"...a bombastic partisan apologist for the prime minister " UPDATED

The above is one of the descriptions offered of the much beleaguered 'PEI' Senator Mike Duffy in a trenchant assessment written by the Star's Tim Harper in today's edition.

Harper reminds us of the ease with which the Puffster abandoned whatever journalistic integrity he might have once possessed as soon as his senatorial seat on the gravy train was confirmed:

When Duffy was offered the Senate post, he told his old colleagues at CTV, he informed Harper the Senate had to be killed or cured because it was dysfunctional.

“I said, ‘I’m not much of a partisan,’ ” Duffy said. “He (Harper) said, ‘We’ve got lots of partisans, we don’t need any more partisans, what we need is people who believe in Senate reform. You believe in Senate reform and therefore that’s what I’m looking for and I said, ‘Okay.’ ”

Shortly after his appointment, that was Duffy helping to turn an economic update from the government into a game show in Cambridge, Ont., — not the House of Commons — coaxing voters through a series of adoring lob ball questions for the prime minister, a role he has reprised many times.

If you have the stomach for this sordid tale of prostitution, be sure to check out Tim Harper's entire evaluation of the man who has perhaps achieved the dubious distinction of fomenting even more public odium and cynicism about a government arm that has long ceased to be anything other than a repository for the party faithful.

UPDATE: It would seem that the people in his 'home' province also have Mr. Duffy's number.

Why Is This Man Smiling?

Could it have anything to do with the fact that he has made a successful career out of masquerades?

First, of course, Mike Duffy donned the mask of a political reporter, pretending to be an objective seeker of the truth, initially for CBC and then later for CTV, all the while moving closer and closer to the people he was supposed to be investigating and reporting on until even the thin veneer of impartiality vanished whenever he was in the vicinity of Conservative politicians.

Next, he masqueraded as a Senator who brought value to the 'chamber of sober second thought' while at the same time indulging in the kind of rabid Conservative partisanship that made a mockery of any such notion.

Compounding his clever disguise was the claim that he represents P.E.I., which he asserts is his principal residence, despite the fact that he has lived in Ottawa for many years, holds an Ontario Health Insurance Plan card (which requires that one be a permanent resident of Ontario), thereby rendering the over $30,000 in living expense claims he has claimed since 2010 an instance of egregious and probably criminal fraud.

Maybe the picture of the affable Duffy was shot when he had an amusing exchange with one of his 'constituents' visiting from P.E.I.; most islanders have never seen the rotund politico on their shores.

Or perhaps his good cheer has nothing to do with the above; perhaps he is just richly amused by this video:

Even though I care deeply for the environment and all that thrives within it, I can only hope The Eastern Bald Senator is now on the endangered list and quickly headed for extinction.

Exploiting Mandela

In an age when everyone feels entitled to their own reality series because, well, because they are 'special' and entitled, I suppose I shouldn't be appalled that that icon of integrity and reconciliation, Nelson Mandela, a man I revere, is now in the unfortunate position of seeing two of his granddaughters trading on that integrity.

A story in the Hamilton Spectator today reports the following:

Being Mandela, a new series premiering Sunday on COZI TV, invites U.S. audiences into the lives of Zaziwe Dlamini-Manaway and Swati Dlamini, the fashionable, 30-something granddaughters of Mandela and Winnie Madikizela-Mandela.

The sisters, along with two brothers, also become the latest famous names to launch a fashion line, called “Long Walk to Freedom” in honour of their grandfather’s autobiography. Their lives are special and glamorous and they know it. They hope that U.S. audiences — COZI TV is a new network launched by NBC Owned Television Stations — will see a vibrant and modern side of South Africa through their eyes.

No doubt this shameless ploy to make a buck will, as they say, be done 'tastefully.' One can only hope that potential viewers show some discretion in their channel choices.

On Porcine Behaviour, A.K.A. Mike Duffy

You can run, Mike, but given your now well-known behaviour at the trough, I doubt that you can hide.

A Timely Reminder

Young Tim Hudak, the leader of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party, probably commands much more press coverage than he deserves. He certainly has been the object of more than one of my own blog posts, in part because of the fascinating window he opens into the mind of that segment of the electorate which believes his retrograde polices have merit. Indeed, it is never wise to underestimate people's capacity to buy into disproven bromides as they indulge in that peculiar form of magical thinking that suggests taxes can be cut, jobs created, and society advanced through no personal pain or sacrifice.

Recently, The Star's Bob Hepburn wrote a piece entitled Is Tim Hudak on the far-right road to victory? In it, he made the following observation about the far-right agenda Hudak is embracing:

His simple message: slash taxes, cut public service jobs, crack down on welfare recipients, beat up on labour unions, privatize government agencies, get tough on crime and create thousands of new jobs.

Hudak calls his proposals “bold, transformative ideas to fire up job creation and balance the books.”

Sound familiar? Indeed, Hudak is now fully embracing the controversial 1994 policies of Mike Harris, his old boss.

By doing so, though, he is gambling his entire political future on his belief that the Harris era is now just a faded memory for many Ontario voters and that the time is once again perfect to champion far-right policies.

The lead letter in today's Star suggests that Hudak's hopes for collective amnesia about the Harris era's depradations may be misplaced, as Steve McCahon of Toronto writes:

Bob Hepburn’s column was both well-reasoned, and insightful. However, several other points should be considered when analyzing the Progressive Conservative Party’s far-right shift in Ontario and the next provincial election.

The success of Ford Nation in Toronto, and the “breakthrough” of the federal Conservative party in the Greater Toronto Area, which gave Stephen Harper a majority government, should serve to concern political parties with more moderate, middle to left-leaning perspectives.

The “Red” Tory party led by Premier William Davis no longer exists. Michael Harris helped to redefine the party in the 1990s. The Common Sense Revolution was neither common sensie, nor revolutionary. It featured slash and burn politics. It took a funding of school boards out of the hands of local municipalities through the property tax-mill rate system.

The government saddled municipalities with funding of general welfare, ambulance services and subsidized housing. It introduced education policy that gutted arts funding, library and guidance functions in the local schools, and a system that has led to the closure of hundreds of local schools over the past 15 years.

I mention these specific changes brought about by Harris with regard to the effect upon the poor and middle class as a cautionary note. The Great Blue Wave that swept over Ontario in the 1990s threatens to re-emerge.

Mr. Hepburn’s comparison to the recent American election is appropriate; however, it fails to take into consideration how Ontarians have tended to vote in response to more recent provincial electoral campaigns.

Premier David Peterson’s snap election resulted in “political suicide.” The electorate punished the perceived arrogance of the Liberal party. During Premier Dalton McGuinty’s second election campaign, which led to a majority government, it was the issue of extending public funding to faith-based schools that destroyed John Tory’s campaign.

The next provincial election is likely to be fought on the basis of a single lightning-rod issue rather than on a broad policy platform. Ontarians are not likely to forget the vilification of “beer drinking single moms on welfare,” and huge slashes to the public service: primarily in the areas of the amalgamation of Toronto and health care leading to the reduction of 6,000 nurses and 11,000 hospital beds.

Premier Mike Harris came to power with the promise of fiscal responsibility and left as an ideologue who was out of touch with Ontarians. Similarly, is Tim Hudak the leader of the Tea Party of Ontario, the promoter of the Common Sense Revolution Part Deux, or Stephen Harper’s lapdog?

One can only speculate as to the “issue” that will dominate the next provincial election. Mr. Hudak has been touting his law and order agenda, while, he is promoting liberalization of the distribution of alcohol in Ontario. Teen smoking, drinking and driving, and gas station attendant violence are all serious criminal and societal matters.

Privatizing the LCBO and introducing the distribution of wine, beer, and/or alcohol at local convenience stores with the potential of “liquor store” holdups and further under-age drinking may very well be one issue that is worthy of focus.

Ontario does not require a hard-right political shift to create jobs, manage its fiscal house, reduce crime, and create better government. Ontarians should reject Tea Party politics, and its inherent divisiveness, despite the pretty packaging and bow in which Tim Hudak wraps it.

One can only hope that Steve McCahon's timely reminder finds purchase amongst the Ontario electorate.

'Paying' For Their Crimes?

It doesn't take a cynic to realize that justice can be anything other than even-handed. We all know, for example, that there is a disproportionate percentage of people populating North American jails who are from the underclass, both white and non-white. The ability to 'buy' justice by engaging high-priced counsel is reserved for only a certain segment of our civilian population.

In his column today, The Star's Richard Gwyn turns his sights on a segment of our society, our corporate overlords, who have often been described as both 'too big to fail' and 'too big to jail.' Amongst those who fit that bill, predictably are the big banks:

- Just a month ago, Bank of America agreed to pay $11.6 billion (all figures U.S.) for making mortgage loans it knew its clients could never repay and for breaking the foreclosure rules so it could seize the houses of clients behind in their payments.

- That same month, Standard Chartered paid out $327 million after admitting it had broken American sanction laws against Iran, Burma, Sudan and Libya.

- By no means are the culprits only American institutions. Germany’s Deutsche Bank is trying to deal with charges that it hid $12 billion in paper losses to avoid a government bailout.

- The Swiss bank, Wegelin, small but with 272 years of history behind it, has just shut down after admitting it helped American customers escape taxes on $1.2 billion in assets.

- The truly humungous case is that of some 20 banks — American, British, German, Swiss, French — that for years have been fiddling a key international interest rate known as Libor to suit their corporate interests. The first to take the hit, Britain’s Barclays, has settled for $450 million. It all looks encouraging. The villains are being called to account.

True, many have had to pay substantial financial penalties for their crimes, but Gwyn places a couple of huge asterisks beside those 'penalties':

No one has done time for any of these misdeeds. No one has even had to endure the humiliation of a court appearance.

But it gets worse, as the very penalties these corporate malefactors pay are in fact heavily subsidized by the taxpayer:

Most of these grandiose settlements are a lot smaller than they seem because the institution can write off the costs as a business expense. The best, and worst, example is not a bank but British Petroleum, which earned a $10 billion tax windfall by writing off all its cleanup costs in the Gulf of Mexico.

Not in an entirely pessimistic frame of mind, Gwy points to a faint light in the distance:

At present, when banks pay penalties, a key part of their settlements is that they are not required to admit to any wrongdoing. A New York state attorney, Preet Bharara, though, now requires an admission of past guilt as part of any settlement. “We have a responsibility to speak the truth, to get at what actually happened,” he says.

Principle and integrity finding its way into the public arena? Only an inveterate cynic could question the prospect.

Hooray for Free Speech!

Unless, of course, that freedom is used to criticize Israel.