Now does he feel
His secret murders sticking on his hands.
Now minutely revolts upbraid his faith-breach.
Those he commands move only in command,
Nothing in love. Now does he feel his title
Hang loose about him, like a giant’s robe
Upon a dwarfish thief.
Despite the fact that English literature is dismissed by many of our current 'masters of the universe' as something of a frill, with nothing to offer the practical, results-driven mentality of our times, perhaps the likes of Stephen Harper, Senator Duff, Nigel Wright et al should have paid more attention to the classics during their formative years. They then might not be facing what I hope is soon a 'palace' revolt against corruption by their former enablers:
GLOBE EDITORIAL
A strange, $90,000 gift to the undeserving Senator Duffy
PENNY COLLENETTE
Mike Duffy scandal finds the Tories in a moral maze without a compass
ANDREW COYNE:
The only right thing left for Mike Duffy to do now is resign
MATT GURNEY:
How can the Tories keep Mike Duffy on now?
JENNIFER DITCHBURN
Duffy claimed Senate expenses while campaigning in 2011 election
STEVEN CHASE, KIM MACKRAEL AND BILL CURRY
Ethics watchdog to review Harper aide's $90,000 gift to Duffy
GLORIA GALLOWAY
RCMP probes payments to senators Duffy, Brazeau, Harb
Then there is this from the always-reliable Toronto Star:
LES WHITTINGTON
Questions and answers on the $90,000 payment to Mike Duffy
.jpg)
* Show an absolute absence of anything that could be even remotely interpreted as integrity.
If you want to see his full address, you can access it here.
H/t Jack Saturday
It must be very comforting indeed to the increasingly odious Senator Duffy that his relationship with the Prime Minister is so 'special' that the latter is willing to exercise unethical, perhaps even illegal interference on his behalf during the Senate's investigation into his fraudulent expense claims.
For the rest of us, the stench of corruption has reached near-asphyxiation levels.
UPDATE: The stench just got worse.
With each story that I read about her, my respect for Elizabeth Warren grows. Would that Canada had someone similar to inspire us.
Give them hope and you will reconnect with those disaffected, disengaged voters. Give them something to believe in, something to aspire to and you won't have to wait until Harper loses an election, you can actually win one on your merits. - The Disaffected Lib
The above is an excerpt from a post The Mound of Sound wrote last evening, a post that calls for re-engagement in and revitalization of our democracy. I offered the following comment on his site:
Your incisive comments are much appreciated, Mound. The question, however, seems to be how we motivate people to start caring about the dangerous departure from traditional values that has taken place in Canada, a departure that started well before the ascension of the Harper regime which, in my view, has only perfected the art of alienating the electorate from the political process.
All of the possible solutions to our dilemma seem to be rooted in having a party that truly cares about democracy in this country and is willing to work assiduously to reengage the public in the process, something I'm not sure the other two major parties really want beyond serving their political goal of wresting power from the Conservatives. I am frankly very dubious of Justin Trudeau who, as far as I can see, differs from Harper only in style, not in substance. If you examine the language of the NDP, they seem, if anything, to be vying for the centrist position on the spectrum, a position once occupied by the Liberals, with nary a word for 'the working class,' which has been largely supplanted by the phrase 'working families,' almost as if the former phrase is an embarrassing reminder of their provenance.
I have said several times on my own blog that Harper is quite happy to push the politics of disaffection and disillusionment to discourage people from participating in the political process, including elections, thereby leaving the field open for the 'true believers' who prevailed in the 2011 election.
People, I think, are hungry for genuine change. I just don't see that it is forthcoming from the other two major parties.
However, perhaps I have been looking at the issue too narrowly, placing too much responsibility on the other two major parties to lead the revitalization charge.
In a very interesting piece today, The Globe and Mail's Lawrence Martin discusses a new initiative by the Broadbent Institute that very well may help in the process. Taking its inspiration from the Manning Centre's success in cultivating the right,
The Broadbent Institute, viewed to date as a New Democratic front, is switching focus to the broader progressive cause, working not from a party point of view, but a policy and organizational one. As an example, in a few weeks, it will begin running training seminars across the country for political activists. They will pay a nominal fee for the type of instruction that young righties have been getting for years.
The problem, Martin observes, is that there is no unified left or, as I prefer, progressive movement. While entities deemed progressive abound in political, labour, environmental and economic spheres, the lack of a common cause or purpose has hampered any real coordination of effort. Nonetheless, these new efforts may ultimately bear fruit. For example, next week the Insitute is
... bringing to Ottawa the head honchos from the mother ship of U.S. progressive institutes, the Center for American Progress. With its $35-million budget, CAP is a huge support system for Democratic policies and political activity.
One awaits the outcome of this new direction with both hope and anticipation.
Here is a video of Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren, for whom I have a great deal of respect, on her proposal for dealing with that scourge. Eminently reasonable, one can safely predict that her approach will inflame the right-wing zealots:
H/t Upworthy
UPDATE: This piece by Truthdig's Robert Scheer on Elizabeth Warren's quest is worth having a look at.
Late last month I wrote a post entitled More On The Online Community Experience, a followup to an earlier one in which I discussed the importance I place on the online communities I am a part of.
Within the post I included an excerpt of a piece written by Matthew Heesing, a United Church worker in Columbia, on the importance of presence in helping us to bear the vicissitudes that life has to offer, whether they be of a personal or a societal nature. This morning I received a comment from him, which directed me to the full version of what he wrote.
I reproduce both the comment and the link below. I hope you will take the time to read his original blog post, as it reminds us of the strength we can all derive knowing that we stand not alone, something that I think is especially helpful in these very troubled times in Canada under the Harper regime:
Greetings!
My name is Matthew Heesing, and the author of the above excerpt! I was surprised to see my own words in a local church bulletin...a wider search brought me here!
I just wanted to share a fuller reflection, for your own interest--the cut-and-pasted version above is taken from a previous blog post of mine, which you can find here:
http://colombianjourney.wordpress.com/2011/08/13/building-solidarity/
Thanks for sharing, and I'm honoured to play a role in your reflections!
-Matthew
Because he doesn't maintain his own blog yet offers blistering commentary that lacerates the pretensions of his subjects, I am once more placing as a guest post the searing analysis The Salmander offered in response to my post on the hypocrisy of that old young man, Pierre Poilievre, currently one of Harper's favorite poodles.
Enjoy:
.. hypocrite .. yes .. that captures the shallow ethics of this preening vain and glib political insectivore that hatched in Calgary, and who deserves careful examination under bright light and a magnifying glass.. by honest and objective political scientists.. or forensic anthropologists.
His pasty white cretin pedigreed shell may have evolved or metastasized from radiation/toxin poisoning that leached from Tom Flanagan, Stephen Harper & the rest of those flawed supremacist trogs that tend to lurch from the tailings ponds and the Calgary School for young Harper wannabe's.
Look who is right behind primped up poutine Pierre in the image from the video !... Why there is Michelle Rempel ! Cut from the very same cloth .. tho she is the staunch defender of Peter Kent.. our great boreal forest slayer along with Joe Oliver.. and Queen Stephen from Toronto.
Ah yes, oily Pierre .. former amour of political operative Jenni Byrne.. who of course worked hand in hand as deputy campaign manager on the 'in-out' 2006 election fraud and plea deal with the late immigrant and 'Reformer' Senator Finley.. Byrne was the lead hand campaign manager of the 2011 election fraud, live & robo calling, shadow MP's, data mining - and later data base and call record erasures & sanitizing etc.. denials and defender against baseless smears.
The tete a tete's of Pierre & Jenni would likely be delightful to those who enjoy the hissing of serpents and garbled maudlin moralistic pontifications.. vote moving & suppression strategies and pretending to be Canadian.
Let's be clear .. this Poilievre specimen is seen as potential cream of the Harper Party fungus crop. A soon to be Minister. Lesser lights have withered, flailed, retired or landed on the Harper dung heap a la Helen Guergis, Del Mastro, Sona etc.. or suddenly migrated to Abu Dhabi. Or gone to suddenly spend more time with their family .. or altruistically feel compelled to assist the BC Liberal Party, or the Alberta Wild Rose tea party..
The ascendant evangelists though.. like Poilievre, Kelly Leitch, Van Loan and Michelle Rempel.. screech the Harper Message, massage or lie to the mainstream media and communicate with or receive PMO marching orders and talking points via private email, smoke signals or agreed upon secret hissing and handshakes.. all outside, offside, out of sight of legal & required procedure.
At times I wonder how thrilling it must be to be paid by the people of Canada to screw them over, lie through your teeth to them.. and kiss Harper Party ass, suck & blow simultaneously, obstruct truth & justice, litigate against military veterans, First Nations, senior citizens, unions, women.. conspire to trash the environment & Charter of Rights and Freedoms on behalf of foreign energy consortiums and bow towards Israel and Calgary .. all at the same time.
It must be possible, but only if you're are a smug, forked tongue, entitled, two faced, purely unadulterated sanctimonious, and ethically bankrupt, ambitious paid public servant ..
Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his hyper-aggressive natural resources minister Joe Oliver are rapidly turning doubt about Canada’s bitumen into bitter opposition.
Oliver, who travelled to Europe this past week to promote Alberta’s heavy oil, ended up alienating his hosts and provoking a trade spat by vowing to take the European Union to court if imposes an import tax on Canada’s “dirty oil.”
Harper http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?category=1&pageId=26&id=5468 this week to defend TransCanada’s embattled Keystone XL pipeline from climate change activists in the United States.
Back home, the two men have stirred up so much ill-will in British Columbia by demonizing “radical environmental groups” and cutting short public hearings that they have all but killed the chances of getting Alberta’s oil to the Pacific.
In Edmonton, Premier Alison Redford, struggling to find a market for her province’s landlocked oil, has resorted to a level of deficit spending that has shocked Albertans and sent her public support plummeting.
Watching Canada’s descent from “energy superpower” to a stubborn peddler of environmentally damaging fossil fuel has been like witnessing a slow-motion train wreck. Yet the government refuses to recognize the damage it has done, much less change its strategy. It has become clear to everyone — except the prime minister, apparently — that lecturing potential buyers while spewing increasing amounts of carbon into the atmosphere is not going to work.
What Canada needs to do is provide wary buyers proof that it has a credible plan to clean up the oilsands, that it is working with scientists and environmentalists to extract the oil without using vast amounts of water and gas and that it respects its trading partners’ desire for sustainable forms of energy.
The makings of such a policy already exist. Oilsands producers have made modest progress in reducing the intensity of their emissions. Alberta has just levied a serious tax on carbon production. And an increasing number of eastern Canadians who once regarded the oilsands as a blight on the ecosystem are open to developing them if it can be done responsibly.
But the Harper government’s refusal to ratchet down its rhetoric has overshadowed these promising developments.
It is clear Canada cannot sell its bitumen to a wary world without an attitude change and a course shift. The longer the prime minister and his senior ministers remain in denial, the more difficult it will be for Alberta to export its bitumen and become a source of national economic strength. This is no longer an ideological issue. It is a simple matter of common sense.
Orwellian and hypocritical are inadequate descriptors of this little twit:
And speaking of Orwellian, how else might one describe the “Working Families Flexibility Act?”
The Harperites must be salivating.
I hope you can spare about six minutes to be dazzled by the energy, vitality and mystery of a world that will not be with us much longer if we maintain our present course.
Re: Growing disconnect between Canadians and Parliament, May 2
Democracy is just a mirage, Letter May 5
Al Dunn is essentially correct in his characterization of democracy as it is generally practised today. But the fact that democracy is clearly the ultimate bait-and-switch trick pulled on us by the elites — keeping up the illusion of a fair say whilst actually holding us at arm’s length from the levers that could operate our share of the balance of power — doesn’t mean there is no hope for us or for democracy. It doesn’t have to be this way. The funny thing about democracy is that behind that veneer is an institution that can be reconfigured to actually work as advertised. The trick wouldn’t have worked otherwise.
Democracy can be a true and substantive system for the rest of us but only when each and every representative in our parliaments owes their seat and their allegiance to their electorate more than to their party and every voter gets a rep insofar as the number of seats in the House permits. This is achievable; it only needs a properly designed electoral system.
When voters are truly empowered to truly empower their representatives, democracy will no longer be an illusion. That is the “paradigm shift” our democracy needs.
And while our party elites have (unsurprisingly) seen fit to reject calls to cooperate for meaningful electoral reform the door is still open for individual candidates to respond to the challenge. What do you say, chaps: will you cooperate with us to empower each other or are you content in your role in maintaining the pretense in the face of our dire need?
Mark Henschel, Toronto
Growing disconnect between Canadians and Parliament, May 2
Over the past few weeks there have been numerous opinion pieces in your paper discussing the “disconnect” between Stephen Harper’s Conservatives and the general public. This is by no means an unplanned occurrence. Governments in general — Conservative ones in particular — have been changing the way that governments and the governed interact. They have done it through simple changes to the lexicon.
The most notable change is the words that governments use to describe those who are governed. We are no longer referred to by politicians as “residents” or “voters,” “citizens” or even “Canadians.” We are referred to as “taxpayers,” even by your newspaper and the media as a whole. To be fair, everyone pays taxes, whether it is on one’s salary, real estate holdings or a $2 bag of candy at the corner store. But being referred to primarily as a “taxpayer” by the government carries with it a certain understanding.
Taxpayers pay for goods and services provided by the government for personal use. It is a consumer transaction. As long as you get your money’s worth, there is no reason to expect more or to know how it got to you, as long as you received value for your dollar. If someone else cannot access these goods and services, it is because they cannot contribute as much as you can, not because the government won’t provide.
Moreover, your responsibility ends the moment you sign the cheque. There is no need for any additional input or concern. You can’t question Walmart’s foreign policy, environmental track record or how it deals with dissent from within or without either. After all, your only decision is whether you will purchase or not.
“Citizens.” on the other hand have both rights and responsibilities. Yes, they pay taxes, but their duties go beyond the financial transaction. They are expected to engage in public debate, care for those who need to be cared for, and concern themselves for the community at large. They often put the good of society before themselves. Unfortunately, from the government’s perspective, “citizens” tend to question agendas, complain on grounds of principle, and worst of all, vote … sometimes for other parties.
Many “taxpayers” are content to simply give up their rights as citizens if it means they pay their taxes and not be bothered beyond that; after all, the government has everything in hand, right?
Being a “citizen” is a lot of work, requires you to be passionate about mundane things and pay attention, but the citizenry develops the political power necessary to steer public discussion. Is it any wonder that these two aspects define the difference between a dictatorship and a democracy?
Neil McClung, Brampton
Your editorial and the excellent article a few days earlier by Bob Hepburn on the disconnect between Canada’s parliament and its people accurately indicates that something here does not work well.
I am familiar with the governance structures of both Germany and Sweden and both have far more involved and informed electorates and a far better relationship between their people and their governments, and what their governments do. They both have an electoral system based on proportional representation, where every vote counts.
Our system gave Mr. Harper a strong mandate to govern although only 24 per cent of the electorate voted for him, 76 per cent did not. If we had had PR at the last election we would have since had a Liberal-NDP coalition probably supported by the Greens and an overwhelming majority of the voters. I am sure they would have done many things differently than Mr. Harper, things both you and I would have supported.
The Star has always strongly opposed proportional representation and consequently we must thank you for giving us the current Conservative majority. It would be wonderful and a great blessing for Canada to fix our mess on Parliament Hill.
In your case it might be useful to fix your attitude toward what is a far superior and more democratic electoral system. We can really only fix ourselves.
Chris Smith, Toronto
Let's try to spread this as widely as possible. Mockery and satire often seem to be the best way to respond to the nonsense and lies the government proclaims in our name.
Like the dotty uncle no one wants to invite to family dinners anymore because of his wildly inappropriate comments, Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver is fast becoming an international persona non grata.
With the passion of a senescent zealot, Oliver has drawn unfavorable attention to Canada in recent weeks over his attacks on those who disagree with his unbridled enthusiasm for Alberta's dirty oil. There was, for example, his visit last month to Washington in which he lambasted a leading climate scientist, James Hansen, denouncing him for “exaggerated rhetoric,” that “doesn’t do the (environmentalists’) cause any good.” For good measure, he dismissed the much-respected Hansen for spouting "nonsense' in his warnings about the Alberta tarsands, adding that he “should be ashamed.” His followup interview with Evan Solomon could only be described as 'cringe-worthy.'
His next target was Al Gore who, in a recent visit to Toronto, offered a withering assessment of the tarsands similar to Hansen's. Again, our 'Uncle' Joe denounced him vigorously. Once more drawing upon his limited repertoire, he accused Gore of making "wildly inaccurate and exaggerated claims" about the Harper record on climate change.
But wait, there's more:
On Wednesday in Brussels, Mr. Oliver said Canada would consider filing a complaint with the World Trade Organization, the global referee for trade disputes, if the EU proceeds with its so called fuel-quality directive which singles out crude from Canada’s oil sands as the most harmful to the planet’s climate.
Yesterday, in an apparent rare moment of lucidity, Oliver backed down on the threat, saying that the issue is separate from the European trade deal much desired by the Harper regime.
The antics of our antic Natural Resources Minister have not escaped notice. Yesterday, a group of 12 prominent Canadian scientists wrote a letter to Oliver, essentially asking that he and his government show some maturity on the climate change issue. The letter also offers to help Minister Oliver to understand the data on climate change. No word of a response, withering or otherwise, from the cabinet minister.
Finally, in today's edition, The Star's Rick Salutin has an interesting take on the whole issue, saying that our version of classics like Death of a Salesman, Glengarry Glen Ross, or the current British series Mr. Selfridge would be Mr. Bitumen, the story of a salesman peddling a blatantly faulty, unneeded product.
One of the marks of the enlightened mind is the ability to process new information that can alter one's perspective. Joe Oliver shows no such capacity. Guess that's why he's a member of the Harper Conservative government.
H/t Salon.com
Could it be because Senator Duffy was tipped off by the man investigating him for expense improprieties?
Or could it be because once more, an errant staff member is to blame for Conservative 'irregularities'?
I have written several posts in this blog about institutions and their many shortcomings, shortcomings that seem directly proportional to their age. The longer one exists, the more prone an organization seems to becoming increasingly insular, self-referential, and self-reverential.
One of the institutions most frequently targeted here is law enforcement. Whether examining local or national forces, it is clear that the temptation to overstep, misuse and abuse authority is too much for some to resist. Failure to seriously acknowledge that fact only leads to a greater likelihood it will recur, often more frequently or on an even larger scale.
Perhaps the most notorious instance of police abusing their authority and subsequent organizational inertia in responding to it was the G20 Summit of 2010 in Toronto. The details of that infamous weekend are well-known, and I have posted about it numerous times; in the aftermath of that weekend of mayhem, a G20 Criminal Investigative Project was formed to pursue and bring to justice the non-police criminals who contributed to the violence of that weekend.
As The Star's Rosie DiManno reports in today's edition, despite the legacy of illegalities perpetrated by the police and their commanders, that Project is today to be given a team award originating with Professional Standards:
[It is] being presented to some of the 82 members of the Toronto Police Service who are being honoured on Thursday along with a handful of officers from other law agencies
As Ms DiManno tartly observes:
There is little to feel proud about in the aftermath of that weekend of wreckage and trampled rights. Goodness, a slew of lawsuits against police for alleged abuse of force are still winding their way through the courts. And much of this city lost faith in its upholders of law and order, unprepared as they were to avert the chaos that erupted, then overly zealous in response to top-down orders that they “take back the streets.”
But that reality doesn't seem to exist in Policeland, it would seem.
The authorities, however, should be aware that it has not been forgotten in the larger world of public opinion.
The other evening I put up a post on Kellie Leitch, the erstwhile physician turned Conservative M.P., enthusiastic sycophant and prominent apologist of all things Harpereque. As he occasionally does, The Salamander, in a comment on the post, offered his own observations of Ms. Leitch and a host of other Harper acolytes.
Always unsparing in his excoriating assessments, I am reproducing his offering below for readers to enjoy:
.. the pedantic and simplistic rhetoric keeps on churning.. that's the hallmark of Stephen Harper, the Harper Government, the Harper Political Party, the Harper Bureaucracy, the Harper Young Harper Party initiates, the Harper Electoral Volunteers, the Harper Data Miners, the Harper Live & Robo Call service bureaus, the Harper Ad Agency, the Harper Polling Companies .. the Harper Think Tanks, the Harper University Democracy Fronts
A ways back I described Ms Leitch as a 'dead end' .. when I should have been more illuminating. Although Kelly Leitch is yet another 'star' MP in the decaying Harper low orbit layer of ethically spaced out junk bond vote collectors.. she is merely a messenger.. and dull programmed echo.. As some might say.. a red herring .. a beep meep sputternik
But why shoot down such a useful sample specimen.. or 'carrier' that has the Harper political animal DNA staggering rabid dinosaur embedded ? She reminds me of the large Dean Dean Del Mastro who was equally capable of getting that big eyed glossy evangelistic Harper fervor in front of the cameras... 'the fact is in fact.. that the NDP carbon tax.. is in fact' .. and that oily pompadoured smug gelding idiot spouting 'the root cause of terrorism is terrorists !' And let's not forget the loyal warthog Peter Van Loan drone..
Hell .. while ol Dean n Poilievre & Van Loan, Hamilton, de Loray & Jennie Byrne was denying, plugging, denying, plugging the leaks from electoral fraud.. the ministerial creep jackasses such as Kent were endorsing the poisoning and shooting of boreal wolves, Clement was sanitizing his back trail form the G20, Ashfield was obstructing marine biology to promote farmed salmon and Joe Oliver was painting his skinny millionaire stockbroker/lawyer arse into the dangerous corner its frying in now.
Joe Oliver .. he's toast - a Canadian quisling, the Benedict Arnold, General Custer tar sands fall guy either before or after Harper resigns or is fired or goes into hiding with his trusty aide Ray Novak and at least one panda. One of many with no conscience, no common sense, no glowing heart, standing on guard with forked tongues, financiers, foreign energy consortiums, ideologues carpetbaggers and charlatans.. Why ? Good question ... What drives these sellouts ?
I like the Kelly Leitch's.. and the duplicitous and vicious pedantic MP secretaries like Michelle Rempel.. and Poutine Poilievre .. if we see them as lab rats and look for a cure.. an antitoxin .. a vaccine .. for the infection they carry .. while we try to deal with the really serious 'carriers' of the toxins .. Harper, Mackay, Baird, Flanagan, Kenney, Manning .. the list just is shocking ...
But of course I state the obvious here, don't I? Nonetheless, for those who like regular and ongoing illustrations of the fact that the Prime Minister and his acolytes are in the thrall of 'special interests,' one need look no further than a report in today's Toronto Star.
Currently, non-financial businesses are sitting on over $600 billion in cash reserves, thanks to a very favourable tax regime from the Harperites and similarly obeisant and compliant provincial governments. At the same time, however, these 'masters of the universe,' reluctant to spend their largess on research and development, new equipment purchases, or just about anything else, have gotten new incentive to hoard and count their cash:
The Conservative government says the National Research Council is now “open for business” and will refocus on large-scale projects “directed by and for” Canadian industry — a change some scientists call a mistake.
Part of the mandate of the NRC is to work with and help support industry, but what is new here is the fact that it appears this will now essentially be its exclusive mandate, dictated by the 'needs' of industry.
While one understands that it is difficult for the current government regime, looking as it does with grave suspicion upon critical and nuanced thinking, to comprehend, the words of Nobel laureate John Polanyi, who says that steering the NRC away from basic research is misguided, need to be heard:
“One should structure things so (scientists) have the freedom and responsibility to provide ideas to industry, not just receive commands,” ...
Queen’s University professor and Canada Research Chair in Environmental Change, John Smol, explains it this way:
“I look at science as a pyramid. At the bottom you have all this basic fundamental research and at the top you have the applied. But you can’t have the applied without the basic,” he said.
Smol goes so far as to see something quite sinister in the Harper decision to make the NRC the handmaiden of the corporate agenda:
Smol, a lakes ecosystem expert, believes the decision to recast the NRC is part of a Conservative pattern of cutting funding for basic science in favour of applied research that will generate a profit.
“What you find in environmental research are things that will cost industry money,” he says. In a recent study, Smol showed that lakes near Alberta’s oil sands are filled with contaminants.
One assumes that with its new orders, the National Research Council will not anytime soon be conducting such embarrassing studies that could hamper the ever-stronger march of corporate dominance.
Another victory for the Harperites. Another loss for the non-corporate citizens of Canada.
Like the good yeo(wo)man she is, Ms Leitch never deviates from the Harper regime script as she 'answers' Evan Solomon's questions about the Temporary Foreign Worker's Program. One only hopes that her collar is not pulled too tightly; given Canada's doctor shortage, it would be sad to lose a trained practitioner who will, one hopes, be returning to the medical field after the next election.
Hmm... I wonder if Ms Leitch and the ever-faithful Pierre Poilievre get together on occasion to share some kibble and compare talking points?
Now that the weather has markedly and rather consistently improved over the past week in my part of Ontario, yard work beckons, so for now I offer this perceptive nugget from a Star reader, who sees some benefit to the Harper regime's estrangement from the United Nations:
Canada not up for UN Security Council seat, May 2
I'm relieved that Canada is not seeking a UN Security Council seat since, if we got it, the Harper government would only use it to lobby for international sanctions against Justin Trudeau.
Steve Morris, Toronto
The other day I wrote a post on the decline of democracy under the Harper regime. Included was reference to Bob Hepburn's recent piece on the same subject. Although I am not quite as cynical as the letter-writer, Star reader Al Dunn of Kingston, in responding to Hepburn, expresses the view that democracy is, in fact only a mirage. See what you think. Here is his letter from today's edition:
Growing disconnect between Canadians and Parliament, Column, May 2
David Herle is supposedly deep in thought about our fading democracy, looking for answers to fix the status quo. He feels installing a new government will not create meaningful change. Duh! Look at the failed promise and dashed worldwide hopes of Barack Obama's election. The “old boys” would not allow him any success; it might initiate a series of challenges to their rigged game. The failed democracy in Canada is but a small part of a global phenomenon. Democracy is a mirage, a fiction the “1 per cent club” allows to continue. No, Mr. Herle, searching within the smoke and mirrors political game will yield no useful answers — people already know this, even if they don't fully comprehend why, and that is why they feel that elections don't matter. And they don't. Big money, lobby groups, etc. run the game. Any new developments on repatriating any of those billions in tax havens so recently made public? No. Politicians are there to please the plutocrats, not the serfs.
Checking my blog archive, I found that I have written a total of 22 posts on asbestos. Here is number 23.
Two years ago, Canada was the sole nation to oppose adding chrysotile asbestos to the list of hazardous products under the Rotterdam Convention. Such a listing would not have banned the export of the deadly substance, but would have required proper labelling and explicit instructions as to its safe handling. Such labelling would have enabled
developing countries — where asbestos and most hazardous substances are shipped nowadays — to be informed of the dangers. They thus have the right to refuse the product or, at least, have a better chance of protecting their population from harm.
At the time, the Harperites hypocritically insisted that it was a safe substance (even though, of course, it is listed in Canada as a hazardous substance) if handled properly, but then prevented the possibility of safe handling by preventing its inclusion under Annex 111 of the Rotterdam Convention.
The government's rationale for its immoral act was both chilling and mercenary:
"This government will not put Canadian industry in a position where it is discriminated against in a market where sale is permitted," Harper said.
As reported in today's Star, this week the Rotterdam Convention will meet in Geneva, and this time, when the vote is called to place chysotile asbestos on the convention’s list of hazardous substances, Canada will not oppose it.
Has the Harper government experienced an epiphany? Hardly. Since the Parti Quebecois cancelled a $58 million loan to Canada’s last asbestos mine, the Jeffrey Mine, it will not reopen, effectively ending Canada's export of death and disease. It is noteworthy, however, that the Harper regime will be graceless and petty to the end. Instead of voting to add chrysotile to the list of hazardous materials, it will remain silent.
Not that it really will make any difference one way or the other. Unlike two years ago, when Canada was single-handedly responsible for the substance's exclusion from Annex 111, this year Russia, the world’s biggest asbestos exporter, and Zimbabwe, attending for the first time and eager to reopen its asbestos mines and resume asbestos exports, will play the spoiler roles in preventing its proper labelling.
So Canada must bear the exclusive responsibility for the ongoing suffering, disease and death that is chrysotile's legacy. While I'm sure Harper and his many disciples will not lose any sleep over this ugly and immoral truth, those of us with any semblance of humanity just might.
Laurie Hawn, Alberta
Brent Rathgeber, Alberta
Kevin Sorenson, Alberta
Mike Allen, New Brunswick
Joe Daniel, Ontario
Larry Miller, Ontario
Stephen Woodworth, Ontario
What do all of the above M.P.s have in common? In addition to being members of the federal Conservative caucus, each, it seems, has some surprising integrity. Each has refused to participate in the Harper plan to use taxpayer-funded mailouts to attack Justin Trudeau.
In that, they have earned my respect, which, in itself, I suppose, is a pretty sad commentary on the Conservative Party of Canada. After all, they are only doing what is morally, ethically, and fiscally right in refusing to participate in another Harper-led scheme of character assassination.
I can only hope others will join in this 'palace revolt.'
Many of us who blog, tweet, or post political views on Facebook cannot, I suspect, avoid the periodic and unsettling notion that we are simply 'preaching to the converted' instead of reaching a larger audience with our perspectives and commentaries. Yet we persevere, both as a catharsis for our own outrage over social and political injustices, especially (at least for me) those induced by the Harper cabal, and in the hope that our words may influence those who don't necessarily feel as we do. But it is always just a hope.
That is why I take such delight when I read things in the mainstream media that suggest our discontent is shared by a constituency much wider than our blogosphere, thereby offering reasons for renewed optimism that changes in Ottawa are indeed quite possible. Such is the case today in reading The Star's Chantal Hebert. Entitled Stephen Harper’s legacy in government may be nastiness, her column suggests that those who made possible the Harper majority are now feeling buyers' remorse:
The latest voting intentions sounding — done by Harris/Decima for The Canadian Press earlier this week — shows the Conservatives in second place, seven points behind the Liberals and more than 10 points down from their 2011 level.
While acknowledging that the results stem in part from Justin Trudeau's recent assumption of the Liberal Party leadership, Hebert suggests they are also a natural consequence of the politics of negativity that Harper and his functionaries have continued to embrace so rabidly, despite their majority:
With a consistency that would have been exemplary if only it had been exerted on the policy front, the majority Conservatives have treated Parliament and the country to [ongoing contempt].
At times it has seemed as if, having fought so hard to conquer a majority, they felt compelled to act like an occupying army rather than a government accountable to all.
Hebert makes the point that Canadians are used to their politics being rough, reminding us of some of the antics and abuses of power that characterized the Chretien reign. She does observe, however, that his government's saving grace was
a series of signature policies for which support extended outside the core Liberal base. A return to balanced budgets, the Clarity Act and a refusal to follow the Americans’ lead on Iraq are three examples.
By contrast, all Harper has left is his die-hard 'true believers', the rest totally alienated from his antics:
He promised to fix the democratic deficit that plagued Parliament. Instead Harper’s contribution to that deficit already surpasses that of his predecessors.
The Conservatives were going to end the culture of entitlement that pervaded previous governments. Instead, some of Harper’s senators and ministers have embraced that culture in relative impunity.
The prime minister also vouched to restore accountability to government. Instead, he has presided over increasingly opaque budgets and a Kafkaesque regime of communication designed to obscure rather than inform. The auditor general himself has trouble following the money through the federal system these days.
Despite my retirement, the English teacher within lives on. Upon reading Hebert's observations, my mind went to a scene in Shakespeare's Macbeth, when, near the end of his unjust and cruel rule, Macbeth is facing invasion from the English, who are helping Scottish patriots overthrow the tyrant. Someone asks about Macbeth's status:
13 Some say he's mad; others that lesser hate him
14 Do call it valiant fury; but, for certain,
15 He cannot buckle his distemper'd cause
16 Within the belt of rule.
ANGUS
Now does he feel
17 His secret murders sticking on his hands;
18 Now minutely revolts upbraid his faith-breach;
19 Those he commands move only in command,
20 Nothing in love. Now does he feel his title
21 Hang loose about him, like a giant's robe
22 Upon a dwarfish thief.
(Act 5, Scene 2)
I, and many others live in the hope that the dwarfish thief currently reigning in Ottawa is soon to experience a 'wardrobe malfunction' and lose his Prime Minister's robes. Hebert's article gives me renewed hope for that outcome.
In his column today, Tim Harper reminds us that yesterday marked the two-year anniversary of the Harper majority government.
It is hardly an occasion that progressives take delight in as columnist Harper makes reference to some of the regime's retrograde policies and 'achievements':
- streamlined environmental regulatory reviews
- the formal withdrawal from the Kyoto protocol
- the radical overhaul of the Navigable Waters Act and the Fisheries Act
- the uncertainty over the future of the Experimental Lakes Area
- the shuttering of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy
- cutting of scientific research
- muzzling of federal scientists
- compromising the independence of Statistics Canada
- abdicating the federal role in setting national health care policy
- raising the age at which Canadians are eligible for Old Age Security
- the odium and loss of international reputation Canada has experienced thanks to its uncritical and unwavering support of Israel in all matters
Tim Harper concludes with the following observation:
All of the above took a mere two years. It is also reads like a blueprint for continued support from the party base. As it turns the corner on this mandate, the real test will be how the Conservatives try to reach beyond that base heading to 2015.
My suspicion is, as I have mentioned before in this blog, that the regime hopes that the vast majority of Canadians will have lost all faith in government by 2015, in which case the election will be an unfettered opportunity for the 'true believers' to give Harper another majority, thereby enabling him to complete the task of dismantling whatever remains of the Canada that we still take pride in and cherish.
UPDATE: H/t Michael Scott for this sad but telling link to a new story about Harper muzzling of scientists.
Not only does the story further erode the myth of Conservative fiscal competence, however, it also provides an opportunity for some lacerating humour, as evidenced by today's Star editorial cartoon. Enjoy:
H/t GB
What is one of the chief effects of the Harper regime's preference for an ideologically-based policy model over one premised on logic, facts and empirical evidence, as explored in my earlier post? The decline, perhaps even the demise, of a healthy democracy in which citizens are engaged and informed participants, thereby allowing an ideologically-driven government to pursue its agenda largely unimpeded.
In today's Toronto Star, columnist Bob Hepburn writes about the state of our democracy and the growing gap between Parliament and Canadians. An interview with David Herle, former Paul Martin campaign strategist and principal partner at The Gandalf Group, a Toronto-based research and consulting company, yields a portrait of a population deeply disaffected with politics in general and Parliament in particular.
And there are ample studies and surveys to back up that portrait:
For example, a poll last fall suggested barely 27 per cent of Canadians believe Ottawa is dealing with issues we really care about.
Most people are worried about daily issues, such as their children’s education, looking after aging parents and getting decent health care. But other than writing cheques to the provinces, Ottawa has opted out of health care, education, transportation and other issues that affect our normal lives.
Instead, there is a narrow set of issues that Prime Minister Stephen Harper is pursuing and for the most part the opposition parties are adhering to them. Because voters have stopped looking to Parliament for help, Ottawa has stopped responding to their needs, Herle believes.
“People are no longer putting demands on government (bold type mine) and aren’t flocking to politicians who claim they can help them,” he says. “They’ve simply given up on Ottawa altogether.”
Although I am not a person given to conspiracy theories, I have written extensively on this blog about both democracy and democratic participation, and long ago concluded that one of the secondary goals of the Harper regime is the discouragement of an engaged electorate, thereby making it easier to push through an agenda in which the role of government in people's live is minimized, one of the chief beliefs of the reactionary right. What better way to pursue that goal than to convey to people, via policy pursued through the very narrow prism of ideology and rabid partisanship, that their voices mean nothing and their engagement in the democratic process is both unnecessary and unwelcome?
Conservative MP Michael Chong, the only former member of Harper's cabinet who has ever displayed real integrity, puts it this way:...if voters have given up on Parliament, it means they have lost faith in politicians to look after their interests.
Part one of this post dealt with causes, and I would argue that Chong's observation is precisely the effect that the Harper regime so avidly desires.
Cause and effect. Sometimes the relationship is obvious, as in, for example, a cigarette left smoldering on a couch and the subsequent conflagration that destroys a house. Other times, to see the relationship requires some digging, some thinking, some connecting of the dots. To its shame the Harper regime, as retrograde and benighted as it is, has proven quite adept at obscuring such relationships. Thanks to this Machiavellian bent, we are all the poorer.
In a recent address to the Alberta Federation of Labour, one that, curiously, was not reported in the mainstream Alberta media, former Tory pollster and strategist Allan Gregg gave another version of his Assault on Reason speech he gave at the opening of Carleton University’s new School of Public Affairs.
Gregg made the following unassailable assertion to the group:
..."effective solutions can only be generated when they correspond with accurate understanding of they problems they are designed to solve. Evidence, facts and reason, therefore, form the sine qua non not just of good public policy, but of good value."
He went on to lament the steady decline of these criteria under the Harper government that began with the elimination of the long-form census, followed by
the destruction of the national long-gun registry, despite the pleas of virtually every police chief in Canada that it be saved. After that, under cover of an austerity budget, there were massive cuts to Statistics Canada, Library and Archives Canada, science and social science activities at Parks Canada, the Parliamentary Budget Office, the CBC, the Roundtable on the Environment, the Experimental Lakes Area, the Canadian Foundation for Climate Science and so on.
Gregg notes that these assaults on evidence-based decisions were followed by a multi-billion-dollar penitentiary-building spending spree which flew directly in the face of a mountain of evidence that suggested that crime, far from being on the rise, was on the decline.
Gregg draws the following conclusions:
"This was no random act of downsizing, but a deliberate attempt to obliterate certain activities that were previously viewed as a legitimate part of government decision making," Gregg stated. "Namely, using research, science and evidence as the basis to make public policy decisions.
"It also amounted to an attempt to eliminate anyone who would use science, facts and evidence to challenge government policies," he added.
So, beyond the obvious consequences of flawed government policy that is based on ideology instead of empiricism, what is the effect of all of this?
To be continued later today...
The term 'cultural divide' does not begin to explain this. Depraved indifference, on the part of both the company and the parents, perhaps does.
UPDATE: This piece on Slate, which includes a 'charming' video on 'My First Rifle,' is well worth a look.
.jpg)
