Thursday, July 9, 2015

Don't Build a Mother Canada Statue. Build 10! 20! 30!

Yes, it is ugly hubristic and just plain wrong.  So, build several across the country.  And the Monument to Victims of Communism while we are at it.  Let the first ones be built as what are essentially Stephen Harper's tributes to himself.  This will allow him to, at least temporarily, assuage the demons that torment him.

Both are ugly and reminiscent of the worst Soviet public art.  Build the rest as a constant reminder to all Canadians that we get the government we deserve.  And that, if we ever again allow an anti-democratic tyrant like Harper to attain office through a divided opposition, low voter turnout, compliant corporate media, and flawed voting systems, the next Supreme Leader will build similar monstrosities to themselves.Recommend this Post

Monday, July 6, 2015

Why is Mulclair getting a free ride on his dalliance with Harper?

It doesn't matter if the reason he walked away is corroborated by senior conservatives.  What matters is that he entered into discussions in the first place.  A Liberal going to the NDP, fair enough.  Someone who wandered to and fro between the centre to the far hard right to the left is something else.  Even in 2007, a politically aware person knew exactly what Harper was all about.  A man of principle hangs up as soon as he hears that it is Harper's Team on the other end of the line.

A future leader of the NDP doesn't enter into negotiations.  |He shouldn't be allowed to skate away with the claim that it wasn't about a salary dispute but rather it was about environmental policy as if that was a display of principle.  If Harper had called Stephen Lewis would he have entertained the idea of working with Harper?

Exactly.  But just as Harper is not of the timbre of Diefenbaker, Stanfield or Clark, Mulclair is no Lewis, Broadbent or McLauglin.  The heritage of the NDP is about character and principle.  Mulclair is about Mulclair.

Why bother changing our current tyrant for a wannabe one?

Recommend this Post

Sunday, March 8, 2015

The Irony at the Heart of Harper's Economic Failure

|It is probably not an over statement to posit that Stephen Harper hates Pierre Trudeau and his legacy more than anyone or anything.  Given the malignant nature of Harper's soul, that is a lot of hate. This fervent bile is born of a mix of good old conservative anti-intellectualism, ethnic bias, jealousy of an intellectual superior and his accomplishments.  This hatred is a large part of why the Conservative base still support Harper notwithstanding all of his incompetence. It is not the prospect of losing to Pierre Trudeau's son that is the irony.  That is just the poetic coup de grace.  The irony is the strong parallels in the reasons the economic programs of both mean foundered.

At a time when OPEC manipulations caused catastrophic increases in oil prices, the Liberal government of Pierre Trudeau instituted the National Energy Program to shield Canadians from the world price of oil and provide tax revenue for social programs.  When oil prices fell, the entire program was in tatters and Trudeau's legacy as an economic steward of the country was destroyed.  He was able to salvage his reputation with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and repatriating the constitution.

At a time when OPEC manipulations caused catastrophic increases in oil prices, the Conservative government of Stephen Harper instituted a program to transform Canada into an Energy Superpower and let the rest of the economy pound sand.  When oil prices fell, the entire program was in tatters and Harper's legacy as an economic steward of the country was destroyed.  He was able to decisively ruin his reputation by seeking re-election under the boogey man of terrorism and eviscerating the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and repatriating the constitution.Recommend this Post

Monday, December 22, 2014

The Good, The Bad, And The (Really, Really) Ugly

Stories that cover the entire spectrum are present in the news today.  T'is the season to be jolly so let us start with the Good News.

The Good

Trudeau is talking the talk about openness.

Justin Trudeau is promising to scrap Stephen Harper's brand of message discipline if he becomes prime minister, giving more freedom to bureaucrats, ditching the scripts for cabinet ministers and making them and himself more accessible to journalists.
The Liberal leader says Harper's penchant for strictly controlling the flow of information — and the select few who are allowed to sparingly dispense it — has led to an opaque, secretive government that is cut off from the citizens it's supposed to be serving.
A spokesman for Harper thoroughly rejected Trudeau’s assertions.
(Really.  Who cares what a Harper spokes person says?)
More goodness:
"You can't run a government from one single person," Trudeau said. "What instead matters is that leadership be about gathering around extraordinary individuals and getting the best out of them."
Trudeau added that "a free and informed press is an essential part of any informed democracy, making sure citizens know (what's going on) and are able to hold their leaders to account." Freezing out the media is "not just weakening the functioning of our democracy but weakening the outcomes of our governance."
Let hope we get a chane to see if Trudeau walks the walk.

Being an eminently fair blogger, I will quote the Conservative response to give their side of the story:
"I would challenge his (Trudeau's) assertions," MacDonald said in an emailed response.
I'm sure you would but, wait, you replied by email.  Thereby eliminating the opportunity for a follow-up and proving the charges laid on you by Trudeau.

The Bad

Does Michael den Tandt seriously think that the Liberals have consciously crafted Trudeau's image after Luke Skywalker/Simba/King Arthur?

Why yes.  It appears he does:
 His brand has been crafted, deliberately it seems to me, to tap into very old archetypes of heroism. 
My goodness, we need a better level of journalism in this country.

The Ugly

In this case it isn't the author.  The article is an review of another Harperian desecration of our constitutional framework.  It was excellently written by Errol Mendes, Canada's foremost expert on the subject.  It should be read in its entirety.  It probably deserved to be first but that would have interfered with the Spaghetti Western theme.  The sacrifices one makes for art.Recommend this Post

Saturday, December 20, 2014

Harper leads by example

Harper hides his innate cowardice behind his bullying tactics.  Like all bullies, Harper is, not so deep down, a coward.

Just as his "I can take a punch" line in an earlier interview with Mansbridge (or some other CBC sycophant), is an attempt to deflect attention away from his thin skin, his explanation for his cowardly actions during the Parliament Hill shootings doesn't hold the water Mansbridge is so eager to carry.

As I read the transcript of the interview a post began to percolate.  But alas, Boris at The Galloping Beaver has covered all the points but one here.  With regards Boris' Point 1, if the caucus insisted he hid, why did he have to apologize to his caucus?
Prime Minister Stephen Harper told his hushed caucus Wednesday morning he felt remorse for surreptitiously ducking into a closet during last week's assault on Parliament Hill, CBC News has learned.

Many Conservative MPs were alarmed at the prime minister's sudden disappearance during the terrifying 15 minutes between the moment Michael Zehaf-Bibeau fired the first shot inside the Parliament buildings and when Sergeant-At-Arms Kevin Vickers entered their barricaded caucus room to tell them the fusillade outside their door had ended with Zehaf-Bibeau's death.
Perhaps his apology didn't do enough to calm a restive caucus and base.  Perhaps they know, if unwilling to admit, that the man they hate the most gave and excellent example of how a leader acts.

Stephen Harper.  Not A Leader

Recommend this Post