Wednesday, March 25, 2015

Meanwhile, In Canada

H/t Anne Montgomery

H/t Michael Nabert


  1. Welcome to Canada. What shade of brown do you want for your shirt?

    1. I understand they only come in one size, Anon. Extra Small.

  2. .. without common sense, decency, trust, democracy, leadership, accountability, competance.. Canadians won't have any idea if they are 'being looked at' .. or for what reason. If as is becoming obvious, the Harper Government, or its symbiotic Party, can direct Mounties, CSIS, or unknown secretive operators to 'look at', investigate or threaten ordinary Canadians ..... ....

    Then where will we be if Stephen Harper uses the wedge of war footing to control voting in a fall election.. and stave off the likely Liberal/Trudeau victory.. then uses the 'war footing' to dictate to a subservient Governor General that an extended prorogue must supercede any attempt at a Non Confidence vote to unseat him and his minority government..

    Rogue PM government & out of control partisan political party, controlling military, policing, espionage, taxation, election & diplomatic agencies.. and the big stick is their out of control abuse by PM directive.. of CSIS

    Maybe Duffy will smoke these scumbags out.. or set fire to them..
    Maybe not....
    What then, Batman ?

    1. I am most loathe, for the sake of my own mental health, Salamander, to contemplate yet another Harper term.One can only hope that the current Canadian infatuation with war and Canadian government fascist measures will wane before the next election comes.

  3. Not even slightly funny in a pointed/cutting way, just a sad reflection of the ugly truth. Just because I support the decision Trudeau made on C51 doesn't mean I am blind to just how horrific this bill truly is, just that I see no way to stop it with Harper this close to an election running on the strong man image, and so I can only see reducing the clearly intended political hit having Trudeau oppose it Harper was looking for.

    I'm not sure my health can stand another Harper term in government, and I'm not even being slightly snarky. The level of stress and strain watching this government pervert not just all that I believe in but all that all of my family for generations believed in, worked for, fought for, and died in uniform for combined with living as a Cassandra is very hard on someone whose health is already bad enough to have them on permanent disability. That was why I withdrew after the last election for a couple of years, I knew I had to stop or else it was literally going to make me even sicker.

    This is also part of where my anger comes from, and why I am not shy about laying the blame/responsibility as I see it so openly, I really don't know how long I have left and I will be DAMNED if I don't do all I can to not just point out the horror of Harper but also those who seem to feel he is a lesser evil to their own narrow partisan interests while cloaking themselves in light claiming to be the only truly principled political party out there. That kind of holier than thou stench is hard enough to take when there is a true basis for it, as was once true for the NDP, but the last decade has shown that time has long since past, yet they still want to claim it. I'd rather be smelling months old milk than that particular stench, and I'm not going to be shy about saying so along with fighting the Harper regime as best I can.

    Sadly, if I must I'll do this again after the next election, I do not know how not to fight for what I believe, but the toll it takes on my health is not minor.

    1. I appreciate your heartfelt commentary, Scotian. It is strange, isn't it, to be living in a time when the more we are engaged in politics, the more it becomes a scourge on our mental/physical health? In the past, we could have felt passionate disagreements over any given government policy initiative without it affecting us to our cores. Now, the rot, corruption and perversion of the Harper years is like an infectious disease from which our love of country and its traditions provide no protection but rather sickens us deeply.

      I cannot bear to contemplate another victory by this man and his adherents. I fear it will cut the heart right out of me.

    2. What is hardest about it for me Lorne is I was predicting this back in 2005, spelling it out in great detail how this would be the result if we let Harper gain power. That this was why as bad as the Libs had gotten by that point leaving them in power was far less corrosive to our democracy than a Harper government. I was roundly mocked for that POV at the time from all corners, well, I think I earned by nickname of Cassandra in full by now. That is also why my patience for the useful idiots that still seem to think the Libs are the same as Harper even after this past decade is essentially nonexistent. Only the deluded partisan mind could look at the factual record of prior Lib governments and this Harper government and see any real equivalency.

      I so wish I had been wrong, I never wanted to be right about all of this, but I was. Which one might think might make some of my long time critics on the left consider that perhaps, just perhaps, my view of the demographic realities of the voting public might equally be correct. I keep advocating Lib because of what I see when people actually vote. I've taken to saying we go to the polls with the voters we actually have, not the voters we wish we had. That truth still seems so lost on so many to me, and is one of Harper's greatest keys to power.

    3. "We go to the polls with the voters we actually have, not the voters we wish we had." That strikes me as a realistic appraisal of our current situation, Scotian, and judging by the latest Samara poll about the state of our democracy, I doubt that an informed and engaged electorate is likely to materialize anytime soon.

  4. I've been as realistic in all of my observations as I can be. I make my arguments about the voting public based on all objective hard information I have available. My arguments on the demographics are based on actual poll turnouts and results, not simply the polls between elections. I've used the by-elections as another data point. Then there is the respective fundraising differences, which when you consider who is the second party/Official Opposition with all the additional profile and resources that comes with it, and who is the third placed party in the House is a significant measurement too. Then there is which party is bringing in more new memberships, and again considering the fact the NDP were supposedly on the way up after 2011 and the Libs on the way out is something one must seriously evaluate. Finally look at which parties are having the most vigorous candidate nomination battles and interest, because that also shows both the health of a party AND which parties are most seen to be on the rise with the greatest potential to become government.

    You take all that together, and how can you come to any conclusion other than what I've been saying for a decade now? I'll grant 2011 was a significant divergence from the usual breakdowns, but that was the confluence of three things, only one of which was in the control of the NDP, namely Layton's debate performance. That though would not have had the same impact were it not for two other factors, one being just how much Ignatief not only drove away potential new voters, he also drove away traditional Lib voters in large numbers. The other was the collapse of the Separatist vote federally in Quebec needing a new home, and the NDP at the time was the best fit between that debate performance, the Sherbrooke Declaration making the NDP the closest to the Nationalists in terms of 50%+1, and that the nationalist movement also tended to be the most progressive/left-leaning voting group in the nation.

    This time though the environment is very different. Everyone has now seen how Harper governs in majority, not just minority, and he was even more partisan, not less as some had thought he would be with a majority win. Layton departed the scene right after the election (and I suspect there are more than a few people who remember how during the last election any questioning about his health was seen as dirty politics, yet clearly he must have already been aware his illness was returning before the end of the election given how quickly afterwards he stepped down and then passed away) leaving the role of the voice of conscience of Canadian values open, and Justin Trudeau has clearly chosen to claim it. Mulcair, while clearly very competent and capable, does not inspire outside his core base, and even within the traditional NDP base some are less than comfortable with him given his lack of history within the NDP traditional shall we call the feeder leagues.

    I've been watching Dippers in particular assuming that Trudeau will be destroyed by Mulcair and Harper in the debates, I've yet to see any of them even consider the possibility that he might survive, let alone come out stronger, not even for the purposes of disaster proofing their own plans. They are CERTAIN Trudeau will massively flop there, and that kind of blind faith is dangerous, and I think in this case way overly optimistic.

    to be concluded...

  5. Conclusion:

    Is Trudeau the best natural speaker in our politics, no, but he does come off as real and sincere far more than any other leader save Liz May, and that counts for more than a little with people, I've noticed. He is also improving over time in the House and in scrums, and by the time of the debates I rather doubt he is going to be the easy mark his critics appear convinced he has to be. That inability to see even such a basic reality in front of them worries me about the Dippers in particular, because their efforts are the ones that provide Harper his best chance of retaining power, he knows it, you know it, I know it, and I have to believe in their hearts even most Dippers know it. The logic of it is simply too obvious by this point.

    We need to be realistic about how to defeat Harper if we are serious, and the reason I keep saying Lib majority is it the only way to be SURE Harper loses power, in a minority situation I could well see his GG letting Harper pull some sort of power-grab triggering a Constitutional Crisis in the process. There is clearly no way for the NDP to come close to majority territory absent the complete implosion of the Lib vote, and there is ZERO sign of that coming, unlike when Ignatief was leader where there were signs of trouble prior to the campaign. Besides, the House built in 2011 only underscored the unlikelihood of the NDP to get to even minority levels elected, and these days the risks are simply too high to be gambling at all. We all KNOW now what Harper does beyond all doubt, and he MUST go!

    I'm really tired of repeating myself for a decade now, it would be so nice to finally get to lay this burden down. To stop Harper we must all understand that point about having the voters we actually have, not the ones we wish to have, and no-one more than Dippers/progressives, whatever they want to call themselves, those to the left of the Libs, need to understand this most basic and important truth of the Canadian reality. Its not about what is fair, it is about what is true/real, and the stakes are clearly far too high now, and it is also brutally clear that whatever faults and sins the Libs have they are clearly nowhere near Harper in either ideology nor in political practices/culture, and that in itself is no small important reality. With Libs Dippers have a chance of influencing policy, even with a Lib majority, we know with the CPC that clearly is not the case. That in itself should make what needs to be done and the truth that Lib Tory Same Old Story died with the PCPC.