The dark presence of Stephen Harper loomed heavily today during the Parliamentary Committee hearing into whether International Cooperation Minister Bev Oda should be held in contempt of Parliament for her earlier misleading and evasive answers regarding her department's defunding of KAIROS.
While the evaluation of her testimony will undoubtedly split along party lines, her 'answers' to the Committee's questions, in which she frequently simply proclaimed her probity, had all of the earmarks of a carefully scripted and carefully rehearsed performance, doubtlessly orchestrated by the Prime Minister's minions (a.k.a. The PMO). Her inability or unwillingness to answer questions with either a 'yes' or a 'no' without very animated prompting by M.P. Pat Martin bespoke the evasiveness of someone with something to hide. While watching this performance, I was reminded of all the evidence Lawrence Martin brings forth in Harperland that nothing happens in the Harper Regime without the explicit approval of Mr. Harper or his operatives.
Let the spin begin.
Friday, March 18, 2011
If You Can't Take The Heat, Timmy .....
As I predicted earlier, the right-wing has begun to howl over the the Working Famalies' ad showing an actor representing Tim Hudak meeting with some corporate executives complaining about government regulations that are hampering their thirst for unlimited profits. It ends with the Hudak-actor nodding in agreement when the question is asked, "Can we go back to the old days, when you and Mike ran things?", followed by "That a boy."
According to a report in today's Star, the Hudak cabal is complaining to the Television Bureau of Canada, claiming that Working Families, a coalition of unions, is really a front for the Liberals. Conservative campaign chairman Mark Spiro says that since the meeting depicted in the ad never happened, it is a violation of the guidelines for accuracy in advertising.
Really, Mr. Spiro? Have you taken no notice of either the tone or the slanderous nature of the attack ads currently being churned out by your federal brethren?
The depth and breadth of Conservative hypocrisy is truly a thing to behold.
According to a report in today's Star, the Hudak cabal is complaining to the Television Bureau of Canada, claiming that Working Families, a coalition of unions, is really a front for the Liberals. Conservative campaign chairman Mark Spiro says that since the meeting depicted in the ad never happened, it is a violation of the guidelines for accuracy in advertising.
Really, Mr. Spiro? Have you taken no notice of either the tone or the slanderous nature of the attack ads currently being churned out by your federal brethren?
The depth and breadth of Conservative hypocrisy is truly a thing to behold.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
The Facade of Integrity – Harper Regime Calls in the RCMP
With an election in the air, the past few days have seen the Harper regime trying to perpetrate the illusion of integrity. On Tuesday we learned that Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose called in the RCMP to investigate allegations that Sebastian Togneri, a former staffer, tried to impede access to information requests by first trying to retract and then ordering heavy censoring of documents that had already been cleared for release. His subsequent resignation has allowed Ambrose to claim that “no current member of this government is involved in this case." Today we learn that former Conservative bigwig Bruce Carson is being investigated for influence-peddling. The investigation was ordered by Harper.
To the naive, the requests of Ambrose and Harper for police investigation might suggest an underlying integrity to the Harper Government. To many of us who follow Canadian politics, their actions bespeak a desperate attempt at damage control.
One need only look at the sequence of events in the Carson scandal. As reported in The Toronto Star,
“Carson reportedly illegally lobbied Indian Affairs Minister John Duncan on behalf of a company that was trying to sell water filtration systems to First Nations reserves with poor water quality. “
Federal law stipulates that no former employee of the government can engage in lobbying of that government for at least five years after leaving its employ.
I have a simple question for a Government that trumpets its empty rectitude: When he was being lobbied, why did Minister Duncan not report it and initiate action against Carson? Since Duncan had to have been well acquainted with both Carson and the lobbying regulations, why did he conceal his contacts with the former adviser?
My other question, which I think can readily be answered, is why has Harper called in the authorities at this point? The answer, I believe, is not difficult to deduce. As reported in The Star,
The Aboriginal Peoples Television Network uncovered the alleged wrongdoing in an investigation into the activities of Bruce Carson, a longtime Tory political operative who advised the Prime Minister on energy and environmental issues.
Since APTN is planning to broadcast a program on March 25 revealing the full details of its investigation, it would seem that Harper had no choice but to call in the authorities. In the letter (which APTN quoted) Harper's office sent to William Elliot, Commisioner of the RCMP:
a government official writes that Harper’s office “became aware of the existence of materials in the possession of the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network.”
“These materials contain troubling details about recent actions and claims made by Mr. Bruce Carson, a former employee of the Prime Minister’s Office,” wrote Ray Novak, Harper’s principal secretary.
The inference I draw from all of this is that because APTN is about to run this explosive expose, the Harper Government had no choice but to call in the RCMP in a desperate play at damage control and misdirection.
To attribute anything but the basest and most cynical motivation in this affair is to caught in the sleazy game the Prime Minister and his operatives play.
To the naive, the requests of Ambrose and Harper for police investigation might suggest an underlying integrity to the Harper Government. To many of us who follow Canadian politics, their actions bespeak a desperate attempt at damage control.
One need only look at the sequence of events in the Carson scandal. As reported in The Toronto Star,
“Carson reportedly illegally lobbied Indian Affairs Minister John Duncan on behalf of a company that was trying to sell water filtration systems to First Nations reserves with poor water quality. “
Federal law stipulates that no former employee of the government can engage in lobbying of that government for at least five years after leaving its employ.
I have a simple question for a Government that trumpets its empty rectitude: When he was being lobbied, why did Minister Duncan not report it and initiate action against Carson? Since Duncan had to have been well acquainted with both Carson and the lobbying regulations, why did he conceal his contacts with the former adviser?
My other question, which I think can readily be answered, is why has Harper called in the authorities at this point? The answer, I believe, is not difficult to deduce. As reported in The Star,
The Aboriginal Peoples Television Network uncovered the alleged wrongdoing in an investigation into the activities of Bruce Carson, a longtime Tory political operative who advised the Prime Minister on energy and environmental issues.
Since APTN is planning to broadcast a program on March 25 revealing the full details of its investigation, it would seem that Harper had no choice but to call in the authorities. In the letter (which APTN quoted) Harper's office sent to William Elliot, Commisioner of the RCMP:
a government official writes that Harper’s office “became aware of the existence of materials in the possession of the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network.”
“These materials contain troubling details about recent actions and claims made by Mr. Bruce Carson, a former employee of the Prime Minister’s Office,” wrote Ray Novak, Harper’s principal secretary.
The inference I draw from all of this is that because APTN is about to run this explosive expose, the Harper Government had no choice but to call in the RCMP in a desperate play at damage control and misdirection.
To attribute anything but the basest and most cynical motivation in this affair is to caught in the sleazy game the Prime Minister and his operatives play.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Ethical Politicians – A Contemporary Oxymoron
While I know that I am hardly alone in harbouring a deep cynicism about almost all politicians, sometimes their lack of moral fibre is made apparent, not by way of spectacular revelations, as in the Liberal sponsorship scandal or the sordid Mulroney-Schreiber affair, but in much more subtle ways, such as the personal choices they make.
This occurred to me last evening while I continued to digest in small amounts, as mentioned in a previous post, Lawence Martin's Harperland. The passage pertained to the televised debate in 2008 between Harper, Dion, Duceppe and Elizabeth May. The rules stipulated that participants could not bring notes for the exchange, although they were permitted to write down notes during the debate. During both the French and English debates, Green Party leader May, seated beside Harper, noticed the Prime Minister, below table level (doesn't that bring back memories of less than apt high schoolers?) using 'cheat sheets,' describing them as “small index cards with reprinted font all over them.” Because she lacked the confidence to confront Harper, she said nothing.
After stepping down as Harper's communication director, the sometimes ethically-challenged Kory Teneycke, in reference to the cheating, responded with the kind of misdirection we've come to expect from the Conservatives: ”...who cares? ...She's just lucky she was in the room.... The process was poorly served by her presence.”
Both Harper's dishonest behaviour and Tenecke's dismissal of its significance reveal much about the kind of government operated by the Harper regime.
This occurred to me last evening while I continued to digest in small amounts, as mentioned in a previous post, Lawence Martin's Harperland. The passage pertained to the televised debate in 2008 between Harper, Dion, Duceppe and Elizabeth May. The rules stipulated that participants could not bring notes for the exchange, although they were permitted to write down notes during the debate. During both the French and English debates, Green Party leader May, seated beside Harper, noticed the Prime Minister, below table level (doesn't that bring back memories of less than apt high schoolers?) using 'cheat sheets,' describing them as “small index cards with reprinted font all over them.” Because she lacked the confidence to confront Harper, she said nothing.
After stepping down as Harper's communication director, the sometimes ethically-challenged Kory Teneycke, in reference to the cheating, responded with the kind of misdirection we've come to expect from the Conservatives: ”...who cares? ...She's just lucky she was in the room.... The process was poorly served by her presence.”
Both Harper's dishonest behaviour and Tenecke's dismissal of its significance reveal much about the kind of government operated by the Harper regime.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Lawrence Martin's Column Today
In today's online Globe, Lawrence Martin offers a lacerating analysis of the departure of what he calls “the ethcially upright” (Chuck Strahl, Stockwell Day, and earlier, Jay Hill) from the Harper regime. He describes them as “low key and reasonable, not inclined to engage in character assassination. They won admiration for their sense of decency, so it’s in this respect that their departures will hurt the government.”
Consider the key material Harper has to work with in terms of Cabinet representation from Ontario: ”From the old Harris government, the Tories have House Leader John Baird, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, Trade Minister Peter Van Loan, Industry Minister Tony Clement and campaign manager Guy Giorno.”
Need one say more?
Consider the key material Harper has to work with in terms of Cabinet representation from Ontario: ”From the old Harris government, the Tories have House Leader John Baird, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, Trade Minister Peter Van Loan, Industry Minister Tony Clement and campaign manager Guy Giorno.”
Need one say more?
Monday, March 14, 2011
Anti-Tim Hudak Ad
Ever notice how the right-wing feels it's perfectly fine to run attack ads, yet when they are the subject, they cry foul? I'm waiting for the howls to begin.
Reflections on a Failing World
Usually much more optimistic than me, my wife, for the past year or so, has insisted that humanity is a failed species. I, usually much more the pessimist, have resisted her conclusion, pointing out evidence that the human spirit is alive and well: the uprising against tyranny in the Middle East; the people of good will who work ceaselessly and passionately to right the wrongs they see in the world, or extending help to those who need it; the outpouring of humanitarian aid when natural disaster strikes.
I find I must now reassess that optimism. With thanks to The Disaffected Lib for providing the link, I read the article by Chris Hedges entitled “This Time We're Taking the Whole Planet With Us,” his thesis being that historical patterns, so ably discussed in Ronald Wright's A Short History of Progress (a book I highly recommend), suggest there is little hope for the long-term survival of humanity. The patterns of ecological and environmental exploitation, the pillaging and ultimate destruction of economies by the oligarchs, etc., once confined to individual societies and countries, are now occurring on a global basis, contends Hedges.
Having read two of Hedges' books and heard him speak while on a book tour, I previously thought that some of his analyses were rather overwrought and exaggerated. I now realize he is more prescient than I had imagined. For example, when I heard him speak over a year ago, he suggested that what he called 'Brand Obama' would ultimately prove to be simply more of the same old politics. It was an assertion that I resisted. However, even while acknowledging that Obama is constrained by the recalcitrance of both Republican and Democratic Senators, I think Hedges is right.
For example, the continuation of tax cuts for the wealthy, while it could seen as a political expedient and compromise, suggests an unwillingness to address the real problems confronting the United States. Similarly, after watching the film Inside Job, which just won an Academy Award for Best Documentary (a film I also highly recommend, providing as it does an accessible explanation of the 2008 financial meltdown), I was quite disappointed in Obama. I learned that some of the architects of that disaster, as well as those who had been in regulatory positions and could have prevented it, are either now part of Obama's administration or important advisers to him.
So what is my point here? I guess it is to suggest that time is getting very short; our world is in dire peril, and it is our moral duty, no matter how busy our personal or professional lives may be, to educate ourselves so that we can confront and oppose those who use the facade of democratic elections to dismantle our world.
There may not be much time or hope for success, but I don't want to go down without a fight.
I find I must now reassess that optimism. With thanks to The Disaffected Lib for providing the link, I read the article by Chris Hedges entitled “This Time We're Taking the Whole Planet With Us,” his thesis being that historical patterns, so ably discussed in Ronald Wright's A Short History of Progress (a book I highly recommend), suggest there is little hope for the long-term survival of humanity. The patterns of ecological and environmental exploitation, the pillaging and ultimate destruction of economies by the oligarchs, etc., once confined to individual societies and countries, are now occurring on a global basis, contends Hedges.
Having read two of Hedges' books and heard him speak while on a book tour, I previously thought that some of his analyses were rather overwrought and exaggerated. I now realize he is more prescient than I had imagined. For example, when I heard him speak over a year ago, he suggested that what he called 'Brand Obama' would ultimately prove to be simply more of the same old politics. It was an assertion that I resisted. However, even while acknowledging that Obama is constrained by the recalcitrance of both Republican and Democratic Senators, I think Hedges is right.
For example, the continuation of tax cuts for the wealthy, while it could seen as a political expedient and compromise, suggests an unwillingness to address the real problems confronting the United States. Similarly, after watching the film Inside Job, which just won an Academy Award for Best Documentary (a film I also highly recommend, providing as it does an accessible explanation of the 2008 financial meltdown), I was quite disappointed in Obama. I learned that some of the architects of that disaster, as well as those who had been in regulatory positions and could have prevented it, are either now part of Obama's administration or important advisers to him.
So what is my point here? I guess it is to suggest that time is getting very short; our world is in dire peril, and it is our moral duty, no matter how busy our personal or professional lives may be, to educate ourselves so that we can confront and oppose those who use the facade of democratic elections to dismantle our world.
There may not be much time or hope for success, but I don't want to go down without a fight.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)