Coupled with the fact that two grad students detected a fundamental error in the spreadsheet calculations of the two Harvard professors upon whose shoddy work the justification for austerity largely rests, perhaps it is time for a larger consideration of its wisdom?
UPDATE: Here is solid evidence to support Mark Blyh's warning about the circular effect of widespread austerity efforts.
I hope to write an actual blog post on an entirely different topic later today, but since the latest poll shows a very strong reaction against the Prime Minister's puerile attack ads directed against Justin Trudeau, I can't resist reproducing a few of the letters from Star readers in this morning's edition expressing their thoughts on the issue. Be sure to check out this link if you want to read all of them :
Tories attack Trudeau on first day in new job, April 16
These ads are pathetic. What an awful was to instill the values of leadership to the youth of our country. When kids see it on after dinner you’re showing them that it’s OK to bully to get what you want. High school teens running for school council see that in order to win they should bash their opponents. And to think this cost upwards of $600,000 for production and media time?
As an undecided voter I find this absolutely disgusting and an awful waste of money and time. Get your stuff together. We don’t want a bully, we want a confident, bright leader with integrity who leads through respect and inspires us.
I was undecided about Justin Trudeau until I saw the Conservative Party attack ads. I’d like to thank Harper’s crew for making up my mind for me. They’ve pushed me right into Trudeau’s arms. Maybe they should revert back to a party name suggested a few years ago. The Conservative Reform Alliance Party. The acronym is certainly appropriate.
Lesley Chalmers, Toronto
Stephen Harper’s Regressive Conservative Party has truly sunk to new lows in its recent attack ad on Justin Trudeau. It is completely beside the point that Mr. Trudeau took his shirt off in the context of a charity function. Attack ads are contemptuous, juvenile tactics that we as Canadians should be disgusted with, period — especially in non-election years. Mr. Harper must feel terribly threatened to stoop to such levels.
Jenny Tsao, Thornhill
The prime minister should be ashamed of approving and standing behind such infantile, idiotic, grade-school bully style, expensive and totally useless attack ads against Justin Trudeau. Is this something an adult professional organization can be proud of?
I hope the people of Canada realize in the next election how absolutely shallow this political party really is!
Peter Buck, Coldwater
.jpg)
UPDATE: Unbelievable - now Duffy claims he repaid the money in March.
These Star readers seem to think so:
Tories attack Trudeau on first day in new job, April 16
It is fair to criticize opposing politicians for their political beliefs and policies. It is right to deplore bullying in all its forms. Now we find that the usual unfair, unjust and bullying attack ads of the Harper Tory’s are aimed directly at the new leader of the Liberal party.
They do not attack Mr. Trudeau’s politics but childishly attack him and only him. This takes the usual Harper cyber-bullying to a whole new level. Given the example this sets for other cyber bullies, we should no longer tolerate these unprovoked personal attacks.
Is it time for the Conservatives to find a new leader and a new path?
Bob Sture, Innisfil
Any survivor of sexual abuse knows that the effects last a lifetime. And then there are the victims who don’t survive.
Recently, young perpetrators of rape have added new horrors to their crime, taking pictures of their victim and circulating them in their community as if the photos were trophies celebrating a kill. No wonder the resulting name-calling and degradation lead some girls to commit suicide.
What is happening to our society when vicious attacks on individual integrity, physical and/or psychological, are celebrated as some sort of victory? We have to look to the highest levels in our society for at least part of the explanation.
I refer to the “attack ad” mentality of the Conservative Party in Canada, and of political strategists in other countries as well. They are not to be dismissed as merely tiresome or childish. These chilling, contemptuous, and arrogant messages are casting a shadow over the population that condones and even encourages brutality as legitimate self-expression.
Any society that fails to respect its own and protect its own, that tolerates a government bent on degrading and eliminating those honourably serving as the Opposition, will not survive for long. Our young are already reflecting the harm such a toxic political environment causes.
It’s time Canada’s citizens took more responsibility in demanding a better example from its elected representatives.
Dianna Rodgers Allen, Parry Sound
I am shocked by the Conservative attack ad on Justin Trudeau I just saw on television.
At a time when we are saddened by the suicides of teenagers who have been humiliated and bullied after demeaning representations of them have been posted publicly, at a time when we wonder how teenagers can be so cruel, at a time when we ask what we can do to stop this, we are faced with the same practice at the very highest level of our country.
Terribly sad that all those involved in planning, shooting, approving and subsequently running this ad thought it was OK.
Yvette Laezza, Mississauga
In his column this morning, The Star's Tim Harper points out something that I think many of us are all too aware of: Stephen Harper is a hypocrite. There really is no other way to describe the despicable partisanship that permeates our Prime Minister's deformed soul, most recently on display in London when he took the opportunity to exploit the tragedy of the Boston Marathon deaths and grievous injuries from a terrorist bombing.
As Tim Harper tartly observes, the usual protocol of not criticizing one's own country while abroad depends on who’s talking. There is one rule for Stephen Harper and another rule for everyone else.
The columnist reminds us of how Tom Mulcair, during his recent trip to Washington, offered some trenchant criticism when responding to questions by Canadian reporters:
When Mulcair questioned Canada’s commitment to fighting climate change, raising the Conservative decision to abandon Kyoto and its inability to meet its Copenhagen greenhouse gas emission targets, the government went apoplectic.
Mulcair was accused of “trash talking’’ Canada, killing Canadian jobs, ignoring Canadian interests, refusing to, as Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver put it, “leave politics at the border.”
Yet, of course, while in London on Wednesday to attend the Thatcher funeral, Harper refused to 'leave politics at the border'; even though he was not even asked by reporters about Justin Trudeau's remarks to Peter Mansbridge, our national disgrace launched into a broadside against him in an attempt to score a few political points.
While most of us were taught to show some respect when death and serious injury occurs, apparently Stephen Harper sees such occurrences as opportunities to promote his political 'brand,' one that, I sincerely hope, is becoming increasingly odious to more and more Canadians.
I have written about Allan Gregg on this blog before; probably his most noteworthy recent contribution to political discourse came in his speech to Carleton University’s School of Public Affairs, in which he denounced the Orwellian bent of the Harper regime in its promotion of ignorance in place information and knowledge.
Gregg offers his thoughts on attacks ads in this morning's Star. In contrast to the blood sport that it has become under the Harper regime, Gregg defines politics this way:
For good or ill, politics is the process by which we organize civil, democratic society. It is used to allocate a nation’s scarce resources. Through it, we confer a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. Because of it, we are able to represent the wishes of the majority and at the same time protect the rights of the minority. And at bottom, politics creates a state that has the potential to do immense good or infinite harm and, as such, we all have a vested interest that the best and brightest and only those who are motivated by the public good are encouraged to enter public life.
By this definition, the Harper government has abjectly failed the public whose interests and well-being they were charged with protecting and promoting. Gregg readily admits that attack ads do work because they play to people's innate cynicism about politicians. And as I have asserted before, I believe that the additional purpose behind Harper's 'politics of denunciation' is the discouragement of people from voting, thereby allowing the 'true believers' (whoever those benighted souls may be) to have disproportionate influence at the polls.
I consider Gregg as one who knows of what he speaks. The 'brains' behind the 1993 campaign ad ridiculing Jean Chretien's facial deformity, he must have at some point experienced a Damascene conversion, no doubt facilitated by the Harper regime's relentless practice of politics that bespeaks a depraved indifference to the health of our democracy, of which attack ads are only a small part. Gregg now seems to be spending much of his time trying to atone for those past mistakes, and today's Star article seems very much a part of that process of penance.
So I will leave the final word with the former pollster:
... those who believe that this (the public good) is “what politics are really about” have a responsibility to draw attention to its virtues and not just its shortcomings.
