UPDATED: Home Of The Whopper

Given that the unofficial organ of the Conservative Party, The Globe and Mail, has endorsed Stephen Harper in the last three elections, I don't think it is much of a stretch to suggest they will make it four in a row, either later today online or in tomorrow's print edition. Today, I hope readers will indulge me in a little extemporaneous speculative fiction, the kind the paper itself indulges in when they tell us that the Conservative Party is best positioned to lead us into an uncertain future.

One note of caution, however: my political prognostications have been grossly inaccurate in recent years, so please take all of this with much more than the usual grain of salt:

The last four years have been difficult ones indeed, not only for Canada but for the entire world. Economic uncertainty has plagued much of the world. Terrorism has been on the rise. And here at home, the decorum and the debates in the House of Commons have been marred by rancorous and rabid partisanship by all political actors, Stephen Harper not the least of them.

Do we wish that he had brought more statesmanship to his role as prime minister? Of course we do. Do we wish that he had led with grace and diplomacy rather than denigration of his opponents? No argument there. But to focus on his personal shortcomings is to ignore the broader picture. The fact is that under his leadership, Canada has become a far more outward-looking nation, boldly forging new alliances and trade treaties that can only redound to the benefit of all Canadians. Under his watch, this country is no longer confined to parochial backwaters. We are a nation of the twenty-first century.

There will always be those who pine for an earlier, simpler time, when the nanny state grew at an unsustainable rate. Under Mr. Harper's leadership, both the country and its citizens have matured to the point where tax cuts that respect people's ability to make their own choices are increasingly the norm. Many applaud this development, while others still yearn to be taken care of by the state.

Much has been made about Mr. Harper's personal style; his reserved aloofness stands in sharp contrast to the gregarious charm of Mr. Trudeau. But Canadians are urged to remember that charisma is not a foundation of good government. Vision and solid policy-making are. In these areas, Mr. Harper has proven himself time and time again.

With a still-fragile economy, voters need to ask themselves whether this is the time to embark on risky experiments that will further burden our children and grandchildren with debt, led by an inexperienced Liberal Party leader, or stay the course with a government that has a proven track record.

We at The Globe and Mail believe the choice is clear and therefore endorse the Conservative Party of Canada in this election.

UPDATE: Well, the Globe has outdone itself this time; as I predicted, they are endorsing the Conservative Party and its policies. However, take a look at what they want Stephen Harper to do. It seems like the self-proclaimed 'newspaper of record' wants it both ways; its cowardice and fear of public ridicule is palpable.

Also, for a real treat, take a few moments to read some of the readers' comments, which are quite justifiably contemptuous of this sad facsimile of a newspaper with integrity.

And if that's not enough, check out this Globe Q&A on Facebook.

In Which The Globe And Mail Continues To Service Its Ideological Master

Were it possible for a corporate entity to be appointed to the Senate, I am sure that The Globe and Mail would now be making its presence felt in the Red Chamber. Ever-constant friend to Stephen Harper, the paper with its cadre of ideological sycophants, John Ibbitson consistently leading that particular pack, has proven itself time and again as the Tory newspaper of record.

The Globe's latest genuflection at the altar of Harper came on Monday in an article written by Konrad Yakabuski entitled Harper hysteria a sign of closed liberal minds. In it, said scribe suggests that we all calm down and see the Harper record in the kind of light that only a true believer could entertain:

Just what it is about the Conservative Leader that sends reasonable people into such fits of hysteria is best examined by historians, or better yet, psychiatrists. But it surely can’t be evidence, for Mr. Harper’s political style is not particularly novel, nor have his reforms been that transformational.

Two words in that paragraph are ample indication of the blinders Yakabuski donned for the premise of this piece: style and reforms. More about that in a moment.

Incredibly, he asserts that Harper largely

governs from the centre, upholding the long Canadian tradition of middle-of-the-road pragmatism.

I guess in order to try to reassure readers that his is not a satirical piece, Yakabuski admits his lord has perhaps made a mistake or two along the way but really, twas nothing:

Yes, the Conservatives have made some questionable policy choices in the name of stroking their base. Killing the long-form census was one. The form had been a long-standing bugaboo among conservatives who felt the state has no business knowing the granular details of their lives. Its demise has inconvenienced some researchers, but it has hardly led to a “subtle darkening of Canadian life.”

But what of all the criticism directed at Harper? Tut, tut. Nothing to see here. Move along:

...because elites in the media and academe have deemed Conservative supporters a less evolved species than the progressive subclass to which they themselves belong, they are beside themselves at the loss of their own influence.

And about the prime minister's obsessive micromanaging?

Autocratic, Stephen Harper? Well, yes, like just about every other successful prime minister from John A. Macdonald to Mackenzie King to Jean Chrétien. The centralization of decision making in the Prime Minister’s Office is a phenomenon much bigger than Mr. Harper and it would take wholesale parliamentary, if not constitutional, reform to reverse the trend.

The Duffy scandal, according to Mr. Yakabuski's bible, is much ado about nothing:

The questions raised at Senator Mike Duffy’s fraud trial about the conduct of Mr. Harper’s closest staff in the PMO, and the Conservative Leader himself, are not flattering. But in the annals of Canadian political scandals – a fairly tame volume to begin with – this is a footnote.

Getting back to his qualifiers of style and reforms, informed readers, of which there appear to be growing numbers, will be aware that much of what Harper has done has nothing to do with legislation. Rogue appointments to the National Energy Board, the muzzling of scientists, the egregious contempt for Parliamentary traditions are just three from a long list of abuses that have been well-chronicled and documented over the years and need no repetition here.

They are all part of the public record.

The Harper base may exult in propaganda organs like the Globe and Mail. All those who embrace critical thinking should feel duly insulted.

This Is Not The Time For Absolutism

In the absolutist world of Stephen Harper, there are those who wear white hats and those who wear black. No berets (especially berets!) of middling colours are recognized. So when he declares that Canada will not stand on the sidelines on this possibly endless battle against ISIS, King Stephen is positing an absolutist scenario, one that sees military action as the only way to make a meaningful contribution.

It is a blinkered perspective with which not all agree.

Writing in The Globe, a professor of political science, Michael Bell, offers the following observations and reminders:

Western “boots on the ground” in Afghanistan and Iraq have been abject failures, leaving behind a still more profound conundrum. Could this happen all over again?

It is ironic that the American-led invasion of Iraq and the abortive Arab Spring in Syria, albeit the latter a noble failure, combined to let loose the explosive radicalism we are faced with today. The subsequent power vacuum unleashed unchecked ethnic nationalism and extremist ideology. The law of unintended consequences prevails again. Whether “boots on the ground” will ultimately be the answer is more than doubtful.

Roger Barany of Vancouver points out that there are viable alternatives to military engagement for Canada:

The disturbing examples of extremism we have seen (or avoided seeing) from Islamic State are no justification for Canada to be part of a massive aerial bombing campaign that could kill as many innocent civilians as intended targets. And this is assuming that the intelligence is reliable in the first place (For Harper, Decision To Deploy Must Come With Full Disclosure – Sept. 29).

This is not our war, but not being part of it does not mean sitting on the sidelines. Canada will always have a humanitarian role to play. It can start by joining a coalition of countries willing to help deal with the massive refugee outflows and human suffering caused by the air strikes in Syria.

If the Prime Minister is intent on Canada having a direct combat role, the debate should be premised on the worst-case scenario: Canadian soldiers deployed in a long-term ground war in the Mid-east. Then the question should be put to a free vote in Parliament so that MPs of all stripes can vote their individual conscience and that of their constituents.

Today's Globe editorial also warns against hasty commitments:

...sending our forces into combat is not the only alternative to standing on the sidelines and watching. The Harper government is among the world’s most vocal supporters of Ukraine and Israel – but no Canadian troops or planes have ever been involved in the fighting in those countries. Opposition to the IS does not necessarily mean a direct combat role. Humanitarian aid, technical support, financial support, weapons, training – there are ways Canada can participate usefully in Iraq and Syria without intervening directly.

And it warns that once engaged,

no one should believe that this is a battle that will begin and end with a few fighter-jet sorties.

Expect these warnings, based as they are on logic, recent history and reflection, not to be factors in the Harper regime's decision.

More Harper Acquiescence To The Corporate Agenda

As much as it is said that the Harper regime is planning to buy votes for the 2015 election by giving income-splitting to families, the reality is that Canadians are increasingly being called upon to aid and abet its agenda of 'starving the beast' while at the same time subsidizing corporate profits.

As reported in The Globe and Mail, our Finance Department has quietly shelved plans to crack down on so-called “treaty shopping” by multinationals. The surprise move suspends a long campaign by Ottawa to stop what it says is rampant “abuse” of international tax treaties by companies seeking to duck Canadian taxes.

Treaty-shopping was most recently in the news when Burger King engineered a merger with Tim Hortons so it could pay a much lower corporate tax rate that Canada offers. Despite the fact that the late Finance Minister Jim Flaherty wanted to curb the practice, 'Uncle' Joe Oliver is embracing it:

Facing intense lobbying from resources companies and their tax advisers, Mr. Oliver apparently bought the argument that curbing treaty shopping would put a chill on foreign investment in places such as the Alberta oil sands, leaving Canada at a competitive disadvantage.

In other words, the argument goes, the rapacious appetite for massive corporate profits, along with the refusal to accept any responsibility to the country that makes those profits possible, is the business imperative that must be yielded to:

In a prebudget submission to the House of Commons Finance committee, Deloitte & Touche LLP had this to say:

“To attract foreign capital, Canadian projects generally must support higher potential yields than comparative investments located in the home country of a capital source,” Deloitte tax policy leader Albert Baker said in the submission. “This is a particular issue for the energy and resource sector.”

The flip side is that not squeezing corporations means individual Canadians must bear a disproportionate share of the country’s tax load. Unlike companies, ... hard-working Canadians can’t use complex offshore tax structures.

The message therefore seems to be that all other Canadian taxpayers – you and I – should subsidize the inflated profits of offshore oil sands investors.

So much for the rhetoric and propaganda the Harper regime fosters about its concern for 'working families.'

New Enemies, New Misdirections

Last week I wrote a post about the fraught fund-raising letter sent out by Conservative Party director of political operations Fred DeLorey. The letter stressed the need to build a substantial war chest because a cabal of leftist media (essentially all of them - media concentration at its worst, eh?) is preventing the regime from getting out its message of good, sober, and responsible government.

In today's Globe and Mail, Lawrence Martin, one of the few journalists left at the once mighty paper worth his salt, offers his perspective on this extraordinary and ludicrous claim:

The point about concentrated media power will raise eyebrows. Is Mr. Harper looking to break them up?

And the notion that media conglomerates are doing the bidding of the liberal left? That would be news to the likes of Postmedia, Sun Media, Shaw Communications, Rogers and Bell: Their headquarters aren’t exactly overrun by Noam Chomsky disciples. And more than 90 per cent of Canadian newspapers endorsed the Conservatives in the last election.

But like a growing number of our system’s institutional checks and balances, the fourth estate is on Mr. Harper’s hit list. The CBC has been there a long time; it would be gone if the PM had his druthers. If he wins the next election, it very well might be, as the fundraising letter’s line of questioning suggests.

While Harper's hatred for the CBC is well-known, representing as it does central Canadian liberalism, elitism and big-government values, the fact that our mad prime minister has turned his sights on the broader media suggests someone who has lost both his balance and his perspective (if he indeed was ever in possession of such), blaming everyone except himself for his spate of recent misfortunes:

When it comes to coverage, Mr. Harper has, in fact, been getting a rough media going over in recent months. He might wish to consider that perhaps the Senate scandal, the elections bill blundering and the Supreme Court debacle have something to with it.

The Prime Minister isn’t trending well with journalists. Years ago, there were a few scribes who took exception to his excessive controls and billy-club style of democracy. Now the majority of pundits are of that view – left, right and centre.

Martin concludes his column on an ominous note, reminding me once again of the disturbing Nixonian rage and paranoia that seem to define Mr. Harper's mental state:

We’ve seen how Mr. Harper reacts when challenged. Going forward, we can probably expect more than just fundraising letters.

Coffee Workers Unionizing

Many of us are abundantly aware, as both parents and citizens, of how hard it is for young people to establish meaningful career paths these days. Part-time and contract work abounds, as do minimum wage jobs, despite the fact that we have a very educated population. Corporations continue to sit on record profits as they enjoy low corporate tax rates that fail to create jobs.

Many of the lowest-paying positions are in the service sector, especially coffee shops that continue to grow at very healthy rates. Although I am sure the right-wing will be consternated, there is good news out of Halifax. The Globe and Mail has a story detailing a push by those working in coffee emporiums to unionize:

Employees at a Just Us! coffee shop in Halifax successfully joined Local 2 of the Service Employees International Union.

Workers at two Second Cup outlets in the city also recently voted whether to join the same union, though the Labour Board has yet to release their results.

Personally, I think it is long overdue, largely because such jobs, although traditionally part-time positions, are turning into long-term jobs thanks to the dearth of career opportunities today.

Not everyone, however, feels this way:

Labour organizing in the service industry has been traditionally low for both ideological and economic reasons, said David Doorey, a professor of labour and employment law at York University in Toronto.

“It is a highly competitive industry, and employers believe unionization will pose a threat to their profit margins,” he said in an email.

To get a flavour of some Globe reader reactions, take a look at a few of the comments accompanying the story, which range from sarcasm to mockery to outrage fueled by the fear that unionization will lead to higher prices for coffee. To say such blinkered outlooks disgust me would be an understatement.

More Hypocrisy from the Far Right

To say that the extreme right is often hypocritical is tantamount to saying that when the sky is clear, it is blue. Nonetheless, I can't help but feel more than my usual disdain when that hypocrisy is especially overt and egregious.

This morning, while waiting for my wife at the dentist's office, I picked up a copy of The Globe and Mail to read one of the few columnists I actually miss from the days that I subscribed, television critic John Doyle. In his column today, entitled Warning: This column contains scary Sun News scenes unsuitable for some readers, he reports that the Sun News channel, which enjoys what could most charitably described as a miniscule audience,

... has put in for mandatory carriage on basic cable in Canada. The elusive, lucrative 9(1)(h) category, as it is called by CRTC wonks. What it means for us is that if you purchase a basic cable package, Sun News would be part of it, whether you bloody well like it or not.

As Doyle points out, this desperate measure to save the station runs completely counter to its notion of freedom:

... isn’t Sun News anti-mandatory on everything? Watching Sun News doesn’t bring many surprises; you’re more likely to get variations on a theme watching the Fireplace Channel. So, mere minutes spent watching its continuing hilarity confirm that it’s against folks being obliged to do anything they don’t wanna do. Like, you’d think, pay for a TV channel they don’t want to watch. On the day Sun News went on the air, Levant declared, “We’re talking about truth and freedom. If you love freedom like I do, it’s a pretty happy day.” Well, sunshine, “freedom,” also means freedom from not having to pay for your channel.

Yet one more reason to hold the extreme right-wing in the contempt they so roundly deserve.

'I Am Not A Crook'

In words eerily echoing Richard Nixon's famous "I'm not a crook" declaration, Globe and Mail plagiarist Margaret Wente truculently writes the following in her still extant column:

I’m far from perfect. I make mistakes. But I’m not a serial plagiarist. What I often am is a target for people who don’t like what I write.

With Wente's dishonesty being aided and abetted by an editor-in-chief who has lost his way and regards the situation as "a private matter between employer and employee," the entire debacle amply demonstrates how far Canada's 'newspaper of record' has declined since John Stackhouse assumed the top position.

Ethical Transgression Be Damned

One of the few journalists today holding the Harper regime to public account, Lawrence Martin, has a very interesting assessment of yesterday's minimalist cabinet shuffle, and offers a rather damning indictment of the Conservatives' ethical myopia at ipolitics.ca.

The piece also offers the reader a sharp contrast to the Harper tribute presented over at Canada's self-proclaimed 'newspaper of record by the increasingly sycophantic senator-in-waiting, John Ibbitson, who extols the Conservative Cabinet and goes so far as to describe Environment Minister Peter Kent as a good and faithful servant, without even a hint of irony.

Reading Recommendation

If you're like me, you harbour a certain fascination with Stephen Harper. Never before has there been a Prime Minister who so publicly displayed an anal retentiveness that has become emblazoned across the land, a man who, while frequently described as a policy wonk and a winner-take-all politician, appears to many as simply someone who has known little joy or pleasure in his life.

So Stephen Harper's psyche is there for all to ponder and speculate about, existing privacy laws notwithstanding. Couple that awareness with the fact that one of the Globe and Mail's few remaining journalists of integrity has written a piece pondering the Prime Minister's future, and I think you will find an article worth perusal.

A Tale of Two Newspapers

The Globe and Mail and its sundry propagandists (excepting the principled Lawrence Martin, of course) continue their Sisyphean task of defending the indefensible by issuing almost daily dismissals both of the seriousness of the voter suppression crimes and of those who see those crimes as part of the pattern of Harper malfeasance evident since dear leader assumed office.

By contrast, The Toronto Star has consistently displayed its journalistic integrity and independence through relentless coverage and commentary that doesn't insult the intelligence of its readers. The latest example is to be found in Bob Hepburn's piece entitled Brian Mulroney: I owe you an apology, in which the writer argues that many of the ills of our democracy are directly attributable to Stephen Harper, who has so lowered the level of Canadian politics through his crimes and misdemeanours that huge numbers of citizens have opted out of the political process entirely.

It is an article well-worth reading, as Hepburn demonstrates what happens when an individual and his party puts winning above all else, including the good of the country.

The Globe and Mail Continues to Debase Itself

What little is left of the Globe's reputation as a newspaper to be taken seriously has been unraveling rapidly in its non-coverage of the voter suppression crimes of the last federal election. Its editorial stance has essentially been one of convincing its readers that there really is nothing to see here, just move on and attend to your daily diversions.

The latest nail in the coffin of its journalistic integrity comes from that lazy pundit, Margaret Wente, who seems quite content to mock the concern being expressed country-wide over these crimes, essentially arguing that there is no evidence people were prevented from voting, so what's the big deal?

You can read the entire shameful parody of journalism here.

No Surprises Here: The Globe Endorses Harper

As if to once more remind people of how hollow its claim to being Canada's national newspaper is, the Globe and Mail has offered an endorsement of Stephen Harper. Its reasons for recommending that the electorate (or at least that portion lacking critical thinking skills) give yet another mandate to Harper and his regime would be laughable were the stakes not so high, and once more amply demonstrate the journal's increasing irrelevance to the Canadian political discussion.

I am reproducing a small portion of its rallying cry for the Conservatives to illustrate. The bolded portions are my own:

Only Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party have shown the leadership, the bullheadedness (let's call it what it is) and the discipline this country needs. He has built the Conservatives into arguably the only truly national party, and during his five years in office has demonstrated strength of character, resolve and a desire to reform. Canadians take Mr. Harper's successful stewardship of the economy for granted, which is high praise. He has not been the scary character portrayed by the opposition; with some exceptions, his government has been moderate and pragmatic.

It is because of this kind of fatuous thinking that I have not spent a day regretting my decision late last year to cancel my subscription to the once venerable paper.

Sgt. Ryan Russell's Funeral

I had thought about writing a blog entry on what I perceived to be the excesses surrounding the funeral of Sgt. Ryan Russell, the police officer killed last week in Toronto. I hesitated, however, out of respect for the deceased. While his death, like all others in public service, was tragic, I do question whether anyone is truly served by the measures undertaken by both the police forces across Canada and our domestic media in honouring his sacrifice.

In the first letter of today's online Globe and Mail, the writer makes, I feel, a valuable observation.

We've Finally Cut the Cord

It is with some sadness that I announce the termination of our subscription to The Globe and Mail, a paper that we have subscribed to continuously since our return to Ontario in 1988. Prior to that, in the 70's my wife was a Globe reader.

This was not a spur-of-the-moment decision, since we wanted to give every chance to the 'new and improved' Globe. Unfortunately, our vision of a good paper sharply diverges from John Stackhouse's, in that it has become obvious to us that the paper is trying to ensure its long-term viability by appealing to a younger and more politically conservative demographic. The most recent inkling of the latter came with the dismissal of long-time columnist Rick Salutin, who had a unique and original perspective on the people and events that make the news. With his dismissal came the elevation of Neil Reynolds, whose libertarian views seem tiresomely repetitive and predictable - he clearly lacks the wide-ranging intellect of Mr. Salutin.

In terms of the Arts and the Life section, the fact that most of the topics are of little interest to my wife and me seems to confirm the shift to a younger demographic. Personally, I think the Globe's strategy is a mistake, given that it is we baby boomers who have the most disposable income. It also ignores the fact that young people today tend to get most of their news from the Internet in general and social media in particular.

On a final note, I think we also recognize that as we get older, we inevitably have less and less influence on the world around us. That is, I suppose, the natural progression of things, and while I hardly begrudge younger generations the opportunity to exert their own influence on things, I wish, in the case of the new Globe and Mail, a better balance had been struck.

Rick Salutin's Demise

The phone rang this morning about 8 o'clock as we were skimming the new and 'improved' Globe and Mail, filled with pretty colour pictures printed on glossy, magazine type paper in some sections. My wife noticed immediately that the physical size of the paper was smaller (explained in the Globe as a way of making it easier to handle for the reader), but it wasn't until the phone call that we realized the changes were much more than physical.

It was our daughter calling to inform us that she had been listening to C.B.C.'s Metro Morning and learned that Rick Salutin has been fired from the Globe, with no reason given. While I might not always have agreed with Salutin's points, (indeed, there were some columns where I wasn't really clear on what his point was) I always looked forward to reading the thoughts of a man who interpreted events in a way few others did, putting forth a point of view that usually hadn't occurred to me at all. The only other Globe writer whose work I had savoured as much was David Macfarlane, who for a number of years wrote a column entitled Cheap Seats before being reassigned to one concentrating on Toronto. He inexplicably met the same fate as Salutin.

So the pace of journalistic decline continues at The Globe and Mail. I suggested to my wife that we give the paper one more week, but without a reversal of the Salutin decision, I believe we will be cancelling our subscription to the paper after having received it for an untold number of years.

John Allemang Looks to 2050

In Saturday's Globe and Mail, columnist John Allemang wrote a piece from the perspective of Canada in the year 2050, examining the country's place in the great scheme of things after climate change has wrought its full effects. It concentrates on the advantages that will accrue to Canada with the opening up of the North West Passage, the export of water and hydroelectricity to the parched southern United States, the development of thriving Northern communities, etc.

My quibble with the article is three fold:

First, it echoes an increasingly common opinion that since climate change is happening and much further changes are inevitable, we need to spend our time and resources adapting rather than trying to mitigate its effects now.

Secondly, it pays little attention to the negative consequences of climate change within Canada, only making reference to it being responsible for more mosquitoes and the fact that prairie farmers had to abandon the parched and eroded land where wheat used to grow.

Finally, while the article purposely takes an admittedly entrepreneurial approach to climate change, the fact that so many parts of the world will suffer tremendously is given short shrift; the closest he comes is reference to the lack of water in the drought-stricken southern U.S.

The dearth of compassion or concern for the rest of the world led me to wonder whether, in John Allemang's view, climate change will also entail another completely different cost: the loss of Canadian compassion from our national identity.

Jeffrey Simpson's View of the Census Debacle

In today's Globe, Jeffrey Simpson examines the emptiness of the 'reasons' Harper surrogate Tony Clement has given for abandoning the compulsory long census form, concluding that this decision may well be the defining moment in the Harper Conservative Government's fortunes. He concludes that the long census form will eventually return, but Conservative support will not. You can read his column by clicking here.

An Excoriating Editorial

The Globe and Mail excoriates the Harper Conservative Government over both its decision to end the mandatory long form consensus, despite almost universal criticism, and the fatuous reasons the government has given for its action. The editorial can be read by clicking here.