The Language Of Genocide

 

“Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. ”

― George Orwell

It is very easy, in the majority of cases, to become quickly inured to the world's suffering. Whether it be earthquakes and crime in Haiti, famine in Africa, or the war Russia is waging against Ukraine, we reach the point of compassion fatigue, facilitated no doubt by the lack of any apparent resolution to the dire circumstances so many experience in today's fractured world. 

One hopes against hope that the genocide taking place in Gaza may prove an exception, however, despite the efforts of so many to make the Israeli response to the October 7 attack by Hamas look both reasonable and necessary. And one of the latest to make such an effort is our own (were it not so) Stephen Harper.

Shree Paradkar writes:

On Wednesday, former Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper was in Jerusalem, shaking hands with the butcher of Gaza, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. According to his tweet, Harper witnessed "an Israel scarred by the unprovoked horrors of Oct. 7, but also united in its determination to end the threat of Hamas once and for all."

"Unprovoked." "Ending the threat of Hamas." Phrases being repeatedly used to justify the unjustifiable.

It is no doubt a human tendency to try to interpret the world along absolutist terms; things are either good or bad, thereby circumventing the hard work that critical thinking requires. For his fellow travellers, Stephen Harper is providing such a service.

But historical context is needed.

The Hamas commander named the attack "Al Aqsa Floods" saying it was meant to avenge Israel's brutal attacks on Al Aqsa mosque in East Jerusalem — long a flashpoint site — during Ramadan in 2021.

Whatever one makes of that statement, it's a reminder that one can't look at what's happening without context. Insisting on erasing the context of current events — as seen with the repetition of the word "unprovoked" — is very much in Israel's interest. It allows Israel to position itself as the innocent party and to reduce the unspeakable violence it has unleashed to a "they-asked-for-it" rhetoric.

But there is much more involved here, years of abuse and repression that the world refuses to acknowledge.

There is so much mutual pain in the region that to ignore the underlying conditions of violence is to create conditions that lead to violence.

Some of these conditions include decades of repressive and vicious Israeli military occupation in Palestinian territories, with Israel routinely displacing, imprisoning and killing Palestinians. Israel's illegal blockade segregated Gazans from the world for years by banning them from travelling outside. The majority of Gazans are refugees who face sweeping restrictions on the entry and exit of goods. Israel even controlled the flow of electricity and water; more than 90 per cent of the water in Gaza was unfit for consumption before Oct. 7. A Washington Post report found there had been no natural surface water in Gaza since the early 2000s.

For even greater context, there is an array of videos available on YouTube attesting to the mistreatment of Arabs in the entire region.

Paradkar also talks about how the Palestinian cause has been conflated with Hamas and Islamic extremism, making it easier to dehumanize them, meaning

no matter how Israel treats Palestinians, whether it attacks Gaza's hospitals, kills and maims children, doctors, academics and journalists, or whether the International Court of Justice has ruled that Israel must take action to prevent genocidal violence by its armed forces, in Israel's view and in the eyes of its Western allies, it remains the wronged party.

It is this mentality that Harper has shamefully tapped into, making it easier to minimize and justify Israel's ongoing atrocities. 

Decades ago, George Orwell warned us about the destructive effects of political language. Sadly, it seems we have learned little to nothing in the intervening years.

Honouring A Dead Woman's Wishes

By the newspaper's account, Catherine Finn was a lively, passionate and engaged woman. I think I would have liked her, as would many others.

Catherine died on July 9 of this year; it is her obituary, written by her sons but, they say, very much representative of her values, beliefs and opinions, that is getting such wide attention:

Catherine was born with a sharp wit and steely backbone that can only come from growing up as a woman in the Irish Catholic tradition of the middle 20th Century. She was a voracious reader, a lover of life, and a fearless defender of the world of ideas. She loved family, fine wine and good food, in that order, preferably shared over a candle-lit table with good music and excellent company.

In lieu of donations, Catherine would want you to do everything you can to drive Stephen Harper from office, right out of the country, and into the deep blue sea if possible. Also, she would like you to fix the CBC.

According to her family, Catherine was a Canadian fully engaged in life, and had a particular interest in politics:

“I never had a phone call where she didn’t rail about Stephen Harper,” said Patrick [her son]. “That boldness of the statement was her. We were trying to channel her.”

Although she wasn’t a member of any political party, Finn was “somewhat vehemently opposed to Stephen Harper,” according to Jonathan. “It was that way from his rise to political stardom until the day she died.”

Too bad she couldn't have stuck around til after the October election when, one hopes, many people can finally check the defeat of Harper and his regime off their bucket lists.

Setting The Record Straight

Weakly constituted as I am when it comes to tolerating disingenuous and dishonest political theatre, I was unable to watch the Chief Prevaricator, a.k.a. the Prime Minister, while his chief courtier and media enabler, the most Reverend (and reverent) Peter Mansbridge, performed what Michael Harris described as his Yuletide foot massage during their year-end chatfest.

However, I was able to muster up the strength to watch this snippet, after which follows a critical analysis on the CBC website of Mr. Harper's claims:



Harper Whopper Number One:

"We’ve got more work to do, but our emissions are falling," Harper said on Wednesday.

"Other countries’ emissions for the most part are going up. World emissions are going up. Canada’s have not been going up."

But the government's own report suggests emissions will go up dramatically by the end of the decade because of oil and gas production, Canada's emissions will be 22 per cent higher than its Copenhagen target of reducing greenhouse gases by 17 per cent below their 2005 levels by 2020.

Harper Whopper Number Two:

Harper says he'd be open to using a carbon-pricing system like Alberta's for the entire continent, a concept he's previously opposed.

"I think it’s a model on which you could, on which you could go broader," Harper said in Wednesday's interview.

Says David McLaughlin, an adviser at the University of Waterloo’s school of environment,

... emissions continue to rise under Alberta's system of carbon pricing.

"The price of $15 a tonne is too low to actually get the emissions reductions we want from these big emitters. So it would not do the job of reducing emissions in Canada."

Harper Whopper Number Three

The prime minister also took credit for getting tough on coal.

"We are phasing out in Canada through regulations, we are phasing out the use of traditional dirty coal. It’s going to go to zero in the next 15 years or so," Harper said.

Alas, as with most pronouncements by the Prime Minister, there is less here than meets the eye:

New federal coal regulations apply to new plants built after 2015. Existing plants built in the last 50 years are grandfathered, meaning they would have up to 2030 to close or introduce carbon capture and storage technology to reduce emissions.

And Ontario's Environment Minister Glen Murray points out an inconvenient truth:

...the province closed coal plants with no help from Ottawa.

[I]"f the federal government wants to start taking credit for provincially funded initiatives, they could at least have the decency to make a commitment to support those initiatives in the future."

Thanks for taking a few moments to see through the Emperor's diaphanous attire.

Recognizing Harper For What He Is

Last evening I watched a PBS special on the folk trio Peter, Paul and Mary. Archival footage spanning over 50 years of the group and their times reminded me of the passionate and committed century I grew up in, a time that saw people marching en masse to protest the Vietnam War, to advocate for civil rights, etc. Outside of the Occupy Movement, rarely has this century seen such activism.

I often think that the forces of corporatism, aided and abetted by their government enablers, have been very successful in largely muting, if not totally silencing, the spirit of protest. Their relentless message that the market is the only altar to worship at has frequently skewed, perverted and undermined our better natures and the values upon which our society was founded. Care for the collectivity, they suggest, is a quaint notion that has no place in modern life.

Fortunately, not everyone has drunk that particular Kool Aid. There are two major comforts that sustain me in these times; the deep political awareness and critical thinking that my fellow bloggers are so brilliantly capable of, and the regular letters to the editor at The Star that repudiate the passivity so cherished by the right wing.

In today's paper, there is a wealth of missives on the subject of Stephen Harper, all with a common theme: the emperor has no clothes. In his snubbing of Ontario and his refusal to meet our Premier, a myriad of Harper's flaws as both a human being and the leader of the country are exposed for all to see. I hope you check out all of them; here are but a few to whet your appetite:

Re: Deep freeze, Dec. 5

This page one story is a chilling expose. Childish behaviour is an increasing card being played from our political deck. The cry of “we will have another meeting at some point in time” is indicative of a federal leader exhibiting an increasingly punitive, juvenile approach to Ontario citizens. Pretty scary position when one man believes that it is his way or no way.

Hang in there, Premier Wynne. Childish tantrums are often quickly put aside when something shiny attracts their attention. It appears that our prime minister did not learn everything he needed to learn in kindergarten. Pity.

Don Graves, Burlington

It makes you wonder how someone who leads a country as significant as Canada can be so small-minded and treat the largest province in the country with such a contemptuous, childish and partisan attitude. Just because Ontario is led by a Liberal who points out the weaknesses in the Canada Pension Plan and infrastructure payments to Ontario.

I do feel that Kathleen Wynne will soon be in a very enviable position, when Stephen Harper, with cap in hand, will no doubt be forced to appease her and start to make every attempt to persuade Ontario and Quebec to accept the Energy East pipeline. Anyone with any concern of global warming, which Harper obviously has no regard for, would question its credibility and the true benefit to Ontario and Quebec.

Harper will continue to do anything he can to promote Alberta’s oil sales while doing very little to assist the two manufacturing arms of Canada, Ontario and Quebec. I predict Harper will be almost pleading with these two provinces to accept Energy East, even though it appears the ultimate decision will be in the hands of the National Energy Board, which no doubt has been stacked with pro-Harper appointees, similar to the Senate.

Anybody who has taken Economics 101 knows that you should not base your economy purely on commodities; you need to build a manufacuring base too. Commodities go up and down based on supply and demand, while manufacturing creates at least a stable working environment and also makes Canada more competitive in the world.

They say that Ontario and Quebec will decide the next election. The Harper plan for 2015 is to end up with a balanced budget and to give out a few election goodies to entice or fool the public, which he has already started. However I believe with the drop in the oil prices, I doubt he will balance his budget, unless he claws more back from infrastructure payments to the provinces.

My guess is that the 40 per cent who actually voted for Harper in the last election, will start to question the Canada he has created and will realise his expiry date has been exceeded, will realise how little he has done for Ontario and Quebec, and will join the majority 60 per cent who did not vote for him.

John F. Langton, Oakville

Now, let me see if I’ve got this democratic theory right. The Prime Minister represents all of Canada, and not just part of it. He or she works for us and therefore listens to us. He or she is more ear than mouth. And the money that the PM uses to guide us down the path is not his or her money but ours. It is a common wealth.

The PM must take care of all of us, not just the wealthy, the petroleum people, and the corporations. The PM should not empty the cookie jar because, as Aesop showed us centuries ago, we must be ants and not grasshoppers.

And that listening thing goes for all the ministers of the government as well, whether that is Pierre Polievre, Tony Clement, Chris Alexander, Peter MacKay or that tone-deaf and arrogant Veterans Affairs Minister I call Pope Julian.

David J. Paul, London, Ont.

Is Stephen Harper not the prime minister of all 10 provinces of Canada? It appears he is only the prime minister of Alberta, where the oil is, since he won’t meet with our premier. Why then should any Ontarian consider voting for him?

Bev Murray, Burlington

Too Good To Resist

H/t Don Gravelle

Updated: Michael Harris' New Book

Veteran journalist and current national affairs columnist for iPolitics, Michael Harris, has just had his new book on Stephen Harper published. While the 500-page tome, entitled Party of One: Stephen Harper and Canada’s Radical Makeover, may offer nothing startlingly new to those of us who follow national politics closely, it serves as both a useful reminder of the democratic depredations Harper is responsible for, as well as an alert to those who are so disengaged as to regard him as a benign presence on the political landscape. While few of the latter will likely read the book, I suggest it would be a useful exercise to email the link to this Star article about the book to friends and associates who might fall into that category.

Some pretty impressive people offer solid testimony against the kind of 'regime change' that has been instituted under the Harper cabal. One of them is Farley Mowat who, in the last months of his life, said this to Harris:

“Stephen Harper is probably the most dangerous human being ever elevated to power in Canada”.

“We took Parliament for granted, but, like the environment, it turns out that it is an incredibly delicate and fragile structure. Harper has smothered MPs and is destroying Parliament.”

Jim Coyle, the article's writer, points out that Michael Harris has always been drawn to stories of injustice and abuse of power. It is precisely what he found in researching Harper's reign:

“A lot of the things that (Harper) was doing struck me as not only unjust but unjustifiable.

“In doing the research I found I was not the only person who thought so, and people a lot smarter and more involved in the system understood the nature of the threat that he presents.”

Says former Commons Speaker Peter Milliken:

“Parliament can hardly be weakened any more than it already is. Harper can’t go much further without making the institution dysfunctional. He is trying to control every aspect of House business. In fact, it will have to be returned to its former state by someone if we are to have a democracy.”

Powerful and damning words from a respected parliamentarian.

Another devastating indictment comes from veteran diplomat Paul Heinbecker, a former ambassador to Germany:

“Canada’s diplomacy is hugely different under Harper”. “It is a reversal of our history.

“We have become outliers. We are seen as more American than the Americans, more Israeli than Likud. Given what our foreign policy has become, I would not have joined the service today if I were a young man.”

Former information commissioner Robert Marleau joins in on the condemnation of Harper's contempt for anyone or anything that disagrees with him:

[W]hen his government was found in contempt (of Parliament), Harper treated it like a minor, partisan irritation. Parliament is now a minor process obstacle.

“Canadians are sleepwalking through dramatic social, economic and political changes surreptitiously being implemented by a government abusing omnibus bills and stifling public and parliamentary debate”.

“Mr. Harper has not played within the rules. Having attained absolute power, he has absolutely abused that power to the maximum.”

All and all, Harris' insights appear to be ones that we have an obligation to share with less-informed and less-engaged Canadians.

UPDATE: Lawrence Martin weighs in on how he thinks the Harris book will cause some indigestion for Harper.

A Prime Minister Hath No Honour In His Own Country

That paraphrase of a famous line from the Bible perhaps sums up the pitiable plight of Stephen Harper, gallant man of the world and fearless foe of evil on the world stage. Despite his indefatigable efforts to denounce the Teutonic tendencies of Vladimir Putin in the Ukraine or stand unreservedly with Israel in its disproportionate responses to Gazan irritants, like the late Rodney Dangerfield, he appears to be unable to secure any respect.

There is, for example, that chronic naysayer at The Toronto Star, Tim Harper, who opines that for all of his tough talk, Mr. Harper has no defining accomplishment on his foreign policy ledger.

But is nothing sacred? Rewarding the prime minister's unyielding support of and service to Israel, B'Nai Brith CEO Frank Dimant has announced his intention to nominate Dear Leader for the Nobel Peace Prize.

He said Mr. Harper has demonstrated international leadership and a clear understanding of the differences between those who “seek to do evil” and their victims. As a professor of modern Israel studies at Canada Christian College, Dimant qualifies as a nominator under the rules.

Let's just say that the announcement was met with outrage in some Canadian quarters.

But what do the people think about this singular honour possibly being bestowed on Canada's leader? Alas, there is no comfort to be had, apparently, even from one of the perennial cheerleaders of the Harper regime, The Globe and Mail. Here is what two of its readers think:

Re B’nai Brith CEO To Nominate Harper For Nobel Peace Prize (Aug. 30):

Why stop at the Nobel? Let’s nominate Stephen Harper for a Polaris for his music covers; an Emmy for his online TV show and a Governor-General’s award for his hockey book. Make him a trophy – a silver glazed donut on a plinth. It would cost us less than $30.

Clive Robertson, associate professor, art history, Queen’s University, Kingston


I was interested to learn that the CEO is eligible to nominate the PM as a professor at Canada Christian College. As a retired professor previously unaware of this credential, I shall hasten to nominate my miniature schnauzer, Guinness.

Like our PM, Guinness “has consistently spoken out with resolve regarding the safety of people under threat.” I refer to his shrill, predictable barking to defend the Bowd family’s territory from the daily invasion of the postman.

Alan Bowd, professor emeritus of education, Lakehead University, Thunder Bay

Of course, I suppose the Harper crew could simply dismiss such carping as the ranting of 'liberal elites.' Guess they'll have to hope it doesn't spread in 2015.

Your Monday Morning Smile

An editorial cartoonist captures a Heritage Moment nicely:

The Sad Record Of Our Last Parliamentary Session

Star reader David Buckna, of Kelowna, B.C., offers a searing and accurate assessment of our latest session of Parliament:

Federal MPs are back in their ridings for the summer, and will be out hitting the barbecue circuit. When I think back to the second session of the 41st Parliament (January to June), the following things come to mind:

1. The Orwellian-sounding Fair Elections Act. More than 150 university professors signed a petition stating that the Fair Elections Act “would damage the institution at the heart of our country’s democracy: voting in federal elections.” On April 25, Minister of State for Democratic Reform Pierre Poilievre begrudgingly submitted 45 changes to the bill in a bid to quell opposition to it.

2. Tory attacks on Chief Elections Officer Marc Mayrand, former auditor general of Canada Sheila Fraser, and Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin.

3. Veterans Affairs Minister Julian Fantino’s haughty manner in dealing with veterans and their families.

4. Speaker of the House of Commons Andrew Scheer finding Conservative MP Brad Butt’s Feb. 6 remarks prima facie grounds of breach of parliamentary privilege. On Feb. 6, Butt said in the House: “I have actually witnessed other people picking up the voter cards, going to the campaign office of whatever candidate they support and handing out these voter cards to other individuals, who then walk into voting stations with friends who vouch for them with no ID.” On Feb. 24 Butt told the House that his earlier statement was “not accurate.”

5. The Temporary Foreign Worker Program fiasco, in which Employment Minister Jason Kenney had allowed it be abused too often by employers.

6. The deafening silence of Conservative MPs after the government announced on June 17 that it has given conditional approval to the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline. The Sierra Club B.C. called the approval a “slap in the face” for British Columbians. “But ultimately, it changes nothing: the Enbridge pipeline will not get built,” said spokeswoman Caitlyn Vernon.

On June 18 NDP MP Nathan Cullen said on CBC’s Power & Politics: “Where are the Conservatives? And we know that 21 B.C. Conservatives that represent — allegedly — their constituents have been under their desks on this thing because they know back home the recent polling says 1 in 5 people in the last election who voted Conservative are switching their vote on this issue. They know that they’re in trouble.”

This is going to be a ballot box issue in 2015.

Canada's Sad Devolution

What was once Canada the cool, the country a 1991 Economist cover story called the "post-modern nation-state", has now devolved into a rightwing hellhole.

So says The Guardian in an article entitled Sadly, Rob Ford epitomises what Canada has become. Using Toronto's Chief Oaf Rob Ford and the hard-right policies of Stephen Harper as exemplars, the writer, Matthew Hays, concludes that our country has lost its way.

While one may not agree with all of the conclusions drawn, it is once again sobering to see ourselves as other see us, thanks to the misbegotten policies and contemptuous behaviour of our democratically-elected 'leaders.'

So Hauntingly Familiar

He Has A Nice Smile

That's the highest praise I can think to extend to young Justin Trudeau, who many see as the best hope of unseating Mr. Harper in 2015. For those who enthusiastically back the young Liberal leader, I can only wonder, to what end? Do they want someone more polite and amiable than Harper? Because that is one of the few differences I see in the man who would be Canada's next Prime Minister.

Trudeau's questions in the House of Commons fail to impress, bloated affairs with lengthy preambles that, when finished, leave one wanting. This in sharp contrast to the precise, laser-like questioning Mr. Harper has had to endure under Thomas Mulcair's Nigel Wright scandal questions, to which the Prime Minister has had to rely on repetitive non-answers that raise even more questions about his involvement in the Mike Duffy payoff.

Probably one of the greatest disappointments for those who look to Trudeau for salvation is his unreserved enthusiasm for the Keystone XL pipeline, evidenced in his address Thursday in Washington to a group largely opposed to it, the Centre for American Progress. Said Trudeau:

“I’m actually supportive of the Keystone pipeline because it’s an extremely important energy infrastructure piece for both of our countries.”

With maddeningly typical vagueness, he added,

“The challenge is to demonstrate that it can be done in the sense that we’re protecting our environment and making sure that we’re making the right gains toward sustainable energy sources in the long run”.

Like his platitudinous statements about the need to help the middle class, the above statement sounds good, but is decidedly lacking in any kind of detail that would give a serious thinker something to ponder.

Is Trudeau the Ted Baxter of politics? Who knows? But so far there is little to offer those seeking an alternative to Harper in the pronouncements of the lad who would be Prime Minister.

The following letter in today's Star from a Calgary reader addresses a key problem posed by Trudeau's leadership:

Justin Trudeau pitches Keystone to U.S. anti-oilsands crowd, Oct. 24

Justin Trudeau’s support for Keystone XL may elicit a handful of votes in Alberta, but at the cost of alienating many thousands of voters in the rest of Canada. Many Canadians, including some Albertans, recognize that Keystone XL is an economic disaster — never mind its environmental shortcomings and total failure to provide national energy security.

It’s a shame Trudeau doesn’t have the political smarts to understand that. He seems likable enough otherwise.

Federal and provincial Conservatives will attempt to reprise their usual electoral landslides in Alberta by selling the export of raw bitumen by foreign national oil companies and by foreign-owned multinationals at any cost to our economy and energy security. The NDP has already staked the moral high ground on Keystone XL, the west-east oil pipeline, national energy security, Canadian jobs and the environment.

So far, Trudeau has the Liberals positioned in a no man’s land in between, without a comprehensive plan or policy on the oilsands or a Canadian energy strategy. That makes it easy for Canadians, who will have only two serious parties and leaders to consider in the next federal election.

Mike Priaro, Calgary

The Anti-Harper

I'd like to make it clear at the start of this post that I have by no means been converted to the belief that Justin Trudeau would be an appropriate choice to lead the country, for reasons that I will conclude the post with. However, I simply want to make a few observations about the striking contrast he presents to Stephen Harper.

By now, everyone that follows such things is likely aware of the stark and tight control Harper tries to extend over his entire regime. Parliamentary secretaries, M.P.s and others who speak publicly on the government's behalf are given very strict speaking points from which they cannot deviate. A recent Power and Politics panel on Trudeau's admissions about pot-smoking vividly attested to that fact whenever Conservative M.P. Blake Richards spoke, as do numerous past public discussions on other matters. Journalists, as we were reminded the other day, are limited to five questions of the Prime Minister on those rare occasions when he deigns to allow them access to him. Any attempt at deviation from that regimen is met with severe consequences, as was evident to the world when Chinese reporter Li Xuejiang was roughed up and ejected by Harper's staff and the RCMP when he tried to ask a question:

Everything about Harper bespeaks an overweening control of the message, disdain for the truth, and contempt for the electorate.

Trudeau, by contrast, projects the image of an honest and transparent politician. In today's Toronto Star, columnist Tim Harper makes some interesting observations about the nature of what he sees as Trudeau's strategy:

Since entering federal politics, the Liberal leader has taken a series of risks.

They’ve all been calculated risks, but risks nonetheless.

He’s surviving, even flourishing, with a combination of charisma, favourable treatment from a national press pack desperate [emphasis mine] for a little colour in a drab political landscape, mastery of social media — and a little luck.

Tim Harper characterizes Trudeau as a risk-taker:

He has taken mock pratfalls down a flight of stairs for the television cameras, he did a faux striptease in front of the cameras at a charity fundraiser, he stepped into the boxing ring against a then-Conservative senator.

He took a risk in coming clean to an Ottawa reporter about his personal wealth and the money he earned on the speaking tour...

Harper then turns his attention to Trudeau's recent admission, saying it is hardly news that someone has smoked a bit of of pot over the years. He says the real risk for him is the unsolicited details he provided:

Trudeau could have acknowledged he had fired up a joint, five or six times, as he did, but he took the risk in volunteering that he has smoked a joint since becoming an MP, an MP who was clearly thinking of federal leadership, and an MP who voted in favour of tougher marijuana possession penalties.

In a country tired of the mean-spirited, controlling and spiteful nature of its Prime Minister, this is likely a refreshing change. But columnist Harper makes a crucial observation toward the end of his piece which addresses the same deep reservations I have about Trudeau's leadership capacities.

But I’m not sure I have any idea where Trudeau stands on prorogation, the latest twist in the Senate spending fiasco, or the potential of a giant American player entering the Canadian wireless market.

It is all well and good to project an image of openness and honesty, but without any articulation of policy, Trudeau runs the real risk of reinforcing the other image he has as a political and intellectual lightweight, something that even a country desperate for change will not and cannot support.

Hee Hee Hee

Despite the misspelling in the caption, I rather like this cartoon, probably for obvious reasons.



As well, you may enjoy these letters from Star readers who have an even less flattering view of Mr. Harper as it pertains to his northern junket, escaping the heat via prorogation, and his ongoing senate 'problems.'

One of Nature's Hidden Affronts

I assume this requires no commentary from me:

H/t janfromthebruce

An Easy Way To Gauge The Moral Fiber Of Canadian Politicians

Ask them for their stand on the indefensible export of asbestos.

Amen!

H/t Stephen Lautens

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.

See Stephen, See Stephen Run

While the purpose of this Harper-initiated site may be to inspire fear of the NDP under Thomas Mulcair, I think it suggests a measure of, shall we say, nervousness, on the part of Mr. Harper and company.

H/T Kady O'Malley

Jack Layton vs. Stephen Harper

I've just spent about the last 45 minutes watching the tribute to Jack Layton at the NDP leadership convention. The heartfelt praise about Jack's humanity, his real love of and interest in people, suggests a life well-lived, despite its tragic shortness.

That got me thinking of what a tribute to Stephen Harper would look like, and I can't imagine anything but a very staged and forced production, the reason summed up very nicely in Act 5 Scene 3 of Shakespeares's Macbeth, as the tyrant nears the end of his life and frankly assesses its emptiness, recognizing that he has no friends, only sycophantic followers:

I have lived long enough: my way of life
Is fall'n into the sere, the yellow leaf;
And that which should accompany old age,
As honour, love, obedience, troops of friends,
I must not look to have; but, in their stead,
Curses, not loud but deep, mouth-honour, breath,
Which the poor heart would fain deny, and dare not. (5.3.22)