Inneffetive? Hmmm...lets take another look...

So, Jack Layton has decided that since attacking the Liberals has failed to bump up NDP support beyond its entrenched 17% level, the time has come to join Mr. Dithers in attacking the Conservatives. His latest spin - that the Conservatives have been an "inneffectual" opposition. Really? Jack likes to brag that he is getting things done for "people" - pointing of course to the NDP hi-jacked budget this spring as a triumph (yeah, extorting $4.5 billion out of a desparate to cling to power Dithers is a real triumph...and working for "people" includes cancelling corporate tax cuts that might *gasp* actually make it more attractive for companies to locate in Canada, and create "jobs" for "people"...ah but for Jack & the Dippers job creation is the work of government - waving its magic wand...but I digress..).

But lets see...Jack extorts $4.5 billion for his pet causes - whether that money is wisely spent or not matters little to him, so long as he gets the headline. But have the Conservatives been "inneffectual" - hmmm...would we be talking at all about tax cuts if it were not for the Conservatives? That would be tax cuts for "people" (you know, Jack - letting those hard working people you profess to represent keep more of their hard earned money so that they can save for their future, invest, or make purchases that just might lead to more economic activity and create jobs). Would we be talking about rebuilding our broken down military (so that they could be effective in the "peacekeeping" missions you so favour). Would we be talking about corporate tax cuts that will make Canada a more attractive jurisdiction for companies to business in? I would argue that all these things are on the agenda because of the strength of the Conservative opposition (they have been, in fact, remarkably successful in pushing the Liberals to the right over the past 10 years). Therefore, contrary to Jacks latest spin, I would have to say that the Conservatives have been quite influential as opposition. Sure, they are not sitting in hotel rooms and having terms dictated to them by a powerful union boss, and making backroom deals...but influential nevertheless.

Merry Elexmas!

Well, that didn't take long...

I was watching the news, and to tell the truth, I couldn't really tell if I was watching recent tape, or a broadcast from the 2004 election. It certainly didn't take long for Paul Martin to abandon any pretense of having any actual, you know, policies to offer to Canadians. Instead, he has gone into full "attack Stephen Harper" mode. Honestly, if you took the words "Stephen Harper" from his vocabulary, Mr. Martin would have difficulty making it through his stump speech. Every time he gets near a microphone Martin starts in with his "Stephen Harper" schtick...he always manages to say the name as if he is speaking of the evil Satan himself.

And then he has the nerve to whine about he civility of debate in the House. Somebody in his inner circle should really tap him on the shoulder and point out that any attempt to raise the level of debate within the House, should really start with the campaigns to get elected to the House. If you spend your entire election campaign denigrating your opponant, and attempting to demonize them, well, how do you expect to garner their cooperation once you are all sitting in the illustrious House of Commons?

Its particularly sad that the Liberals, as desparate as they are to maintain their grip on power, have started in on the negative campaigning. They have absolutely nothing to offer in terms of policies or even a coherant vision for the country - sooooo, they start with their attempt to demonize the opposition (oh, and also go out of their way to poison relations with the Americans, because it plays well to the reflexive anti-Americanism in the 416 area code). Sad. And ultimately not at all good for the country...but hey, if it gets them elected!

If Paul Martin and his thieving cronies win this election (even a minority) than I will have just about lost all faith in the Canadian public...it would not bode well for the future of our country...we can and should demand better...

Polls, Polls, Polls

Oh for the love of god, can we dispense with all the $#&@*!# polls??? Evertime I see the news, or read a newspaper I'm confronted with the latest poll and the newsreader/writer's breathless analysis of what the numbers "mean" or what the purportedly 'represent'. What they mean is that polls are useless. And poll analysis is especially useless. I mean, come on - when a one point change from poll to poll is trumpeted as a 'surge' in support? Its within the margin of error for crying out loud! How can that "represent" anything?

While I am all in favour of removing freedom of speech restrictions (eg the election gag laws the Liberals have been trying to enact for years), I am completely in favour of banning all polling and reporting on polls during an election. Let the politicians have discussions on policy, let them announce their positions on various issues (without the benefit of "test marketing" them) and then see how voters decide - on election day (you know, the one poll that actually means something).

And while I am at it. another thing I would like to do away with is election night coverage - this whole "race" aspect where a candidate is "ahead" in a particular riding, or "leading" - I find it all quite annoying. Hows about waiting until the votes are counted and then announcing who the winners are? Isn't that what this whole exercise in democracy is about? Its not a fucking race, its citizens exercising their democratic rights and then having the ballots counted to determine who garnered the most votes and will represent them in Parliament. The whole "race" notion, fuelled by the endless polls and culminating in the horse-race election night coverage, does a disservice to the whole thing.

Ah well...

Electioneering, Star style

And here we go again...on the Toronto Star's website they are fronting an article that drags an 8 year old speech by Stephen Harper to make some sort of point about Harper's views over relations with the dreaded "Bush" Americans. What this point is, escapes me, beyond the fact that it appears to be another lame attempt by the Star (and their anonymous "Liberal sources") to jump out of the bushes and scream "booga-booga! Harper=Bush= scary!"

Ok, so lets take the gloves off then and drag out every single public utterance made by Paul Martin and compare that with his current windblown views. Shall we go through his various statements supporting the war in Iraq, ballistic missile defence and then compare them to his positions now (now that he has properly digested the poll results and determined what he thinks Canadians want to hear and what may get hime elected)?

Let see...

- "What possible benefit is it for us to stay away from the table?" (Toronto Star, April 29, 2003).
• "If there is going to be an American missile going off somewhere over Canadian airspace, I think Canada should be at the table making the decisions." (CBC, May 1, 2003).

• "We have to be at the table to essentially make sure that whatever decisions that are going to be taking place are taking place in Canada’s interests." (Ottawa Sun, January 9, 2004).

- "I really think Canada should get over to Iraq as quickly as possible". Paul Martin

So lets watc as Mr. Martin puffs himself up and starts throwing insults across the schoolyard at the Americans, and as his cronies dig about to find any kind of pro-American statements that Stephen Harper may have made 8, 9, 10 years ago (whatever)...the next round of Conservative ads should just replay all these Martins statements, and then show how "fluid" his positions have been...

What do they say about people in glass houses?

ALSO - the next Conservative ads should hi-light Martin's pontificating about ending the politics of cronyism and then show him appointing his leadership team & other assorted Liberal cronies to the senate...

Maybe slap a big "HYPOCRITE" label on him...

Election thoughts...

So, here we are, two weeks into the election campaign - here are my first impressions:

- Kudos to the Conservatives for setting the agenda with their stream of "policy a day" announcments. The policies themselves may not be perfect (what policy is) but they are leading what has been, for the most part, an election that has been suprisingly heavy on policy discussion. This should be (and I emphasize the should be part) dispelling the idea that the Conservatives have their infamous "hidden agenda". The Liberals have looked pretty reactionary - and completely bereft of ideas. They have yet to put forward a single original policy (I don't call announcing $100 billion over 100 years or whatever their actual ridiculous Daycare pledge was, an original policy). Martin has been reduced to pontificating about values, using the US as punching bag, and trying to drag same-sex marriage back into the debate at every turn. Pathetic.

- Paul Martin should not be allowed near a microphone during an election...oh hell, ever. The man is pathetically incapable of uttering a single sentence with any connection to reality. He is full of lofty rhetoric, and high sounding ideals - but none of it is connected in any way to things we like to call "facts" or "reality". Every word the man utters is political. Take his poke at the Americans during the Montreal climate change conference. Given the fact that the American's record on reducing Green House gas emissions is, in reality, better than Canada's, Martin decided to take a poke at the Americans for not signing on to the global gaggle-fuck of the Kyoto treaty. Sure we've signed it, and that makes Martin puff out his chest and act like Canada is actually doing something about climate change...ignoring the reality that Canada actually has one of the worst environmental records. But then again that seems to be the Canadian character these days - talk a lot, and if you talk enough, why then it must be true. We are engrossed in our own Liberal myths about Canada, despite the facts that we are not the best environmentalists, the best peacekeepers, the most mulit-cultural, tolerant...whatever...

Again - pathetic. Pissing off our biggest trading partner, no matter how much you dislike the current administration, while it may give you a chance to get on the news wrapping yourself in the flag, is profoundly stupid, and can have serious long term consequences for all Canadians - not just your pathetic political career.

Yes, you may have guessed right - I am not a Paul Martin fan. If just once his lofty rhetoric (remember that "democratic deficit" or "ending the politics of cronyism"?) was matched by his actual, you know, actions, than maybe I could cut him a break. But since the only talent, and the only ambition he has demonstrated has been to get elected (and he his clueless once he has been elected), I find him to be quite reprehensible (and considering the fact that I have a pretty low opinion of politicians in general, thats saying something).

- Beer and popcorn? That comment, more than any other, displays the Liberal philosophy. You can't be trusted with your money, so give it to us to spread around. Why, if you had it, you might be able to make choices! We, the Liberals, are the only ones who should be making choices! Its our money! Well, actually, Paul & co. its OUR money, and while yes, there are idiots out there who would indeed blow the daycare money on beer & popcorn, I trust that the majority of Canadian parents are perfectly capable of making their own choices about what to spend their money on, and how to raise their children.

- Daycare? Can someone explain to me how the Liberal's $5 billion differs from the Conservatives $5 billion (aside from the fact that the Conservatives money will go directly to parents?). The Liberals make it sound as if their money will somehow conjure a day care space for every thumbsucker in the country. Really? What it looks like is another bag of cash thrown at the Provinces, to do with what they will. And since the Liberal plan will only affect parents who actually use institutional daycare (about 15-20% according to the figures I keep hearing), how will all that money actually help the other 80% of parents? Seems to me that letting the parents keep more of their money (or failing that, giving it back to them) is a fine idea.

And why are the words "profit" and "private" synonomous with "evil"? As if making something "public" means that someone has waved the magic wand and everyone involved in something "public" is suddenly selfless and pure and innocent (untainted as they are by the evils of "profit"!)...hmmm...remember the Koebel brothers? Residential schools (a fine "public" institution)?

Really, we need to open up the debate on these issues (including healthcare) and stop spitting out words like "private" and equating them with satanism - and using them to close out any actual discussion.

More to come later - dinner awaits!

And we're off to the races!

Well, the Christmas election that “no one” wanted is on. And how are things going so far, two days in?

Well, lets see: we’ve seen perhaps the most inane question possible being asked by a reporter – the “do you love Canada” question tossed to Stephen Harper on Day 1. Since he didn’t deliver a thunderous “Yes!” and immediately begin blubbering, well, that seems to prove to some that this illustrates his Conservative contempt for the very country he is trying to lead. What we are really seeing here, with the reaction to his response, and with the mentality behind the question in the first place, is the embodiment of the idea that unless you whole-heartedly embrace the Liberal “vision” of Canada, than obviously you despise the country and are unfit to lead it. Expect to see more of this nonsense during the campaign - if this campaign turns out like the last one, than every time a Conservative has the temerity to question the status quo or suggest that there things in Canada that aren’t going swimmingly and need to be addressed, he/she will be branded with the heartlessbigotCanadahater label.

Personally, I think it’s a greater expression of love for one’s country to be able to see the flaws, the places where there is work to be done (because, as Harper indicated, the place has ‘unlimited potential’), and to be prepared to step forward and work at making it a better place – rather than standing up before the nearest microphone, shedding a crocodile tear and blubbering on about how much “I Love Canada”! Which answer is really more honest?

Lets take, for example, the manner in which Paul Martin demonstrates his immense, teary love for Canada - by not paying Canadian taxes. Paul Martin loves his country sooooo much that he is willing to flag all his precious ships (Canada Steamships line) out of the Bahama’s, just so he can avoid paying Canadian taxes. Guess he loves Canada so much, he has decided that its not important for the company he owns (or his sons own – but lets not get sidetracked on the whole “blind trust” issue) to make their fair contribution to the collective treasury. Don’t need any of that Martin money finding its way to the little folk…I guess the Martins love Canada, just not the tax rates? If a conservative were to, say, suggest that Canadian taxes could be lowered, he would usually be greeted with howls of outrage that Conservatives are anti-government and hate the country – why, there is soooo much that that money could be spent on! So Paul gets around that whole sticky debate by ensuring that his company can avoid paying the taxes altogether. Now there is an expression of love! *sigh*

And lets not even get into Martin’s love for Canada’s public health care system – a love that is manifested by his representing a riding with the most Private clinics of any jurisdiction in Canada. Or by the fact that his personal physician runs one of those lucrative Private clinics.

Look – love is not supposed to be blind. Forgive me for throwing out a dippy analogy, but Canada right now is like a nice house – albeit one with cracks in the foundation, maybe the windows need replacing, the yard needs weeding, and the carpets are pretty worn. Now, who is being more honest – the politician who says the place has unlimited potential, just needs to be fixed up a little (and here are some ideas on how to do it), or the one who turns to the nearest camera and blindly declares “I love this place – everyone else in the neighbourhood just wishes they could move into a place like this! – how dare you suggest there are problems here!”

Um, just in case you were wondering, I think it’s the first one…