It should have been easy to run McGuinty out of town. Why, he raised taxes! Horrors! There's unemployment and everyone blames unemployment on the current government. Gas prices are high. That green energy thing seems like such a rip off.
And still, Timmy-boy, you screwed it up. You screwed it up horribly.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ontario-election/party-preference-for-ontario-voters-since-2001/article2163455/?from=2163820
Look at that. See that last peak for the PCs at around 42%? That was the day before Tim started opening his mouth and making word-noises.
His first ridiculous speechification was his demand to an end to the Hydro debt repayment charge on account of the fact that Ontarians had already made enough payments to cover the principal. Do we understand how stupid that makes him? Not only is he neglecting the fact that we haven't paid off the interest, he's also ignoring the part where Ernie Eves added to that debt in order "freeze Hydro rates".
Tim's latest Homer Simpson moment was his declaration that he would cut red tape in the government by 30%. In spite of everyone asking him to clarify - or at least give examples - of red tape, he really thought he'd picked a winner with this one. He doubled down today by stating that "We need to drain the red-tape swamp".
A swamp of red tape? The only quote that I can think of that comes anywhere near that is this one:
"Immigrants are the glue that holds together the gears of our country" - Homer Simpson.
Try picturing that: the draining of a swamp of red tape. The tape just gets stuck in the drain, doesn't it? Everything else goes down the drain ... but not the tape. It just clogs up the drain a bit a time, making things worse. Draining, it turns out, just isn't the thing to do with tape.
Now you might think that a guy who doesn't understand interest and can't work a metaphor for the life of him must be some kind of high school dropout, right? Nope. Tim Hudak is a child of two teachers and has two degrees in Economics. Unfortunately, none of that prevents him from being an idiot and Ontarians are starting to realize that.
Showing posts with label Election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Election. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Monday, September 14, 2009
The Old "Dysfunctional Parliament" Gambit
This time, it's John Ibbitson parroting the party line.
Mr. Ibbitson can't believe we're about to have our fifth election in six years. He also insinuates that we're some kind of banana republic.
Why would we have another election? "Employment Insurance reform? Come on.", he pleads. I presume Mr. Ibbitson has secure employment. Someone standing on the other side of that issue might have a different opinion.
Then he offers us quotes from various sources that blame the dysfunctionality of Parliament on all parties:
I wonder if that has anything to do with a Prime Minister too busy with name-calling (Socialist! Separatist!) to have a serious discussion.
Indeed. Let's blame all parties for the Conservative's disruptive "point of order", "showing up at the wrong time" and "walking out of meetings" strategies.
Now some statistics:
I have a word for you: "Prorogue". As in, "The Prime Minister prorogued Parliament". How many days did we lose there? How many days did we lose because the Prime Minister broke his own election law and called an extra election?
But, of course, it's the fault of all parties, isn't it, Mr. Ibbitson?
Yes, yes. Blame everyone for the intentional mangling and disabling of our government. Whatever you do, don't investigate what's actually happening on a day-to-day basis.
Now you're just being intentionally stupid. What planet are you from that you think the 90s were unique in the spectre of separation? In fact, that decade probably saw the end of separation when Parizeau gave his famous tirade about immigrants ruining his version of Quebec's destiny.
There follows some nonsense about the federal political parties becoming "regional". They're not. Even where one party appears to take a whole province, you'll find that, in many ridings, the other parties aren't far behind. If the conservative bastion of Alberta distributed its 28 ridings proportionally, it would have come out something like [Con:18, NDP:4, Lib:3, Green:3].
Ibbitson ends his column with the following pronouncement:
It seems that every political party does this, Mr. Ibbitson, except the Conservatives. Paul Martin reached a compromise with the Conservatives to maintain his government. When the Conservatives tried to pull the plug, he created a new consensus with the NDP (Egad! The Socialists! Lock up your children!) When the Conservatives came in, they tried to take all public financing away - retroactively - from the other parties. They vilified their opponents with name-calling. They stormed out of committees and disrupted them with loud-mouth tactics.
We already have three parties in Parliament that understand the need to build consensus in a grown up manner.
And we have one group of pouting children. Call it like it is. Enough of this false notion that everyone shares the blame for the Conservatives' petulance.
Mr. Ibbitson can't believe we're about to have our fifth election in six years. He also insinuates that we're some kind of banana republic.
Why would we have another election? "Employment Insurance reform? Come on.", he pleads. I presume Mr. Ibbitson has secure employment. Someone standing on the other side of that issue might have a different opinion.
Then he offers us quotes from various sources that blame the dysfunctionality of Parliament on all parties:
"We are in a continuous election campaign with no discussion of issues"
I wonder if that has anything to do with a Prime Minister too busy with name-calling (Socialist! Separatist!) to have a serious discussion.
Major concerns ... languish, as the parties use Parliament for an elaborate and futile game of political chicken.
Indeed. Let's blame all parties for the Conservative's disruptive "point of order", "showing up at the wrong time" and "walking out of meetings" strategies.
Now some statistics:
From 1969 to 1973, Parliament sat, on average, 163 days a year. From 2004 to 2008, it was down to 105.
I have a word for you: "Prorogue". As in, "The Prime Minister prorogued Parliament". How many days did we lose there? How many days did we lose because the Prime Minister broke his own election law and called an extra election?
But, of course, it's the fault of all parties, isn't it, Mr. Ibbitson?
"Parliament as an instrument is not being used properly either by the opposition or the government."
Yes, yes. Blame everyone for the intentional mangling and disabling of our government. Whatever you do, don't investigate what's actually happening on a day-to-day basis.
The nineties also witnessed the rise of the Bloc Quebecois and the threat of Quebec separation.
Now you're just being intentionally stupid. What planet are you from that you think the 90s were unique in the spectre of separation? In fact, that decade probably saw the end of separation when Parizeau gave his famous tirade about immigrants ruining his version of Quebec's destiny.
There follows some nonsense about the federal political parties becoming "regional". They're not. Even where one party appears to take a whole province, you'll find that, in many ridings, the other parties aren't far behind. If the conservative bastion of Alberta distributed its 28 ridings proportionally, it would have come out something like [Con:18, NDP:4, Lib:3, Green:3].
Ibbitson ends his column with the following pronouncement:
Party leaders must look at each other as legitimate representatives of sectional interests whose needs deserve to be accommodated. That is no easy concession in any Parliament, and especially difficult to imagine in this one.
It seems that every political party does this, Mr. Ibbitson, except the Conservatives. Paul Martin reached a compromise with the Conservatives to maintain his government. When the Conservatives tried to pull the plug, he created a new consensus with the NDP (Egad! The Socialists! Lock up your children!) When the Conservatives came in, they tried to take all public financing away - retroactively - from the other parties. They vilified their opponents with name-calling. They stormed out of committees and disrupted them with loud-mouth tactics.
We already have three parties in Parliament that understand the need to build consensus in a grown up manner.
And we have one group of pouting children. Call it like it is. Enough of this false notion that everyone shares the blame for the Conservatives' petulance.
Monday, December 22, 2008
Just so we're clear: He's a Hypocrite
I think it's time to shut the doors and close the curtains on Stephen Harper's career. It's obvious now that he already has. We've watched him throw away his integrity, bit by bit, for a couple of years now.
He promised us open government and he gagged all of his cabinet ministers.
He promised us more free votes and more democracy but meanwhile he was the first to shut down communication with the duly elected Palestinian government because he didn't like who won their election.
He promised a balanced budget and instead squandered the surplus left to him even before the economic insanity set in.
He promised to work on "Arctic sovereignty" but has only repeatedly announced the construction of the same ships that he doesn't actually have the budget to build.
He promised us transparency in government but his officials and ministers have stormed out of the every meeting regarding their electoral chicanery. They have in fact gone so far in to opaque that they are suing an Elections Canada official just so they can insist that he not speak to a Parliamentary Committee.
And now the grand finale.
After all those years of bashing the House of Commons for their "entitlements" such as pensions and benefits. After all those years of bashing the Senate for its elitist, unelected position of privilege; for its laziness and failure to be democratic, we find ourselves here.
As if to finally bury the notion that there was anything, ever that was "reforming" about the "Reform Party" or the Conservative Alliance it became; as if to forever declare to the country that this new party is just another big business party made up of the actual wealthy elites; as if to burn and etch in char forever the word "Hypocrite" over his legacy, he and his party have appointed 18 people to the Senate.
No more talk of the "elected Senate". No more railing at the supposedly elitist liberals who are therein housed.
Nope.
Just a hypocrite. A pathetic hypocrite on his way the hell out. A man who, we now realize, really did just lose an election because all of the people who didn't vote for him actually did vote against him. He's a loser, and we know, and now we know that he knows it, because otherwise he wouldn't be throwing away the last fraction of a percent of his integrity like this.
You're done, Stephen. There's a plush VP's job waiting for you somewhere. Some type of job where you don't do any work but they give you tonnes of cash and stock options in gratitude for your service to the wealthy of our nation.
Go home, already. Everything from here on in is just disgraceful.
He promised us open government and he gagged all of his cabinet ministers.
He promised us more free votes and more democracy but meanwhile he was the first to shut down communication with the duly elected Palestinian government because he didn't like who won their election.
He promised a balanced budget and instead squandered the surplus left to him even before the economic insanity set in.
He promised to work on "Arctic sovereignty" but has only repeatedly announced the construction of the same ships that he doesn't actually have the budget to build.
He promised us transparency in government but his officials and ministers have stormed out of the every meeting regarding their electoral chicanery. They have in fact gone so far in to opaque that they are suing an Elections Canada official just so they can insist that he not speak to a Parliamentary Committee.
And now the grand finale.
After all those years of bashing the House of Commons for their "entitlements" such as pensions and benefits. After all those years of bashing the Senate for its elitist, unelected position of privilege; for its laziness and failure to be democratic, we find ourselves here.
As if to finally bury the notion that there was anything, ever that was "reforming" about the "Reform Party" or the Conservative Alliance it became; as if to forever declare to the country that this new party is just another big business party made up of the actual wealthy elites; as if to burn and etch in char forever the word "Hypocrite" over his legacy, he and his party have appointed 18 people to the Senate.
No more talk of the "elected Senate". No more railing at the supposedly elitist liberals who are therein housed.
Nope.
Just a hypocrite. A pathetic hypocrite on his way the hell out. A man who, we now realize, really did just lose an election because all of the people who didn't vote for him actually did vote against him. He's a loser, and we know, and now we know that he knows it, because otherwise he wouldn't be throwing away the last fraction of a percent of his integrity like this.
You're done, Stephen. There's a plush VP's job waiting for you somewhere. Some type of job where you don't do any work but they give you tonnes of cash and stock options in gratitude for your service to the wealthy of our nation.
Go home, already. Everything from here on in is just disgraceful.
Tuesday, December 09, 2008
Harper v. Ignatieff
I don't like either. Let me say that at the outset.
Harper is a frightening bully even when he has a minority. I can't imagine what he would do to this country if he had a majority. How many wars do you want to fight attached to the dying embers of the bankrupt American Empire? How much debt do you want to find this country in while he shovels money not to medicine but to wealthy corporations and party contributors? How much torture will our nation condone?
I want none of it.
Ignatieff, meanwhile, has his own concerns. He strikes me somewhat as an American style Democrat. His platform will be slightly smaller tax cuts for the wealthy, slightly more money for healthcare. It won't be great, but you'll have to say to yourself, "Well, it's better than that other guy and at least his party won't try to make church attendance mandatory".
Ignatieff, like Harper, supported the war in Iraq. If either had been Prime Minister at the time of the U.S. invasion, Canadians might still be dying in that country. It's bad enough they're dying in Afghanistan. One hundred have given their lives for a battle we will eventually have to decide we can't win. But with Harper or Ignatieff in command, they'd be dying in Iraq too.
There is, however, one major difference between the two featured here in an article about the recent fiscal update in which Harper tried to defund his opponents. No, it's not the "reaching out" bit. That's a scam and we all know it. It's this bit:
That's right. The Prime Minister saw weakness and attempted to obliterate the other parties by bankrupting them, knowing his own wealthy donors would keep his boat floating as long as he keeps the tax cuts coming. When that triggered a revolt in Parliament, he took the measures away and yet took no responsibility for the galvanizing effect his cruelty had caused.
Compare and contrast, as my English teacher used to say. This is from an article Ignatieff wrote in the New York Times regarding his support for the invasion of Iraq.
Unfortunately you'll find, if you read his apology in depth, that he feels the mistake he made was in underestimating the cost of the invasion, not in the fact that there was no legitimate reason for any kind of invasion in the first place. This makes him no better or worse than Harper in that respect.
And yet, at the same time, therein lies the difference.
Ignatieff can admit that he made a mistake. Harper can not.
If I have to choose between two ivory tower, American Empire supporting jackasses, I'll take the one who has shown at least a tendency toward teachability.
Harper is a frightening bully even when he has a minority. I can't imagine what he would do to this country if he had a majority. How many wars do you want to fight attached to the dying embers of the bankrupt American Empire? How much debt do you want to find this country in while he shovels money not to medicine but to wealthy corporations and party contributors? How much torture will our nation condone?
I want none of it.
Ignatieff, meanwhile, has his own concerns. He strikes me somewhat as an American style Democrat. His platform will be slightly smaller tax cuts for the wealthy, slightly more money for healthcare. It won't be great, but you'll have to say to yourself, "Well, it's better than that other guy and at least his party won't try to make church attendance mandatory".
Ignatieff, like Harper, supported the war in Iraq. If either had been Prime Minister at the time of the U.S. invasion, Canadians might still be dying in that country. It's bad enough they're dying in Afghanistan. One hundred have given their lives for a battle we will eventually have to decide we can't win. But with Harper or Ignatieff in command, they'd be dying in Iraq too.
There is, however, one major difference between the two featured here in an article about the recent fiscal update in which Harper tried to defund his opponents. No, it's not the "reaching out" bit. That's a scam and we all know it. It's this bit:
But Mr. Harper refused to accept any blame for causing the recent political crisis, or admit that controversial measures in his fiscal update were a mistake.
Instead, he said there was a conspiracy by opposition leaders to bring down his government regardless of what was in update.
That's right. The Prime Minister saw weakness and attempted to obliterate the other parties by bankrupting them, knowing his own wealthy donors would keep his boat floating as long as he keeps the tax cuts coming. When that triggered a revolt in Parliament, he took the measures away and yet took no responsibility for the galvanizing effect his cruelty had caused.
Compare and contrast, as my English teacher used to say. This is from an article Ignatieff wrote in the New York Times regarding his support for the invasion of Iraq.
"The unfolding catastrophe in Iraq has condemned the political judgment of a president, but it has also condemned the judgment of many others, myself included, who as commentators supported the invasion."
Unfortunately you'll find, if you read his apology in depth, that he feels the mistake he made was in underestimating the cost of the invasion, not in the fact that there was no legitimate reason for any kind of invasion in the first place. This makes him no better or worse than Harper in that respect.
And yet, at the same time, therein lies the difference.
Ignatieff can admit that he made a mistake. Harper can not.
If I have to choose between two ivory tower, American Empire supporting jackasses, I'll take the one who has shown at least a tendency toward teachability.
Thursday, December 04, 2008
Dorks Unite
I think this is my elementary school experience being played out in real life.
Stephen: Gr, (punch-punch), you guys are such dorks. Haha, you're bleeding!
Stephane: Ow, ow, ow. Why won't my friends back me up?
Stephen: Aw, whatchagonnado, call the teacher?
Stephen wanders away
Gilles: Don't tell the teacher, that never works.
Stephane: Yeah, I know.
Jack: We should do something about that guy.
The following day.
Stephen: Alright you weanies, hand over your lunch money!
Stephane, Gilles, Jack: No, way!
The three of them start pummeling Stephen who goes running away to the principal's office.
Stephen arrives at the principal's office, covering his black eye and pointing at the playground
Stephen: They were mean to me! Even after I told them I would let them keep their lunch money.
GG: Hm, well you have been quite a bully. Maybe this will teach you some humility. I think we'll have a time out and we can fix this after Christmas. Until then, you're not allowed back in the school.
All I'm saying is that I've had enough of bullies being in charge of our country. Harper, Chretien and Mulroney in Canada, Harris in Ontario. I'm tired of them all. You want to call Dion a dork because he can't put an orange ball in a net. Fine. It's about time one of us was in charge of this country.
Stephen: Gr, (punch-punch), you guys are such dorks. Haha, you're bleeding!
Stephane: Ow, ow, ow. Why won't my friends back me up?
Stephen: Aw, whatchagonnado, call the teacher?
Stephen wanders away
Gilles: Don't tell the teacher, that never works.
Stephane: Yeah, I know.
Jack: We should do something about that guy.
The following day.
Stephen: Alright you weanies, hand over your lunch money!
Stephane, Gilles, Jack: No, way!
The three of them start pummeling Stephen who goes running away to the principal's office.
Stephen arrives at the principal's office, covering his black eye and pointing at the playground
Stephen: They were mean to me! Even after I told them I would let them keep their lunch money.
GG: Hm, well you have been quite a bully. Maybe this will teach you some humility. I think we'll have a time out and we can fix this after Christmas. Until then, you're not allowed back in the school.
All I'm saying is that I've had enough of bullies being in charge of our country. Harper, Chretien and Mulroney in Canada, Harris in Ontario. I'm tired of them all. You want to call Dion a dork because he can't put an orange ball in a net. Fine. It's about time one of us was in charge of this country.
This Is Not Democracy
How could the Governor General possibly do this?
Let's suppose I'm the mayor of Ottawa. I spent my entire term kicking babies, shutting down libraries and getting drunk. Everyone hates me.
It's the day after the election. The polls demonstrate that I'm going to lose by a landslide. The Election Returns Officer has the poll counts, ready to be announced. I go over to him and I say, "Listen, I want you to not announce the vote totals for the next two months. I'll just go on quietly being mayor and making decisions without the will of the people behind me."
And the Returns Officer says .... "Yes"?
What?
I'm not living in a democracy right now. I never have, of course. The country has always been ruled by a slight minority which possessed a majority of seats in the House of Commons. But this is even worse. Even by the rules of our representative Parliament, this is a violation of democracy.
This is just as bad as the Returns Officer in the analogy above. The Governor General has a letter sitting in front of her that says Stephen Harper does not have the confidence of the house. All she has to do is sit back and make him face the counting. Instead she's used her royal power to set this count aside.
We're being ruled by a leader who has no respect for opposing viewpoints and no accountability.
I don't what we're living in now, but it's nothing at all like a democracy.
Let's suppose I'm the mayor of Ottawa. I spent my entire term kicking babies, shutting down libraries and getting drunk. Everyone hates me.
It's the day after the election. The polls demonstrate that I'm going to lose by a landslide. The Election Returns Officer has the poll counts, ready to be announced. I go over to him and I say, "Listen, I want you to not announce the vote totals for the next two months. I'll just go on quietly being mayor and making decisions without the will of the people behind me."
And the Returns Officer says .... "Yes"?
What?
I'm not living in a democracy right now. I never have, of course. The country has always been ruled by a slight minority which possessed a majority of seats in the House of Commons. But this is even worse. Even by the rules of our representative Parliament, this is a violation of democracy.
This is just as bad as the Returns Officer in the analogy above. The Governor General has a letter sitting in front of her that says Stephen Harper does not have the confidence of the house. All she has to do is sit back and make him face the counting. Instead she's used her royal power to set this count aside.
We're being ruled by a leader who has no respect for opposing viewpoints and no accountability.
I don't what we're living in now, but it's nothing at all like a democracy.
Wednesday, December 03, 2008
Democracy Isn't Your Whore, Mr. Harper.
With apologies to Arundhati Roy, who figured this out a long time ago.
Democracy isn't your Whore, Mr. Harper. You can't just pick something you want, write democracy on it and pretend it's the real thing.
George Bush was fond of doing this during the lead up to the Iraq War. They were invading Iraq for democracy, didn't you know? And democratic countries were those that supported the war, like Turkey where 95% of the people opposed it, or Spain where a significant majority also opposed it. That's democracy, you see, when you say you're supporting democracy against the wishes of the people.
But it's not going to work in Canada Mr. Harper. You can't dress up democracy in this country, take it out for stroll one night to gain credibility and then bend it over your couch back at Sussex drive.
People in this country can actually read and they can find the definition of democracy in the dictionary quite easily: (noun) a system of government in which the majority rule.
You have a minority, Mr. Harper. The majority of the population wants policies other than yours. The majority of parliamentarians want policies other than yours.
That cheap whore you keep calling democracy isn't the real thing. 46% of the seats in Parliament doesn't make a majority and it doesn't give you the right to rule. You can dress that up however you want, it's still a lie. You can pimp that lie all over town, call her a lady and call everyone who disagrees a treasonous, separatist hoodlum bent on overthrowing her.
But we know better. We can count. We can add. We know what democracy really means.
And that prostitute you cart around ain't it.
Democracy isn't your Whore, Mr. Harper. You can't just pick something you want, write democracy on it and pretend it's the real thing.
George Bush was fond of doing this during the lead up to the Iraq War. They were invading Iraq for democracy, didn't you know? And democratic countries were those that supported the war, like Turkey where 95% of the people opposed it, or Spain where a significant majority also opposed it. That's democracy, you see, when you say you're supporting democracy against the wishes of the people.
But it's not going to work in Canada Mr. Harper. You can't dress up democracy in this country, take it out for stroll one night to gain credibility and then bend it over your couch back at Sussex drive.
People in this country can actually read and they can find the definition of democracy in the dictionary quite easily: (noun) a system of government in which the majority rule.
You have a minority, Mr. Harper. The majority of the population wants policies other than yours. The majority of parliamentarians want policies other than yours.
That cheap whore you keep calling democracy isn't the real thing. 46% of the seats in Parliament doesn't make a majority and it doesn't give you the right to rule. You can dress that up however you want, it's still a lie. You can pimp that lie all over town, call her a lady and call everyone who disagrees a treasonous, separatist hoodlum bent on overthrowing her.
But we know better. We can count. We can add. We know what democracy really means.
And that prostitute you cart around ain't it.
Christmas Carols
If the coalition is my early Christmas present, then the exploding Conservative heads with their thrashing and whining constitute the Carolers.
The Facebook group "Canadians Against the Left Coalition" wants to tell us this is an "overthrow" of the government.
I can definitely hear "Oh, come, oh come! Unholy Alliance!" being sung to the tune of "Oh, come, oh, come Emmanuel".
And of course there's the stunningly ignorant complaint that "no one voted for this coalition". Maybe you haven't noticed that there was no "coalition/not coalition" option on your ballot. That's because the potential for coalition has been and always will be a part of our representative parliament.
And there's incredibly hypocritical complaint from pretty much any of these guys that the Liberals are in bed with separatists(Separatists! Separatists! Separatists!). I don't know guys, do you remember when Stephen Harper wanted to get in bed with the separatists to "overthrow" the Martin government in 2004. Fortunately, the Internet remembers. I'm sure you've all got a ready rationalization for why it was okay for Harper but not for Dion.
It's all music to my ears. Even if it doesn't work out, it was worth it just to drive up their collective blood pressure.
The Facebook group "Canadians Against the Left Coalition" wants to tell us this is an "overthrow" of the government.
I can definitely hear "Oh, come, oh come! Unholy Alliance!" being sung to the tune of "Oh, come, oh, come Emmanuel".
And of course there's the stunningly ignorant complaint that "no one voted for this coalition". Maybe you haven't noticed that there was no "coalition/not coalition" option on your ballot. That's because the potential for coalition has been and always will be a part of our representative parliament.
And there's incredibly hypocritical complaint from pretty much any of these guys that the Liberals are in bed with separatists(Separatists! Separatists! Separatists!). I don't know guys, do you remember when Stephen Harper wanted to get in bed with the separatists to "overthrow" the Martin government in 2004. Fortunately, the Internet remembers. I'm sure you've all got a ready rationalization for why it was okay for Harper but not for Dion.
It's all music to my ears. Even if it doesn't work out, it was worth it just to drive up their collective blood pressure.
Tuesday, December 02, 2008
Power Must Be Earned, Not Taken
I wonder if I have to put (TM) at the end of that. It`s the crux of the new Conservative ad campaign to ... well, it`s not quite clear what they hope to do. I suppose the goal is to make people scream, hate and throw rocks until they force the country to violate its Parliamentary rules and call an election for no good reason.
But they tell "Power must be earned, not taken".
I never really thought of a democracy that way. Power isn`t suppose to be taken or earned. Power comes from a mandate from a majority of the people`s representatives. Ideally, it ought to come from a majority of the people, but we have a representative democracy, so that`s how we roll.
But if you`re a Conservative, maybe you think in terms of taking power. That`s certainly how Harper has played it. He had a minor lead over the Liberals before dissolution of Parliament and, seeing weakness, he made every bill he put forth a confidence motion, daring the Liberals to call him on it. He governed in minority like a majority.
It was all about power.
Then he went too far. Then he tried to use his power to defund his opponents. It was a kick below the belt and it galvanized the opposition. Did he assume that Dion, as a lame duck, would not stand up for his party? Did he assume that we would quietly let our democracy die? Did he think we would want a government of the rich?
Fool.
He thinks in terms of power and went over the edge - and that was with a minority. Imagine what would have happened if he`d eeked out his majority.
It shouldn`t be about power. It should be about service. But Stephen Harper wouldn`t understand that.
But they tell "Power must be earned, not taken".
I never really thought of a democracy that way. Power isn`t suppose to be taken or earned. Power comes from a mandate from a majority of the people`s representatives. Ideally, it ought to come from a majority of the people, but we have a representative democracy, so that`s how we roll.
But if you`re a Conservative, maybe you think in terms of taking power. That`s certainly how Harper has played it. He had a minor lead over the Liberals before dissolution of Parliament and, seeing weakness, he made every bill he put forth a confidence motion, daring the Liberals to call him on it. He governed in minority like a majority.
It was all about power.
Then he went too far. Then he tried to use his power to defund his opponents. It was a kick below the belt and it galvanized the opposition. Did he assume that Dion, as a lame duck, would not stand up for his party? Did he assume that we would quietly let our democracy die? Did he think we would want a government of the rich?
Fool.
He thinks in terms of power and went over the edge - and that was with a minority. Imagine what would have happened if he`d eeked out his majority.
It shouldn`t be about power. It should be about service. But Stephen Harper wouldn`t understand that.
Dear Santa: I Want Democracy
And Christmas has come early.
It's beginning to feel a lot like Democracy. The Liberals, NDP and Bloc have formed a coalition to prevent the destruction of democracy in Canada.
You think I'm being melodramatic? Sorry, no. The Conservative desire to use their 37% of the popular vote to steamroll the other parties in to nonexistence has finally forced the rest of the political sphere to ally against them.
The first thing the Conservatives planned to do was to retroactively cancel public funding of political parties. Although this would cost themselves more money than the other parties (since public funding is vote based) the Conservatives have far richer donors than any of the other parties. Canceling public funding would hardly be noticed by the Conservatives, even while it destroyed everyone else.
So the Liberals, NDP and Bloc have assembled a coalition and have told the Governor General that this coalition would have the confidence of Parliament. This, after all, is what a Prime Minister needs.
The Conservatives are in full mobilization, sending their minions forth upon talk radio with Talking Points and planning Demonstrations. Galloping Beaver has a wonderful destruction of their talking points.
The most important point, however, is their idea that it is somehow anti-democratic for the majority of MPs, with a majority of the popular vote, to form a government and remove a minority government with a minority of the popular vote.
Democracy: (noun); rule of the majority.
Pretty simple really.
From an atheist to all of you out there in blogland: Merry Christmas. I feel positively chipper about the whole thing.
It's beginning to feel a lot like Democracy. The Liberals, NDP and Bloc have formed a coalition to prevent the destruction of democracy in Canada.
You think I'm being melodramatic? Sorry, no. The Conservative desire to use their 37% of the popular vote to steamroll the other parties in to nonexistence has finally forced the rest of the political sphere to ally against them.
The first thing the Conservatives planned to do was to retroactively cancel public funding of political parties. Although this would cost themselves more money than the other parties (since public funding is vote based) the Conservatives have far richer donors than any of the other parties. Canceling public funding would hardly be noticed by the Conservatives, even while it destroyed everyone else.
So the Liberals, NDP and Bloc have assembled a coalition and have told the Governor General that this coalition would have the confidence of Parliament. This, after all, is what a Prime Minister needs.
The Conservatives are in full mobilization, sending their minions forth upon talk radio with Talking Points and planning Demonstrations. Galloping Beaver has a wonderful destruction of their talking points.
The most important point, however, is their idea that it is somehow anti-democratic for the majority of MPs, with a majority of the popular vote, to form a government and remove a minority government with a minority of the popular vote.
Democracy: (noun); rule of the majority.
Pretty simple really.
From an atheist to all of you out there in blogland: Merry Christmas. I feel positively chipper about the whole thing.
Thursday, November 06, 2008
Fracturing Conservatives
I've always had the vague feeling that the Democrats in the United States were a little more mentally and emotionally stable than the Republicans. Yes, the Republicans have the evangelicals, who are noteworthy for nothing if not for their absolute craziness. But on top of that, the party just seems more vicious. You don't see the Democrats devouring their own losers nearly as nastily as you see the Republicans doing it.
It goes to the heart of the same problem I see with the lack of realism in the Republican party. Sarah Palin was praying for a win, praying to wake up in the morning as "Vice-president elect" even when that was obviously outright impossible.
Crazy and vicious. Is it any wonder, after eight years of rulership by these people, that the country is bankrupt, hated by most of the world and in the middle of two confused, wasteful wars?
These people just aren't balanced. I'm glad the American population got rid of them, even if only just barely.
Now we can perhaps watch the Republican party fracture in to fiscally conservative and bat-shit insane evangelical factions, ushering in an error of democracy, public healthcare, peace and sanity throughout the world.
Well. We can hope.
It goes to the heart of the same problem I see with the lack of realism in the Republican party. Sarah Palin was praying for a win, praying to wake up in the morning as "Vice-president elect" even when that was obviously outright impossible.
Crazy and vicious. Is it any wonder, after eight years of rulership by these people, that the country is bankrupt, hated by most of the world and in the middle of two confused, wasteful wars?
These people just aren't balanced. I'm glad the American population got rid of them, even if only just barely.
Now we can perhaps watch the Republican party fracture in to fiscally conservative and bat-shit insane evangelical factions, ushering in an error of democracy, public healthcare, peace and sanity throughout the world.
Well. We can hope.
Dion and Palin: Off the Record
Remember when Dion was lambasted for not being able to answer that incoherent and grammatically senseless question from a CTV interviewer?
Remember how the Conservative party - quite foolishly - tried to jump on the language problem as if it were an actual hole in the Liberal platform?
Remember how guys like this jumped on it, telling us that conservatives of any stripe would never get "do-overs" from the media, so why should Liberals expect it?
Heh. Try this:
The important quote comes up at 0:10 in to the video:
And what were the items put "off the record"? Palin didn't know that Africa was continent as opposed to a country. She didn't know what countries were in NAFTA.
So whereas Stephane Dion couldn't handle an incoherent question, Palin was actually vitally ignorant in important matters ... and the media kept it "off the record".
Nice.
Remember how the Conservative party - quite foolishly - tried to jump on the language problem as if it were an actual hole in the Liberal platform?
Remember how guys like this jumped on it, telling us that conservatives of any stripe would never get "do-overs" from the media, so why should Liberals expect it?
Heh. Try this:
The important quote comes up at 0:10 in to the video:
I wish I could have told you back at the time but all of it was put off the record until after the election.
And what were the items put "off the record"? Palin didn't know that Africa was continent as opposed to a country. She didn't know what countries were in NAFTA.
So whereas Stephane Dion couldn't handle an incoherent question, Palin was actually vitally ignorant in important matters ... and the media kept it "off the record".
Nice.
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
They elected a black guy
I don't really have much more to say.
I never thought, all those years of seeing Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton, that the American people could really go through with it. To actually watch this happen, even after seeing the polls so confidently predicting it, is still gut wrenching.
It'll be a different world when I wake up tomorrow.
Something else struck me, though, as I've just finished watching McCain's concession speech. Suddenly, I saw the John McCain who ran against the George Bush in 2000. The guy who got "illegitimate black baby"'d out of the race. Gone was the guy making up stupid lies about teaching sex education to Kindergarten students. Gone were the lies and the random religious associations. Suddenly he seemed a lot classier than the movement of belligerent fanatics that the party had put behind him. He had to repeatedly restrain the booing of his own followers.
Maybe he still has some class. At least he sounded authentic. Maybe he's glad to be free of the yokels he'd had to bow to.
I never thought, all those years of seeing Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton, that the American people could really go through with it. To actually watch this happen, even after seeing the polls so confidently predicting it, is still gut wrenching.
It'll be a different world when I wake up tomorrow.
Something else struck me, though, as I've just finished watching McCain's concession speech. Suddenly, I saw the John McCain who ran against the George Bush in 2000. The guy who got "illegitimate black baby"'d out of the race. Gone was the guy making up stupid lies about teaching sex education to Kindergarten students. Gone were the lies and the random religious associations. Suddenly he seemed a lot classier than the movement of belligerent fanatics that the party had put behind him. He had to repeatedly restrain the booing of his own followers.
Maybe he still has some class. At least he sounded authentic. Maybe he's glad to be free of the yokels he'd had to bow to.
Liberals more Realistic
I speak to you not of the Liberal Party of Canada, but of liberals people in general.
When the Liberal Party was losing the last election, most of us on the left were pretty realistic. Our best hope at the beginning of the election was to run some sort of ABC campaign to somehow forge a left coalition. As the days wore on and it was obvious that Dion wasn't picking up votes, we understood that a Conservative minority was coming and the best we could do was prevent a majority.
It doesn't seem to work that way for Conservatives.
Look at this guy. Even though there's a monstrous number of polls showing Obama leading by insurmountable margins, a single Zogby poll is enough to sway him.
The other guy wants to pray for a McCain win.
I can't imagine what they're saying over at Free Republic. But they're always crazy there, so maybe it doesn't count.
My point is simply that, despite our apparently airy-faery, touchie-feelie crazy pinko communist way, we seem to be a lot more in touch with reality than our opponents.
That's got to work out for us, somehow, in the long run.
When the Liberal Party was losing the last election, most of us on the left were pretty realistic. Our best hope at the beginning of the election was to run some sort of ABC campaign to somehow forge a left coalition. As the days wore on and it was obvious that Dion wasn't picking up votes, we understood that a Conservative minority was coming and the best we could do was prevent a majority.
It doesn't seem to work that way for Conservatives.
Look at this guy. Even though there's a monstrous number of polls showing Obama leading by insurmountable margins, a single Zogby poll is enough to sway him.
The other guy wants to pray for a McCain win.
I can't imagine what they're saying over at Free Republic. But they're always crazy there, so maybe it doesn't count.
My point is simply that, despite our apparently airy-faery, touchie-feelie crazy pinko communist way, we seem to be a lot more in touch with reality than our opponents.
That's got to work out for us, somehow, in the long run.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
O'Connor: Torturer gets Whip
I don't even want to comment on the rest of the ministers. None of it matters with the absolute iron-fisted control that Harper exercises over his ministers, preventing any of them from speaking to the press without vetting everything through his own office.
This is the one that gets me:
Whip.
The man who told our soldiers and officers that it was okay to send prisoners off to authorities that he knew were torturing prisoners - even killing them.
The man who lied to Parliament about the Red Cross being able to inform us if any torture were occurring.
The man who resigned in disgrace because of his lying.
And they make him The Whip.
I believe, in literature, they call that "over-written".
This is the one that gets me:
Jay Hill takes over as House leader and Gordon O'Connor replaces Mr. Hill as Chief Government Whip.
Whip.
The man who told our soldiers and officers that it was okay to send prisoners off to authorities that he knew were torturing prisoners - even killing them.
The man who lied to Parliament about the Red Cross being able to inform us if any torture were occurring.
The man who resigned in disgrace because of his lying.
And they make him The Whip.
I believe, in literature, they call that "over-written".
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Monday, October 20, 2008
President Jesus
She just can't vote for a President who will be named President Oo-bama.
Fortunately, he doesn't pronounce it that way, so maybe there's a loophole.
But seriously, can you believe that? I think we should all just be happy that enough Americans are smart enough not to fall for this. Maybe education in the U.S. can improve enough (under an Obama presidency) to reduce the number of people who credulously fall in to this kind of religious/political dogmatic trap.
I've always thought that religion was dangerous this way: it teaches people to accept things without thinking about them.
I wonder if we could propose a resolution to this crisis for her.
Is it true that the President of the United States in chosen by God? I'm sure I've heard enough religious nutbars say so.
If Obama does manage to get elected, are you willing to admit that God must have chosen him? Wouldn't he then have God's approval?
Nah. They'd probably just think God was punishing America with (take your pick) the socialist, fascist, surrendering Liberal, dictator, Muslim, anti-christ because of America's (take your pick) abortions, gayness, Sunday shopping, pornography, clothing made of mixed fibers.
Best of luck, my American friends.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Harper's Six Points: Emptiness
He's not going to do anything.
That's probably because he doesn't know what to do.
There are two possibilities regarding this election. Either super-awesome economist Stephen Harper saw this economic disaster coming and wanted to get the election in before his party started taking fallout, or super-awesome economist Stephen Harper didn't see it coming.
I don't know which is worse for Harper.
When I look at his six point plan, I don't see any substance. It's all about meeting with people (and pretending that he's initiating the meetings, when most of them are already planned by others).
A comment on an earlier post pointed to Harper's plan as a copy of Dion's five point plan with a little bit more.
But it's not. Dion's five-point plan had substance.
In amongst the talking which, yes, is important, there was some doing as well. There was a $1B Manufacturing Fund. The first item was to rework Canada's financial regulations to prevent the market manipulation that led to this mess in the U.S.
Go figure. Dorky professor guy had a plan to do something while super-awesome economist guy has no clue what to do.
That's probably because he doesn't know what to do.
There are two possibilities regarding this election. Either super-awesome economist Stephen Harper saw this economic disaster coming and wanted to get the election in before his party started taking fallout, or super-awesome economist Stephen Harper didn't see it coming.
I don't know which is worse for Harper.
When I look at his six point plan, I don't see any substance. It's all about meeting with people (and pretending that he's initiating the meetings, when most of them are already planned by others).
A comment on an earlier post pointed to Harper's plan as a copy of Dion's five point plan with a little bit more.
But it's not. Dion's five-point plan had substance.
In amongst the talking which, yes, is important, there was some doing as well. There was a $1B Manufacturing Fund. The first item was to rework Canada's financial regulations to prevent the market manipulation that led to this mess in the U.S.
Go figure. Dorky professor guy had a plan to do something while super-awesome economist guy has no clue what to do.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Colour Me Shocked: Deficits
They're going to blame the economy, naturally, and that's probably fair enough. But we're still looking at four years of deficits.
But still: Flaherty = Deficits.
I don't see why TD's chief economist said the following:
Really? I think we had fifteen years of straight deficits in Ontario, if you count from when Bob Rae began intentionally destroying the NDP to when we finally booted the Progressive "Conservatives" out of office.
What's four years?
They've already had to cancel a couple of military vessels and an arctic sovereignty protecting icebreaker. What will they cancel next? The responsible thing might even be going in to deficit. At that point, they're as screwed as McGuinty having to break his no-tax-increase promise when faced with the PC deficit he took over.
Keep your promise or do what's right?
Best of luck, chuckleheads.
But still: Flaherty = Deficits.
I don't see why TD's chief economist said the following:
“Many economists have said it's acceptable to run a modest deficit for a short period of time, but there's virtually nobody on record as saying it's acceptable to run deficits for many years in a row,” Mr. Drummond said.
Really? I think we had fifteen years of straight deficits in Ontario, if you count from when Bob Rae began intentionally destroying the NDP to when we finally booted the Progressive "Conservatives" out of office.
What's four years?
They've already had to cancel a couple of military vessels and an arctic sovereignty protecting icebreaker. What will they cancel next? The responsible thing might even be going in to deficit. At that point, they're as screwed as McGuinty having to break his no-tax-increase promise when faced with the PC deficit he took over.
Keep your promise or do what's right?
Best of luck, chuckleheads.
Tony Clement Revises History
I can't find a transcript yet, so I'm paraphrasing.
Tony Clement, Conservative Health Minister, was on the Agenda on TVO last night. Olivia Chow and Gerard Kennedy were there as well, all of them discussing the results of the election.
Steve Paikin, interviewing, asked Tony Clement if the current atmosphere of Conservative victory was appropriate. While everyone could agree that the NDP and Greens had improved their situation and that the Liberals had lost while the Bloc carried at least of the victory of preventing Harper's majority, could it really be argued that the Conservatives were victorious when their goal in calling the election was to get a majority?
Tony Clement gave an answer that, if I recall correctly, even amazed Steve Paikin.
"We didn't want an election. We were forced in to by the opposition."
Sadly, I had other things on my mind so I can't very well remember anything beyond Paikin's surprise.
This is how the Republicans do things down south. Let's all tell blatant lies with straight faces and dare anyone to argue with us.
How anyone but a rabid, frothing-at-the-mouth, Conservative partisan can believe a line like that is beyond me. According to the polls, no one was in a position to make electoral gains except the Conservatives. The Liberals didn't want an election and took great pains to support the Conservative government at every confidence motion.
And Tony Clement wants us to believe his talking point: the Opposition made us do it.
I suppose, when faced with a $300M plus bill for an election, you'd damn well better have a talking point ready when people ask why you bothered. I think that's even more than the bill for the Sponsorship Scandal.
Tony Clement, Conservative Health Minister, was on the Agenda on TVO last night. Olivia Chow and Gerard Kennedy were there as well, all of them discussing the results of the election.
Steve Paikin, interviewing, asked Tony Clement if the current atmosphere of Conservative victory was appropriate. While everyone could agree that the NDP and Greens had improved their situation and that the Liberals had lost while the Bloc carried at least of the victory of preventing Harper's majority, could it really be argued that the Conservatives were victorious when their goal in calling the election was to get a majority?
Tony Clement gave an answer that, if I recall correctly, even amazed Steve Paikin.
"We didn't want an election. We were forced in to by the opposition."
Sadly, I had other things on my mind so I can't very well remember anything beyond Paikin's surprise.
This is how the Republicans do things down south. Let's all tell blatant lies with straight faces and dare anyone to argue with us.
How anyone but a rabid, frothing-at-the-mouth, Conservative partisan can believe a line like that is beyond me. According to the polls, no one was in a position to make electoral gains except the Conservatives. The Liberals didn't want an election and took great pains to support the Conservative government at every confidence motion.
And Tony Clement wants us to believe his talking point: the Opposition made us do it.
I suppose, when faced with a $300M plus bill for an election, you'd damn well better have a talking point ready when people ask why you bothered. I think that's even more than the bill for the Sponsorship Scandal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)