Veterans are outraged. Now they need to do what they once did best. Lead. Part 2.

There is a commonly held misconception that all members of Canada's armed services and, by extension, discharged veterans are Conservative supporters. That, of course, is simply not true on more than one plane.

What is true, is that many voted for Harper and his uber-right-wing thugs based on a load of false propaganda, seriously limited information, and for purely selfish reasons, (which is why we all vote in a specific direction). It would not be a stretch to say that most members of the armed services had little use for Chretien and his Liberals long before the general electorate swung away from them. Chretien was viewed, (with good reason), as being anti-armed forces and if you're in the service you're going to fight back with the only tool allowed armed service personnel in a democracy: your big X against the name of someone who isn't going to return a Liberal government. That meant Paul Martin, despite making some immediate and needed course corrections when it came to the Canadian Forces, didn't stand a chance amongst CF voters. But that's more history than an explanation.

The truth is most members of the armed services are pretty apolitical, especially in their early years of service. When a kid joins the service he/she is not politically engaged and definitely doesn't possess a political ideology. Young (put any political party name here) ideologues don't, as a rule, join the armed services, particularly during peacetime. It would interfere with their ability to get inside the political machine. And, although this is likely to create a poo-flinging session, my long association with armed services has taught me that among those few young service members who do have a political view, none of them are conservative of the Harper ilk. That kind of young person avoids military service like a plague, although there is an exception I'll identify later.

Service in the navy, army or air-force is very insular. Long deployments, active service and isolated bases mean limited interaction with the civilian community. A very different lifestyle leads many service personnel to further isolate themselves (and their families) from too much civilian contact. Politics becomes dirty, invasive and unwanted. Politicians are viewed as dirty, invasive and unwanted. A majority of service personnel therefore distrust all politicians. Political interest only arises when it directly affects serving individuals or the organization to which they belong. Thus, political motivation depends on how they view the treatment offered by the gang in place at the time. Disband an airborne regiment, lose the votes of the entire army and likely chase them into the arms of the first party who says we'd never have done that. Cut the defence budget so deeply that there are not enough crews to man ships, lose the votes of the entire navy with the same end result.

Veterans are odd creatures. They have a tendency to take those particular political views and emotions with them on the final walk out the main gate and there is a good chance they'll hang on to them for decades. They maintain an emotional affinity with their former service that most civilians do not fully comprehend. It is born out of the fact that while serving they were a part of more than just an organization. The people they served with were and are a part of a very close-knit family with intentional barriers preventing those who did not serve from ever entering the deep centre of the military psyche. You didn't serve? You don't ever get to be a part of the ethos and no one is ever going to explain it to you.

So, it will likely come as something of a shock when I tell you that in the 1960s prior to Paul Helleyer committing the heinous crime that was Unification, most service personnel found themselves voting Liberal.

You see, Diefenbaker was a tough pill to swallow. He had done little to foster the armed services. Pay was poor and conditions were not improving. Cancellation of the AVRO Arrow iced Dief in the eyes of many service personnel. That and a long held belief that the Liberals were a better option for significant pay raises and an improvement in conditions put them ahead in the minds of people who had endured enough of Diefenbaker's draconian austerity measures, most of which had to do with keeping service personnel impoverished.

There was something else. The Liberals under Louis St. Laurent had engaged in a purpose-bent re-equipment program. Diefenbaker inherited a modernized or modernizing armed forces as a result of the government which preceded his. That fact was not lost on the long service veterans who were starting to leave the service in the 1960s and taking their political affinity for the Liberals with them.

Here, I'll end part 2. Part 3 will be a little longer in coming. 

The assault on democracy

Read this excellent summary by Lawrence Martin and then tell me we can afford to give Stephen Harper another term as president prime minister.
Have a look at the regional polling numbers, the Conservatives are the choice of the majority in only Alberta and narrowly in the Prairies. They are at about 40% in Ontario and BC, but a distant fourth place in Quebec. Do the right thing tomorrow and vote for the candidate in your riding that has the best chance to beat the conservative. Local polling numbers can be seen here until midnight.
And no, I don't think the title is overstating things. All parties have their good and bad points but there is a difference between them -- so stop telling me that "both sides do it."
Both sides don't try to suppress the vote.
Both sides don't have crowds that shout down journalists when they ask questions.
Both sides don't throw people out of rallies for what might be on their facebook page.
Both sides don't want to cut corporate taxes while cutting programs for the poor.
Both sides don't fire the nuclear watchdog for doing her job.
Both sides don't pander to the religious right.
Both sides don't prorogue parliament.
Both sides haven't been found in contempt of parliament.
Both sides don't engage in specious personal smears and intimidation.
Both sides don't cancel the court challenges program.
Both sides aren't afraid to speak to the press or answer unscripted questions from voters.
Both sides don't issue manuals to their MPs on how to obstruct the work of parliamentary committees.
Both sides don't question the patriotism of those who disagree with them.
Both sides don't villify immigrants and expatriates as somehow being "less Canadian"

Think about which side you want to be on.



Tweet

Coming to Canada Soon ? ? ? ?

Welcome to Crazytown . . . .



H/T: drf

All political, all the time...

Everything is political. The Harperites know all. If science, including bona fide peer reviewed research, doesn't fit their illusion of ice cream coming from an irritating little truck spewing pollution, it doesn't make it to the page. Even though you pay for it.

Via Impolitical comes the latest in the Harper attempt to muzzle everyone and everything in government, including science carried out by research departments at universities. (Emphasis mine)

The Harper government has tightened the muzzle on federal scientists, going so far as to control when and what they can say about floods at the end of the last ice age.

Natural Resources Canada scientists were told this spring they need “pre-approval” from Minister Christian Paradis’ office to speak with national and international journalists. Their “media lines” also need ministerial approval, say documents obtained by Postmedia News through access-to-information legislation.

The documents say the “new” rules went into force in March and reveal how they apply to not only to contentious issues including the oilsands, but benign subjects such as floods that occurred 13,000 years ago.

Why? Because the Harperites live in fear that their continuing big lie will be exposed. Any fragment of actual knowledge needs to be suppressed. If it isn't parades, ponies and ice cream, it doesn't fit their public presentation. If, after the last ice age there was massive flooding, someone might relate that to the melting of the ice caps and, instead of the loss of the caps being a good thing, it might be viewed as a disaster.

Can't allow that. Harper conservatives are all about sunshine and daisies - blown right up your ass.

“It’s Orwellian,” says Andrew Weaver, a climatologist at University of Victoria. The public, he says, has a right to know what federal scientists are discovering and learning.

And you can see the problem right there. "Climatologist". To a Harper conservative that is the enemy.

The documents show the new rules being so broadly applied that one scientist was not permitted to discuss a study in a major research journal without “pre-approval” from political staff in Paradis’ office.

NRCan scientist Scott Dallimore co-authored the study, published in the journal Nature on April 1, about a colossal flood that swept across northern Canada 13,000 years ago, when massive ice dams gave way at the end of the last ice age.

The study was considered so newsworthy that two British universities issued releases to alert the international media.

It was, however, deemed so sensitive in Ottawa that Dallimore, who works at NRCan’s laboratories outside Victoria, was told he had to wait for clearance from the minister’s office.

Dallimore tried to tell the department’s communications managers the flood study was anything but politically sensitive. “This is a blue sky science paper,” he said in one email, noting: “There are no anticipated links to minerals, energy or anthropogenic climate change.”

And it didn't just stop at approval. Everything was to be stage managed.

Robson asked Dallimore to provide the reporter’s questions and “the proposed responses,” saying: “We will send it up to MO (minister’s office) for approval.” Robson said interviews about the flood study needed ministerial approval for two reasons: the inquiring reporter represented a “national news outlet” and the “subject has wide-ranging implications.”

Andrew Weaver holds nothing back. I suspect, if the Harper government lasts much longer we'll be hearing more about Dr. Weaver and it won't be pleasant.

The control and micro-management points to a high level of “science illiteracy” in the upper ranks of the federal government, he says, and “incredible disrespect” for both the researchers and the taxpayers footing the government’s multi-billion-dollar science bill.

“The sad reality is that these guys in Ottawa think federal scientists work for them,” says Weaver. “They don’t, they work for the people of Canada.

“This is science funded by Canada for the public good,” he says. “It is not science funded to produce briefing notes for ministers so they can get elected in the next federal campaign.”

Right. And Shari Graydon adds some appropriate shading to the problem. This is not just science; it's everything.

The flat earth theory was discredited quite a few centuries ago and “evidence-based practice” is all over the Internet, so it’s not like the tradition is a little-known secret. So what would it take for Canadians to insist that the decisions being made about our collective future be informed by verifiable knowledge?

Consider this as one citizen’s plea for scientists of all stripes to step onto the information highway in all its forms a little more often, to challenge governments and voters alike to demand that policies and spending be backed up by reliable and independent data.

The problem, of course, is that Harper and his hillbilly caboodle react to any challenge with a singularly unimaginative response and abuse of power. They smear the challenger publicly and then remove that person from arena.

Some of the Harper troglodytes will tell you that none of the micro-managing actually affects the day to day life of Canadians. That, however, is simply not true. Ministerial interference and political meddling has reached right into the next six hours of your life. Not even your weather forecast is safe. (More on that in the future)

Related.

Did Christmas come early for the NDP?

THE HST, AKA THE "HARPER SALES TAX", appears to be a done deal for the folks who live in Ontario. Iggy and the Liberals have declared that they will support Stevie's odious tax-grab.

The question is, if you are an Ontario voter, how do you feel about this? How will it affect your vote in the next Federal election? The provincial and federal Liberals have sided with Mr. Grudge. So, is voting Liberal any different than voting for Stevie?

Or will the real winner be Stevie? If the Liberals stiff in Ontario, and the NDP cannot get a message together that works (par for the course), and do only modestly better, Stevie might just get that majority. The horror . . .

Or maybe it's a Green opportunity . . .

I just don't see how this works for Iggy. As to the next provincial election, well, McGuinty always has reminded me of Anthony Perkins and the Bates Motel.

Where do I sign up?

I've never been a big fan of Michael Ignatieff, but I do need a job that would let me move back to Canada...

Ignatieff’s big problem
Susan Riley, Canwest
Published: Tuesday, September 01, 2009

One thing Michael Ignatieff needs, if he is ever to succeed, is a quick and savage response team - twitchy, obsessive partisans with no personal lives, no particular need for sleep and a pathological loathing of Conservatives.

Lets see..."twitchy, obsessive partisan" ?

Well, "twitchy" might be a little strong, but check.

"No personal life" ?

Aside from the family (and blogging), mostly check.

"No particular need for sleep"?

Checkerooni and pass the espresso.

"a pathological loathing of Conservatives"?

Double check in spades.

Are they offering dental coverage? How about a few bucks for moving expenses? Can I write off coffee, whisky and bile as business expenses? Will I need to wear a tie or is business casual okay for around the office? Look, I know $40,000 a year isn't much, but that's all I can afford to pay until I get a second job. When can I start?

(cross-posted from the Woodshed)

One More Reason to Dislike iggy . . . .

If BC Voters need yet another reason to dislike/distrust iggy, check out this morning's "Early Edition" with Rick Cluff at the 2:11:30 mark.* (Requires Real Player, which I took pains to download, but that's a whole 'nuther story.)

If you don't want to bother, here's the verbatim transcript as per moi:

Pluffmaster: "Do you support the BC Liberal's carbon tax idea?"

iggy: "I'm not gonna wade into provincial politics. That's for the BC voter to decide."

Pluffmaster: "Aw, come on. It's just you and me." (chuckling)

iggy: "Look, I don't think it's any secret that a federal Liberal wants Gordon Campbell to win re-election. I think I can go that far, but I won't be drawn further."

'Nuff said, ya'll** ? ? ? ?


*Note to RossK: See, I wasn't listening to the Goodship Watercarrier and his "Illegible Boys" - were you?
**sorry, my Southern roots slipped out.

(Cross-posted from Moved to Vancouver)

US Progressives Delusional ? ? ? ?

Living here in Vancouver, BC, Canada for even a short period of time it is getting easier to see the faults in our local, provincial and national politicians.

It takes a great local journalist to bring one back to reality once in a while.

Today, it was Bill Tieleman of Vancouver 24 Hours turn to do the honours:

Too conservative for Canada?
By BILL TIELEMAN - January 13, 2009


Imagine where a Canadian politician who held the following positions would fit in our political system:

This politician opposes legalizing same-sex marriages.

He has no problem with citizens owning handguns - but proposed limiting their purchase - to one per month.

This politician wants to send thousands more troops to Afghanistan - and to keep them there for years instead of withdrawing them in 2011.

He thinks Robert Gates, U.S. President George W. Bush's Secretary of Defence, has done an excellent job in the Iraq war.

The politician is willing to restrict late-term abortions for women and admits he's not sure at what point a human being gets human rights.

So who did he choose to deliver a prayer before a major political event?

A controversial fundamentalist Christian pastor who has called abortion "a holocaust" and who campaigned in California for the successful Proposition 8, which bans gay marriages.

This politician has described government-run public health care as "an extreme" that leads to high taxes and is "wrong" while supporting private health insurance as the best option.

And despite saying that he has done more than anybody to "take on lobbyists and won" - this politician just appointed one to a top position.

So, where would you place this politician on the Canadian political scene?

An elected representative with these policies that are so obviously way out of line with Canadian mainstream values and popular opinion would likely lead a fringe party far to the right of Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper, with little hope of political success.

But in the United States - his name is President-Elect Barack Obama.

_______________


Just make sure that you don't get caught up in next week's Obama-mania and miss the fact that the new American president is in many ways far more conservative than any of Canada's political leaders.

Granted, Canadian politicians - stephen harper in particular - leave a lot to be desired at times.

When one compares them to those south of the 49th, however, we're fortunate.

It's up to all of us to make the political picture here even better . . . .

(Cross-posted from Moved to Vancouver)

Meet the gnu boss

Apparently the Liberal Party of Canada, a party with which I long identified and which I long supported, has decided that the best thing for Canada is to keep Steven Harper in office for as long as possible and then replace him with someone who has almost exactly the same opinions, but wears red neckties and is twice as smart.
Not content to wait for January and keep the coalition together, defeat the government and be appointed to form a coalition government with the icky NDP, the Liberals started reading Conservative Party Press releases and accepting them as fact. One little bump in the road and they panic.
Splendid. I guess that was the revolution that wasn't. Fuck you very much Liberal Party for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory once again. In the last election 62% of the country voted against the Conservatives, so in answer to this you have decided that running even further to the right is the sensible option. Michael Ignatieff, for all his very impressive academic credentials supported the Iraq war until 2007.
In other news, when and if I ever move back to what used to be Canada, I will either be moving to Westmount in the Republic of Quebec and starting my own Anglo separatist party, Le Bloc Maudit Bloke, or to Vancouver Island in the People's Republic of Pacifica and opening a "Yo-Yo" frozen yohgurt stand/Yoga fitness centre/legal marijuana distribution centre.

the bigger the bull...

Since no one is using it, maybe we could rent out the building

It might make a good homeless shelter this winter.

"Canada suffered its biggest monthly job losses last month since the recession of 1982 as 70,600 positions disappeared. Ontario's manufacturing sector is taking a direct blow from collapsing demand in the U.S., claiming about half of the November job losses. Unemployment crept up to 6.3 per cent, still near historical lows but also half a percentage point above the beginning of year.

And the U.S. is far from the only weight on Canada's job picture. The services side of the economy, which is more isolated from U.S. demand, also shed 38,000 jobs in the month – a sign that the sources of Canada's economic weakness are not just the United States, but also a deceleration in consumer spending, business investment and the housing market, economists said."

If only there was some sort of central authority that could organize a communal effort to help these people thrown out of work and perhaps help to steer our economy by making some rules to guide business and keep them from getting into trouble. We could all pitch in some money and they could figure out the best way to spend it to fix these sorts of problems. We could get everyone to vote in their own area to pick people, send them all to meet, talk it over and decide what to do. Canadians are smart enough to survive killer winters, if we some really smart people together, I'm sure they can figure something out.

Gee, didn't we used to have something like that based in a big, old building in Ottawa? I seem to remember something like that being mentioned in high school civics class, or maybe it was ancient history.

h/t to the Vanity Press, where this started as a comment.

Meanwhile, Jim Dandy Goodness takes something I said, and makes it all about the pussy.

And courtesy of Willy Loman: Ed Broadbent speaks, you listen

(crossposted from The Woodshed)

Vive la revolution de sirop d'erable!

All praise to Skdadl for coining the phrase "Maple Syrup Revolution" to describe the current likely change in government from a party whose main priority is evidently to stick to the opposition to a coalition of parties whose main priority is to start bailing the economic lifeboat in which the nation finds itself. Across the northern blogosphere, the troops are rallied - I particularly recommend these posts by Boris a little further down and Dr. Dawg's disembowling of Ol' Dead Eyes "no fair, I'M the Prime Minister, I'M supposed to be the boss" video presentation on Wednesday night and most of the recent posts on Far and Wide and the excellent "Blogging if Necessary, but not Necessarily Blogging."
I'd also suggest you look at the text of Stephen Dion's remarks from Wednesday night instead of listening to the conservatives babble about "treason." In addition to tackling the economic mess Canada finds itself in, the Coalition could also fix a number of other problems.

I think Maple Syrup Revolution fits just about right: The coalition is poised to flatten Harper like a pancake and eat him for breakfast -- and it's just so freakin' sweet.

Faster Pussycats, Kill! Kill!

Now that it seems like the opposition leaders can at least agree to be, y'know, oppositional and all, former spokesman for Paul Martin, Scott Ried seems to think its High Noon in Ottawa.
I don't expect much to come of it, since the Liberals are stuck in leadership race mode for the next several months. The idea of a coalition is a nice one, but highly unlikely to come about. I think it would take weeks of negotiating for the leaders of the three opposition parties in Parliament to agree on what to get on a pizza, but now that they seem to have forced Harper to take a small step back, who knows?
As much as I'd love to see the opposition gang up on Harper and send him out to pasture and back to the right-wing think tanks where he belongs, I think the political rhetoric has gotten a bit out of hand when people start talking about "killing" the prime minister, even in a metaphorical sense. I'm not being a "civility" concern troll either, as far as I'm concerned Harper is an ongoing disaster for Canada and should go pound sand, but imagine the screeching if Small Dead Animals titled a post this way. I'm not disagreeing with the stated goals here, I just have a very minor quibble with the terminology being used.
I'm sure the Blogging Tories will make much hay from it once they find someone to read it to them and explain the big words.
I don't know if we are going to have another election or a new coalition government or what -- probably "what"--but I love that such things are possible in the Canadian system. Ol' Dead Eyes campaigned telling us the financial situation was good and never mentioned trying to take fair public funding out the political system and leaving in place the tax credit system, which tends to favor the party with the biggest donors as opposed to the most public support. He lied, plain and simple, so if he goes down in flames because he managed to be such a rat-bastard that he got the Liberals and the Bloc to team up, well, boo-fucking-hoo Steverino, it's a contact sport. Guess whose idea it was in the first place?
If we do end up with a coalition government, does this mean that Stephan Dion goes from "loser" to "master of political ju-jitsu"?

crossposted at the Woodshed

Teaching grandma to suck eggs

...and while I'm at it, offer advice to the oldest political party in Canada. [1]

I am not a Canadian Liberal, although I probably would be if there were not other parties somewhat further to the left. However, because they are the oldest extant Canadian political party, because they are generally comfortable drifting to the left when it doesn't cost them too much politically, and finally and most importantly because of the sober intelligence and hard work of their current leader, Stephane Dion, I'm inclined to give them advice, or at least to hope that they take the good advice and prepare a bear trap for Mr. Harper the next time they clash in the polls.

If I were advising the Liberals, here is what I would like to see them do, much of it behind the scenes:

1. For now, keep Stephane Dion as leader as long as possible. There's a simple reason for this -- the Conservatives have spent the past two years attacking Stephane, there is no advantage in quickly putting forward a new target leader for the Conservatives to go after, until such time as the Liberals are ready to take them on.
2. Get together the most wise and cunning members of the party, not more than a dozen people are so, and decide upon a single person to put forward as the next leader. This person should be incisive, well spoken, tough and aggressive, but not necessarily the sharpest knife in the drawer. This past couple of years the leader has been the sharpest knife in the drawer, and it has become obvious that intelligence, wisdom and an honorable approach to politics is simply the wrong tool for the job.
3. Gather together a team of people who will have two functions -- first, to provide a tightknit advisory core to back up their leader, and second to be cultivated as understudies -- and to be able to speak clearly and forcefully when approached, just as the leader is expected to do. This group need not be the same as the group in the example above, but I'm sure they will probably overlap. These people will also function like multiple targets for the conservatives to spend their money attacking.
4. Decide as a group, and then stick to this decision fiercely, that no one inside the Liberal party is an enemy more worthy of combat than the conservative party. Set aside whatever intramural squabbles may exist and anyone who raises those quarrels should be hit on the nose with a rolled up newspaper until they behave.
5. Now the party has a pointy bit, and a solid arrowhead behind the point. Money at present is a serious problem, so save every drop of liquidity for purposes were nothing else will do. Meanwhile, recruit among the membership and put together a sort of simmering campaign readiness strategy, much of which would be mediated by extremely cheap means, such as a very active presence on the Internet. I have been very impressed with what the Obama campaign has done by means of the Internet -- the Liberals could do a lot worse than to look at what they've done and see what can be adapted for Canadian purposes.
6. Pick an election timeline of their own, preferably in early one, in the vicinity of a year, keep that completely secret but keep it as an aim, and work towards that.
7. Try to hold an election fairly quickly after the public selection of a new leader. Have everyone else primed and ready for a coordinated, clear and ruthless campaign.

Anyone reading this prescription undoubtedly can see that my experience in politics, especially the running of a very large political organization, is limited. Nothing I can do about that.

It would be interesting some time to count up all the effort and money that the political process spends simply on attacks between parties, and among the candidates within a single party. I find it difficult to believe that this is the best way to arrive at the best leader -- but that is a topic for another day.

Noni

[1] Yep, the Libs are the oldest, therefore the most "conservative"? The ages of the five main parties of this last election (Wiki):

Liberal, 112
NDP, 47
Green, 25
Bloc Québécois, 17
Conservative, 5.

.

The August Law: "If they know you won't like it, they'll do it in August (or a national holiday)"

I and my friends have looked at each other over the past few days and asked "When the heck did they pass that voter ID legislation?" We're not clueless Fox-watchers, we should have seen this.

Off to Elections Canada I went with my little butterfly net, and caught this:

Legislation introduced several significant changes to the Canada Elections Act in 2007. Below is a link to the Federal Electoral Legislation, which includes the Canada Elections Act, updated with the changes as of December 22, 2007, brought about by bills C-31, C-18 and C-16.

Aha!

They go on to tell us:

The highlights of these bills include:

Bill C-31

* Before voting, electors must prove their identity and residential address by providing one piece of government-issued photo identification showing their name and residential address, or two pieces of identification authorized by the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, each of which establishes their name and at least one of which establishes their residential address. To vote, an elector may instead take an oath and be vouched for by another elector whose name is on the list of electors for the same polling division, and who has the necessary piece(s) of identification to establish his or her identity and residential address.
* Operational changes have been adopted to improve the accuracy of the National Register of Electors, facilitate voting and enhance communications with the electorate.
* A candidate's representative may be informed, on the prescribed form, of the identity of every elector who has exercised his or her right to vote, excluding electors who registered on the day of the vote.

Bill C-18

* If an elector or voucher provides a piece of identification that does not prove his or her residence, he or she is considered to have proved it if the address on the piece of identification is consistent with information related to the elector or voucher that appears on the list of electors.

Bill C-16

* Subject to an earlier dissolution of Parliament, a general election must be held on the third Monday in October in the fourth calendar year following a previous general election, with the first general election to be held on Monday, October 19, 2009.
* The Chief Electoral Officer may recommend an alternate day if the day set for polling is not suitable.

Can any of you tell me why, if the set election date in C-16 is elective, why the voter ID thing is not also elective?

In the world of dogs, a "disqualifying fault" is a flaw which eliminates a dog from competition, regardless of whatever other good points he may exhibit.

Steve's disqualifying fault is his readiness and eagerness to play the One Rule Game.

That rule is, "I win."

No-one who plays that game, gets my vote.

Noni

A Happy Thought

My take on the election is over on Tunnel, suitably meh.

But I just had a Happy Thought. I haven't seen a chart yet showing how many of the Duct-Tape Harperites won their ridings despite, or because, of their enforced silence and avoidance of talking to large or small groups or people at bus stops or the guy who came to clean out the furnace ...

But just suppose that we find many of them did so.

Doesn't that raise the possibility that the other parties will look at this success and copy it? and then we can look forward to the next election, when candidates (and, dare I hope, leaders) all stay quietly home playing piano and snowshoeing with their kids.

Something to look forward to.

Noni

Button from here.

Faithful Leaders . . . .

The typical Sunday morning consists of sleeping a bit late, some kind of egg dish breakfast, catching up on local newspaper reading and watching "Driving Television" with Zack Spencer . Even though since moving to Vancouver we have been able to shed our vehicle (YAY!!!), I still enjoy keeping up on the current "in" vehicles.

This morning I left the television on after the show and "Listen Up" was broadcast. Not being aware that this was a "christian-oriented" broadcast I didn't immediately turn it off. Their featured segment was an "exclusive" on what the federal Party Leaders feel about their faith and how it has influenced their political careers. View video here.

It was actually quite revealing. Elizabeth May had I feel the best response, but the very end of the clip is the most interesting in so many ways.

Your thoughts ? ? ? ?

(Cross-posted from Moved to Vancouver)

No more Mr. Nice Guy

Remind me again why Ken Dryden is not at least leader of the opposition, if not Prime Minister?

Then there’s the blue vest, the “Mr. Nice Guy” ads. Ad firms are paid millions to tell the story their client wants told. It’s much easier for them when it’s a new “product” or a new “person” launch. When the information they provide is the only information - when the public knows nothing else. The problem for Mr. Harper is that the public does know something else. They’ve been watching him for 2 ½ years and Stephen Harper, they know, may be lots of things, but he’s not a “nice guy.”

He’s not. Nice guys don’t cut literacy programs. Nice guys don’t cut funding to women’s groups, aboriginal groups, health and childcare and poverty and disability groups. Toying with them month after month, teasing them with silence and desperate hope. If, they say to themselves, if I don’t say anything, if I just go quiet, maybe I might get something. Please. Then crumbs, or nothing.

Nice guys don’t decide there’s only one voice in this country that matters. Not these voices of our communities. Not those of his own Cabinet or Caucus. Not voices in the arts who get their programs cut because they say things that might make us squirm. Not any voice competent and professional who disagrees - Linda Keen, Adrian Measner, Jean-Guy Fleury - who then feel the pulverizing weight of a Government machine come down on them just so they know: you don’t mess with “the vest”.

Arts groups, literacy and poverty and childcare groups - it’s the same story. Nice guys don’t make the weak weaker and the vulnerable more vulnerable.
Nice guys don’t act like there are Canadians and not-quite Canadians. Those who fit Mr. Harper’s understanding of how life is supposed to be lived, and those, Canadians too - single mothers, addicts, gays and lesbians - who don’t.

And nice guys don’t take someone else’s person, as he did Monsieur Dion, they don’t take their personality, their character, their life, what they’ve worked hard to build, what is decent and substantial and good. What they’ve earned. They don’t take that, twist it, stretch it, caricature and distort it. They don’t buy air time
and in front of millions of people, assassinate it. And pretend, ahh, that’s just politics.
Oh, and the puffin and the poop - oops, sorry. Didn’t mean it. Just like I don’t mean all the other just-as-new ads on the Conservatives’ website, that reach tens of thousands just like the Mr. Nice Guy ads on TV, that are just as abusive as the others in the pre-Mr. Nice Guy time.

If it quacks like a duck, put a blue vest on it, it’s still a duck.

Dryden goes on to say a bunch of other good things - mostly pointing out the small, petty nature of the Harper campaign and the need to address larger issues and provide a vision of a Canada that is greater than the sums of its parts, the notion that the election should be about more than the ability of the Conservatives to buy taxpayers off with their own money.

Seriously, remind me why the Liberals picked Dion and not Dryden, because I'd really like to know. I think Dryden would have mopped the floor with Harper by now. I wish I could vote for him. Say what you want about the track record of his party over the last ten years, Dryden's vision of A Big Canada (someone please find me a transcript of that speech!) is the closest to mine that has been enunciated by any politician since Trudeau.

cross posted from the Woodshed

There will be blood

Shorter Steve Harper: I will be running the dirtiest, filthiest form of gutter campaign I can legally get away with. I justify this to you by predicting that the opposition would start it... if I didn't start it first.

Soap Star stevie . . . .

Our illustrious(?) Prime Minister appears to be taunting the illustrious(?) Leader of the Liberal Party into an early election.

From today's Globe and Mail:

Harper mulling whether to call election
THE CANADIAN PRESS August 19, 2008

HAMILTON, Ont. — Prime Minister Stephen Harper says he will spend the “next few weeks” contemplating whether to call an election.

Mr. Harper, in Hamilton for a health-care funding announcement, said Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion is balking at toppling the minority Conservatives because he's worried about the polls.

_______________


Mr. Harper said he will spend the next few weeks analyzing the situation and determining whether the Tories can have a productive fall session of Parliament.

_______________


"The next election has not been scheduled until October of 2009 and — who knows? — Mr. Dion may wish to wait longer than that," Mr. Harper said at a barbecue to kick off a two-day swing through Southern Ontario.

"I have to say this has really become quite a soap opera."

Well now, stevie.

Even though you obviously have the wardrobe for one, we can't quite call this situation a soap opera, can we?

At least in a soap opera, the viewers (public) can vote with their pocket book and switch your dog-and-pony show off.

With you in the PM's office, you pretty much have carte blanche to single-handedly destroy Canada's image around the world and annihilate our values.

Even All My Children doesn't have that much power . . . .

(Cross-posted from Moved to Vancouver)