C-eh? N-eh? D-eh?

Dear U.S.A. - Keep your own trash. Thank you.

2006-12-18T18:57:00.000-05:00

Well, it's been settled. Sort of.

Appeal delays deportation of ex-teacher in sex case

An American who hoped to spend three years on probation in Canada for a sex offence committed in the United States has been ordered deported, but an appeal process ensures he is not going anywhere soon.

Malcolm Watson, a 36-year-old U.S. citizen with permanent resident status in Canada, lives in St. Catharines, Ont., with his Canadian wife and children. A former teacher at an all-girls school in Buffalo, N.Y., he was convicted in October of improperly touching a 15-year-old student.

A controversial plea bargain approved by a Buffalo judge allowed him to serve his probation in Canada.

Sounds good, right? An American citizen is going to be deported after -- can you believe this?? -- some American judge simply up and decided the guy could serve his sentence hanging out in Canada! Without asking us!

So now we're getting rid of him. Right?

Wrong.

"But a victory only on paper, we have to say, because already Malcolm Watson's Canadian lawyer, Stephen Green, has filed an appeal, something that is well within Mr. Watson's rights as a permanent resident of Canada."

Because of a backlog at a tribunal in Toronto, the appeal will not be heard for at least a year, the lawyer predicted.

For now, Köksal reported, "Malcolm Watson is going to do just what he hoped to do when he got that plea deal in Buffalo for three years probation to be served in Ontario. He's going to stay in Ontario with his wife and three children."

The deal drew protests from Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty, who deplored the idea of "dumping" sex offenders in Canada.

I can't believe I'm in agreement with Stephen Harper on this, but certainly any sane person who believes even halfway in Canadian sovereignty should be horrifically offended at the original judge's decision. For starters.

And I'm horrifically offended that we can't fast-track this case and kick the guy out of our country TOMORROW.

I'm against Toronto sending its trash to Michigan. Why, then, shouldn't I be outraged that the U.S. considers Canada a dumping grounds for its trash, the human kind?

They can take their own garbage and deal with it. And we shouldn't have to keep it a day longer than humanly possible.

However, while the legalities are going on, I think there should be someone camping outside this guy's house, and following him around, 24 hours a day for every day that he infests our country.

'Cause it's Everybody's Fault but His, Dontcha Know

2006-12-07T19:01:00.000-05:00

I was just waiting for it. I'd heard that RCMP Commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli had quit, yesterday, and would be making a public statement today. And I speculated on what he would say to explain his resignation.

I knew he'd have to make himself sound good, and hopefully rilly rilly noble. So I figured he'd say it was "all for the good of the RCMP," to remove himself and spare the police service the hassle of all the unnecessary turmoil that was roiling around him. Oh, and he'd probably say it was for the good of all Canadians too.

And sure enough...

RCMP's Zaccardelli resigns

::snip::

In his resignation letter to Harper, Zaccardelli noted the debate has "taken on a life of its own" and made it increasingly difficult to carry on in his post.

"Clearly, the RCMP and I depend upon the confidence of Canadians and their elected representatives. Without this we cannot succeed."

Another Toronto Star article: Tearful Zaccardelli defiant

The outgoing commissioner says he made one mistake in his testimony to a Commons committee on Arar, and moved swiftly to correct the error when he realized it — even though he knew it would stir controversy.

At issue was what he knew, and when he knew it, about Arar’s deportation to Syria by U.S. authorities who apparently acted partly on the basis of information provided by the Mounties.

In September, Zaccardelli indicated that he was aware shortly after the deportation in 2002 that the RCMP had incorrectly told the Americans that Arar had ties to al-Qaida.

But this week, he said he didn’t know the details until the release of a report into the Arar affair this fall.

Opposition critics immediately called for his head, suggesting he either misled the committee or was incompetent.

But Zaccardelli insisted today that he told the truth and simply made a mistake on a complex file. He added that he did his best to publicize and correct the error even though he knew his critics would attack him.

“I had no choice, I have never had any choice, but to tell the truth,” he said.

Zaccardelli also insisted that he was not pressured to resign by the Conservative government. He said his decision was based on one overriding concern: “I did not want to have an adverse influence on this incredible organization.

Aren't you just weeping, at the nobility of the man??

Setting aside the question of how he could be MISTAKEN about knowing about Arar FOUR DAMN YEARS earlier than he now says he did, it's so clear that he's saying this is everybody's damn fault but his. "Waaah! It's your fault that you noticed I told you two different stories, with that weird little lapse of memory of FOUR DAMN YEARS."

'Cause you know, if it wasn't for that nasty media and the nasty Opposition members, it would have been crystal clear that those FOUR DAMN YEARS were, like, totally insignificant.

Effin' liar. I wish he hadn't resigned. He should have been thrown out. Or, no! How about we buy him a one-way ticket to Syria!

Its settled Once And For All. Right? Right??

2006-12-07T18:54:00.000-05:00

MPs defeat motion to reopen same-sex marriage debate

A motion to reopen the same-sex marriage debate was easily defeated in Parliament on Thursday, as expected.

MPs voted 175-123 against the controversial motion tabled by the ruling Conservatives.

The motion had asked the government to introduce legislation to restore the traditional definition of marriage without affecting civil unions and while respecting existing same-sex marriages.

::snip::

The vote should put an end to parliamentary wrangling about same-sex marriage, as Prime Minister Stephen Harper had said a free vote — promised during January's general election campaign — would settle the matter.

::snip::

Liberals called this most recent motion hollow because, even if it had passed, it would not have struck down the right of gays to marry.

Most constitutional lawyers have said the only way the Tories could change the law would be to invoke the notwithstanding clause of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, something Harper has said he would not do.

So the Cons -- who love to yell about "activist judges" and wanting this matter to be "decided in parliament and not in the courts" -- now that it's been settled in parliament not once, but twice -- they're going to considered it settled once and for all. Right?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

My Kingdom for a Grownup!

2006-06-15T16:50:00.000-04:00

You know, when the Reform party was started, I was all for it, for many reasons. One of the biggest was the Reform promise to bring some dignity and respect back to parliament. I was so disgusted and sick at the way parliamentarians constantly yelled and sneered at each other. It would be such a breath of fresh air, if Reform (that Party of Moral Rectitude) could bring back the respect and the civilized behaviour.

Of course, they never did. Nobody could sneer quite like the "morally superior" Reform crowd. I was so disgusted with them that although I voted for them once, I never did again. They made me loathe politicians so much that I completely abstained from voting at all, the second time around. (My reasoning: "Why should I be actively responsible for sending a fool to parliament? And they're all fools. So I won't participate in sending one there." I do feel differently about voting now, but it was the Reform party that convinced me not to vote, that time.)

And now. I don't know if Stephen "Bush-clone" Harper thinks he's an inheritor of the Reform mantle (certainly a great many Reform wingnuts – including himself – are still playing major roles in the party, despite its most recent disguise), but when it comes to parliamentary respect and civility, the current Party of Moral Rectitude has inherited the Reform attitude in spades.

See this Globe and Mail article:

Hands wrung over Tory MPs' fist gestures

OTTAWA -- The summer silly season has already set in on Parliament Hill as arguments over the hand gestures of Conservative MPs dominated House of Commons debate yesterday.

The Liberals led off Question Period by demanding apologies from two Conservative MPs who had provoked the opposition the night before by directing hand gestures across the aisle.

The two MPs, Pierre Poilievre and Jacques Gourde, are both parliamentary secretaries to cabinet ministers.

They were seen raising a bended arm with a fist, directing the gesture toward Bloc Québécois MPs who were heckling the Conservatives for not supporting a Bloc motion that was being voted on at the time.

[snip]

Both Mr. Gourde and Mr. Poilievre apologized in the House before Question Period began, but the Liberals focused their attack on Mr. Poilievre, who turned 27 this month and is the youngest MP in the House.

Liberal House Leader Ralph Goodale noted that just last week the Ottawa-area MP was caught on tape using what is commonly referred to as unparliamentary language.

During a nationally broadcast committee meeting last Thursday on the federal accountability act, Mr. Poilievre was shown swearing at opposition MPs.

Mr. Goodale also said Mr. Poilievre was doing a "pixie dance" on Tuesday evening while the Speaker was discussing the hand gestures.

Yep. The Party of Moral Rectitude fer sher. Yegods.

And you know what their answer will be, the same way that their southern cousins blame Bill Clinton's Penis for everything -- "Well, Trudeau did it, and he Said That Word, too!"

Their whole shtick, when they created the new party, was that they were better than that, and boy, they'd sure show us. And no, I don't think the Liberals, Bloc, or NDP crowd are essentially any better than that. But they've never claimed to be! The Party of Moral Rectitude trumpeted their superior moral character from the rooftops, and always have.

So yeah, Trudeau did it too. So of course they have to do it. Too bad Trudeau didn't jump off a cliff, since they want to emulate him so bad.

Yes, Stevie, the Canadian press IS the Opposition!

2006-05-25T16:38:00.000-04:00

Poor little baby Stephen. Little whiney George Bush Wannabe, throwing a tantrum because the members of the Canadian press are trying to inform us citizens about what the Harper government is doing with our country.

We are Harper's employers, not his subjects. It is our right to know what the hell he's up to, in every tiny detail of what he does that affects us as a nation!

Whiny little Stevie, actually being asked questions by all those unimportant little people representing the silly peasants called Canadian citizens!

In this Reuters article, we see his opinion of the people trying to get information for us:

"Unfortunately, the press gallery has taken the view they are going to be the opposition to the government," Prime Minister Stephen Harper told a local television network in London, Ontario on Wednesday.

No, Mr. "George Bush is my Role Model" Harper -- the press is NOT there so that you can patriarchally pat Canadian citizens on the heads and say, "There there, little plebes, we'll give you all the information we decide you should have, whenever we feel it necessary to tell you what fate we've decided for you."

I got news for you, Stevie. The press IS IN FACT THE OPPOSITION.

That's what they're there for – to ask you questions and keep us citizens informed. They're not there to serve you and serve as mouthpieces for you to tell us what YOU want us to hear. They're there to serve us and make you answer what WE want to hear.

They are there to question your motives, your actions, and your reasons, your directives, your decrees, your political appointments, your behind-the-scenes deals -- everything. They're there precisely to find out what you don't want us to know, what you'd rather hide from us.

As Bill Moyers has said, "News is what the people in power don't want you to know. Everything else is public relations."

You bet your bloody hair-helmet they're the opposition, Stevie. They're not your own massive public relations corps. They're there to prevent YOU from becoming a damn dictator.

Mr. Vellacott, endlessly entertaining

2006-05-13T19:04:00.000-04:00

I keep saying to people that we just need to poke the Cons enough to get them shooting their mouths off, and they'll take care of defeating Canada's American Neo-Con party all by themselves.

Well, this past week I was listening with half an ear to some of the story of Saskatoon MP Maurice Vellacott, and was well pleased with how the revelations were going. But I should have paid more attention, because the fun just kept coming, and I missed a lot of it.

But skdadl, over at the Peace, order and good government, eh? blog (otherwise known as POGGE), was following every detail, so I got to catch up on what I had missed: Keep Talking, Mr Vellacot.

The salient points are these:

1) First he claims that Supreme Court Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin claimed that judges almost have "godlike powers" when they sit on the bench. (She did not; in the speech he referred to, she pretty much says the exact opposite.)

2) Then Vellacott resigns as Chair of the Commons aboriginal affairs committee -- which he should never have been on, considering his own previously expressed views on aboriginal affairs. As he departs, he claims both that the Liberals assume they, too, have a divine right to govern (i.e. "godlike powers!"), and that he himself expects God to give him chances to serve again in the future (godlike powers again, by golly). Man's got an obsession with god. They used to put people like that in institutions. But meanwhile...

3) Then, as POGGE remarks, "Nothing daunted, Mr Vellacott, no doubt still driven by divine revelation, has bounced back from his forced resignation on Wednesday to champion yet another cause -- the liberation of women." He appears with a doctor who claims that abortions lead to breast cancer, despite evidence that they don't.

All of this in one week! It's kind of exhilarating.

I was screaming with hilarity by the time I got to these closing statements from POGGE:

You have to admire Mr Vellacott's resilience, though, don't you? I know that I do. To spring back from so many humiliations as quickly as he did this week and to reinsert his foot in his mouth so purposefully -- that shows promise, I think. I am so looking forward to whatever cause he decides to champion next.

Next week, in fact. Creation science? Surely that's not too much to ask. Send him ideas. The man is on a roll.

Yes indeedy. Poke. Poke. Poke. Poke.

More details on Frank Luntz, the neo-Con Spinner Visiting Ottawa

2006-05-07T11:08:00.000-04:00

Alison at Creekside has more info on Frank Lutz, the neo-Con ~~liar~~ spinner I blogged about yesterday.

She's got some real zingers he's come up, with in her post.

Read the post, and you'll agree. It's exactly as I described it: black is white, lies are truth, and hate is love. The guy is a monster.

(Thanks to Canadian Cynic for pointing me to Creekside's post.)

Neo-Con Spinners Invading Canada

2006-05-06T10:28:00.000-04:00

I don't remember the guy's name, but a "political consultant" from the United States was interviewed on CBC Radio's The House this morning. He's in Ottawa this weekend, addressing a meeting of Conservatives [sic], with a talk called "Massaging the Message."

I listened to him on "The House," with my jaw on the floor. I don't think I've ever heard such bald-faced, brazen lying on Canadian media before -- and obviously, the Cons in Canada have brought him in to teach them how to do it here the way neo-Cons have perfected the practice in the U.S.

It was hard to get past his constant condescending tone, which appeared every time he was chiding the host of the program for mentioning an actual fact, and then proceeded to spin the fact into a lie.

But the highlights of his actual remarks were that a) the Republicans are NOT doing badly in the U.S. right now [no mention was made, I noticed, of Bush's 30% approval rating]; b) the debacle of Hurricane Katrina was a matter of the Republicans not explaining to everyone how HARD it is to deal with such a devastating storm; c) the Iraq debacle is about the fact that the Republicans "didn't explain clearly enough" how difficult the war would be; and the usual whopper, which these guys always trot out -- d) Clinton was worse. [Ed. note: Even though he wasn't.]

I don't usually turn on my computer on Saturday mornings, but I had to. I would have exploded otherwise.

Here is what I wrote to the CBC program, "The House," with the subject line, "Your neo-Con wingnut public relations spinner guest":

Well. Now we know what “massaging the message” means to American neo-cons. It means lying outright, which your American spinner did today. And YOU DIDN’T CHALLENGE HIM ON ANYTHING.

If his Republican President’s approval rating being at 30% isn’t “doing badly,” then black is white, lies are truth, and hate is love.

First – Katrina. It wasn’t that the neo-Cons “didn’t communicate” how bad the storm would be, they OUTRIGHT DENIED IT. New Orleans officials begged Bush and pals for years to help fix the levies because they would surely break – yet the Bushies’ spin has been that “no one could have known” and they themselves never had a clue.

Second – Iraq. It wasn’t that the neo-Cons “didn’t explain clearly enough” how difficult this aggressive war would be – they OUTRIGHT DENIED IT. Rumsfeld and Cheney dismissed the very thought that they actually needed to PLAN anything for long-term reconstruction. They consistently downplayed the number of troops they’d need, the reaction of Iraqis to the aggression, how long they’d be there, or what it would cost. Three years after Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” photo op (perhaps engineered by someone like your guest this morning!), Iraq is a continuing American quagmire.

And when confronted with the Bush regime’s intense secrecy about everything (much like what Harper’s crowd is now engineering here) – your guest never addressed Bush’s press people, who constantly lie for the regime, but went back SIX YEARS to the neo-Cons’ maniac obsession with Bill Clinton! Excuse me? Are Clinton’s press secretaries determining Bush policy then? Is that what this guy was telling us??

This is known as “spin” – constantly diverting your listeners or readers from real issues, to make them look elsewhere so you can get away with something.

THIS is how neo-Cons in Canada want to run the Canadian government??

I can’t believe you gave this bald-faced liar any air time, and never challenged him on any of his lies. HOW DARE YOU.

Too bad they won't read it on-air, partly because it's too long, but also because...well, you know.

This is how it's supposed to be done

2006-04-25T16:36:00.000-04:00

The Galloping Beaver respects our fallen Canadian soldiers.

Harper obviously bought faulty muzzles

2006-04-25T16:03:00.000-04:00

I guess Stephen "Bushclone" Harper had better cancel the contract with his current muzzle supplier, and maybe consult Bush-his-hero about where he gets his.

MPs, families criticize Tory media ban

OTTAWA — Conservative MPs and the families of fallen soldiers are objecting to a new government policy that bars journalists from covering the homecoming of soldiers killed in Afghanistan. The unprecedented shutdown of a military airfield Tuesday for the arrival of four dead soldiers has drawn fire from all sides.

Defence Minister Gordon O’Connor says he banned the media from covering the arrival ceremonies out of concern for grieving families.

But critics wonder if it’s more about avoiding bad press in the face of an escalating conflict in Afghanistan that many Canadians oppose.

Opposition parties accused the government of copying the Bush administration, which attempted a similar clampdown on images from Iraq.

Why yes. That's exactly what it's about. Because Stephen "Bush Mini-Me" Harper has no indepenent thought of his own. All he wants is CONTROL, and ruthless control, at that. In the style of his wingnut heroes in the U.S.

Military brass, soldiers’ families and MPs from the governing party are also indicating their displeasure with the new policy.

You hear that? The very people the Harper crowd is supposedly "protecting" and allowing "privacy" are the ones who are complaining about it! And not just them, either.

And at least two Tory MPs came out swinging against their own government.

Ontario MP Garth Turner said he’s been "besieged" by angry phone calls from constituents about the caskets and the government’s new flag policy.

He said callers panned the move as disrespectful to the fallen soldiers and to regular Canadians who feel they’re being shut out of an event of national mourning.

"Right now (the calls are) probably running 30 to 1 (against the government)," Turner said.

[snip]

"There’s a great deal of concern, confusion and uncertainty about why the government has adopted the position that it has."

I wondered if Garth Turner would stay silent on this. I also wonder how long he can stay in this odious party, since he appears to be one of those rare Cons with both a conscience and some honour.

Eastern Ontario Tory MP Daryl Cramp, whose riding neighbours the Trenton military base where the soldiers will be returned, said media should have been allowed in for Tuesday’s event.

"I think it’s just unfortunate personally," he told local radio station CJTN.

Good man. Speak up.

O’Connor acknowledged that he didn’t consult the families about the media ban, but added that he tried to produce a consistent policy to preserve their moment of private grief.

If he gave a FIG about the families' "private grief," he'd have asked them about this first. The very fact that he never bothered even to consult them demonstrates that "private grief" is NOT what this is about. This is about hiding the evidence of a bad military situation.

After Harper Bushclone's visit to Afghanistan a few weeks ago, I now wonder: just what is he planning, that he is laying the groundwork to keep us from finding out, by not letting us see the bodies?

But they're NOTHING like the Bush regime...

2006-04-25T10:49:00.000-04:00

Okay. First, Stephen "Bushclone" Harper tries to muzzle the press, having as little to do with them as possible, giving them as little access to the Con members of parliament as he can manage, and assuring them, in essence, that "whenever there's anything we decide you should know or think, we'll tell you and the citizens of Canada what it is."

Press muzzled. Check.

Then Bushclone Harper muzzles his own members of parliament, telling them that he will not allow them to say anything about their own work – to the citizens of Canada (his bosses, incidentally) or even to their own constituents – unless HE GIVES HIS APPROVAL FIRST. And even when he gives his approval, there are really only five things he wants them to talk about. More of the same "when we want to tell Canadians what they're to think, we'll inform them."

Press muzzled. Check. Canadian citizens' own representatives muzzled. Check.

Now the latest:

Media won't be welcome as soldiers' remains come home

For the first time since the Canadian mission in Afghanistan began, media are being barred from an event marking the return of bodies of Canadian soldiers killed in the line of duty.

The Harper government says reporters will not be allowed into the military airbase at Trenton, Ont., to cover the Tuesday evening arrival of the remains of four soldiers who died in a weekend bombing.

Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor says the return of the remains is a "private and solemn" event to be shared only by the military and relatives of the soldiers.

Oh my, aren't they pious. It's all about the feelings of the soldiers' families, right? Never mind the fact that these soldiers are ostensibly fighting on behalf of every citizen of Canada, and therefore their lives – and, unfortunately, deaths – on this mission are very much a matter of public attention and concern.

However, despite the Cons' pious talk, the real reason for this ban is absolutely clear:

However, some opposition politicians say the decision to ban reporters from the arrival ceremony is disrespectful and does not allow Canadians to fully appreciate the human cost of the mission.

Liberal defence critic Ujjal Dosanjh even calls it "callous," and accuses Prime Minister Stephen Harper of trying to keep tragedy out of sight.

In the United States, the Bush administration has been criticized for banning images of the arrival of flag-draped coffins containing the remains of soldiers killed in Iraq.

White House officials imposed the ban out of worry that such photographs would lower public support for the military campaign.

A spokesman for O'Connor confirmed to the Globe and Mail that the ban on reporters will be extended to all future arrival ceremonies, not just Tuesday's event.

Press muzzled. Check. Canadian citizens' own representatives muzzled. Check. Unpleasant news about Canada's military activities muzzled. Check.

Oh no. These guys are NOTHING like the Bush regime. Nothing at all.

Suddenly, he's not a "Liberal appointee"??

2006-03-20T16:34:00.000-05:00

Another point that I was going to make, and forgot, in the last post. Harper was all high and mighty when Shapiro first said he was going to investigate the Emerson-Harper coat-turning deal. Sharpiro was a "Liberal appointee," and therefore Harper would refuse to cooperate with him (even though, by the rules of Parliament, he was required to cooperate with him, but we already know Harper considers himself above all that).

But suddenly, there's no mention of this "Liberal appointee" business! As Liberal Catnip sums it up:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who just a few weeks ago was "loath to co-operate with an individual whose decision-making ability has been questioned, moreover who has been found in contempt of the House" (ie. the Ethics Commissioner) and former Liberal now turned Conservative cabinet minister David Emerson have both been cleared of any wrongdoing in the floor crossing affair.

No word yet on whether PM Harper is also "loath" to accept these results.

Oh, he'll accept them alright, because they support his position. But you'd have seen him metaphorically screaming bloody murder if the results didn't support him. Just like the way that I never heard the teeniest peep about "activist judges" when Canada's Supreme Court upheld a parent's right to spank her/his children, a while back. They're apparently only "activist judges" when the Cons disagree with them. And in the same way, Shapiro's results are suddenly quite acceptable, because the Cons agree with them.

We should keep this in mind next time they talk about "activist judges," don't you think? Or any other criticism? If they whine that it's all "politicized" or "activist", blah blah blah, it's probably just because someone's calling them to account for themselves. Which, of course, they think they're above having to do.

These are people who do not believe in democracy.

Following Rules is NOT Automatically "Being Ethical"

2006-03-20T16:07:00.000-05:00

I pretty much expected that Canada's ethics commissioner, Bernard Shapiro, wouldn't find that any rules had been broken when David Emerson crossed the floor from the Liberals (with whom he had been elected) to the Conservatives [sic] (who had been overwhelmingly rejected by the voters in Emerson's riding). Floor crossing has always been a method used by MPs in Canada, when they realized they could no longer, in conscience, follow their original party's policies. I don't even want to see it banned, believe it or not.

But it's still excrutiatingly obvious that neither Harper nor Emerson had a clue what the objections to this transaction really were. This shows that they pretty much have no concept of integrity. Or -- if they do in fact understand the word -- they have no use for it.

No rules broken in Emerson affair: watchdog

Neither Prime Minister Stephen Harper nor International Trade Minister David Emerson broke any rules when Harper persuaded Emerson to cross the floor just after the recent federal election, the country's ethics commissioner says.

"I am satisfied that no special inducement was offered by Mr. Harper to convince Mr. Emerson to join his cabinet and his party," Bernardo Shapiro says in a written ruling released Monday.

"In addition, there is no reason, and certainly no evidence, to contradict Mr. Emerson's own claim that accepting Mr. Harper's offer seemed, at least to him, a way to better serve his city, province and country."

[snip]

"This was never an ethics issue...," the prime minister said in a statement a short time after the ethics commissioner's ruling was released.

"The attacks on David Emerson have, since his appointment, been nothing more than a partisan effort to demean his fine record of public service."

"Never an ethics issue," eh?

So if Stephen Harper's wife married him and then, two weeks later, decided she was going to go shack up with someone else instead -- and then claimed, wide-eyed and innocent that she had not made those promises two weeks ago under any false pretenses, yet she had not "found a better offer" but merely decided that she could do more good in the world living with that other guy than with Harper -- Stephen would accept this?

"Never an ethics issue," my foot! The man has no clue what the word means.

THE VOTE OF THE PEOPLE IN EMERSON'S RIDING HAS BEEN UTTERLY DISREGARDED AND OVERTURNED. Period.

FUCK THE "DEMOCRATIC WILL OF THE PEOPLE." Period.

That is what both Stephen Harper and David Emerson have done. They have OVERTURNED A DEMOCRATIC ELECTION.

Damn right it's "partisan." It's a matter of those who believe in a democratic vote -- versus those who don't.

It's obvious, painfully, despicably obvious, exactly which one of those parties David Emerson and Stephen Harper belong to.

I can't wait till the next election when these people are sent to elective hell.

So, What Are We Doing There, Anyway?

2006-03-16T14:14:00.000-05:00

When I find myself disagreeing with both sides on an issue, any issue, I take it as an internal indicator that I may be correct, and is there anything more “Canadian” than that?

So it is with the question of Afghanistan. Our troops have been there for more than four years now, and for most of that time you’d have to look far and wide to find any day-to-day mention of this in the media. It wasn’t “news”, as we’ve come to understand the concept; it’s the army, it’s what they do, I’m sure they’re doing fine, peacekeeping and all that, hip hip, carry on…

Until, of course, someone gets hurt or killed. Then the hand wringing begins and one side starts yelling about how we need to get out, while the other side starts yelling about how this is not the time, support our troops, yadda-yadda…

There are, of course, serious flaws to both arguments.

Under-funded and under-supported as it may be, Canada has a military. As such, it is its job to do, well, military things. Included in this list, unfortunately, are items like fighting, killing, and dying. A responsible government will do everything in its power to minimize these occurrences, but still, they do occur from time-to-time. If we shouldn’t be in Afghanistan it’s not because we’re now getting killed over there…it’s because we shouldn’t be in Afghanistan, for heaven’s sake! And if we should be in Afghanistan, the fact that it’s dangerous doesn’t change that fact, either.

It’s been difficult, what with all the obfuscation the Iraq War has thrown in the way, for many of us to remember why we went to Afghanistan in the first place. I don’t hang around with stupid people, but I’ve been amazed at just how many of my casual acquaintances still can’t keep Afghanistan and Iraq separate in their minds. We’re in Afghanistan because of Saddam, they seem to think. We’re helping out the USA, fighting their war for them, they say. Well, no. Look at a map.

We’re in Afghanistan, at least in theory, because it was the general consensus of the Western world that the Taliban was a threat to the basic freedoms of millions of people, both in Afghanistan and in other countries who fell victim to their attacks. This was not an unreasonable point of view for those who believed in such radical concepts as educating women, or for anyone who had some concept of the Enlightenment. I believe they still hold true.

It is almost never wrong to oppose fundamentalism of any kind, particularly religious fundamentalism. It flies in the face of all the values that we’ve come to cherish over the last few centuries, including the religious values held by compassionate Christians, Jews, and Muslims. The world has never been made worse by the lessening of the influences of fundamentalism.

This does not mean we shouldn’t be questioning why we’re there. On the contrary, there is never a time we shouldn’t be asking that very question. Our resolve, our commitment, and our outcomes can only be strengthened by such questioning. After all, it’s the unexamined life that’s not worth living. The people with the strongest faith, with the strongest love, examine and question these things every day. That’s what strengthens them. Any fool can make a decision, put it on a shelf, and go on with life.

Circumstances change. What exactly are we doing in Afghanistan right now? I don’t know, and neither do you, whether you agree with our troops being there or not. This is what needs to be discussed, on a regular basis. It is not unpatriotic to do so. It is not disrespectful of our troops to do so. Indeed, it would be hard to conceive of a bigger strawman.

I don’t support crime – does that mean I don’t support the police? I don’t support burning buildings – does that mean I don’t support the fire department? Of course not. Yet if I don’t support war, or a particular war, the ideologues on one side will scream that I don’t support the troops. What a load of crap!

First and foremost, it’s not their decision to be there. I’m concerned about their safety, regardless of what they’re doing. I’m also honest enough to admit that they’re doing something I could never do, in 2006 because I’m too old, in previous decades because I was disinclined to do so and, let’s be honest, I was too scared. I don’t want to fight in a war, just like I don’t want to put out fires or arrest criminals, or kill my own meat, for that matter. I’m happy to let others to that for me. I respect them for what they do, I admire the fact that they can do something I’m unwilling or unable to do, and in exchange I contribute to society with what I can do, which is education. This is how the world works.

I live very close the CFB Shilo, where Corporal Davis resided. He’s the soldier who was killed in Afghanistan a few days ago. I know people who knew him. I talk to soldiers, and I teach some of their wives and girlfriends. For the most part, they aren’t upset that we want a debate about whether or not we should be in Afghanistan. Many of them ask the same questions. What does upset them, on the other hand, is the fact that we seem to know so little about Afghanistan, how many troops are there, and what they’re doing. It’s this combination of ignorance and apathy that, to them, demonstrates a lack of support. A debate in Parliament, although likely to be mostly posturing and hot air, could work towards lessening this ignorance and apathy, and that can only be a good thing.

Until this happens, I have no idea if we should be in Afghanistan, and if you’re honest, neither do you. Let's discuss it. And shame on those who would politicize it.

You'll Take What's Comin' to ya, Missy

2006-03-15T12:32:00.000-05:00

I've been listening to Stephen Harper's asinine comments about debating Canada's role in Afghanistan, and just have to comment.

He's not deviating from his remarks reported a week ago: Afghan mission not up for debate, Harper says

A debate on whether Canadian troops should be in Afghanistan would put the troops in danger, and any attempt to pull them back would be a betrayal, says Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

[snip]

He repeatedly rejected the idea of a debate and said his government will not make decisions based on opinion polls.

"I understand the frustrations," he said. "Perhaps the previous government should have had a vote on the deployment, but that was not their decision. The decision was taken and we can't change our opinion when the troops are in danger."

Yegods. What better time TO ask questions, than when the troops are in danger?? Does anybody re-evaluate what they're doing when everything is going just swimmingly?? "Debate" doesn't mean we want to "cut and run" (as Harper has also phrased it). At the very least, since things seem to be turning more violent very quickly, doesn't it make sense, at a minimum, to discuss whether Canadian troops' tactics should be changed?? Or, if we really didn't expect our troops to be put in quite the danger they are, should we now say to them, "Well tough, you're stuck with it now so learn to live (or die) with it"??

To say that we're there now, and we don't question it when things go badly is like saying to a woman, "You married that abusive man, you made a commitment, and the moment he starts beating you up is the one moment when you shouldn't question that commitment or leave the marriage."

And nobody, not even Harper and his neo-Cons, believe something like that.

Oh, wait --

FRIDAY CAT BLOGGING

2006-03-03T16:31:00.000-05:00

Having a Morning Lounge, originally uploaded by PhylG.

Have a very relaxed and pleasant weekend!

Now HARPER Gets Investigated over Emerson. Oh My.

2006-03-03T15:58:00.000-05:00

How interesting.

Ethics watchdog to examine conduct of Harper, Emerson

The federal ethics commissioner says he is opening a preliminary inquiry into conflict-of-interest allegations against Prime Minister Stephen Harper concerning his formerly Liberal cabinet minister David Emerson.

[snip]

Ethics commissioner Bernard Shapiro says he will look into what influence Harper wielded to convince Emerson to cross the House of Commons floor.

[snip]

"Although the subject of this inquiry is the prime minister, given that the actions of...Harper and Emerson in this incident were intertwined, questions will no doubt be raised during the course of the preliminary inquiry on the conduct of Mr. Emerson as well," Shapiro said in the letter, a copy of which was obtained by the Canadian Press.

What interests me about this inquiry is that "intertwining" mentioned by Mr. Shapiro. It will look bad for Stephen Harper if he is shown to have offered some major inducement to turn Emerson from "Harper's worse nightmare" (as Emerson promised to be just a few days earlier) to his new pal. With all Harper's talk about corruption and openness and honest government, it will be a huge black mark if he appears to have bribed a Big Name into crossing the floor, before he had even taken the oath as Prime Minister.

And Emerson, of course, will then be shown to be eminently Purchaseable by the Highest Bidder.

On the other hand, if Harper is shown not to have used a big bribe, Emerson may appear to be easily swayed for very little reason. A whim carries him into the Liberal camp one day, growling fiercely that he's going to be "Harper's worst enemy," then a new whim carries him into the Conservative [sic] camp less than two weeks later. How quickly this man's passionate convictions poof out of existence, as he notices the next shiny object.

Or -- speaking of that "shiny object" -- Emerson could be shown to be after power. He got to be a Cabinet minister as a Liberal, and by god, he was going to be a Cabinet minister again, even if it meant turning coat. No powerless opposition bench for this man, nuh uh.

Or, of course, the motives of both men could simultaneously have been "the good of the country," and commitment and previous heart-felt declaration of principle be damned.

I wonder if either of them is going to come out of this looking very good.

There, see, he apologized

2006-03-03T03:41:00.000-05:00

David Emerson: "To those of you who are upset with my decision -- I apologize."

There ya go, the apology everyone has demanded. This should end all the petty squabbling on this issue, but I think we can all agree that isn't going to happen. Naturally, there will be continued calls for his resignation and people flailing their arms in the air while homeless people sleep on the streets and more people are killed on our nation's highways.

Emerson would like to talk about something else - maybe those forthcoming Olympics and stuff - but he's going to have to work hard to drown out all the other voices calling for his head. It's awfully hard to go against the grain, especially in this province where moving forward is always more difficult than falling behind.

Well, good

2006-02-25T19:22:00.000-05:00

This is quite amusing.

First, on Thursday, the new Defense Minister, Gordon O'Connor, says the new Canadian government would be happy to re-open the issue of missile defense [sic] with the U.S.:

Canadian Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor may negotiate with the U.S. on a missile-defense plan, going against the previous government's stance opposing weapons that can be deployed in outer space.

"In principle I don't have difficulty personally with ballistic missile defense," O'Connor told reporters after a speech to a military conference in Ottawa today. The U.S. must request formal negotiations and Parliament would have to approve the agreement, O'Connor said.

To which this was the response from David Wilkins, the U.S. ambassador to Canada (that's a Toronto Star link which may not last very long):

Wilkins made it clear that the United States does not intend to ask Canada to revisit the question.

"That issue came up, and the Canadian officials decided," Wilkins said. "And we move on from that and continue to work together on other issues in other areas."

Good. Keep it that way. Let's hope O'Connor and the rest of the Conservatives [sic] leave it at that.

(Heh. As if.)

The Galloping Beaver has a good analysis of the situation.

FRIDAY CAT BLOGGING

2006-02-24T15:55:00.000-05:00

Pretty girl, originally uploaded by PhylG.

Peaches wishes everyone a very happy and relaxing weekend!

Another Reason Harper's Cabinet is Problematic

2006-02-23T15:33:00.000-05:00

Apart from the million reasons already given, that Stephen Harper's appointment of David Emerson and Michael Fortier were mistakes, Scott Piatkowski in his most recent Rabble.ca column gives another one:

As well, the appointment of backroom party hack Michael Fortier to Cabinet contradicted both the party's commitment to an elected Senate and Harper's own promise that anyone appointed to Cabinet would have to be elected. As Minister of Public Works, Fortier will be handling government advertising and procurement (the key issues in the sponsorship scandal), but he won't be in the House of Commons to answer questions.

So...doesn't this matter? If it doesn't matter that the one unelected member of Cabinet (contradicting the Conservatives' [sic] ranting that nobody unelected will sit in Cabinet) is handling the very department that we just threw out the Liberal government over and, what is more, he can't even be questioned by parliament because he's not even elected to it, then I ask -- WHAT THE HELL DOES MATTER, IN CANADIAN POLITICS??

In the Spirit of George W. Bush

2006-02-21T12:52:00.000-05:00

Well, Fred, you may think the hoo-hah over Emerson is an over-reaction, but certainly the people trying to do P.R. for Stephen Harper do not.

As I read this morning on my latest favorite Canadian blog, Tilting at Windmills, Harper has now lost his communications director over the issue.

As this Globe and Mail article says:

Stephen Harper suffered the loss of the first key member of his inner circle last night over the government's difficulties dealing with the cross-over of David Emerson.

William Stairs, the Prime Minister's director of communications, left Mr. Harper's office after what sources said were problems putting out the fire over Mr. Emerson's decision to leave the Liberals and join the Conservative Party.

The sources said Mr. Stairs departed after arguing 10 days ago that the PMO and the Prime Minister needed to deal more forcefully with the Emerson problem. The Prime Minister had kept mostly silent on the difficulties surrounding Mr. Emerson despite the urgings of Mr. Stairs and a number of other individuals within the government.

The problem appears to be that Harper both doesn't want to say anything in public except what he has already scripted (and then no justifying or explaining or answering questions about what he's said), and he also doesn't want to hear the negative responses to what he says or does.

He hasn't just been criticized for his silence about Emerson and Fortier, but has also taken flack for not being forthcoming about his meeting with Jean Charest.

Sound familiar? Sounds an awful lot like the most secretive administration in American history, currently holding power down south. It also sounds like Harper's heading down the same pig-headed road as G.W. Bush -- totally ignoring anything that doesn't fall into line with his single-minded purpose, which he's going to pursue come hell or high water.

(It's also worth noting, by the way, that this is the third communciations director Harper has lost in 18 months. There's definitely a problem there.)

As Kevin Brennan at "Tilting at Windmills" says:

At a senior level in politics or business, it becomes very hard to get bad news. You have to actively work to get people to tell you things you need to know, but that you won’t like.

Firing someone who does that…well, it guarantees that nobody will tell Harper anything he doesn’t want to hear, ever again.

We seem to have been saddled with George Bush Lite, here.

The Politics of Overreaction

2006-02-21T05:56:00.000-05:00

I was reading one of those trashy local free dailies at the restaurant in which I work and got a good chuckle at one of the articles in it. It was about groups organizing themselves to work to oust the evil David Emerson from office. One protester, a member of the Raging Grannies (who admitted voting for Emerson to stop the Conservatives from taking power), made this statement to the reporter:

"In 35 years of voting, this is the worst thing that's ever happened to me."

Try living in Haiti, my dear. Then you'd really have something to complain about.

More on Focus on the Family

2006-02-18T18:10:00.000-05:00

Hi, Godzoriz! Welcome to the blog!

I should mention that Focus on the Family has actually been in Canada since 1983 at least, and I had heard of them here even before that. So they've actually had a fair bit of influence in Canada for quite a while.

But it's still important to remind everybody just who they are, and that they've got their tentacles here too, and aren't just Bush fundies in the U.S. They're very alive here.

They were one of the big groups trying to prevent gay and lesbian Canadians from being given equal citizenship rights when it came to marriage, as this web page shows, from their site in Canada.

What they're doing recently is actually starting a "think tank" (translation: propaganda organ) in Ottawa. Their goal is to directly influence (i.e. tell what to do!) politicians on parliament hill. They're obviously aiming to try to help neo-cons take over the Canadian government in the same way they've done in the U.S. Here's a paragraph describing their goals:

The mandate of the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada (IMFC) is to conduct research and provide resources to MPs and senators on a broad range of current issues of relevance to families, including the age of consent, taxation, child care, marijuana decriminalization, divorce, assisted suicide and palliative care—and all from a Christian perspective.

Let's translate all this.

- "age of consent" - They want to raise it, so they can criminalize more people

- "taxation" - Starve the government so it can't govern (a la Grover Norquist)

- "child care" - Nobody needs it because THOSE DAMN WOMEN SHOULD STAY AT HOME WITH THE CHILDREN WHERE THEY BELONG!

- "marijuana decriminalization" - Despite the fact that it does no great harm, they want to enforce the American "war on drugs" -- see "criminalize more people," above. You can be absolutely certain that they are seeking to force Canadians to live by American law. Period.

- "divorce" - Stop it happening! Again, as above, keep those DAMN WOMEN IN THE KITCHEN WITH THE CHILDREN, WHERE THEY BELONG!

- "assisted suicide" - You terminally ill people who are suffering terribly, you will just keep on suffering, by God, and you will like it! Or at least -- we in Focus on the Family will.

- "palliative care" - Who knows? Given their record on everything else, they have to be against it for some reason.

So, this hard-line, "God must control everyone else, through us" group is hoping to inject its tentacles more directly into the Canadian government. We must rip the tentacles out.

Slipping in the Door

2006-02-17T20:49:00.001-05:00

USAPOV chiming in.

I read this evening that James Dobson's Focus on the Family is setting up an office in Ottowa. For those not aware, Focus on the Family is a hard Right, fundamentalist organization with strong ties to the Neo-Con Republican Party. For any progressive or liberal viewpoint, they are sincerely bad news.

In the US, they hold much power in the backchannel, up to and including influence on the US Air Force command structure, and its slowly simmering scandal of "forced Christianity". When Dobson calls the Bush White House, his calls get taken.

So, they're opening up shop in Canada.

It is vital - no, critical - that Canadians get a handle on these guys before they get firmly entrenched in the national political scene.

They'll undoubtedly be filing for non-profit status as a religious organization, so that should be the first line of offense. File complaints about partisan political organizations applying for non-profit status. Be up-front and vocal about them. Make sure your Liberal, NDP, Green or Bloc Québécois representatives know they've come to town, and that you'll be watching their activities with regards to FotF, and also watching FotF's actions in Ottowa. Make sure they're aware of the behind-the-scenes political activity that FotF is known for.

Be very clear: this is NOT a religious charity, whatever their paperwork says. The main thing they use their money for is to promote their political agenda, and they have developed to a fine degree the ways to do that in the USA without endangering their Non-Profit status. They aren't interested in helping the poor or underprivileged kids in the inner cities. No interest in senior day-care centers or hospital improvements. It's all about getting their flock to contribute money to support the political agenda they espouse.

Now, some of you may be saying, "Gee, godzoriz, we already have lots of organizations like that up here. Focus on the Family is nothing new."

Let me put this bluntly. You are sorely mistaken. Canada has never seen anything like Focus on the Family. Your Candian-bred organizations are rank amatuers in comparison. First, they are organized beyond belief. Calling trees, letter writing, you name it. The flock are firmly herded in the correct direction until thinking for themselves about the issues is impossible. I'd be very surprised if they haven't already made infiltrating the Canadian Armed Forces a priority. They do that very well. Read some of the stories coming out of the Air Force Academy, which is conveniently located in Colorado Springs, CO - home base for FotF. Stories that detail mandatory prayer sessions given by commanders, the slow attrition of non-"Christian" chaplains, harassment of complaining personnel, etc., etc.

Let the regulations be your standard (emphasis mine):

"A registered charity is prohibited from directly or indirectly supporting or opposing a candidate for public office as well as a political party. In deciding whether a charity is engaged in prohibited activity, we generally consider whether the activity can reasonably be construed as intending to influence the outcome of the election. This may include but is not limited to situations where a registered charity:

Provides financial or material contributions to a political party or candidate;
Makes public statements (oral or written) that endorse or denounce a candidate or political party;
Hosts an all-candidates meeting or public forum in a partisan manner;
Invites candidates to speak at different dates or different events in a manner that favours a candidate or political party;
Publishes or otherwise discloses the voting record of only one candidate or political party on an issue;
Posts signs in support of, or opposition to, a particular candidate or political party;
Distributes literature or voters’ guides that promote or oppose a candidate or political party explicitly or by implication;
Explicitly connects its position on an issue to the position taken on the same issue, by a candidate or political party."

Get to know these regulations by heart, and use them against these cretins at every opportunity. Trust me. If they get in up here like they've gotten in down in the USA, your political process is as doomed as ours in the USA.

Friday Cat Blogging: "Perfect Cat"

2006-02-17T13:20:00.000-05:00

Perfect cat, originally uploaded by PhylG.

It seems to me we might as well indulge in the tradition of Friday Cat Blogging, so here is one of my favorite photos of Pan, my little feral boy. I'm sure he would wish everyone a happy weekend.

Ezra Levant is an Islamofascist Fist-Puppet

2006-02-16T18:34:00.000-05:00

Now, this observation isn’t based directly on Ezra Levant. I’ve never had the opportunity to examine his arse to see if, in fact, his spine has been removed to make room for the desert-tanned arm of a crypto-Stalinist Islamic dictator to fit in place to pluck his vocal chords. I suspect that he is spinae intacta, and his utter failure as an honest journalist and commentator stems more particularly from the dreary facts of his occupation rather than surgically facilitated meat puppetry.

Some people have described the spritzy little fellah as ‘an abrasive former press aide and spin doctor’ (Larry Zolf, CBC News April 2002) and his most famous day-job is running a conservative-libertarian propaganda organ but his real occupation is Media Whore—of course.

The CBC and a bunch of local and national media outlets have been devoting a lot of hot air, bloviation and hand-wringing to Levant’s decision to run the Mohammedist-baiting cartoons first promulgated by the Danish press (heh, no matter how many times I say ‘Danish Press’, it still sounds like a Foreman Grill for pastries).

Levant staunchly defended his choice to run the cartoons on the basis that they are the genesis of one of the most important stories of the year, and other media outlets didn’t run them because they were attempting to avoid danger and curry favour with Islamists. He accused others of cowardice and hypocrisy, repeating at least four times in my hearing that news organs (especially the CBC which he hates so much. Listen to him here: http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/media/200602/20060215thecurrent_sec3.ram ) were happy to mock Christians by publishing ‘Piss Christ’, the depiction of the Christian mytho-messiah nailed up on a crucifix and submerged in a jar of urine as an artistic statement.

This is so much Happy Horseshit. Levant didn’t run the cartoons because he’s a champion of free speech (if he was, why so insistently critical of other media outlets for showing Piss Christ? Shouldn’t he have praised them for their courage? Commended them on their bravery in that situation?). Levant ran the cartoons because he got a great big pile of free media attention and more advertising than he ever could have gotten for his shitty little right-wing-libertarian-loony rag, The Western Stunned-Hard (http://www.westernstandard.ca/).

A quick look at their advertising rates shows around $4,000 CAD for a full page, over $8000 for an inside front cover, other rates blah blah, plus a bonus! They skew their editorial content to attract specific customers! Right from their media kit: ‘Our editorial calendar enables us to deliver the right readers to the right advertisers with focused content – and focused content means focused marketing.’ Well, sure! We’ll be happy to manufacture some controversy to increase circulation amongst the hateful and fearful—you can be sure that the pile of money you give us will attract only the most gullible demographic to sell your shit to!

Yes, Levant was whoring his only-partially coherent rantazine on the national stage by re-running some rather craptaculent cartoons that not only weren’t funny or stimulating, they weren’t the real story behind the story. In fact, the cartoons have nothing to do with the bigger picture of Islamic unrest.

Here’s the real deal that made Levant into a bum-strangled parrot, laid out slowly so that if any libertarians read this, their lips won’t get tired:

· The cartoons ran in September 2005.

· The objections to them came many months later

· The objections started after a bunch of quasi-Islamofascist dictatorships needed a diversion from their own catastrophic failings as administrators and human beings. They basically called up Dial-An-Islamic-Riot and fired up the fax machine to anti-western hate groups

· The controversy was manufactured as a ‘The West hates Islam’ crisis, and relied on the Western media to promulgate the notion, both by expressing anger and dismay at the Islamic reaction (‘Look! They say we have no right to defend our religion!’) and also to reprint the dumpy and ill-written little cartoons over and over again.

These are well established facts. But whores don’t deal in facts, they deal in circulation numbers—and when circulation is high, ad revenues increase, and that makes more money. Meanwhile, he’s given the Islamofascists exactly what they want: more exposure and a great place to point their finger.

Good work Western Standard! It’s not everyone that can cause damage to the social fabric of our society and hold their head up as a principled defender of freedom at the same time.

If anyone would like to take a longer and much more detailed look at Ezra’s other interesting forays into opinion, check out No More Shall I Roam (http://roamnomore.blogspot.com/2005/02/complete-ezra-levant-watch-archives.html). The Levant archive makes for amusing reading, and it’s nice to see somebody (Big-Brain Jonathon Dursi in this case) keeping an eye on Ezra and his spit-flecked happy talk.

All-Singing, All-Dancing, 24-Hour Emerson Party

2006-02-15T19:57:00.000-05:00

With all due respect to Fred’s opinion, I couldn’t disagree with him more: I simply will never, ever get enough of David Emerson. I want to swim in the warm amniotic ocean of his syrupy treachery, listen to the delicate keening whine of his self-pity, and bask in the sultry heat of his radiant hypocrisy.

And in the reflected hypocrisy of the CRAP’ers. Oh yes boys and girls, oh yes, they’ve got hypocrisy out the fucking wazoo, and it’s time they choked on it.

This is still the biggest story on the news in BC and it’s not going to quit any time soon. There are many reasons, but it boils down to this: the bait-and-switch that Harper paid for and Emerson delivered is a fundamental abrogation of our democratic rights as citizens. There are a pile of strawmen out there trying to justify his treachery and malfeasance, so I’ll take a moment to burn a few of them to the ground, because I’m enjoying the unseasonable warmth that comes off of scorched CRAP-heads.

1. It’s all for the best of the constituency and the province of BC: Emerson can do more inside the CRAP-tent pissing out, than outside the CRAP-tent pissing it.

So . . . the end justifies the means does it? Because there is a potential benefit involved we should shut up and enjoy the delicious bribe of increased influence, just like Emerson is planning on doing?

Of course, I can see how the CRAP’s think the end does justify the means–after all, they’re the party of commerce and business, and we all know that business is best at all things! If you’re not sure, ask the principals of Enron, or Worldcom, or Nortel for that matter.

2. Vancouver needed better representation in the federal cabinet, so Emerson was an obvious choice–he’s best qualified and will help the region, so quit whining!

Reeeeeallllly . . . I’m sure his superb qualifications (pfah, he’s already in conflict-of-interest before he sits down at a table to discuss softwood) are there, but what about the eight CRAP candidates elected in the GVRD–all within a 55 minute drive of Vancouver-Kingsway? They’re not effective representation? So, they are lousy MP’s, is what you’re saying?

And as for needing him in Cabinet, I feel horribly sorry for the 17 MP’s elected in BC–obviously they are worthless and shitty, and the only solution was to parachute him into Cabinet to make up for their defective asses.

Face the goddamn facts, ass-monkeys: it was a bribe, Harper gave it, Emerson took it and now the fucking chickens are roosting and clucking, so don’t complain to the Canadian public about the chicken shit on your Bay Street Guccis.

3. People in Emerson’s riding voted for the man, not the party. They should stand behind him, so, like, shut up you dissenting bastards.

This election was so strongly polarised, especially here in BC, that many folks voted against other candidates, specifically to keep the CRAP out of office–viz the call by Buzz Hargrove and a lot of other limp-wristed Quislings for ‘strategic voting’ (another abrogation of the democratic process, but I’ll address that another day) to prevent CRAP victory, which many people heeded. 80% of the Kingsway electorate did not vote CRAP, and so when Emerson pulled out his true intent and took the bribe, he invalidated their votes.

And that’s what it’s really about. Canadians are terrified that the CRAP will do for the Canadian electoral landscape what the American Emperor Bush has done for theirs: steal their votes and ignore the will of the electorate to enrich themselves and transform the body politic forever. Plainly, the people of Vancouver-Kingsway did not elect a CRAP candidate. They spoke very plainly, and their intent was clear. By taking the CRAP bribe even before the dust had settled, Emerson stole their vote and invalidated their rights as citizens, for his own enrichment and for the furtherance of the CRAP agenda.

Finally, during the campaign Harper made a flat statement while appearing in Quebec. He said (in French) that he would not appoint unelected persons to cabinet posts, period that lasted until his first day in office. He also campaigned on cleaning up cronyism and back-room politics. The Emerson bribe cleared that up.

CRAP practically incinerated their underpants with the fury and vituperation they cast at Belinda Stronach when she crossed the floor, but now not a single BC CRAP’er will say a word about Emerson. Apparently, It’s Okay If You’re CRAP.

Sick of Emerson? Hardly. I want this on the front page for the next 18 months, when we’ll have another election and then I want it on every channel 24 hours a day until we vote.

Then I’ll have enough.

2006-02-15T15:37:00.000-05:00

I'm still not over this Emerson thing. Just returned from Victoria and while not watching my usual amount of news, did manage to capture this tidbit from Jack Poole, head of the Whistler Olympic Committee. In regards to Emerson's defection, Poole said, "Never mind the politic part of it." NEVERMIND?? To Emerson and Poole it is all about the 2010 Olympics and getting more funding as the cost overruns have hit the millions and it is still four years away. Poole and Emerson are part of the select group of individuals who will stand to make money from the games as opposed to the rest of us slackers who will be paying for centuries to come. Poole, in his infinite wisdom, went on to say the people will forget about it in 6 months. "David Emerson?" "Oh yeah, the guy who crossed the floor?" So just proves what we already knew, that business is more important than the people of this country. Democracy is just a meaningless word, and the fact that the majority believe in it is a source of amusement to Emerson, Poole and I'm willing to bet, Harper.

So, this indicates to me that voters are irrelevant and big business is what government panders to. And that is what we have to set out to prove is wrong and we will not tolerate it. Especially from a man, like Poole, who didn't even run. Democracy is dead and we are labouring under the false illusion that it is alive and well. I know this is not new, but it is pissing me off more under this CRAP regime.

Emerson is lying at home in Vancouver, flat on his fat back, boo-hooing, with smelling salts, no doubt, feeling betrayed and unbelieving that his constituents feel so strongly about his decision. Still insisting that he is doing the right thing for the people he represents. What a total crock and fucking insult to the intelligence of his constituents and every voter in this country. He is upset that his 12/14 yo kids are getting flack on the playground and boo hoo hoo. What a sad dumb fuck. He still won't quit he says unless the ethics commissioner says he should. No values or balls of his own I guess.

Then there was Garth Turner from Alberta who was "dressed down" by Harper for saying the Emerson/Fortier fiasco was wrong. Is government a school room or follow the leader playground game where ideals and beliefs are the sole property of one man who can change them at will and expect others to do the same?

Bored to Tears

2006-02-15T06:19:00.000-05:00

If I hear the name David Emerson one more time, I think I might just puke. Violently.

This is a done topic. It’s old, boring and any other adjective that could also be used to describe my grandmother (were she still alive). There’s some guy ranting on another message board I frequent calling Emerson all sorts of names and stewing over something that happened like two weeks ago – and he’s not the only one. People are still amassing in front of Emerson’s office protesting his “undemocratic” decision to cross the floor to the side of the evil Conservatives.

Seriously, folks, who has that much time? I don’t. Do you?

Writing a message of protest or a letter to the editor seems like an efficient use of time, but to stand outside of an office and rant and rave at passer-bys does not seem to be much of a solution to me. These people seriously need to get over this thing and move on with their lives. I can assure you Emerson will if he has not done so already. I’m not saying I necessarily agree with Emerson’s decision, but I think it’s been talked about to death. There are many other profoundly more interesting things going on in this country besides one aging ex-Liberal. If you think he’s a punk, say he’s a punk and be done with it. Getting all blue-faced because he did something that remains perfectly legal isn’t going to make you any smarter. Let it go.

I personally would rather not waste any more time on a man that’s neither interesting nor important enough to warrant further attention. I will be expending my energy thinking about things that actually, you know, matter. Feel free to come join me if you like.

Good arguments against floor-crossing reforms

2006-02-13T16:37:00.000-05:00

There is a really excellent post from Ian Welsh, over at Tilting at Windmills, arguing against the idea of passing legislation to prevent MPs from crossing the floor to other parties. He makes a lot of good points in arguing that such a law would actually strengthen party discipline and prevent any MP from ever standing up to their own party at all.

As he says,

Do you really want to emasculate MPs to the point where they are completely dependent on party leaders? I have half-joked in the past that the PM is an elected dictator. This would make that much closer to the truth.

And this:

at that point we might as well just not bother with MPs. Let’s just have a PM and let him run the government, get rid of the house of commons, and have an electoral college. Because that’s all it will be.

The whole post, and the subsequent comments, are good food for thought on this issue.

A questionable move

2006-02-13T09:44:00.000-05:00

When I first started political blogging, I decided against joining any political party, even though my inclination would be to join the NDP if I were going to join any. I felt I'd prefer to be free to view all of them as objectively as possible, and criticize them too, rather than feeling some tug of loyalty.

Good thing I did. Because now it turns out that you can be suspended from the NDP for not walking in lockstep with them. See today's article in the Toronto Star:

NDP ouster of Hargrove `knee-jerk'

Kicking Canadian Auto Workers president Buzz Hargrove out of the New Democratic Party is a "shockingly bad decision" that is divisive and unnecessary, says a fellow union leader.

"It's a knee-jerk reaction by people who were frustrated by what Buzz Hargrove did but they're not thinking it through," Sid Ryan, president of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, said yesterday.

[snip]

Ryan was reacting to a decision by the executive of the Ontario NDP on Saturday to suspend Hargrove for, among other things, advocating a Liberal minority government through the process of strategic voting. The provincial decision automatically applies to Hargrove's federal party membership.

Ontario NDP president Sandra Clifford said yesterday the decision was based not on one particular thing Hargrove did or said but the "sum of his actions throughout the campaign."

"Our constitution says that to be a member in good standing, you can't be a member of another political party or support another political party," she said.

I suppose it can be argued that Hargrove did indeed contradict the rules for belonging in the NDP. As did Toronto Mayor David Miller, as the article also mentions, since he threw his support behind some of the Liberal candidates in Toronto, and behind only one of the NDP candidates. Technically speaking, the party probably does have grounds to suspend both of them.

Of course, if they do that, they'd better be consistent and kick out party members all over the country who strategically voted Liberal to try to prevent a Conservative [sic] majority.

Or they could open their eyes and notice that The Party is not the only institution on the planet. We are all part of a larger world, and have to make decisions as citizens of that world, not just Obedient Members Of The Party.

Buzz Hargrove was speaking not just as one of the biggest NDP supporters (which he is, especially financially), but also from his position as president of the Canadian Auto Workers. Those two institutions overlap, but are not identical. Hargrove urged people in NDP-safe ridings to vote NDP as freely as they wished, but in ridings where a Conservative [sic] win would hurt not just the NDP, but the actual people in the ridings -- he urged a Liberal vote, to hold off the greater damage.

If the NDP is more concerned with its own power (and controlling its own members) than it is with the welfare of, you know, actual PEOPLE -- all I can say is, good thing I never joined. Because I'd be quitting today.

I sure hope so

2006-02-12T10:56:00.000-05:00

I hope you're right, Beast. Those who said "well, we couldn't vote Liberal, because what a crowd of arrogant cheating scumbags those people are - been in power too long, can't see beyond the tip of their own agenda" - it's bittersweet that we see this coming without the excuse of a longevity that confers legitimacy (false or otherwise).

Get out the knives.

Emerson Shenanigans

2006-02-11T22:16:00.000-05:00

Welcome one and all.

I'm in BC, so the David Emerson thing . . . it's a Very Big Deal here.

This plays right into the whole Western Alien-Nation cliche: bastids in Ottawa will do or say any damn thing they want, pay us lip service, and then shank us first chance.

For an Alberta Boy, Harper is unusually stupid about BC politics. Cross us, and expect to get into the equivalent of a straight-razor fight inside a phone-booth. This Emerson move, far from bribing us ninny-hammer left coasters into happy submission, has enraged the electorate. It's not going away, and Emerson will never, ever have a moment's peace here, be able to do any constituency work--or for that matter, ever be elected for anything again, viz the Recall Petition for his riding that has gained 20,000 signatures in two days.

I was initially dismayed at the rise of the CRAP'ers, but now I'm starting to enjoy this. They're going to get the worst barbed-wire-enema of a political reception any party has in recent memory.

And in BC we're sharpening our razors and waiting for them to enter phone booths.

First post! I win! (Sorry)

2006-02-11T16:37:00.000-05:00

Yes, this is yet another political blog! But I really thought its creation would be a good idea, after discussing the most recent election with several Canadians, and friends-of-Canadians, on a couple of online forums. These are very smart people, at times hilarious people (see the blog title??), and most important, well-read and involved people who care a lot about Canada and the direction it’s headed.

I’m looking forward to sharing observations with them, and hopefully with others who read the blog, as politics in Canada continue to take some fascinating turns in the next while.

The blog was conceived as a place for Canadians to exchange opinions with each other, but it’s also a place where non-Canadians are going to ask us questions about our country. We hope to answer those questions clearly, to promote an understanding of how Canada works. So we’ll talk about Canada’s history and institutions as well as its politics. I expect to learn as much as everyone else about this country.

A reader of the blog could be excused for thinking, initially, that we’re pretty much anti-Conservative. (I myself don’t even think “Conservative” is an accurate name, since that party is now actually very radical, not small-c conservative at all.) But in fact, we can be pretty critical of all the parties, and none of us hesitates to speak our mind about any of them. We may tend to be more left-of-centre, or at most, centrist. But I’d like to think that we’ll be just as likely to jump down the throat of the NDP when they do something stupid as we are to praise the “Conservatives” when they do something right. So one word of advice I’d offer to readers: don’t make assumptions. We may surprise you occasionally.

Enjoy the blog, and the great people who will be posting here!

C-eh? N-eh? D-eh?

Dear U.S.A. - Keep your own trash. Thank you.

'Cause it's Everybody's Fault but His, Dontcha Know

Its settled Once And For All. Right? Right??

My Kingdom for a Grownup!

Yes, Stevie, the Canadian press *IS* the Opposition!

Mr. Vellacott, endlessly entertaining

More details on Frank Luntz, the neo-Con Spinner Visiting Ottawa

Neo-Con Spinners Invading Canada

This is how it's supposed to be done

Harper obviously bought faulty muzzles

But they're NOTHING like the Bush regime...

Suddenly, he's not a "Liberal appointee"??

Following Rules is NOT Automatically "Being Ethical"

So, What Are We Doing There, Anyway?

You'll Take What's Comin' to ya, Missy

FRIDAY CAT BLOGGING

Now HARPER Gets Investigated over Emerson. Oh My.

There, see, he apologized

Well, good

FRIDAY CAT BLOGGING

Another Reason Harper's Cabinet is Problematic

In the Spirit of George W. Bush

The Politics of Overreaction

More on Focus on the Family

Slipping in the Door

Friday Cat Blogging: "Perfect Cat"

Ezra Levant is an Islamofascist Fist-Puppet

All-Singing, All-Dancing, 24-Hour Emerson Party

Bored to Tears

Good arguments against floor-crossing reforms

A questionable move

I sure hope so

Emerson Shenanigans

First post! I win! (Sorry)

Yes, Stevie, the Canadian press IS the Opposition!