While it would be presumptuous to try to predict the outcome of Monday's vote, I am heartened by what I perceive to be an awakening of the Canadian electorate. If political polls and advance voting numbers are any indication, we are demonstrating, counter to the much-discussed assertions of voter apathy, that we are listening and following this campaign like few in recent memory.
I have been convinced for some time now that if we are ever to rid ourselves of the scourge of political arrogance that has characterized our elected representatives for far too long, we have to begin by showing that we do care about our country. And the best way to do that is by turning out in huge numbers on election day. To abstain from voting is to tell our Members of Parliament to do what they will and that like sheep, we will be led wherever their whims and self-interest take us.
But I think we will prove far less docile than our leaders would like us to be, their platitudes about the importance of political engagement notwithstanding. If I am right, I think there will be a number of factors accounting for the change, including the following:
The turmoil in the Middle East, starting with Egypt's indefatigable protests that led to the ouster of Hosni Mubarak, can have left few unaffected. The resolve, the passion, and the courage of so many people willing to risk everything, even their lives, for a principle that we have so frequently taken for granted or openly disdained, has left an indelible mark upon our collective psyche. And of course, those gyrations continue to this day in Bahrain, Yemen, Syria and Libya.
Rick Mercer's rant to young people, so amply and effectively disseminated through social media, is undoubtedly responsible for the rise of voter flash mobs on university campuses throughout the country. The energy, enthusiasm and passion so evident in the mob videos, I think and hope, will result in significant youth turnout at the ballot box which, in turn, will contribute to establishing a lifelong voting habit.
Then there is the dreary and relentless campaign of negativity that has characterized the Harper Conservative regime's bid for reelection. What does a strategy based upon the cultivation of fear, anger, suspicion and even hatred, along with the party's well-documented anti-democratic behaviour, tell the voter? It tells me that it is a party without vision, a party lacking the capacity to help Canada realize its great potential, a party that spurns logic and reason in favour of a demagogic manipulation of the people it purports to want to represent. In other words, a party unfit to govern.
And so as the campaign winds down and we move quickly toward May 2, I join with all others of goodwill and hope as I reflect upon the possibilities for the country that I love.
Reflections, Observations, and Analyses Pertaining to the Canadian Political Scene
Friday, April 29, 2011
Peter Russell Warns All Of Us About The Dangers Of A Harper Majority
Despite the fawning endorsement of the Harper regime by Canada's self-proclaimed 'newspaper of record,' The Globe and Mail, others are able to rise above political partisanship to articulate how dangerous a Conservative majority government would be. One such person is constitutional expert Peter Russell who, in this 3-minute video, issues a timely warning:
Thursday, April 28, 2011
No Surprises Here: The Globe Endorses Harper
As if to once more remind people of how hollow its claim to being Canada's national newspaper is, the Globe and Mail has offered an endorsement of Stephen Harper. Its reasons for recommending that the electorate (or at least that portion lacking critical thinking skills) give yet another mandate to Harper and his regime would be laughable were the stakes not so high, and once more amply demonstrate the journal's increasing irrelevance to the Canadian political discussion.
I am reproducing a small portion of its rallying cry for the Conservatives to illustrate. The bolded portions are my own:
Only Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party have shown the leadership, the bullheadedness (let's call it what it is) and the discipline this country needs. He has built the Conservatives into arguably the only truly national party, and during his five years in office has demonstrated strength of character, resolve and a desire to reform. Canadians take Mr. Harper's successful stewardship of the economy for granted, which is high praise. He has not been the scary character portrayed by the opposition; with some exceptions, his government has been moderate and pragmatic.
It is because of this kind of fatuous thinking that I have not spent a day regretting my decision late last year to cancel my subscription to the once venerable paper.
I am reproducing a small portion of its rallying cry for the Conservatives to illustrate. The bolded portions are my own:
Only Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party have shown the leadership, the bullheadedness (let's call it what it is) and the discipline this country needs. He has built the Conservatives into arguably the only truly national party, and during his five years in office has demonstrated strength of character, resolve and a desire to reform. Canadians take Mr. Harper's successful stewardship of the economy for granted, which is high praise. He has not been the scary character portrayed by the opposition; with some exceptions, his government has been moderate and pragmatic.
It is because of this kind of fatuous thinking that I have not spent a day regretting my decision late last year to cancel my subscription to the once venerable paper.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Laurie Hawn, Magical Thinking, and George Orwell
As I had predicted in an earlier blog entry, propagandist and cognitive prestidigitator extraordinaire Laurie Hawn, employing a tactic worthy of George Orwell's 1984 and its government's constant rewriting of history ($75 million? You just think I said $75 million!) has changed his narrative on the cost of the F-35 jets. For months on end, despite all evidence to the contrary, the ever-cantankerous and always-contemptuous Parliamentary Secretary to Defence Minister Peter MacKay has disdained the many credible reports that the jets will cost anywhere from $120 to over $200 million apiece, consistently claiming that $75 million was a solid and reliable figure.
In his latest appearance on Power and Politics, shown yesterday, Hawn insisted that he hasn't used that number for over a month, and that he has said all along that $9 billion for the entire program cost is the important number, and that that figure contains contingencies for any price overruns.
Apparently Hawn has not heard of the Internet or CBC podcasts of past Power and Politics shows, where his words reveal him to be a prevaricator of gargantuan proportions.
And ultimately, isn't it this seemingly endless capacity of the Harper Government and its adherents to mislead and lie to the people that renders them manifestly unfit for governance?
But don't take my word about Hawn. Check out these links to evaluate his veracity and credibility:
March 29 Power and Politics
April 5 Power and Politics
MP Laurie Hawn on the F-35
F-35 cost details will come, MP says
Engines included in F-35 deal, officials insist
In his latest appearance on Power and Politics, shown yesterday, Hawn insisted that he hasn't used that number for over a month, and that he has said all along that $9 billion for the entire program cost is the important number, and that that figure contains contingencies for any price overruns.
Apparently Hawn has not heard of the Internet or CBC podcasts of past Power and Politics shows, where his words reveal him to be a prevaricator of gargantuan proportions.
And ultimately, isn't it this seemingly endless capacity of the Harper Government and its adherents to mislead and lie to the people that renders them manifestly unfit for governance?
But don't take my word about Hawn. Check out these links to evaluate his veracity and credibility:
March 29 Power and Politics
April 5 Power and Politics
MP Laurie Hawn on the F-35
F-35 cost details will come, MP says
Engines included in F-35 deal, officials insist
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Harper and the Supreme Court
I sometimes think that those of us who write blogs, being the passionate political followers that we are, read more into things than are really there, especially when it comes to alleging biases in the media. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Nonetheless, as the saying goes, even paranoid people really do have enemies.
I was thinking about this last night as I watched a segment of the 8:00 p.m. Power Play in which Patrick Monaghan, Osgoode Hall's former dean, held forth on what might happen to the composition of Canada's Supreme Court should Harper win a majority this election. From the first question posed by the reporter, I had the feeling this was a pro-Tory piece leading to the inevitable conclusion that there is nothing to fear in such a scenario.
Given the right-wing proclivities of Harper and his acolytes, being told, “Nothing to see here. Move along,” did not seem credible. Monaghan, for example, attempted to allay fears by pointing out that Harper's two appointments to the Supreme Court thus far were good and restrained choices, totally ignoring the political reality that for the Prime Minister to have made controversial choices whilst leading a minority government would have given considerable ammunition to those who fear the restrictive and state-directed nature of the social conservatives who wield considerable influence in the Conservative Party. Why would anyone think that the kind of incrementalism that has characterized Harper's legislative agenda thus far be any different when it comes to judicial appointments? Wouldn't it be logical for him to wait until he has complete power before pulling back the curtain?
Everything I know about the Conservative philosophy under Harper suggests we should all be very afraid of what will happen if this man rises above minority government status.
You can watch the six-minute interview here.
I was thinking about this last night as I watched a segment of the 8:00 p.m. Power Play in which Patrick Monaghan, Osgoode Hall's former dean, held forth on what might happen to the composition of Canada's Supreme Court should Harper win a majority this election. From the first question posed by the reporter, I had the feeling this was a pro-Tory piece leading to the inevitable conclusion that there is nothing to fear in such a scenario.
Given the right-wing proclivities of Harper and his acolytes, being told, “Nothing to see here. Move along,” did not seem credible. Monaghan, for example, attempted to allay fears by pointing out that Harper's two appointments to the Supreme Court thus far were good and restrained choices, totally ignoring the political reality that for the Prime Minister to have made controversial choices whilst leading a minority government would have given considerable ammunition to those who fear the restrictive and state-directed nature of the social conservatives who wield considerable influence in the Conservative Party. Why would anyone think that the kind of incrementalism that has characterized Harper's legislative agenda thus far be any different when it comes to judicial appointments? Wouldn't it be logical for him to wait until he has complete power before pulling back the curtain?
Everything I know about the Conservative philosophy under Harper suggests we should all be very afraid of what will happen if this man rises above minority government status.
You can watch the six-minute interview here.
Monday, April 25, 2011
The Potential Power of The Youth Vote
That was the topic of an article in yesterday's Star, entitled, What if every youth actually voted? One of the salutary effects, the article speculates, would be the trouncing of Vaughan riding's Julian Fantino, whose ascension to various top positions over the years has always been a profound mystery to me.
Please send the story link to all of the young people you know.
Please send the story link to all of the young people you know.
Sunday, April 24, 2011
The Monsters are Due on Parliament Hill
On this Easter Sunday, I'm feeling in a nostalgic frame of mind, no doubt inspired by the shifting array of attack ads given the surge in popularity of the NDP. Thanks to the last two years of Conservative ads attacking Michael Ignatieff, we have become so conditioned to seeing him as the enemy, the sheep in wolf's clothing, the fifth colonist, if you will, that it is somewhat jarring to learn that we've been wrong all along.
Now, it turns out, according to the latest word from Stephen Harper, Jack Layton is the true threat to all things that we hold dear:
Perhaps it was this ad that got me thinking about The Twilight Zone, a favourite of mine when I was a young lad. One of its most memorable episodes was entitled, “The Monsters Are Due On Maple Street,” perhaps the finest exploration of mob psychology ever presented in popular entertainment.
Without giving away the entire story, I will say that it revolves around the aftermath of an apparent meteorite flying over Maple Street, an ordinary suburban neighbourhood, on a mild and relaxed Saturday afternoon. Soon, the people find themselves without electrical or automotive power, and the situation quickly degenerates into suspicions and accusations that someone in their midst is responsible for the power loss, and may not be who he seems to be. The ensuing confusion and mayhem, seen in the last third of the episode, represents the kind of mentality I suspect is at the heart of such attack ads.
Now, it turns out, according to the latest word from Stephen Harper, Jack Layton is the true threat to all things that we hold dear:
Perhaps it was this ad that got me thinking about The Twilight Zone, a favourite of mine when I was a young lad. One of its most memorable episodes was entitled, “The Monsters Are Due On Maple Street,” perhaps the finest exploration of mob psychology ever presented in popular entertainment.
Without giving away the entire story, I will say that it revolves around the aftermath of an apparent meteorite flying over Maple Street, an ordinary suburban neighbourhood, on a mild and relaxed Saturday afternoon. Soon, the people find themselves without electrical or automotive power, and the situation quickly degenerates into suspicions and accusations that someone in their midst is responsible for the power loss, and may not be who he seems to be. The ensuing confusion and mayhem, seen in the last third of the episode, represents the kind of mentality I suspect is at the heart of such attack ads.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)