What The Transcript Shows

 

My previous post addressed a concern that the media are writing narratives for us, telling us what to think, creating a consensus that may be at variance with reality. I cited the conclusions drawn about the Liberal loss in the Toronto by-election of Toronto-St. Paul and the debate between Joe Biden and Don Trump.

A producer of nine federal leaders' debates in Canada, Mark Bulgutch, offers his view of the American debate, observing that if one were just to read the transcript and not fixate on Biden's weak performance, one might come away with a different perspective.

Compare the content, not the performance, and then decide who should be president.

For example, when Trump spoke about abortion, he claimed that Democrats, “will take the life of a child in the eighth month, the ninth month, and even after birth — after birth.”

Biden responded, “He’s lying. That is simply not true.”

Trump: “Every legal scholar, throughout the world, the most respected, wanted it [abortion law] brought back to the states.”

Biden: “The idea that states are able to do this is a little like saying, we’re going to turn civil rights back to the states, let each state have a different rule.”

Trump on illegal immigrants: “We have the largest number of terrorists coming into our country right now. All terrorists, all over the world — not just in South America, all over the world. They come from the Middle East, everywhere. All over the world, they’re pouring in.”

Biden: “I’m not saying no terrorist ever got through. But the idea they’re emptying their prisons, we’re welcoming these people, that’s simply not true. There’s no data to support what he said.”

Trump: “And because of his ridiculous, insane and very stupid policies, people are coming in and they’re killing our citizens at a level that we’ve never seen.”

Biden: “Every single thing he said is a lie, every single one.”

As I said in my post, Biden did, despite his muddling performance, had policy on his side, while Trump relied on his usual strategy of total fabrication.

When Trump was asked about climate change, the best he could do was, “I want absolutely immaculate clean water and I want absolutely clean air, and we had it. We had H2O.”

Biden pounced. “The idea that he is claiming to have done something that had the cleanest water? He had not done a damn thing with the environment. The only existential threat to humanity is climate change. And he didn’t do a damn thing about it.”

Biden skewered Trump time after time. On Trump’s election denial: You’re a whiner. When you lost the first time, you continued to appeal and appeal to courts all across the country. Not one single court in America said any of your claims had any merit.”

On Trump’s accommodation of white supremacists: “What American president would ever say Nazis coming out of fields, carrying torches, singing the same antisemitic bile, carrying swastikas, were fine people?”

And finally, on why those who have seen Trump close-up now flee from what they saw: “His own vice president — look, there’s a reason why 40 of his 44 top cabinet officers refused to endorse him this time. They know him well. They served with him. Why are they not endorsing him?”

And I have nothing to add to Bulgutch's conclusion:

Yes, Joe Biden had some truly awful moments during the debate. But I’m not sure a president makes his toughest decisions in two-minute sound bites. Judge what he said, not how he said it.

 

 

Tell Me A Story

Regular readers of this blog will likely know that I have great faith in the so-called legacy media, especially newspapers. The reasearch and thought that go into articles and columns far surpass much of what one will find on the internet, especially that very poisoned segment known as social media. However, there are times when lazy thinking and herd mentality supplant reasoned commentary in the mainstream media.

I have been especially mindful of that fact given two recent events: the Liberal loss in the Toronto-St Paul by-election, and the Biden-Trump debate. A consensus narrative quickly emerged that has quickly become political orthodoxy, denying people the opportunity to analyse these two events for themselves.

By all accounts, the by-election loss was a devastating judgement of Justin Trudeau. Almost all of the ensuing stories concluded that it is time for the Prime Minister to go. While there is no doubt that his plummeting popularity played a significant role in the results, there are also other factors to consider, factors the press seems loathe to consider. 

First, there were over 80 candidates to choose from, giving voters the formidable task of wading through a jumble of names. Rather than enhancing democracy, this stunt served to make a joke out of the electoral process, as almost none of the alternatives were serious candidates. That the Liberal candidate, Leslie Church. lost by a mere 500 votes seemed to merit barely a notice.

Second, by-elections are traditionally seen, not so much as a referendum on the party in power but as a safe way to take them to task for perceived deficiencies; they are not necessarily an augury of future general election results. Instead, the narrative we have been handed almost exclusively focusses on Trudeau and his unfitness to lead the Liberals into the next election. While I am not suggesting there isn't room for such speculation, the fact that this is the sole interpretation of the result should disturb all of us capable of thinking for ourselves.

The same might be said about the Biden-Trump debate. While Biden's performance was not good, again, the media are presenting his performance as proof he will lead the Democrats to disaster in the November election. Having watched the entire debate, while Biden moments were indeed cringe-worthy, he did offer reminders of Democratic policies that have benefitted wide swaths of Americans, but did so in a less than strong, forthright way. On the other hand, Don Trump let loose with his usually litany of lies, but the attitude of the press seemed to be, "Well, that's just Donald being Donald." And, of course, little was said about his refusal to answer the questions asked as he indulged in efforts to refute previously-made points by Biden.

There are no doubt many amongst us who want to be told what to think. I am not one of them, and I am sure there are many more who prefer to exeercise their critical faculties rather than be force-fed what can only be described as media group-think.

Happy Canada Day

While I am not one to engage in flag-waving, these days it seems increasingly important to value what we have. Events in other parts of the world show how easily democracy can degenerate into cruel parody.

May we always value, respect and protect the things that make our country unique.

Happy Canada Day.

Same Old, Same Old

Although an inveterate cynic, for about one minute yesterday I felt something odd and rare: a moment of hope. The basis for that was an interview with Bonnie Crombie, the 'leader' of the Ontario Liberals. But the moment was short-lived.

In a one-on-one interview with Global News, ahead of a planned provincial tour serving as a dry-run for an election campaign, Crombie criticized the Ford government’s runaway spending and questioned the premier’s priorities.

“They’ve decreased the fiscal capacity in this government,” Crombie told Global News. “The highest spending budget at $214 billion, increased debt, increased deficit. We don’t know where the money is going. It’s certainly not going where it’s needed.”

 “They’re these little gimmicks, such as canceling the licence plate stickers,” Crombie said. “If you knew that also cost $1 billion a year, would you not rather pay the $200, knowing that that money would have gone to the health-care system or schools for your children, or build affordable housing?”

The annual $120 licence plate renewal fee, which brought $1.1 billion into the provincial coffers each year, was scrapped by Premier Doug Ford ahead of the 2022 general election as a measure to ease affordability concerns among voters.

(Parenthetically, yesterday the government announced that now Ontarian's will be relieved of the 'burden' of having to renew our free licence plates. Children that we are, many cheered this new freedom.)

Asked if the Liberals would bring the sticker fees back if they formed government, Crombie said: “We would look at it, certainly.”

“That’s a billion dollars of revenue,” Crombie said. “I know that they would prefer that billion dollars going into their health care, going into building affordable housing, or going into our education system.”

My immediate thought was, "That's real leadership."  However, then this happened:

Roughly a week after the interview took place, as Global News was preparing to publish a story, a spokesperson for the provincial party sent a statement from Crombie looking to clarify her earlier comments on reinstating the license plate sticker fee.

“Let me be clear — when I say I will “look into” the licence plate sticker issue, I mean that as Premier I will look into all of Ford’s gimmicks and backroom deals to make sure they are providing a value for money for consumers,” Crombie said.

“Would I bring back an unnecessary fee on families who are struggling to make ends meet right now? No,” Crombie said.

I guess we should thank Ms. Crombie for clarifying that she is cut from the same cloth as all of her poltical ilk.

Solutions Abound

 I'm away right now, but thought I would share a Twitter post by Mike Hudema, who devotes himself to matters of the environment. His posts show what is possible and indirectly cast light on the fact that our governments, which, although renewable energy is now cheaper than fossil fuels when all things are considered, do little to wean us off of those fuels and continue to heavily subsidize them. This, of course, conveniently ignores the increasingly dire climatic disaster engulfing our planet.

Choices

When the next federal election comes, there are those who will vote with a certitude we all should be wary of. Because they are sick of Justin Trudeau, many will eagerly cast their vote for Pierre Poilievre, the putative prime minister-in-waiting. On the other hand, those of us possessed of at least a modicum of thinking skills will vote, not with eagerness, but with deliberation, braced by the knowledge that our choice could very well have a long-lasting impact on Canada's trajectory. 

Two letter-writers in today's Star offer a reality check for those who vote, not out of careful consideration, but rather spite and weariness:

How long it will take to become really sick of Pierre Poilievre?

This isn’t just another byelection in Toronto, June 15

Those in the riding of St. Paul’s who are “sick, really sick of Justin Trudeau,” ask yourselves how long it will take you to become really sick of Pierre Poilievre. The federal Conservatives will weaken, not advance the urgent battle to limit climate change, they will pull back on Truth and Reconciliation initiatives, which will eventually lead to renewed blockades and hostility, and they will weaken gun control, even though the scourge of antisemitism has recently included shots fired at a synagogue and Jewish community centre. Poilievre will, of course, not talk about any of this. Nor may voters recall just how well the Trudeau government shepherded Canada through the pandemic, giving us one of the most minimized death tolls in the developed world. Many may be in the mood to break up with their feminist boyfriend, but waiting in the wings is a wolf in sheep’s clothing who squints when he looks you in the eyes. And did no one tell the dental hygienist who can’t bear to look at Trudeau about the new dental care program?

Ron Charach, Toronto

No real alternative to Trudeau

Most people agree Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is past his best-buy date. But what are the alternatives? Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre has never had a real job outside politics. He proffers no policies just personal attacks and vacuous statements such as “common sense revolutions” a la Mike Harris, who destroyed education and other social supports. We look south and despair of common sense. The hard-working class listens to populist statements from politicians because they despair … but these politicians do them no favours.

John Bullick, Mississauga

We have always been taught that voting is a civic responsibility. Let us hope that our fellow Canadians cast measured ballots in the next election rather than following the lemming-like directives of those for whom thinking is but an optional, occasional and, apparently, a painful activity.

Feeding At The Trough

 

Those who read this blog with any regularity likely know that I am not an ideologue. While I consider myself progressive, it does not mean that I am blind to the faults of either the Liberals or the NDP. And it is about a member of the latter that I post today.

The implications of a CBC story is that NDP Mp Nikki Ashton has been feeding at the trough.

An NDP MP who frequently joins parliamentary proceedings remotely from her riding billed the House of Commons for a trip she took to reportedly meet with "stakeholders" over the Christmas holidays in Quebec — travel that included bringing her husband and kids along at taxpayers' expense.

... on Dec. 21 of that year, Ashton flew from Thompson, Man. to Ottawa — five days after the House of Commons had already risen for its Christmas break.

Ashton's partner Bruce Moncur, a former NDP nomination candidate, and their two children also made the trip with the MP to the nation's capital.

Then, on Christmas Day, 2022, the family of four travelled to Quebec City. Ashton billed the Commons for some of the expenses they incurred along the way.

The trip cost taxpayers $17,641.12, including $13,619.90 for airfare and other transportation, $2,508.39 for accommodations and $1,512.83 for meals and other incidentals, according to Commons records.

The optics are not good. While I encourage you to watch the entire three-minute plus clip of her cringeworthy news conference here, I was able to find an abbreviated version to post. Her refusal to name who she met with in pursuit of her 'official duties' hardly passes the smell test.

Ashton would only say that it was "various people" who are "connected to the issue of French language, French culture preservation." She said she wanted to get feedback on an overhaul of the Official Languages Act from unnamed groups.

While it does not appear that Ashton broke any Parliamentary rules in claiming the expenses, her insensitivity to the taxpayer rankles. Franco Terrazzano, director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, had this to say:

"If Ashton doesn't want Canadians to think that she billed taxpayers so she could take a vacation to Quebec over the holidays, then she better have a very good explanation, a very concrete explanation as to what value, if any, taxpayers actually got from this trip," Terrazzano told CBC News.

Terrazzano said MPs should think "about what their constituents would say" before taking big-ticket trips. He also said the Commons should consider tightening the rules on when MPs can be accompanied by their families on subsidized trips.

It can be legitimately argued that Ashton, by attending Parliament via Zoom, has saved taxpayers a substantial amount of money. However, it hardly seems ethical that a family trip with dubious benefits to the public should be considered a quid pro quo for that practice.