and one thing in particular: Quebec. Suddenly, over the past year - as Harper's crowd struggles to survive at the mercy of a weak minority parliament - we are asked to believe he has changed to a moderate? Just because of a few conspicuous PR moves??? C'mon Canada - we need to wake up!
Harper has certainly made a few "centrist" platitudes - to try to win enough votes for his majority. But, I believe his gambit is a more heinous one. The Harper Reformers were always at one in saying that they felt Canada was better without Quebec. I lived in the West all my life, and got sick of the Reform-a-tory preaching about "letting Quebec go". Living in small town Saskatchewan, the larger cities, and Calgary, I heard - every day - the relentless "hate-speak" by just about everyone you could read as a "reformer-type". They railed against Quebec - even if they had no reason to, or had never been there themselves. They HATE Quebec with a capital H. Harper will use a majority to allow his little "nation" of Quebec to separate. Why? What every Albertan dreams of: more power in Canada (remember: Alberta "wants in" - even though they've been setting the agenda for almost 10yrs now). A Canada without Quebec makes Alberta the number two power-broker, and with all that oil, perhaps number one. Of course most Albertan NeoCons have never paused to think of the serious repercussions of a Canada without Quebec. In the backs of their minds they think that if things go south, they can also "go South" by joining their Yankee friends.
I have neo-Con acquaintances in Alberta who clap with glee when they hear about Quebecers who speak of separating. When I ask them why, the only answers they have are: 1) They feel tired of Albertans "propping up" Quebec, and 2) They figure if Quebec leaves Canada, Conservative Albertans will benefit greatly from that many fewer "left of center" votes - effectively shifting the power base in Canada to Alberta.
Harper's expression of Quebec as a "nation" is not the problem here. What is, is the context in which he did it. It was not simply a move to beat us Liberals to the punch. It was part of a much bigger game. A game he plans to play out to the end with the oblivious participation of his Quebec Liberal friends (Charest, etal). He is, in part, replaying a game that has played out historically, with Conservatives bringing Canada to the brink - before a Liberal PM brings us back. Mulroney roused a lot of Quebecers simply by playing up "the question" via Meech and Charlottetown, and federal Liberals had to work hard to put the pieces back together - almost at the expense of their own party. Harper will attempt what appear to be similar measures (to Mulroney's), but without the same intentions.
We need to challenge and fight the "Reform-a-tories" as they attempt to change the face of Canada as we know it. They will try to change/kill many of Canada's institutions, marginalize the weak and underprivileged, and do what they can to break up this great country - all to appease their Wild West, gun-slinging, power base.
Harper has certainly made a few "centrist" platitudes - to try to win enough votes for his majority. But, I believe his gambit is a more heinous one. The Harper Reformers were always at one in saying that they felt Canada was better without Quebec. I lived in the West all my life, and got sick of the Reform-a-tory preaching about "letting Quebec go". Living in small town Saskatchewan, the larger cities, and Calgary, I heard - every day - the relentless "hate-speak" by just about everyone you could read as a "reformer-type". They railed against Quebec - even if they had no reason to, or had never been there themselves. They HATE Quebec with a capital H. Harper will use a majority to allow his little "nation" of Quebec to separate. Why? What every Albertan dreams of: more power in Canada (remember: Alberta "wants in" - even though they've been setting the agenda for almost 10yrs now). A Canada without Quebec makes Alberta the number two power-broker, and with all that oil, perhaps number one. Of course most Albertan NeoCons have never paused to think of the serious repercussions of a Canada without Quebec. In the backs of their minds they think that if things go south, they can also "go South" by joining their Yankee friends.
I have neo-Con acquaintances in Alberta who clap with glee when they hear about Quebecers who speak of separating. When I ask them why, the only answers they have are: 1) They feel tired of Albertans "propping up" Quebec, and 2) They figure if Quebec leaves Canada, Conservative Albertans will benefit greatly from that many fewer "left of center" votes - effectively shifting the power base in Canada to Alberta.
Harper's expression of Quebec as a "nation" is not the problem here. What is, is the context in which he did it. It was not simply a move to beat us Liberals to the punch. It was part of a much bigger game. A game he plans to play out to the end with the oblivious participation of his Quebec Liberal friends (Charest, etal). He is, in part, replaying a game that has played out historically, with Conservatives bringing Canada to the brink - before a Liberal PM brings us back. Mulroney roused a lot of Quebecers simply by playing up "the question" via Meech and Charlottetown, and federal Liberals had to work hard to put the pieces back together - almost at the expense of their own party. Harper will attempt what appear to be similar measures (to Mulroney's), but without the same intentions.
We need to challenge and fight the "Reform-a-tories" as they attempt to change the face of Canada as we know it. They will try to change/kill many of Canada's institutions, marginalize the weak and underprivileged, and do what they can to break up this great country - all to appease their Wild West, gun-slinging, power base.
Saturday, March 10, 2007
HateMyTory
Now here is something that could really use a Canadian version. Lots of Tories to hate here (even if they're all not true Tories)... Perhaps the founders could be interested in making this a worldwide site to rate conservatives. I've sent an email to the site administrators.
http://hatemytory.com/
This particular admonition is hilarious:
"No Tories were harmed in the making of this website. We have endeavoured to ensure all the photographs used are in the public domain or are licencenced under Creative Commons or a similar licence"
http://hatemytory.com/
This particular admonition is hilarious:
"No Tories were harmed in the making of this website. We have endeavoured to ensure all the photographs used are in the public domain or are licencenced under Creative Commons or a similar licence"
Friday, March 09, 2007
Harper's Alberta Style Environmental Program: Give Big Oil Money & Let Them Pretend To Be Responsible
Well we always knew Harper was a mouthpiece for Big Oil. Yesterday he proved it. By giving a $150000000 "gift" to his friends in the oil industry, Harper hopes to get his environmental detractors to just "shut up" and go away. In essence, Harpo has gifted one of the richest group of transplanted Americans/pseud0-Canadians a whole lot of cash they don't deserve.
Having lived in Alberta for years one knows that all the Big Oil (and wannabe "Little Oil" guys) are die-hard (usually card-carrying) Cons - typically of the hardcore Reform variety. I spent many a day commuting to downtown Calgary on the "C-train" hearing oil-pushers preaching to each other the values of the Reform movement. God - it was almost a religion with these nut-cases. Not even the most die-hard urban Canadian Liberal can understand how angry and "preacher-like" these people are. Hateful bashing of the "East" was something you actually heard in discussions between total strangers on a daily basis. The one thing most of them seemed to have in common is kneeling at the altar of Big Oil.
Today, Harper has consolidated his position as "friend of Big Oil". He did it in a way that some regular Joe Canadians might be fooled into thinking was supportive of environmentalism. This is a very frightening move for Canadians. There is ABSOLUTELY nothing that indicates that Big Oil will use this money effectively - or in any way to protect the environment. Rather, Harper's designation of funds indicates that the money will most likely be used by the industry for "studies". Hmmm... wonder what these studies will say? Oh, oh, oh!!! Mr. Kotter, I know: They will say there is no such thing as the "so-called global warming", and we need to pull out of Kyoto.
Great anti-environmental move Mr. Harper. You truly are a mad genious. True neoCon through and through. Someone please do something to stop this madman before he dismantles the very system that keeps us a "centerist" country.
Having lived in Alberta for years one knows that all the Big Oil (and wannabe "Little Oil" guys) are die-hard (usually card-carrying) Cons - typically of the hardcore Reform variety. I spent many a day commuting to downtown Calgary on the "C-train" hearing oil-pushers preaching to each other the values of the Reform movement. God - it was almost a religion with these nut-cases. Not even the most die-hard urban Canadian Liberal can understand how angry and "preacher-like" these people are. Hateful bashing of the "East" was something you actually heard in discussions between total strangers on a daily basis. The one thing most of them seemed to have in common is kneeling at the altar of Big Oil.
Today, Harper has consolidated his position as "friend of Big Oil". He did it in a way that some regular Joe Canadians might be fooled into thinking was supportive of environmentalism. This is a very frightening move for Canadians. There is ABSOLUTELY nothing that indicates that Big Oil will use this money effectively - or in any way to protect the environment. Rather, Harper's designation of funds indicates that the money will most likely be used by the industry for "studies". Hmmm... wonder what these studies will say? Oh, oh, oh!!! Mr. Kotter, I know: They will say there is no such thing as the "so-called global warming", and we need to pull out of Kyoto.
Great anti-environmental move Mr. Harper. You truly are a mad genious. True neoCon through and through. Someone please do something to stop this madman before he dismantles the very system that keeps us a "centerist" country.
Thursday, March 08, 2007
Grit Stuff - National Women's Day; TDH Strategies
Happy National Women's Day. I have one comment on this: We need to see more vocal action from women's groups on the direction this quite sexist government is going. The barrage of anti-feminist rhetoric coming from the American neoCon camp and neoCon supporting media has really tainted people's thoughts here North of the border. If someone speaks out they get shut down as "the lunatic fringe", "pinkos", or worse. As Canadians we often don't think of the implications of allowing American media, movies, and "culture" to have free reign in Canadian markets. Where is the CRTC? Being dismantled by the Cons... As Liberals we can carve out some tractable ground on the topic of Canadian cultural industries. We need to ensure the sexist, melting-pot, mono-cultural media in the US stops interfering here, North of the border.
TDH Strategies (Jonathan) - Good work on your "5 Point Plan". I think the part of the plan that I have the most interest in is an area I have long thought we are weak in: getting the Dream Team out there. We have an incredible team of experts available to engage the public. We have used them poorly. Heck, as Liberals one thing we pride ourselves on is the academic, multi-cultural, and legal/constitutional expertise we have within our party membership. We nominate very qualified candidates who we know will be able to negotiate a complex international trade deal, discuss peace, intelligently approach Kyoto, or embark on a UN endeavor. Time to get these experts in the field.
If anything, we're allowing too much attention to be focused on Harper vs. Dion. In a comparison the public is always going to remember the PM. People have trouble remembering politician's names (less so than hockey players), but quite a few will remember who the PM is. While Mr. Dion brushes up on strategy the dream team can spend time engaging the public in key ridings across the country. Remember Mr. Cretien had a "brat pack" of talent which he used to incredible advantage pre-93. Sheila Copps, Don Boudria and crew were a constant thorn in Mulroney's side. I think that Ignatieff, Kennedy, Hall-Findlay, and Rae can fill that role quite well.
The challenge we've had in effectively engaging the public goes back beyond our current leader's office... Mr. Martin's (whom I supported in his leadership bid) office had challenges in communicating effectively with their own party members, let alone the general public. Perhaps leadership styles were different (Mr. Cretien was very cognizant of showing everyone he had balls - which seemed to capture the attention of the public), but that can't be a reason not to continue efforts to engage the public and media via the rest of the team.
If we can show we have a strong team, vs. the "cult of secrecy and personality" that Team Harper has, we can present a clear diametrical opposite to the public. Following some of the great ideas TDH has put into words will certainly help us in reaching our combined goal, and ultimate victory.
TDH Strategies (Jonathan) - Good work on your "5 Point Plan". I think the part of the plan that I have the most interest in is an area I have long thought we are weak in: getting the Dream Team out there. We have an incredible team of experts available to engage the public. We have used them poorly. Heck, as Liberals one thing we pride ourselves on is the academic, multi-cultural, and legal/constitutional expertise we have within our party membership. We nominate very qualified candidates who we know will be able to negotiate a complex international trade deal, discuss peace, intelligently approach Kyoto, or embark on a UN endeavor. Time to get these experts in the field.
If anything, we're allowing too much attention to be focused on Harper vs. Dion. In a comparison the public is always going to remember the PM. People have trouble remembering politician's names (less so than hockey players), but quite a few will remember who the PM is. While Mr. Dion brushes up on strategy the dream team can spend time engaging the public in key ridings across the country. Remember Mr. Cretien had a "brat pack" of talent which he used to incredible advantage pre-93. Sheila Copps, Don Boudria and crew were a constant thorn in Mulroney's side. I think that Ignatieff, Kennedy, Hall-Findlay, and Rae can fill that role quite well.
The challenge we've had in effectively engaging the public goes back beyond our current leader's office... Mr. Martin's (whom I supported in his leadership bid) office had challenges in communicating effectively with their own party members, let alone the general public. Perhaps leadership styles were different (Mr. Cretien was very cognizant of showing everyone he had balls - which seemed to capture the attention of the public), but that can't be a reason not to continue efforts to engage the public and media via the rest of the team.
If we can show we have a strong team, vs. the "cult of secrecy and personality" that Team Harper has, we can present a clear diametrical opposite to the public. Following some of the great ideas TDH has put into words will certainly help us in reaching our combined goal, and ultimate victory.
Monday, March 05, 2007
Stephen Harper: A Comedic Take Oh His Party's Anti-Immigrant Tilt
Once again we see the anti-immigrant sentiment of the federal Conservatives rear its ugly head - even with this minority Parliament softened neo-Con lite government... It was so apparent that these Cons despise the Immigration and Refugee Board, and will do what they can to disparage it - including attacking Liberal MPs whose family may be appointed members (even if they were appointed by a former Tory PM). What a lot of the commentary on these blogs missed was that Harper really would like to completely reform the Immigration Dept. to meet a more anti-immigrant standard, and his first step will be to attack review boards and immigration judges - the same way he is attempting to attack our justice system.
Yesterday, Harper's Calgary deputy - Jason Kenney - decided to take a shot at highly qualified immigrants who are unable to find work in Canada due to systemic challenges, as well as a lack of recognition of credentials. Rather than address this issue properly, Kenney called the "PhD cabbie" a "myth". Wow. You see, the only immigrants the Cons want in Canada are of the "temporary foreign worker" variety. Just enough to work the Alberta tarsands. Once Fort MacMurray dries up, then they'll want to send them all back, in typical conservative fashion. They couldn't care less if a foreign trained doctor or engineer can't find work.
The following are excerpts from a conversation which may or may not have happened (although we would assume it is quite obvious these discussions happen in "Reform-a-Tory" backrooms all the time):
PM Harpo: "Folks, we need to shore up some of our socio-Con vote by kinda hinting what we really think of immigration..."
Anonymous Con MP with duct-tape over mouth: (PM removes duct tape) "Yeah, can't stand those 'special interest' groups Steevo... It's like these people get all the rights... Whatever happened to rights for middle-aged mainstream males???"
PM Harpo: "(Chuckle, smirk, sneer, chuckle, chuckle) That was a great thought, unfortunately, you know _________, we can't just do what we want to do until the damn Liberal lemming Ontario voters give us a majority... Maybe if we see some change from those lazy Maritimers. Until then, I'm sorry, but I need to stick this duct tape back on your mouth"
Anonymous Con MP: "Sorry sir... I know, I know... anything for power. Alberta advantage uber alles".
Anonymous Con MP #2 (also with tape over mouth): "(Harpo removes duct tape) Steevie, can we just turn back their boats, kinda like that 'Commie-gateway Maru' that sailed into Vancouver Harbour years ago?"
PM Harpo: "I wish I could ________, I wish I could. Those $%*&s tried to get an apology out of me last year when I was in Surrey BC, but I gave them the old Calgary two-step, so I could do the photo-op and get outta there. You wouldn't believe it, but they actually tried to feed me some of their food. Good thing the security detail grabbed the would-be server and tossed her into Guantanimo North".
Anonymous former PC MP (no duct tape): "Why can't we all just get along? Some of those people are my friends. I actually like the smell of their food..."
All Con MPs: "Boo, hiss, hiss, boo..."
PM Harpo: "Can we get the former Tories some duct tape for caucus meetings? These meetings are for 'reformed thinkers' only".
Anonymous Duct-taped MP #3: "(Harpo removes duct tape) Why don't we just put in real conservative social policy right now - so all those damned immigrants won't come in and vote Liberal? We can even say nice things and smile while we cut those programs. Let's get rid of multi-culturalism today".
PM Harpo: "Great thoughts people, but you know we can't act unless we have the majority that is our destiny. We just need Canadians to buy into our fake vision for Canada".
Jason Kenney: "Maybe we need to quash all this crap about 'so-called' PhD taxi-drivers... I'm so sick of hearing about that".
PM Harpo: "I like where this is going... How about this, we can call it: the ""myth of the PhD driving a taxi""Just public enough for real Canadians to hear it..."
All Con MPs: (Raising hands and clapping) "Hmmmphhhh" (duct-tape still over mouths).
Someone needs to stop this conservative media-backed neoCon machine - before a majority accidentally happens.
Yesterday, Harper's Calgary deputy - Jason Kenney - decided to take a shot at highly qualified immigrants who are unable to find work in Canada due to systemic challenges, as well as a lack of recognition of credentials. Rather than address this issue properly, Kenney called the "PhD cabbie" a "myth". Wow. You see, the only immigrants the Cons want in Canada are of the "temporary foreign worker" variety. Just enough to work the Alberta tarsands. Once Fort MacMurray dries up, then they'll want to send them all back, in typical conservative fashion. They couldn't care less if a foreign trained doctor or engineer can't find work.
The following are excerpts from a conversation which may or may not have happened (although we would assume it is quite obvious these discussions happen in "Reform-a-Tory" backrooms all the time):
PM Harpo: "Folks, we need to shore up some of our socio-Con vote by kinda hinting what we really think of immigration..."
Anonymous Con MP with duct-tape over mouth: (PM removes duct tape) "Yeah, can't stand those 'special interest' groups Steevo... It's like these people get all the rights... Whatever happened to rights for middle-aged mainstream males???"
PM Harpo: "(Chuckle, smirk, sneer, chuckle, chuckle) That was a great thought, unfortunately, you know _________, we can't just do what we want to do until the damn Liberal lemming Ontario voters give us a majority... Maybe if we see some change from those lazy Maritimers. Until then, I'm sorry, but I need to stick this duct tape back on your mouth"
Anonymous Con MP: "Sorry sir... I know, I know... anything for power. Alberta advantage uber alles".
Anonymous Con MP #2 (also with tape over mouth): "(Harpo removes duct tape) Steevie, can we just turn back their boats, kinda like that 'Commie-gateway Maru' that sailed into Vancouver Harbour years ago?"
PM Harpo: "I wish I could ________, I wish I could. Those $%*&s tried to get an apology out of me last year when I was in Surrey BC, but I gave them the old Calgary two-step, so I could do the photo-op and get outta there. You wouldn't believe it, but they actually tried to feed me some of their food. Good thing the security detail grabbed the would-be server and tossed her into Guantanimo North".
Anonymous former PC MP (no duct tape): "Why can't we all just get along? Some of those people are my friends. I actually like the smell of their food..."
All Con MPs: "Boo, hiss, hiss, boo..."
PM Harpo: "Can we get the former Tories some duct tape for caucus meetings? These meetings are for 'reformed thinkers' only".
Anonymous Duct-taped MP #3: "(Harpo removes duct tape) Why don't we just put in real conservative social policy right now - so all those damned immigrants won't come in and vote Liberal? We can even say nice things and smile while we cut those programs. Let's get rid of multi-culturalism today".
PM Harpo: "Great thoughts people, but you know we can't act unless we have the majority that is our destiny. We just need Canadians to buy into our fake vision for Canada".
Jason Kenney: "Maybe we need to quash all this crap about 'so-called' PhD taxi-drivers... I'm so sick of hearing about that".
PM Harpo: "I like where this is going... How about this, we can call it: the ""myth of the PhD driving a taxi""Just public enough for real Canadians to hear it..."
All Con MPs: (Raising hands and clapping) "Hmmmphhhh" (duct-tape still over mouths).
Someone needs to stop this conservative media-backed neoCon machine - before a majority accidentally happens.
Saturday, March 03, 2007
Dion/Neville Chamberlain Comparisons: Response to Mushroom's Blog
A (C)conservative majority would be a nightmare for Canada. If these were any other everyday cons, it probably wouldn't be such a big deal, but these are Harper's right wing Alberta Reform idealogues running the show with Eastern conservatives taking a back seat... Moderate MPs like Lee Richardson sit in the back and smile. They're just window dressing.
Let's not hope for a Neville Chamberlain-esque strategy from Dion - no matter how Chamberlain-esque he may seem right now. Appeasement is clearly not the answer. The neoCons are a real threat. A timely clean-up of the OLO may be the start of an answer. Paul Martin realized that leadership teams don't make very good PMO material and often don't know how to handle "power" when they get it. Mr. Dion needs to reach for the best people in this party if he intends to win, or even hold the seats we have.
As Liberals we need to set out a strong "social" liberal policy platform, and celebrate and advertise our past fiscal excellence. Masters of finance Paul Martin and Ralph Goodale created almost a decade and a half of success for our party - almost entirely based on fiscal responsibility and creativity. Jean Cretien was a PM with balls (yes, I did say that). He recognized the importance of answering Canada's fiscal dilemma in 1993 with his best fiscal point-man - and he set Martin to work.
Our party is a party of the center - let's never forget that. Our electoral success comes from seeing eye-to-eye with a majority of Canadians - who are also moderates. Keeping the socialists to our left (and not within our party) is key. Keeping the social conservatives to our right is also key. We are a "big-tent" party, but we want to absorb what makes us liberal democrats - that is, a human-rights based social policy, and a small business, science and research based fiscal policy.
Our key problem right now (and for the past couple of years) has been an inability to get the message out. We need to be aggressive in our messaging and ensure people hear and understand it. That doesn't necessarily mean swinging wildly to the left (or the right). It simply means that this is not time for "peace in our time". Ensuring all parts of the party are involved in a concerted election push is critical. Time is quickly passing. The time to act is NOW Mr. Dion.
Let's not hope for a Neville Chamberlain-esque strategy from Dion - no matter how Chamberlain-esque he may seem right now. Appeasement is clearly not the answer. The neoCons are a real threat. A timely clean-up of the OLO may be the start of an answer. Paul Martin realized that leadership teams don't make very good PMO material and often don't know how to handle "power" when they get it. Mr. Dion needs to reach for the best people in this party if he intends to win, or even hold the seats we have.
As Liberals we need to set out a strong "social" liberal policy platform, and celebrate and advertise our past fiscal excellence. Masters of finance Paul Martin and Ralph Goodale created almost a decade and a half of success for our party - almost entirely based on fiscal responsibility and creativity. Jean Cretien was a PM with balls (yes, I did say that). He recognized the importance of answering Canada's fiscal dilemma in 1993 with his best fiscal point-man - and he set Martin to work.
Our party is a party of the center - let's never forget that. Our electoral success comes from seeing eye-to-eye with a majority of Canadians - who are also moderates. Keeping the socialists to our left (and not within our party) is key. Keeping the social conservatives to our right is also key. We are a "big-tent" party, but we want to absorb what makes us liberal democrats - that is, a human-rights based social policy, and a small business, science and research based fiscal policy.
Our key problem right now (and for the past couple of years) has been an inability to get the message out. We need to be aggressive in our messaging and ensure people hear and understand it. That doesn't necessarily mean swinging wildly to the left (or the right). It simply means that this is not time for "peace in our time". Ensuring all parts of the party are involved in a concerted election push is critical. Time is quickly passing. The time to act is NOW Mr. Dion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)