UPDATED: One Thing About Moudakis

 He certainly doesn't play political favourites.

UPDATE: Graeme MacKay is no slouch either:

Warning Signs

 

I realize there are some who see the Liberal Party of Canada as our natural governing party, and hence are perhaps too forgiving when wrongdoing is detected. While I am certainly glad that it was Justin Trudeau who presided over the past two-year-plus of our pandemic (a Conservative administration during our crisis being unthinkable), I do not subscribe to the notion that one particular entity should be above criticism or accountability.

And there is much to criticize about the current incarnation of the Liberals who, the longer they are in power, steadily revert to their old ways. The SNC Lavalin scandal immediately comes to mind, plus the fact that they are far too close to the corporate sector. (On that note, for example I have little doubt that despite the problems at Rogers, their acquisition of Shaw will ultimately be approved.)

Heather Scoffield turns her attention to the matter of the Liberals and public trust, citing both the Rogers debacle and the accusations of political interference in the Nova Scotia mass shooting probe:

On Monday, in one corner, we had the contrite and apologetic corporate executives ready to throw hundreds of millions of dollars at a problem to make it go away.

In the other corner, we had a federal minister talking tough, assuring the public he had let that company have it, in no uncertain terms, and it had better shape up — or else.

Tough words, but why so much secrecy around discussions?

Government officials, the CRTC and the company alike have already shown a proclivity to discussing solutions in secret on this file. Talks between Champagne and the telcos’ CEOs were in private. Undertakings by Rogers were widely redacted. And there’s been little to assure the public or parliamentarians they’ll get a full public airing of all of the details in the future, let alone a government that wants to tangle with telcos.

The past may be an indicator of future performance. 

While the Liberals’ record on regulating the internet and its players hasn’t led to the fireworks of its dealings with SNC-Lavalin, it does have a history. Rogers had a large outage of its wireless services in April 2021, with little regulatory followup.  

Too big to touch? 

As for the government's apparently too-close relationship with the RCMP, which is supposed to be free from political interference, Scoffield has this to say: 

And just across the street, we had a minister and the head of the RCMP protesting hard that neither they nor their surrogates had overstepped.

 The subtext of the hearing on the Nova Scotia shooting was whether the Liberals put their thumb on the scale of the legal system in an attempt to bend the outcome in favour of their political agenda  [i.e, their firearms legislation].

That the Liberals are trust-challenged is the final point the writer makes: 

The common thread is their collective challenge of maintaining the trust of the public in their ability to keep a reasonable eye on things when there’s trouble, and ensure the public interest is respected in the midst of turmoil and competing interests.

Ultimately, it is up to a vigilant public to hold the Liberal Party to a higher standard than they are used to. In that, we must not fail.

 

The (Once) Mighty Oz

Until he was bitten by the fame bug, Mehmet Oz apparently had a reputation as a respected cardiac surgeon. However, once he got the nod from Oprah and was given the Doctor Oz show, his ego swelled and his credibility and integrity oozed away. He reached his nadir when he embraced that narcissitic psychopath, disgraced ex-president, Donald Trump, along with all of his wacky protestations about rigged elections.

It was hardly a surprise that Oz's sycophancy won him Trump's endorsement and he now stands as Pennsylvania's Republic nominee for the 2022 Senate mid-term election. 

Want to know more about this sad, debased example of  humanity? How about a peek behind the curtain?

Laceratingly Accurate

Given Mr. Poilievre's refusal to debate his opponents, Michael de Adder's assessment of the putative front-runner in the Conservative leadership race seems spot-on.

 

Some also think Mr. Poilievre bears an uncanny resemblance to this young fellow:

How To Tell The Players Apart

This should clarify things:

H/t Roy Zimmerman

Freedom's Just Another Word...

 ... for demagoguery, at least if you are Pierre Poilievre. The leading contender for the helm of the Conservative Party of Canada is, of course, making a concerted effort at preaching the virtues of freedom while conspicuously eschewing its yoked counterpart, responsibility. And as he exalts the individual and their pursuit of this 'vision', he is giving the middle finger to any notion of the collective good.

Rick Salutin scrutinizes these notions, writing that even right-wing 'institutes' like the Cato and Frasier give Canada high rankings on their Freedom Index, landing at #8 our of 165,

a mere .36 of a point behind Switzerland, which is surely a statistical tie.

So by Poilievre’s own right-wing standards, Canada’s already ahead of almost everyone — including the U.K. and U.S., ranked 14 and 15. So what’ll he devote his effort to as PM — housing? Climate? Health? No: making us even freester (since we’re already freest). How gloriously pointless.

 It essentially comes down to freedom for me (“personal freedom” à la the indexes) or freedom through commonality, as in ... FDR’s New Deal.

And it is clear that Mr. Poilievre is championing the former while disdaining the latter, as reflected in his embrace of the truckers' convoy that paralyzed Ottawa for three long weeks.

The freedom demanded there was almost all “personal”: snarling traffic, blaring horns till residents felt deranged. And an ultimatum to end COVID mandates — which BTW never forced anyone to get vaxxed, but did prohibit participation in public situations to protect others’ freedom not to get sick.

During the civil rights years in the U.S., there was an anthem called “Oh Freedom!” When the singer sang, Over me, others echoed, Over me — because we were fighting for freedom over us all. 

I feel as if Pierre Poilievre responds, Over you, to calls for freedom, especially from those he favours. He’s a personal freedom kind of guy who doesn’t view freedom as a necessarily shared activity. Nor does he have the excuse of being endearingly nuts. It’s just the way he thinks.

As in the United States, the ideological lines are clearly drawn. And because we still live in a country in which we can engage in that collective, democratic activity known as voting, it falls to all of us to determine what vision ultimately prevails.

 

  

 

 

Sounds Reasonable, But...

... it is said that even the devil can quote scripture. In more down-to-earth terms, the Governor of Kentucky does in a much more polished form what ardent gun-rights advocates often say with spittle. My own analysis follows the video. 

Typically, this man does the same thing all defenders of unrestricted weaponry do. While no one could disagree with his articulate analysis of some of society's ills, the governor presents a bifurcated, black-and-white approach to the problem of gun violence, saying, in essence, that because gun violence has so many societal roots, it is pointless to put restrictions on gun access and ownership, never once allowing for the fact that restrictions would cut down on the number of shootings (356 mass shootings this year in the U.S, as of July 18th), no matter what the root causes of the violence are.

Fact: guns kill people. People denied gun access may still kill if given the opportunity, but hardly in the numbers and with the same frequency currently plaguing America.