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. 

You can't understand the outrage? Here. Let me explain it.

Some of the Liberal (capital L) bloggers can't seem to grasp the outrage felt by those of us of in the left side of the swamp over the failure of the opposition to meet Bill C-484 with the appropriate action.

Yes, we've all had visits from the House of Commons and slowly the message should be starting to sink in.

One suggestion is that the Liberal MPs who voted with the Conservative sponsor of this bill would have defied a whipped vote. And then we're supposed to persuade those MPs to change their vote.

Persuade?

Let's get something clear here. We, the people, do not work for our Members of Parliament; they work for us. If there is any persuading to do it is them addressing us, not the inverse. If I have to start getting persuasive with non-responsive MPs it will be by way of an effort to have them destooled and replaced. And that includes their leaders, whomsoever they might be.

The outrage is not just at the Liberals' obvious failure to properly interpret this bill and then meet it head-on. The outrage goes deeper - much deeper.

My extreme dislike for Harper and the sycophants he has gathered around him is based completely on his past performance and activities. He has back-stabbed his way to power and his personal views on Canada are unrepresentative of the majority of the population. He believes in a Balkanized country. Further, he is no less a separatist than the members of the Bloc Quebecois.

So, when the Liberals stand up and tell us that Harper has a hidden agenda, something I believe to be true, I expect those same Liberals to beat that agenda into the ground as soon as it starts to emerge and with as much force as they can muster.

By failing to do that, the outrage develops, and we all wonder why we bother with an opposition at all. TIBT explains why we're now questioning why we should call on the opposition for anything:

The Liberals failed to stand up against the Conservative agenda they warned us against.

Got that? You Liberals were the ones telling us how dangerous Harper is. And sure enough, he's one destructive little bastard. So where do you get off not keeping your swords sharpened?

Get your goddamned act together. Now.

You weren't elected to do a part-time job.

Just another point: At the top of the post I did say "some" capital L bloggers. That doesn't mean all of them by any stretch. By example, I give you Far and Wide as one of the better examples of the capital L bloggers who does get it.

A message for the members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition

Corrected and updated. And again.

Do your goddamned job!

Yesterday's display during the vote on second reading of the POS Unborn Victim of Crime Act was reprehensible.

I usually have to hold my nose when I vote but yesterday's performance by the Opposition has made the prospect of selection an even more odious task.

The fact that Stephane Dion was absent for the vote is even more disgusting when we find out where he was and what he was doing?

Red Tory and JJ have the complete list of miscreant misogynists and... oh! Looky here! Names, email addresses and phone numbers of Liberal MPs who should endure a political execution at the next election.

Let's repeat the names of Liberal members who think incremental legislation sneaked in through a back-bencher's bill, with the full approval of Harper, is a good idea:

Raymond Bonin; John Cannis; Hon. Raymond Chan; Hon. Roy Cullen; Sukh Dhaliwal; Hon. Albina Guarnieri; Hon. Charles Hubbard; Hon. Jim Karygiannis Derek Lee; Hon. Lawrence MacAulay; Hon. Gurbax Malhi; Hon. John McKay; Hon. Joe McGuire; Hon. Dan McTeague; Hon. Shawn Murphy; Massimo Pacetti; Francis Scarpaleggia; Hon. Raymond Simard; Lloyd St. Amand; Paul Steckle; Paul Szabo; Hon. Robert Thibault; Alan Tonks; Roger Valley; Tom Wappel; Borys Wrzesnewskyj; John Maloney.

And then there are those who were just plain too busy to answer the division bells because some of them were celebrating International Womens Week! (Yeah... if you're going to put one in between the ribs, you might as well give it a twist.)

Stéphane Dion; Bryon Wilfert; Joe Volpe; Scott Simms; Nancy Karetak-Lindell; Hon. Mark Eyking; Ujjal Dosanjh; Denis Coderre; Brenda Chamberlain; Gerry Byrne.

It's only proper to point out that the NDP came out of this splattered in shit. Meet Peter Stoffer, who voted with the Conservatives.

After that dismal performance what do they come up with next?

This.

Liberals will attempt to turn the tables Thursday on rival parties who've ridiculed them for being afraid of toppling the minority Conservative government.

They'll introduce a motion condemning the NDP and Bloc Quebecois for defeating the previous Grit government in November 2005, thereby enabling Stephen Harper's Tories to win power.

Well, that's just jaw-dropping amazing. I'll bet they all show up for that one. I have a better idea. All of you go to the pub, order a table-full of beer and weep in it. It'll have the same effect. But wait. There's a real killer line in The Star's article today:

The motion slams the Harper government for setting back women's equality rights by cancelling such Liberal measures as the Court Challenges Program and a national child care program.

Wow! That sends a real message, doesn't it? You passed up a chance to kick them in the nuts and choose to throw spitballs instead.

What a bunch of fucking cartoons.

Tell them what you think of them.

Corrections: The above lists have been corrected for accuracy. Thanks to Jennifer in comments.

Correction II: Commenter Ferd pointed out that Nancy Karetak-Lindell, who was absent from the vote was likely caught in an Arctic blizzard and could not have been in Ottawa.

Khan becomes Gollum to Harper's Saruman

UPDATED
So, I was out most of the day and I return to discover that Wajid Khan, who has effectively been a part of the Harper government since, well, the last election, has finally decided to make his drift into Mordor official.

There are some who feel Khan should resign.

Ummm, no. Who thought this wouldn't happen? Anyway, Khan is a politician. Politicians in Canada don't resign because they do something slimy, unethical or just plain pissy. Try to keep in mind what we're talking about here. These are people who make used car dealers look good. You can paint them any political colour you want. Once they've penetrated the top layer of pond scum and dry off, there isn't much difference in any of them.

The numbers strategists can go on from now until the cows come home, it won't change the fact that this whole thing looks like it was move to get Peter MacKay a new buddy.

Additional: Canadian Cynic suggests that I might be mixing my metaphors and that instead of putting Khan in the position of Gollum, I should actually have given him the persona of Grima Wormtongue. I understand CC's point completely and should point out that when I originally started this post, that was on my mind.
However, I changed the title at the last minute. Having read Tolkien years ago, and having had to run far too many lines with a young actor playing in several stage adaptations of Tolkien's work, I remembered that Gollum was a tortured individual, struggling with his inner selves, unable to reconcile his desire for power with his inability to hold it. He had no constituency, no friends and his alliances were purely mercenary in nature.
CC's graphic presentation is great, but my position is that Khan is much less attached to Harper than either Harper or Khan would be willing to admit.

And if there's a message Harper should take away with him it is another metaphor:

If they'll do it with you; they'll do it to you. Dr. Phil McGraw

More: Ok, I'll give in. The Wingnuterer has taken Canadian Cynic's graphic to another level. With that, I'll take that metaphor over mine. If they're going to put that much work into it, they deserve to be right.