Poilievre does the chicken dance...again

The Minister of Harper’s chamber pot was once more sent to respond to questions from David McGuinty’s questions about CPC connections to Coulter. (Emphasis mine)

"The member has raised a very important question about an American commentator who has come to this country with some outrageous comments, comments supporting the Iraq war, comments supporting the use of torture and comments referring to Israel as a war criminal, but enough about the leader of the Liberal Party," Poilievre said.

Odd the feces carrier would criticize Ignatieff for supporting the Iraq war.

In an interview with the American TV network, Harper said he endorsed the (Iraq) war and said he was speaking "for the silent majority" of Canadians. Only in Quebec, with its "pacifist tradition," are most people opposed to the war, Harper said.

Guess Pierre should slap Stevie upside the head.

Or maybe he should just shut up and find another career.  I’m thinking gathering and spreading manure.

More on Liberal renewal

Following up on the previous post, for the Liberals to stand out clearly as an alternative, they need to quit fence sitting and take a clear stance on even issues that could alienate some voters.

Not doing so just costs them more, since voters clue in that they are not strong on certain policies but are simply attempting to dodge criticism from certain groups.

Here are f few examples of things that hurt Liberal credibility and pissed of more than a few long time supporters:

Ignatieff gave a good, clear answer on whether or not Canada should export asbestos.

"I'm probably walking right off the cliff into some unexpected public policy bog of which I'm unaware," Ignatieff replied. "But if asbestos is bad for parliamentarians in the Parliament of Canada, it just has to be bad for everybody else. So you have to be right, and our export of this dangerous product overseas has got to stop."

Honest, responsible, right answer.  Unfortunately, he later backtracked on supporting a ban.

Ignatieff's dodge concerning Isreal's over-use of force against Palestinians.  Yes, Israel has a right to defend itself, but its on-going violations of human rights and excessive responses to attacks should be condemned clearly and without softeninng the condemnation.

Concerning the banning of the niqab when dealing with provincial services: if the Liberals as a party intend to support Charest's decision, then make it very, very clear that the ban is only in cases where a serious security concern trumps a woman's right to dress how she wishes.  Some of the arguments put forth in Quebec in trying to justify the ban go contrary to human rights, and do little to help women, muslim women in particular gain autonomy.  Telling a women she can't wear a niqab because it undermines her freedom is nonsense.  In Canada, all women have options, and it is far better to give them access to information and services that will allow them to make their own choices.

Columbia, and human rights:  Can't play both sides on this one.  If the Liberal party wants to stand up for human rights, then they shouldn't promote deals with countries who violate them.  Sure, Canada can have some impact on humman rights through certian partnerships, but let that be part of the deal.  Demand change first, assure themselves that the human rights actions have been taken, then make a deal.  This type of compromise for a buck is costing the Liberals, alienating their base.  Hard core Liberals don't like this kind of compromise on human rights.  Feels dirty.  Is wrong.  Takes away the right to object when others trade rights for dollars.

Canada 150 and where the hell do we go from here?

Some very good, thoughtful posts:

Red Libs vs. the Blue Dog and Bay Street Libs 

Expectations and other notes from Can150

Sober

Lots more on this at other sites as well, but I want  to write a bit about this.  Couldn't make it to our local Canada 150 meeting today as I have a nasty bug, but a couple of my co-pilots did and the same theme came up there as seems to be coming up everywhere this weekend with the Libs.

Far and Wide (linked to above) asks if we should take the hard line and tell the truth to voters.  Alison at Galloping beaver talks about the need to stop catering to the small c blue Libs.  Impolitical (read it!) says:

The bigger question seems to me is what Ignatieff put his finger on yesterday during his press conference, whether our political system can address the problems facing the country...All of this makes it tough, but not impossible, to be truth telling, to be legitimately inspiring, to break out and grab people's imaginations.

I am far less of a political analyst than those three bloggers, so here I have the advantage of offering more of an average Canadian perspective.

The Liberals can keep watching the polls, can keep trying to please as many segments of society as possible, can try to make things sound more positive than they are and shape unrealistic policies to go along with this just so they don't risk turning off voters.  However, by doing this, they will be what so many people complain they are lately: not a whole hell of a lot better than, or different from the conservatives.  Both parties are neck-to-neck, and that's a big reason why.  The Liberals aren't offering anything different.

In offering something different, they shouldn't go for the nice shiny toy, no matter how fetching it is.  Tricks are what Harper's party uses, and that's dangerous because it is short sighted, it is found out eventually, and - this is most important - it does not make for a healthy, informed electorate or democracy.

If telling the truth costs the Liberals the next election, and it may, it will most likely give them a good healthy win in the one that follows, and that is far, far more important because through telling the truth, they will not only be addressing issues in a realistic fashion, they will be educating the public and preparing them for the very difficult decisions that most of us who keep informed know are coming.

The Liberals need to take the hard line of truth not only to gain credibility, but to do what any political party acting responsibly should do: create a healthier democracy by informing voters so that we can start dealing realistically with much needed change in a rapidly changing world.

 

 

Sort of like the saying: a face not even a mother could love

In a report this week, the Fraser Institute said Canadian government stimulus packages had little to do with last year's economic recovery.
 

Instead, it credited private investment and increased exports for the rebound...The Vancouver-based group, which is an advocate of free-market economic policies, released a report saying stimulus measures contributed just 0.2 per cent to GDP growth between the second quarter and third quarter of 2009.
 

In contrast, official statistics indicate the economy grew by 1.1 per cent over the same period.

Of course, Harper criticized the right-wing think tank.  Because mommy is only right when she agrees with him.

Why isn’t this bastard being charged?

Arthur Budzinski was a shy boy of 12 when he was first molested by a priest during confession, while away from home at a school for the deaf.  Now, Budzinski's story is part of the latest sex scandal to plague the Vatican, as documents have surfaced that show the priest accused of molesting Budzinski and as many as 200 other deaf boys was protected from being defrocked in the mid-1990s by the office of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who is now Pope Benedict XVI.

Really.  With stories coming out nearly on a daily basis, surely there's enough for one of a number of countries to launch and investigation.  Not some bull-shit thing, but a criminal investigation.

"I think someone should be punished for this," his daughter Gigi Budzinski said. "His innocence was stolen from him."
 
No kidding.  Had it been some regular dude covering up for a buddy, justice would have been dealt out long ago, and the son-of-a-bitch wouldn't have had several more decades to cover up more crimes.

A big part of moving on after being molested is hearing the molester acknowledge guilt.  Without this, the victim carries the guilt and shame.  Victims need to know the wrong was done to them, and charging the molester then having a court say that what he did was criminal goes a long way in helping the victim heal.

It also lets people know that no one, under any circumstances, is allowed to molest a child.

But Ratzinger is sending the opposite message.  So are all of those justice systems to timid to charge him.

Some priest apparently would like to see some measure of justice taken, although I doubt what they request would go very far:

According to Church and Vatican documents obtained by The New York Times, two Wisconsin bishops urged the Vatican office of Ratzinger in the 1990s to let them hold a Church trial against Murphy.
 
But at the time, Ratzinger's deputy decided that the abuse happened too long ago for a church trial. Instead, it was recommended that Murphy, who was then ailing and elderly, should repent and be restricted from celebrating mass outside of his diocese, according to the documents.
 
And the child rapist?

On Thursday, the Vatican defended its decision not to defrock Murphy, who died of natural causes in 1998.

Safely tucked away in heaven, the Church must think, since they didn't even defrock him.

Well, 900, chill out.  It's only rape.  Not at all serious like using condoms.

Fuck the Catholic Church.  These were their crimes, this agony was brought on children by them, and they do less than nothing to stop it from continuing.

I'm not including decent Catholics in this, but if they really believe in the good things Jesus taught, they should really demand that the Church clean house.  Or find another way of practicing their spirituality.  Silence does give consent.

Here’s where we juxtapose...and juxtapose...and juxtapose

I wasn’t going to write about Coulter. I thought she should just be ignored. But now that some are excusing the hate generator by labelling her words as comedy - different story.

First, we juxtapose

There’s this:

I join with most right thinking Canadians in denouncing the latest grits attempts at humour. Apparently murdering HM PM Stephen Harper is something grits gleefully look forward to. (photo of Stevo as Lee Harvey O. being shot by Jack Ruby)
- for which the Liberals apologized, admitting it was offensive.

Then there’s this:

"In contemplating college liberals, you really regret, once again, that John Walker is not getting the death penalty. We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals by making them realize that they could be killed, too. Otherwise they will turn out into outright traitors."
 
And this:

Conservative commentator Ann Coulter, speaking at a traditionally black college, joked that Justice John Paul Stevens should be poisoned. [...] “We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens’ creme brulee,” Coulter said. Coulter then added, “That’s just a joke, for you in the media.”

There’s this serious, scary death threat (better get the RCMP on that right now!):

the poster would like to "dip (Coulter) in gravy and lock her in a room with a wolverine high on angel dust," to which Coulter and the wingnuts cried DEATH THREAT!!!!!  WAAAAA!!!!
 
And there’s this:

I will defend to the death your right to protest Coulter but reserve the right to shoot you dead if you impede my right to hear her speak. (Guess Dave_RoA should go and shoot Coulter’s organizers who canceled the event, then. Hey! That’s just a joke!!!!! )

The problem with the I was joking defense:

It’s the spirit in which a joke is said that makes it more or less objectionable. Lenny Bruce used offensive language and satire to wear away the power of hurtful words. Coulter tries to re-insert it. She slings the word faggot like a barb, and in doing so promotes the hateful belief that being gay is contemptible.

By saying she is using jokes and satire to make a point, she is telling her audience that there is some social or political truth to what she is saying, and her writings leave little doubt of what bastardized version of reality she is preaching.

If Coulter wants to be viewed as a comedian trying to make some political point, then she should be subject to the same constraints as any other political comedian. I am very sure Rick Mercer or John Stewart could not get away with the violence, racism, and hatred she reflects in her stage acts. Comedians have been shut down for far less.

As far as her politically correct argument goes, we covered that ground decades ago which is why her brand of humour is generally not tolerated. Kids get banned from teams, suspended, even kicked out of school for ragging on other kids the way Turkey Neck rags on anyone left of a wingnut. This is because grownups who are not vicious hatemongers realize that mocking anyone or any group over and over for their differences is devastating. It creates a mindset that somehow, having those differences is a negative.

Coulter deserves the same rights as anyone else and it would be patronizing of us not to expect her to be accountable for her actions, just like any other adult.  Unless, of course, she is legally insane, in which case she should not be making public appearances which could influence impressionable minds.

Barring the insanity defense, she should be held accountable for her hate talk, presented as it is in a public forum with the intention, as she herself declares, of influencing how others think.

Oh yeah...why aren't the wingnuts screaming Anti-Semite!!!!! at her?

Pirate Fish says: Poilievre shivers me timbers!

And is completely chicken shit, as mentioned before.

After trying so hard to evade questions about Coulter, (because he secretly masturbates about her during debates - That was a joke. You know how I know it was a joke? I know Poilievre has no dick)

Poilievre, Parliamentary Secretary of Stephen Harper’s chamber pot was assigned to handle yet more right-wing feces yesterday during Oral Questions.

As usual, he ran around the question like a chicken with its head cut off and thought he scored some really smart Coulter-like points with his completely disconnected responses.

Hansard, March 25, 2010 (emphasis mine)

Mr. David McGuinty: ...Given (Coulter’s) views are completely out of step with mainstream Canadian values, will the Prime Minister stand here today and, without equivocation, publicly denounce her views while explaining to Canadians the link between his party and Ann Coulter?

(Enter Pierre, swilling the chamber pot)

Poilievre: ...apparently the member is obsessed about importing the views of an American political commentator. That makes sense given that he imported his leader from the same country. If he actually wants to engage in a broader debate about American politics, he has a leader who would be well qualified to do that. Speaking of views that are out of touch with mainstream Canadians, that member authored the Liberal carbon tax, which was rejected as a radical job-killing initiative by Canadians.

Now there’s a stretch, toilet man.  A question about denouncing racist views leads to a response about carbon tax proposed by a previous Liberal leader.

Being polite, McGuinty gives the chamber pot boy another chance to answer, and tries to help by providing actual facts that show why some could conclude that the CONs actually support Ms. Turkey Neck:

Mr. David McGuinty: ...Ezra Levant, who stepped aside for the Prime Minister and ran his last campaign's war room, sponsored her national tour.  The University of Ottawa Conservative club organized Tuesday's speech.  A former PMO and current Conservative assistant planned her reception at the Rideau Club.  Rainer Knopff, co-author of the Prime Minister's firewall letter and a repeat and generous Conservative donor, is organizing tonight's speech in Calgary.

It is simple. Either the Prime Minister endorses her views or he does not. Which is it?

Good questions.  Certainly shows some connected ideology.

And there goes the headless chicken...

Poilievre: ...the member raises a whole group of vitriolic accusations against a government whose fiscal plan many of his members rose to support just the other day. I wonder if he will berate them with the same vitriol as he blames himself for authoring an out-of-touch, radical, job-killing carbon tax, which led to his party's humiliating defeat in the last election.

"Politics aside, he served seven years as premier"

What?  That makes no sense.

But neither does this:

The rumour mill is working overtime with unconfirmed word that a $25 million library being built at Nipissing University and neighbouring Canadore College in North Bay will be named after (Mike) Harris...

Mikey, leader of the Common Sense Revolution in Ontario, one time boss to the Harris quintuplets (Flaherty, Clement, Baird, Van Loan, Giorno), the man who gutted the education system in the province and cut so far back on health care that waiting times grew to life threatening levels might have a library named after him?

Naming anything even remotely linked to education after Mike Harris is like naming and abortion clinic after Ken Epp.

This isn’t just any library, but one linked to a college and a University - both known for encouraging aboriginal enrollment.

Oh, right.  Mikey loves them thar native folks:

"I want the fucking Indians out of the park" - Mike Harris, September 7, 1995

Well, the fucking Indians left the park, alright, but not until an unarmed one (Dudley George ) was gunned down by the OPP.  While Harris was eventually cleared of being directly responsible for the death, the inquiry found that his approach certainly eliminated the chances of a more peaceful outcome.

"From a First Nation perspective, it would be more appropriate to name a rifle range after Mike Harris than a library," Patrick Madahbee, Grand Council Chief of the Anishinabek Nation, fumed in a statement released Wednesday.

It probably wasn’t the fucking Indians who suggested naming the library after Harris, then.

Why Mikey, then?  Surely his buddies can explain why the man who gutted the education system in Ontario should be honoured by having a library named after him.

"Politics aside, he served seven years as premier" North Bay city councillor Chris Mayne said in an interview. Two years ago, Mayne helped organize a Rotary Club dinner honouring Harris, who requested the $20,000 proceeds go to the library fund. "It probably was the most significant recognition of Mike so far," he added. (the current provincial Liberal government has donated a $19 million to the cause).

So...we are to forget the politics, but acknowledge the political service without examining what impact that service had on education or on the people who will make use of the library.

Poor Mike.  Can’t let the old bastard die with no more recognition than a Rotary Club dinner, can we?

Pirate Fish says: Poilievre is a cowardly, hypocritical, ineffectual little cur.

You know you’re deathly toxic if even Poilievre dodges the very mention of your name.

Some Conservative MPs refused to respond to questions about Coulter's views Tuesday. Heritage Minister James Moore and Nepean MP Pierre Poilievre breezed past reporters asking about Coulter.

However, little Pierre had no problem slinking around and nipping at the heels of a highly decorated, retired general (now Senator) or dodging in and out yapping and snapping at the ankles of a Canadian actor/activist. 

Maybe Coulter is just too man for Pierre.

No justification

While it is proper that Ignatieff is accepting responsibility for the Liberal mess concerning the vote on Rae's motion to include a broader range of family planning programs, including contraception, in a maternal health initiative for developing countries, there is no excuse for the handful of Liberals who voted against it, or for those who abstained.

According to some of these Liberals, they did so because they are opposed to abortion.

First of all, Rae's motion does not promote abortion, and speeches made in the House explain that it would be supported, only as a health issue, and only in countries where it is legal:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government’s G8 maternal and child health initiative for the world’s poorest regions must include the full range of family planning, sexual and reproductive health options, including contraception, consistent with the policy of previous Liberal and Conservative governments, and all other G8 governments last year in L’Aquila, Italy;


that the approach of the Government of Canada must be based on scientific evidence, which proves that education and family planning can prevent as many as one in every three maternal deaths; and


that the Canadian government should refrain from advancing the failed right-wing ideologies previously imposed by the George W. Bush administration in the United States, which made humanitarian assistance conditional upon a “global gag rule” that required all non-governmental organizations receiving federal funding to refrain from promoting medically-sound family planning.

This line is key to what is so objectionable about the opposition to the motion:

the approach of the Government of Canada must be based on scientific evidence, which proves that education and family planning can prevent as many as one in every three maternal deaths

By voting according to their own moral beliefs, likely based on religious views whether the members are currently believers in a god or not, those MPs are mixing church and state, something that must not be done. They know this, and failed to consider the science and facts above their own nebulous beliefs. In so doing, they are subjecting women and children to their personal narrow ideology.

It is insane (and fanatical) that anyone would not support family planning in a world where over-population has become a huge problem, one which is increasing exponentially. It is madness not to see that family planning is critical in a world where resources are becoming more scarce, where access to clean, safe water is an issue for many, where wars are being fought over arrable land, where sexually transmitted diseases ravage developing countries, where women are still suppressed through their inability to manage their reproductive rights due to lack of access to contraceptives.

By voting against Rae's motion, those Liberals have placed their own personal ideology before the rights and welfare of others while using their position to affect women and children globally. They have failed to separate church and state. They have also gone against their own party's stance on contraception.

While this motion wasn't binding, it was meant to send a strong message that Canada stands for women's reproductive rights and understands that those rights are essential to the health and welfare of women and children. Such a motion, had it passed, would have helped Canada at the G8 by showing that the country, while currently lead by a party of mysoginistic dinosaurs, is not made up of such.

As for the impact of the vote politically - the Liberals ended up looking weak (again), disorganized (again), with a leader who does not have the support of his party (again). Those few opposed could have made their personal views known, yet still have supported the motion for the positive aspects it offered. Hell, the Liberal party has compromised often enough over the past few years on Harper Bills because they didn't want to incur the wrath of voters by voting down Bills that contained some good despite crappy sections wedged in.

Passing this motion would also have shown how the opposition can work together, can agree on issues that stand to improve lives. It would have kept the focus on how dismally neanderthal the CONs are on women's and children's rights. Instead, the story is about what fuck-ups the Liberals are. Even among the left, focus is heavily on the Liberal failure and those few idiots who failed to see how beneficial passing this motion would have been.

To say, oh well, it wasn't binding anyway is no excuse. This was a chance to show some backbone, some solidarity, some strength of unity in the party, and to make a strong, public stand for women's and children's rights. It was also a good opportunity to call the CONs out on their atavistic policies in regards to women, children, and developing countries.

But the Liberals blew it.

Condolences to family and friends

Cpl. Darren James Fitzpatrick
3rd Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry

Pirate Fish says Poilievre is awesomely doltish

Elections Canada “is using tax payers dollars to lose awesomely in two different court cases...” says little Pierre.  He was, of course, referring to Elections Canada’s investigation into the in-and-out cheating scam the Cons ran during an election.

The pudden-head Poilievre abused the Procedure and House Affairs Committee - doing what Steve pays him to do: attack like a rabid weasel - as Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand appeared to discuss Elections Canada's 2009 supplementary estimates,

And as with a rabid weasel attack, it was ludicrous, disproportionate, and unwarranted.  Elections Canada must not be threatened by budget cuts when such threats are so blatantly linked to a party seeking to shut it up or discredit it for their own partisan, ass-saving purposes.  It was doing what it was mandated to do: protect our democracy by investigating a bunch of cheaters and liars who would do anything to win despite what the electorate wants.

If spending money on a losing case is the criteria for whether or not funds should be available, maybe the Pompous Little Prick can explain why it is just perfectly fine to have spent 1.3 million dollars to date on fighting a legal battle to deny democratic rights to a Canadian.

Awesomely obvious Pierre is a fool.

Blogging on The Road

Frequently, a blogger will put up a post questioning the value of spending so much time and passion fighting for change in a world that often seems incredibly hostile to progressive actions and ideas, or at the very least a species that is disinterested and apathetic in the face of its own impending destruction.  Some get over it in a week or two, some take a break, other shut down completely vowing never, ever to get caught up in such a frustrating, seemingly pointless endeavour again - only to return because something, some nebulous thing will not let them remain silent.

I read The Road by Cormac McCarthy awhile ago and recently watched the film directed by John Hillcoat and written by Joe Penhall.  Without giving away the story for those who haven’t seen it: the film, on the surface, is about a father and son in a post-apocalyptic world where some undefined disaster has pretty much destroyed every living thing on the planet except the odd dog and a few humans.  The duo travel a road, heading south in the hopes of finding a less hostile environment.

Some people I’ve spoken with found the film depressing.  Not me.  McCarthy uses a tactic Hemingway was known for: take a character or two, expose them to some real bad shit, strip them of nearly everything they need or value, torture them a little more with real bad shit, then pull  back to see what’s left.

“The world breaks everyone, and afterward, some are strong at the broken places.”  That quote by Hemingway is the central theme to many of his novels, and McCarthy is offering us a similar view, among other things.  Both Hemingway and McCarthy know they need to expose the horrible, dark aspects of human beings and the worlds they are exposed to - without the slightest embellishment, before they can move on to lift us to a place where we can hope, and more importantly, where we can believe in the viability of those hopes.  They do this not to bring us down, but because they know we either suspect or will eventually learn that the obscene bird of night does in fact exist.

Many of us know real bad shit happens, that it is going to get worse, and there may not be a whole hell of a lot we can do to stop it.  Others suspect the real bad shit is there, but would rather not acknowledge it, at least not in its entirety.  What can be depressing is wondering why we should keep fighting if the chances of diverting the bad shit are vanishingly slight.

All of that, and back to why do we keep blogging.

At one point in the film/book, the father tells his son that they are the good guys and must carry the fire.  The boy tries to learn from his father what makes a person a good guy, but eventually, he, through his own innate being and despite all of his horrible experiences along the road reveals to his father what aspects of being human really must be preserved in carrying the fire.

That the boy shows us these finer aspects of humanity are inborn in some and can survive against all odds, and that they are worth keeping alive for future generations in view of a time when people will be ready to ready to build a better world - that is uplifting.

And that, I think, is why some of us keep blogging despite the apathy of others, despite the opposition put forth by greed and ignorance, and irrespective of the knowledge that great suffering and loss lies ahead for our species.

I have the greatest respect and fondness for my fellow bloggers who carry the fire.  I admire their honesty, their burning passion to expose and preserve truth.  Films such as The Road remind me of that fragile, infinitely precious flame that is the best of being human: the driving need to help shape and guard a world where all human beings are equal and valued equally by each other, a world where this belief is never compromised for the exclusive benefit of a few.

Big Daddy tells his minions: do as I say, not as I do.

Guergis has “one of the worst meltdowns a staff member of Charlottetown Airport says he's ever seen,”  then four days later, Jean-Pierre Blackburn nearly had the cops called on him when he took “strong issue with security guards at the Ottawa airport who refused to let him on a plane with a bottle of tequila,” prompting negative press indicating that gee whiz, Canadians really don’t like paying wages to people who feel they are above the law, after which Steve realizes Canadians aren’t completely asleep and decides that he needs to save his own miserable ass by having the PMO say he “will issue an edict to his ministers, reminding them that they're not above the law.”   H/t CC

Impolitical points out that Steve the Arrogant really needs a lesson in respecting the law himself.

Mr. Prorogation who breaks parliamentary convention with ease, Mr. Not-So-Fixed-Election-Date Law, Mr. Defy-Parliamentary-Order-on-Document-Production, Mr. PMO-Instructs-Ministries-to-Disobey-Access-to-Information-Laws...Mr. all of these things is going to issue an edict to his ministers reminding them that they're not above the law. Uh huh. What is it they say, the fish rots from the head. Or do as I say, not as I do?

But really.  We were all kids, once, and we know that eventually, all the do not rules mean nothing if the parent pushing them violates the rules themselves.

Air transport security?  Let’s look back to 2006 and see what example Big Daddy set for his MPs:

... on a recent trip, the Prime Minister was asked by a flight attendant to turn off his cellphone and BlackBerry. Mr. Harper declined. The pilot then made a request, saying it was for safety purposes. The PM relented. But, at the end of the journey, one of his staffers gave the pilot some news: His services would no longer be required on prime ministerial trips.

I guess respecting the law doesn’t apply to egocentric sociopaths who think the rest of the universe is full of shit and destined to be ruled by said sociopath.

Because Big Daddy knows best.  And he is, afterall, Big Daddy.

There's a word for that...

...oh yeah...

And how many pregnancies have you had, Lawrence Cannon?

The Conservative government has offered an explanation for why it will exclude contraception from its initiative to improve the health of mothers in poor countries: Birth control doesn't fit with saving lives.

"It does not deal in any way, shape or form with family planning. Indeed, the purpose of this is to be able to save lives," Mr. Cannon told the Foreign Affairs committee.

Riiiiight.

I wonder if Cannon has ever been to a puppy mill. 

Here is a 12-years-old dog in very frail condition (after she was been rescued and treated), a Athrowaway mom@ from a puppy mill. Her front feet are permanently crippled and she is unable to walk properly . Too many pregnancies and no exercise leached the calcium out of her bones.  

It stands to reason that if the mother suffers from deficiencies, her pups will not fare well resulting in health issues, and even early death in some cases.

Now consider a human female deprived of birth control.  Her body has no chance to recover from one pregnancy as she faces the possibility of getting pregnant again.  She may be breast feeding a baby while pregnant.  Give her a few years, she could end up, pregnant while breastfeeding and caring for a half dozen or so kids under the age of twelve.

Think of this woman living in poverty - belonging to the group Cannon wants to deny birth control to so that the Harper party of Canada doesn=t alienate its base - and think how her and her children=s health will be affected as she exhausts herself caring for her brood and cannot come up with enough healthy food for her kids and herself.

Look at this woman as she gets pregnant yet again, and see how she suffers a miscarriage because her body is just too unhealthy to spare anything for a foetus.  Watch as she dies far younger her sisters in Canada who have access to birth control and can work on their health between planned pregnancies, can take the time needed to raise their children, can feed them quality food so that they are not as likely to catch whatever illness is travelling the neighbourhood that week.. 

Now, Cannon, you pompous, self-righteous bastard - tell us again how birth control doesn't fit with saving lives.  Or better yet, get a woman living in extreme poverty with 8 kids and preggers with #9 to tell us.  If she has the energy.

(photo)

Does anyone not see death's shadow here?

You have blood on your hands for that, Larry.

Seriously, Flaherty, just shut up.

The evil leprechaun failed to see the economic crisis coming, even mocking those who warned of its inevitability, swore he would not run a deficit, was way off several times predicting how much the deficit would be when finally forced to acknowledge there would be one, and economists overwhelmingly state that his current plan to reduce the deficit is, metaphorically speaking, something Sunshine Care Bear alone would believe.

Hard not to laugh at this news, were it not so painfully embarrassing:

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty says other developed nations should come up with clearer plans on how they are going to get their weighty budget deficits under control.

So just shut the hell up, Jimbo.  Besides, the international financial community has the real deal giving advice.

Oh no!!!! Cannon is an anti-semite and anti-Canadian!!!!!!!

Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon is taking a harder line against Israel's controversial decision to build settlements in East Jerusalem and now says he condemns the plan.

Condemnation coming from a foreign affairs minster would constitute something of a threat, would it not?  A warning of sorts?  As in we will not tolerate this, will n ot support it, and will exert pressure to force Israel to pull back?

Well, then.
(Emphasis mine)

“Our government believes that those who threaten Israel also threaten Canada, because, as the last world war showed, hate-fuelled bigotry against some is ultimately a threat to us all, and must be resisted wherever it may lurk.”

“In this ongoing battle, Canada stands side-by-side with the State of Israel, our friend and ally in the democratic family of nations. We have stood with Israel even when it has not been popular to do so, and we will continue to stand with Israel, just as I have always said we would.” - Harper, May, 2008.

Figures Harper would change his tune (but let Cannon spout the words) once the U.S. took a stance.

But then, we all know that what Harper has "always said" is less than a passing whim.

The alternative should include the universe and all it contains

I went to a Liberal fund raiser/idea exchange last week.  Dave Remington, Liberal candidate for Lanark/Lennox/Frontenac was there, but David McGuinty was the main speaker.  We were all invited to ask questions, give suggestions, voice concerns.

McGuinty (that’s David, federal MP and Environment critic - not to be confused with his brother Dalton who is Premier of Ontario - a provincial politician :) ) was, as most in attendance said, inspiring.  The biggest lift the group got was from his desire to hear what we had to say, and his intentions to continue holding meeting such as that one - but free- to see what direction the Liberal party should take, and what Canadians would like to see for Canada by 2017.

A common concern/question dealt with having no clear alternative to the Harper government.  People asked why Harper could not break out of his 30 something percentage of support, and why the opposition groups were stalled.

I think one big reason is (other than Harper being a creepy fuck), that the conservatives have settled into a very concrete, boxed in mentality which is reflected in their speeches, policies, and platforms.  The past few months, we have heard over and over that the economy is the number one priority.  Most other policy suggestions are interpreted through their dollar value; goals are short term with concrete, shiny results (cutting the GST); and less physically tangible ideas such as tolerance, compassion, quality of life, creativity, fun(!), and even research without a concrete, specific goal are given little attention.

Space research is a good example of how the right and left differ in the concrete/abstract.

One of my co-pilots believes we should not spend money on space research.  He believes there are more important things needing funding.  While space research may not be a top priority, I don’t agree that spending money on it is a waste, or even something we should sacrifice at this time.

Besides the obvious scientific knowledge we gain through space exploration, there are those less tangible benefits that carry us forward as a species.  Space exploration reminds us that there are far more possibilities in our future as a species than we perceive here, focused on and ound to this little planet.  It also encourages us to imagine, and imagination is an essential tool in developing ideas and creating new technology.  It helps us to understand that the universe is larger than our planet, and causes us to explore our own place and role in time and space.

Look at how so many people got fired up over the Olympics.  Many said they felt inspired, encouraged by what human beings could do.  The achievements of a few helped others to believe in the power of the human spirit, in wonderful possibilites, that a person reach should exceed their grasp.

Space exploration helps us to understand that there is more, far, far more to our future and our world that our day-to-day existence.  This is why the arts have value, why education must include literature, philosophy, music.

That reach for something better, that grasp of the importance of the abstract is what keeps, in part, the conservatives in their self-made box.  It is what the opposition parties need to promote, not merely to win more seats, but because without feeding those wonderful abstract apsects of Canadians, we become more drone-like every day.  We focus on getting by, not on excelling.  We focus on existing, not on experiencing all that it means to be a human being.

Concrete policy is absolutely necessary, but reminding us of what we are capable of as creatures with imaginations and beings with compassion would fire up a population that is sliding into the state of the living dead.  It offers hope for something better, and isn’t that what so many Canadians are calling for?

You know there’s a catch when a CON asks for your opinion.

Jimbo Prentice wants to know what Canadians think of his proposed environmental policy.  So far, the response from critics has been less than kind.

The website allows feedback and the deadline for submitting comments is July 12, 2010. The consultation comes as the government’s environmental policy has taken a sustained attack in the wake of the federal budget.

So why ask us for more feedback, especially when this government seems to be very selective of what comments it pads its findings with?

More than one person with an interest in the environmental file has pointed out that the Federal Sustainable Development Act requires the government to develop a Federal Sustainable Development Strategy by June 26, 2010. There is a legally-required 120-day consultation period written into the Act.

So, says one of them, “all Mr. Prentice is doing is obeying the law and holding a consultation - late. His government forced him to break the law and miss the deadline when they prorogued Parliament, though, so the comment period closes more than two weeks after the final strategy is required to be completed.”

Oh...a CON broke the law...I see...

Dodo can’t do grammar (or reason)

And she doesn’t care about cops.

Well just look!  I couldn't find a thing on her blog about this poor man. 

It gets worse, Ladies and Gentlemen.  MariaS doesn’t care at all about child abuse or child rape.  Not a word did she post on this obscene topic, nor does she follow the ongoing horror.  

MariaS doesn’t care about victims of earthquakes, my fellow bloggers.  It’s true. Don’t take my word for it.  Look for yourselves.  Not a single line has she posted concerning the several earthquakes which took place in Chile recently.

And has anyone seen her posting on this story?  Anyone?  Anyone?  Seems she hates handicapped people as well.

She sure doesn’t have a problem with kiddie porn, either.  Folks, I looked and looked, (and looked!) And nowhere on her site could I find even the slightest mention of this.

What?  She couldn’t care less what happens to aid workers?  Not a word about them either, it seems.

Guess she doesn’t give a damn about Corey Haim,   or Siberian Tigers, or the mutilation of plastic pineapples.

If a blogger is going to slag every single blogger left of a wingnut, she can expect to be challenged on her claims.  However, the nature of the claims in this instance are so mind-numbingly nonsensical that the use of standard logic as a method of argumentation here is utterly pointless.  Hence, my use of the absurd.

The brilliant hypothesis of MariaS:

Canadian Liberals and NDP bloggers do not care about Nigerians hacked to death

MariaS’ incredibly clever deductions:

Conservatives care about all human beings. The others care only about winning elections and NOTHING else, absolutely nothing else. How can these people live with themselves?

Her supporting evidence?  Nada.  Zilch.  Zippo.

Sure, MariaS.,  Blogging for Khadr’s return to Canada is a real election shoe-in, right?

Concern over violation of the Geneva conventions and Canada’s complicity, outrage over child rape being committed by members of the clergy, honour given to our veterans, concern expressed for our troops, taking time to celebrate the day, advocating equality...no one left of the insane asylum housing right wing extremists ever, ever blogs about those things.  Never ever.

This is not the first time MariaS has attempted to imitate Canadian Cynic’s posts concerning the sound of crickets in wingnut-land when it comes to certain topics, but unlike CC, she does not support her claims with any proof, and she lies.  Lies, and lies, and lies.

So, having opened herself to criticism through yet another moronic attack on every damn person (which includes 900 here) left of the fanatic right fringe dwellers, I feel bound by a respect for the English language to take issue with her claim that Dodo Can Spell.  There are times when the line between spelling and grammar can be rather hazy, and I don’t read Dodo enough to know if  MariaS can spell better than a fifth grader, but I can say with certainty that her grammar is appalling.

I challenge all of you elitists (you know, you educated folks) to a grammar test for beginners.

Find the grammatical errors (From MariaS’ above referenced post)

(Tip: most sentences contain more than one error.)

Ladies and Gentlemen, if you had any doubt about the lowliness of the opposition parties, lay them to rest forever.

These are the kind of people who pass themselves off as progressives and lovers of all races and all cultures.

As at 12:15 PM, March 9, I could find nothing but blogs about Afghan detainees, Khadr and as usual brainless ones about Pain.

The difference between the Conservative bloggers and all these others should be is as clear as a summer's day.

No matter what the Muslims do, even if a Muslim were to chop off their mothers' heads, they would remain "mum" about that too.

Is it fear of Muslims or are these people after the Muslim vote no matter what.

Compare their silence to the bloggers on the Conservative aggregate...

Am I being harsh, maybe even cruel attacking her grammar?  Probably.  However, I am fed up with accusation by people like her who scream “How rude!  How uncivil!” at some (or in MariaS’ case, all) bloggers left of the bat-shit crazies, and have no problem lying, distorting people’s words, and applying their own brand of highly unimaginative insults. 

I’m fed up with bloggers who embrace ignorance and hope to pull others down to their level rather than make any effort at bettering themselves.

We, left of the rabid right, are often accused in one breath of being bleeding hearts and uncaring of others.  Well, I have no problem condemning any rude, illiterate, ignorant, lying, racist who tries to spread their lies on the Net or elsewhere.  Lying should be challenged.  Pig-ignorance should be discouraged.

Free speech is a right we constantly fight to preserve.  To those out there doing their best to challenge the lies perpetuated through this right, thanks!

If there was a hell for fat, lying sacks of shit who have no integrity...

...this whore would surely end up there.

 “When I went to the school of hard knocks, we were told to be fair and balanced,” Duffy said. “That school doesn’t exist any more...”  - Duffy      

And of course, the Afghan detainees issue is the Liberals’ fault.

Catherine Swift should mind her own business.

Swift is the head of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, so you would think she would be working on private sector issues.

However, for weeks leading up to the budget, several articles a week have come out with her and C.D. Howe Institute aggressively attacking public servants’ benefits - pensions in particular.

Upon hearing of the wage freeze for public servants, Swift said it’s a good start, but there’s a lot more to do.  She will be meeting with Day of Treasury Board to discuss putting the hatchet to public servants’ benefits and pensions. 

Why is this any of her business?  Both Swift and C.D. Howe point to the gap between public and private sector pensions, chanting on about how unfair this is. 

Yes, there is a large gap between benefits of private industry workers - except in the upper echelons, that is, where Swift and the C.D. Howe bunch probably nestle in comfort, but the answer isn’t to take away from those who fought for years to get a decent wage and pension, the solution, the fair and necessary solution, is to improve the lot of private sector workers.

And that is why Swift wants to take away what was given through fair bargaining, in good faith, over the years.  Pension is in great need of reform in the private sector.  Many workers have no protection should the company they work for claim bankruptcy.  While tax dollars bail out corporations and CEOs continue to get high wages, keep their pensions, and get ridiculous bonuses, the workers are often left with nothing despite having paid into pensions for years.

With a rapidly aging population, the pension crisis is demanding action in the private sector.  Servants of the money god, like Swift, are looking for a way out of giving workers what they deserve and have earned, so they go with the finger pointing thing.  It’s what Thomas Walkom recently described in the Toronto Star as reverse class resentment.

It is an excellent article and should be read in its entirety.  He goes through the history of unions, why they arose, the impact they had, and describes how things have reversed.

Today, class resentments have been turned on their head. The focus of anger is not the silk-hatted capitalist but his unionized workers, with their job protection guarantees, their pension plans and their good wages.
Increasingly, in the world of media and popular culture, it is not the rich who are blamed for their excesses but the poor - the undeserving welfare recipient, the shiftless single mother, the employment insurance cheat. Resentment has become a potent tool of the right.

...For the Harper Conservatives, all of this is useful. First, it removes the focus from the country's real pension problems: Most Canadians don't have workplace pensions; those who do have found their plans savaged by this recession.

Walkom closes by telling us of the dangers this approach poses:

...The left's resentments were predicated on the notion that if some are privileged, all should be. For all of its problems (and resentment is a difficult force to control), it was at least optimistic. At its best, it encouraged people, through their governments, to improve the lot of those who were hurting.                
 
The new resentment is based on the presumption that if I don't have something, neither should you. Its aim is not to improve anyone's lot but to cut down to a common level of misery those uppity enough to think they deserve better.

Harper’s government: mean, resentful, creators of misery.

A finger pointing budget.

Tax cuts for corporations, cuts to the public services, de-regulation, all under the excuse of erasing the deficit.

What we end up with is a push to sell off more of Canada’s resources and companies by inviting more foreign investment, privatization of more public services, and fewer rules and less accountability for both investors and those taking over public services.

Harper had already made up his mind to do these things long ago.  The budget simply offered superficial justification for these moves.

He has been gunning for the public service for years, decades, actually.  He, like all reformers, believes in smaller government, and privatization of as many services as possible.  Everything is about a small group of people making as much money as possible.  And smaller government does not mean less control by the ruling party.  It means less oversight by independent agencies, fewer studies, less accountability to the public.

Harper started putting this plan into action by replacing as many independent oversight agents as possible.  Now he wants to reduce the number of those watchdogs.  This was announced before the budget, and it had nothing to do with reducing the deficit.

The federal government should consider "consolidating" the growing number of watchdogs and other oversight bodies, which can take up too much of management's time and make public servants too risk-averse, says the prime minister's hand-picked advisory committee on the public service.

Those poor public servants!  Somehow, I doubt they would agree with this assessment.  The oversight agencies and watchdogs help protect them from partisan deputy ministers (appointed by the ruling party) who are in turn pressured by Ministers.  Remove the watchdogs, and you remove impartiality and accountability.

The Speech from the Throne gives us an idea of what Harper has in mind with the removal of watch dogs:

He plans to:  untangle the daunting maze of regulations that needlessly complicates project approvals, replacing it with simpler, clearer processes that offer improved environmental protection and greater certainty to industry...Too often, however, grassroots efforts are hobbled by red tape. Too often, local solutions are denied access to government assistance because they do not fit the bureaucratic definition of the problem. Too often, the efforts of communities falter not on account of a lack of effort or heart, but because of a lack of expertise to turn good ideas into reality.

His solution? (L)ook to innovative charities and forward-thinking private-sector companies to partner on new approaches to many social challenges.

Great.  Oversight provided by those very same self-interest groups and profit oriented agencies whose self-serving pressures oversight agencies are meant to protect the public from.

Harper also plans to cut 245 senior jobs in the public service.  And who will be performing their duties?  A large part of staffing has already been transferred to deputy ministers, so it is likely that we will see much of the same political interference in other areas.

Steve plans to make 40% of cuts he says are need to reduce the deficit by making those cuts to departments and the public service in general.  That means many, many jobs will be cut, wages and benefits will be affected, and quality of service will suffer.

Here’s where the finger pointing comes in.  He has told us that the scheduled increase in June for public servants won’t be cut, but wages may be frozen after that.  So far, he hasn’t definitely said he’ll go after public servants’ pensions and benefits, but that door isn’t closed.  He has even said he won’t lay anyone off, except those senior managers.

But here’s the catch: departments will not be getting increases (except for DND and international aid) and they are furthermore expected to reduce their expenses.  While dealing with less funding, they are expected to come up with the pay increases promised by the Harper government in an agreement between unions and Treasury Board.

Harper welches on an agreement with public servants, and when departments have to lay some off to meet the funding cuts, Stevo can point his finger at the departments and blame them for the lay-offs.  He can also blame them for poor services and cuts to pensions and benefits.

Then, after forcing this evisceration of our public services, he can rant on about how much better the private sector would be at providing for the public.

Sure.  Public service now provided by private industry bent on making as much profit as possible with as little accountability as possible.