Look out, here comes a boogeyman!
It's a good thing Stephen Harper is there to warn us that if he doesn't get a majority and rule over us for five years of tyranny, we may end up with a coalition representing a majority of the population!
Noooooooooo!
Showing posts with label coalition. Show all posts
Showing posts with label coalition. Show all posts
Friday, September 11, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)