I have to confess that in some ways I envy the Conservative mindset. For its adherents, life is satisfying because it is so uncomplicated, all issues are black and white, and they never allow facts to get in the way of a good narrative or otherwise ruin their day.
One of the greatest practitioners of this singular and simple-minded approach to life, dominated as it is by magical thinking, is Laurie Hawn, Parliamentary Secretary to Defense Minister Peter McKay.
I have written previously about Hawn's adamantine insistence that the 65 F-35 fighter jets will be purchased by the Harper overnment for $75 million each, despite irrefutable evidence to the contrary. While I doubt that his religious zeal for that figure can be shaken, there is a compelling story in today's Star offering even more evidence that the jets will cost much much more, and once more leads the rational thinker to question the wisdom of committing to the purchase of craft whose technology is unproven and still undergoing development and revision. I hope you will take a look at it, but don't be expecting any 'road to Damascus' moment for the aforementioned Hawn.
Friday, April 8, 2011
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Thomas Walkom on Harper's Paranoia
By using Stephen Harper's past public pronouncements, Thomas Walkom in today's Star illustrates the threat the Conservative leader poses to the traditional Canadian values of openness and tolerance. Entitled The Reasons for Harper's paranoia, it is a column well-worth reading.
Lawrence Martin On The Dire State of Democracy Under The Harper Regime
Writing at i.Politics.ca, Lawrence Martin, author of Harperland, (a revealing look at the Prime Minister and his contempt for just about everyone outside his narrow clique), does us all a service in his article, By the way prime minister, this is not a police state, reminding us of some of Harper's more egregious and flagrant violations of democratic norms over the past few years. Given that there have been so many instances of these abuses since the Harper regime took power, I am grateful for the brief refresher course Martin offers here.
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
RCMP Admits It has Acted Improperly
In a breaking story, the RCMP has admitted to acting beyond its mandate at Conservative political rallies. However, it is only a partial admission, as the statement says:
"The RCMP assisted the party organizers in restricting access to persons not registered for the private event," Sgt. Greg Cox said in the statement.
"This was not in accordance with the RCMP's mandate, and RCMP members have been reminded of our responsibilities."
What is left unaddressed is the role they seem to be playing in the removal of registered rally attendees, as occurred on Sunday at a Conservative event in London.
"The RCMP assisted the party organizers in restricting access to persons not registered for the private event," Sgt. Greg Cox said in the statement.
"This was not in accordance with the RCMP's mandate, and RCMP members have been reminded of our responsibilities."
What is left unaddressed is the role they seem to be playing in the removal of registered rally attendees, as occurred on Sunday at a Conservative event in London.
F-35 Controversy – Did Conservative Laurie Hawn Admit To Much Higher Jet Fighter Costs?
I think I have begun to discern the actual truth behind the Harper government's claims about fighter jet costs.
Previously I have written about the confusion surrounding the Conservatives' assertions that they will be buying 65 F-35 jets starting in 2016 for $75 million dollars each. Appearing on Evan Solomon's Power and Politics over a week ago, Laurie Hawn, Parliamentary Secretary to Defense Minister Peter McKay, tenaciously clung to that figure, despite compelling evidence from both the Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page and the General Accountability Office of the United States that such a low figures bears no resemblance to any reality with which they are acquainted.
Last night, Evan Solomon interviewed U.S defence analyst Winslow Wheeler, who asserted that the true cost per plane is likely to be $150-200 million, and that for $75 million you would not be able to get a jet complete with some key components, such as an engine and a weapons system. When that interview ended, Solomon once more questioned Hawn on his government's continued cost assertions; again Hawn maintained that his $75 million figure is correct. However, two things he said make me think otherwise.
In his previous defence of that figure, he mentioned two or three times that the figure that is really important is the $9 billion for the entire program. He repeated that figure last night several times, saying that it includes the total cost: the F-35s plus all related infrastructure, including flight simulators, etc.
Hawn's bombshell, however, and one that Evan Solomon unfortunately did not pick up on, came when he revealed that the $9 billion contains substantial 'contingency funds,' and it was at this point I realized the Conservatives, in the face of irrefutable evidence that the $75 million figure is sheer fantasy, are trying to change the narrative.
Had Solomon asked for details about the contingency funds within the $9 billion set aside for the program, I suspect that it would have emerged that much of that fund is to cover the much higher costs for the jets that everyone else has been alleging.
By repeating several times that the $9 billion cost of the entire program is 'the important number,' I suspect Hawn and his political masters are anticipating a future narrative; if the press keeps asking questions, the Conservatives will try to rewrite the history of what they have said, and focus instead on that $9 billion as the figure that covers all of their costs, something they will say they have been consistent about. It will be their hope that their misrepresentations about relatively inexpensive jets at $75 million a pop will simply fade away.
If you have time, take a look at the above links to the interviews to see if I might be right.
Previously I have written about the confusion surrounding the Conservatives' assertions that they will be buying 65 F-35 jets starting in 2016 for $75 million dollars each. Appearing on Evan Solomon's Power and Politics over a week ago, Laurie Hawn, Parliamentary Secretary to Defense Minister Peter McKay, tenaciously clung to that figure, despite compelling evidence from both the Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page and the General Accountability Office of the United States that such a low figures bears no resemblance to any reality with which they are acquainted.
Last night, Evan Solomon interviewed U.S defence analyst Winslow Wheeler, who asserted that the true cost per plane is likely to be $150-200 million, and that for $75 million you would not be able to get a jet complete with some key components, such as an engine and a weapons system. When that interview ended, Solomon once more questioned Hawn on his government's continued cost assertions; again Hawn maintained that his $75 million figure is correct. However, two things he said make me think otherwise.
In his previous defence of that figure, he mentioned two or three times that the figure that is really important is the $9 billion for the entire program. He repeated that figure last night several times, saying that it includes the total cost: the F-35s plus all related infrastructure, including flight simulators, etc.
Hawn's bombshell, however, and one that Evan Solomon unfortunately did not pick up on, came when he revealed that the $9 billion contains substantial 'contingency funds,' and it was at this point I realized the Conservatives, in the face of irrefutable evidence that the $75 million figure is sheer fantasy, are trying to change the narrative.
Had Solomon asked for details about the contingency funds within the $9 billion set aside for the program, I suspect that it would have emerged that much of that fund is to cover the much higher costs for the jets that everyone else has been alleging.
By repeating several times that the $9 billion cost of the entire program is 'the important number,' I suspect Hawn and his political masters are anticipating a future narrative; if the press keeps asking questions, the Conservatives will try to rewrite the history of what they have said, and focus instead on that $9 billion as the figure that covers all of their costs, something they will say they have been consistent about. It will be their hope that their misrepresentations about relatively inexpensive jets at $75 million a pop will simply fade away.
If you have time, take a look at the above links to the interviews to see if I might be right.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Harper Campaign Misuses RCMP
I am sickened by a story I just read on the CBC website entitled Ignatieff slams Harper over Facebook screening. While I had already heard about two young ladies being removed from a Conservative rally in London because a Facebook page showed them posing with Ignatieff, I was unaware of some of the more sinister details, details that potential voters both young and old should take note of.
While the ejection of two young and new voters is deplorable enough, it seems the real story here is the fact that the RCMP was acting in a political capacity by removing them at the Conservatives' behest. Here are some pertinent excerpts from the story:
Awish Aslam, a second-year political science student at the University of Western Ontario, told CBC News she and a friend were trying to attend a Sunday rally with Harper when they were asked to leave by a RCMP officer.
Aslam said they were led to the lobby where the officer told them they were no longer welcome because they had ties to the Liberal party. Aslam said the only explanation was her Facebook profile photo showing her posing for a picture with Ignatieff at a recent Liberal rally in London.
After being told by the RCMP they were no longer welcome at the Harper event, Aslam said she told the officer they had no intention of causing trouble.
"We said, 'We don't want to trouble.' We told him that we just wanted to get informed," Aslam said.
"We told him we were not there to cause the trouble."
Aslam said she has a photo of her and a friend posing with Ignatieff from an earlier campaign event with the Liberal leader.
The university student said she has clicked "Like" on the Facebook pages of each of the three party leaders, so she said she can't figure out why she was excluded.
"First, I was really discouraged. People are always talking about how they want youth to vote and we are disengaged but when we want to go and get informed, this happens," Aslam said.
Since neither girl posed a security, it is entirely inappropriate and perhaps illegal that our national police force acted in this clearly partisan manner.
While the ejection of two young and new voters is deplorable enough, it seems the real story here is the fact that the RCMP was acting in a political capacity by removing them at the Conservatives' behest. Here are some pertinent excerpts from the story:
Awish Aslam, a second-year political science student at the University of Western Ontario, told CBC News she and a friend were trying to attend a Sunday rally with Harper when they were asked to leave by a RCMP officer.
Aslam said they were led to the lobby where the officer told them they were no longer welcome because they had ties to the Liberal party. Aslam said the only explanation was her Facebook profile photo showing her posing for a picture with Ignatieff at a recent Liberal rally in London.
After being told by the RCMP they were no longer welcome at the Harper event, Aslam said she told the officer they had no intention of causing trouble.
"We said, 'We don't want to trouble.' We told him that we just wanted to get informed," Aslam said.
"We told him we were not there to cause the trouble."
Aslam said she has a photo of her and a friend posing with Ignatieff from an earlier campaign event with the Liberal leader.
The university student said she has clicked "Like" on the Facebook pages of each of the three party leaders, so she said she can't figure out why she was excluded.
"First, I was really discouraged. People are always talking about how they want youth to vote and we are disengaged but when we want to go and get informed, this happens," Aslam said.
Since neither girl posed a security, it is entirely inappropriate and perhaps illegal that our national police force acted in this clearly partisan manner.
Speaking Out About Media Narratives That Try To Influence Election Outcomes
Much recent discussion has revolved around the media narratives being spun during this election campaign. Among the more popular stories advanced thus far are that this is an unnecessary election, that people are not interested in or concerned about the supposedly arcane issue of Parliamentary democracy, that the vote of non-confidence was only a political tactic by the opposition, that Harper's draconian restrictions on reporters' questions are of concern only to reporters, that voters only care about 'real issues', etc. etc. ad nauseam.
Ever the contrarian and, I hope, critical thinker, I find myself pondering television journalist Tom Clark's comment the other day on a C-PAC phone-in program when he expressed frustration with having politicians tell us what issues are important to us. It must be said, however, that such political arrogance is in fact frequently aided and abetted by media that willingly, even enthusiastically, promote and thus heavily influence public thinking.
Because it is relevant to the issue, I am providing a link to a letter I had published in Saturday's edition of The Hamilton Spectator. Although up to this point I have made a practice of keeping my blog postings separate from other writing I do periodically, I am making an exception here, not to promote myself, but rather to underscore my point about media attempts to influence the public.
Ever the contrarian and, I hope, critical thinker, I find myself pondering television journalist Tom Clark's comment the other day on a C-PAC phone-in program when he expressed frustration with having politicians tell us what issues are important to us. It must be said, however, that such political arrogance is in fact frequently aided and abetted by media that willingly, even enthusiastically, promote and thus heavily influence public thinking.
Because it is relevant to the issue, I am providing a link to a letter I had published in Saturday's edition of The Hamilton Spectator. Although up to this point I have made a practice of keeping my blog postings separate from other writing I do periodically, I am making an exception here, not to promote myself, but rather to underscore my point about media attempts to influence the public.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)