AoI — Soap Box

Post-Prorogation Throne Speech

In the just completed lengthy Throne Speech (it took Governor-General Michaëlle Jean a full-hour to complete its reading), der Harper outlined its blue-print for running the country.

There was nothing earth-shaking in the conservative agenda so I wonder what the point was of proroguing Parliament for 6 weeks last December. If to recalibrate — as they claimed then — then where was that in this speech?

Just had to state that before the analysis and spin — as well as the marketing propaganda from the Harperites — comes out.

I laughed when the conservatives claimed recalibration was their purpose. One can scarcely expect anything new from conservatives by definition anyway. So far they’ve proven to be as regressive as expected. Too, they’ve managed to increase only two things: huge spending and huge tax cuts. And of course now we’re now in deficit once more. They’ve managed to fritter away a surplus and this is and will remain their true legacy. They’ve managed to buy their way into government via largesse. They’ve managed to undermine government institutions and are bent on destroying any trust in government remaining in Canadians. This is an administration that is purely and shamelessly partisan and ideological as it has proven time and time again. Only in these parameters are they succeeding so far — they are destroying what they truly believe is most execrable about Canada. This is the Harperite legacy. ⇒ Wed. 16:20 03-Mar-2010

Accuracy in Attribution

I was third in line at a grocery checkout (it was a Price Chopper — I am a cheapo). I only had 3 items with me. The gentleman in front of me had just finished placing his purchases on the checkout conveyor tray when he placed one of those dividers right after his goods. I thanked him for his consideration and he nodded to acknowledge my gratitude.

The elderly couple dealing with the female cashier was paying for their purchases with quite a bit of loose change. The gentleman in front of me had his bag and debit card drawn — very efficient chap. He took in the spectacle that was unfolding in front of him in quiet equanimity; the cashier had to count the large handful of coins after all.

As the elderly couple was leaving, the gentleman mentioned that they (meaning the couple) could have at least rolled the coins and praised the cashier’s tolerance.

I volunteered that That’s life.

To which he said that he’d lived here in Toronto for a long time and he’d come to the conclusion that most people are scum.

I let that sink in but could not hold back my That’s pretty cynical…

He kept on expounding on his thesis quietly and politely. In response to my I’m sure elsewhere it is way worse… he asserted that he’d been a lot of places. I doubt very much if this particular gentlemen has ever been in any Third World slum — not as a tourist either!

Clearly he’s not a bad person. I had to muse to the cashier as he left that life’s too short to have such a troubled world view.

At this stage in my life, I try not to pass judgment — not always successfully but at least I am aware when I transgress that goal.

I was in earnest when I said what I did about life being too short. I was wistfully sad for the man — a Caucasian 20-something who coincidentally sported dreadlocks and wore a black hockey jersey over blue jeans and toting a fanny pack. So young and yet so suspicious.

I guess it has worked for him to be suspicious and cynical. Still, one cannot help but wonder what he has missed and will miss.

I cannot help but observe that while it was obvious that he has a very robust concept of consideration for others (note that he had arranged his goods very properly and had not only his own shopping bag and debit card at the ready for the cashier) he also expected others to have this as well. I’ve seen this before as I’m sure you have as well.

It’s called our confusing one’s world view as that shared by everybody else. In his case it was rather tragic that he has dismissed everybody else who doesn’t tow his line as scum.

It was the label he employed that triggered my curiosity about this innocuous incident to cause me to reflect upon it. It was not so much the harshness implied but the attribution and — more importantly, its accuracy — in light of what I wrote in my prior paragraph.

What it boils down to is this: Sometimes our own — often indignant — reaction to the inconvenience we perceive as being inflicted upon us by such innocuous events tells people more about our own expectations than is warranted by reality of the situation. ⇒ Tue. 17:12 02-Mar-2010

Premier Danny Williams’ Heart Procedure

It was recently disclosed that Premier Danny Williams will be having surgical coronary procedure performed — in the USA.

I don’t know if the provincial government could have kept it mum but I am sure that now that the cat is out of the bag the opponents of the Canadian health care system — both here at home and in the USA will be milking this item for all its worth.

One claim by the government of Newfoundland and Labrador will be the centre of this rather contrived controversy. Namely, that the procedure that the Honourable Danny Williams will undergo was not available in the province — and by its silence, here in Canada! Should be interesting when all the facts come in.

Not to gloss over the incident — although, as previously mentioned herein, all the facts are not yet in — however those who can afford to pay for their own have always been allowed to do so. There is no prohibition or sanction against doing it and that is one virtue of the Canadian system that will be glossed over surely down south by the Republicans. The concept and practise of universal health care does not ban privately funded care per se — see here for an exposition of what is prohibited under the Canada Health Act. ⇒ Wed. 13:17 03-Feb-2010

Time and Place

I recall one casual (albeit overheard) conversation at work quite a while ago . One person exclaimed that when she was vacationing in Las Vegas she saw O.J. Simpson being fawned over by the restaurant staff and the patrons. She found the spectacle absolutely disturbing. Against my better judgment — and my mother’s oft-repeated advice not to butt into conversations of which I was not a part — I volunteered that Come on, you were in Las Vegas… Could you scarcely expect to witness or experience anything of sufficient depth?!? ⇒ Wed. 09:16 03-Feb-2010

Toronto Etiquette Project

spacing magazine initiated a fascinating project (and as of this date, it is still on-going) to compile the “Toronto Etiquette” which can be found here.

I just had to throw in my 2¢’s worth (or more precisely, “unworth”)…

Thus far the comments have centred on expediting movement lavishly spiced with a tension warranted only by subsequent violence.
Is there any hope for a city that wants speed, more speed and nothing else? You want a cold city? Keep at this. Why the hurry? Rather than just telling everybody to leave earlier we truly ought to tell everybody to calm down — seriously.
Here’s hoping that all that tense and nervous energy can be channelled to comments other than just homilies ad hominem (sadly directed at some vague nemesis) — ad nauseum. Good luck, Toronto!
Comment by andy
January 21, 2010 @ 6:53 am

⇒ Thu. 14:58 21-Jan-2010

Conservatives and the Detainee Torture Allegations

Were you to peruse the comment boards of news outlets web sites a miasma rising from die-hard conservatives would hardly escape notice — mind, you’ll also be awash with amusement. Of course, I’m sure that conservative blogs and various other fora for opinion — considered and otherwise — spew far worse.

What passes for thought from these sources seem to run the gamut of “Who cares about the story?” — invariably with at least xenophobic if not outright racist slagging thrown in for good measure about Afghanis in typical right-wing scatter-gun fashion — to how abysmally harmful the allegations are not just to their beloved party members in power but to the Canadian Forces. In more than one occasion I’ve spied these sentiments stated in one breath by a poster. I am compelled to point out a few flaws when they do that.

First of all, you simply cannot have it both ways. A story cannot be the poster child for apathy as well as the root cause of so much damage — albeit fantastic, definitely imagined and more than mildly tenuous; and let’s not forget “delusional.”

Secondly, the spin that comes from the Tories is that these allegations are being exploited by those they consider to be traitors for slighting the good name of Canadian soldiers. I have singular and absolute respect for the forces. This, however, is clearly not about the Canadian Forces. This is about the government operatives and procedures involved in the allegations. The Tories have conveniently and all too reflexively accused any and all of their detractors as traitors in order to deflect and misdirect attention foremost and responsibility secondarily — or so they hope.

I don’t quite know which to credit for the CPC followers taking up the same talking points from Party Central. Is it the latter for effectively crafting their ooze or the former for lining up for their served up Kool-Aid^™?

The Harperites repeatedly campaigned on platforms that included transparency and accountability. They’ve disappointed everyone in this respect to date. They continue to decline demands for a public inquiry into this matter and heavily redact documents that they’ve grudgingly released — thereby rendering them useless. Can you help an increasingly skeptical public suspecting further that something is indeed going on when the government of the day is behaving as if there is guilt to be assigned already?

Lastly we should care about the story. This has very little to do with being a bleeding heart or sympathizing with the Taliban — as conservatives are wont to accuse anyone daring to question them at all. Indeed the allegations revolve about all detainees in Afghanistan — regardless that they are Taliban or innocent. This has to do with doing the right and honourable thing. I simply refuse that this notion is absolutely alien to these conservatives — convenient and tempting though it may be… ⇒ Thu. 08:03 03-Dec-2009

Who’s Manipulating Whom? — or “Beware the Web”

To date, most formal and informal polls in Canada as to whether people will be getting the swine flu vaccine have singularly indicated that most (over 50%) were not going to get vaccinated. Yet, the vaccination clinics have been overwhelmed across Canada.

This makes me wonder as to what’s happening with these polls. Fine, we can discount the informal ones altogether since they are usually neither methodically sound nor do they effectively ensure that people cannot cheat by voting more than once — even (or particularly) legacy media sites usually only employ cookies to guard against that sort of vandalism and/or sabotage. Unfortunately cookies can be erased and with a half decent macro editor or script the guard logic is defeated easily enough through brute force techniques.

The formal ones seem to be particularly flawed in accuracy anyway. Maybe the teeming masses when polled are just unsure of the issues or are poorly informed — in Canada, the contradictory information released by the health authorities did not help matters at all but let’s leave the Harperites out of this discussion altogether, shall we not?

On the pro vaccination side is the health care establishment while amongst the con are a host of “conspiracy theory” advocates skeptical about vaccines in general.

What I take issue with here is that the ardent “conspiracy theory” advocates are making a better dent in the consciousness at large than they ever had before. Surely, the web’s near-ubiquity contributes to how these nut-bars are becoming more successful — or at least more sophisticated — in their sophistry. Prior to the web’s wider usage these miscreants tended to be relegated to publishing their very narrowly circulated newsletters and later maybe on BBSs. Essentially, you had to really exert quite a bit of effort to seek out and get your fill of the tripe these fellows churn out.

Now, however, the “conspiracy theory” lines invariably lace and manage to at least be insinuated into mainstream media content. Of course, some outlets have to mention these alternate explanations in an effort to be fair and objective. On the receiving end however I wonder if those who are most susceptible to manipulation by “conspiracy theory” advocates do so out of an innate desire to be entertained if not “challenged.”

If that is the case, then it truly is a sad state of affairs since these fringe theories tend to invariably emanate from the lunatic fringe (thus the use of the word “fringe” in the pejorative label). I say sad because those who enjoy following or even believe in these fringe theories likely require a refresher in the fundamentals of logic as well as rhetoric. Just because something is more appealing and/or intriguing does not necessarily qualify it to be the truth — or even a remote facsimile thereof.

While I can divine the entertainment value of “conspiracy theories” (shades of The X-Files and what), I am very skeptical of these so-called skeptics and their seeming prevalence. These days I wonder how often opinions — half-baked or otherwise — are taken by others to be even remotely factual never mind sound? I sincerely hope not too many; still I fear for us all if we are just allowing a few nut-bars manipulate us as much — and as effectively — as the very agencies about which these same lunatics rant and against which they rail. I can only hope that individuals can tell the difference and parse the various bombardments to which we are subjected on a daily — or even second-by-second — basis. ⇒ Thu. 03:45 29-Oct-2009

“Revisionist” History

Have you ever noticed that those who deride revisionist history (apart from their tending to be of the conservative political stripe) tend to be partly — if not wholly — ignorant of the traditional or orthodox version of the particular historical event(s) concerned? Those who deny the legitimate contribution revisionism can bring to bear deny the fact that any particular event is viewed differently depending on the perspective of who records it.

It is not just a matter of who but that recorder’s allegiance(s), ideology, socialization or even acculturation among other factors — such as the discovery of new techniques, knowledge and/or data. Witness how the same, single event is known as “The American Revolution” versus “The American War of Independence” depending on the side of the pond to which a person belongs. Or “World War II” versus “The Great Patriotic War?”

I guess it has more to do with the thirst for the truth and/or knowledge and less about the close-mindedness of the individual. I only wish the same could be generally said of conservatives who tend to be closed off to most everything around them in all aspects and respects. ⇒ Sat. 15:32 24-Oct-2009

Fair and Balanced?

A curious observation in the midst of the CPC’s propensity to use their party logo on government cheques as well as their favouring Tory ridings over opposition ridings when dispensing stimulus money — The National Post has nary a mention of the CPC pork barrelling hijinks (the most recent and current).

Is the venerable broadsheet aping the Fox News motto of being “fair and balanced” by employing (read inflicting) their own prism upon current events? Well, it won’t be the first time, actually… they’ve always short changed the public (well, maybe not their loyal, core readership) in support of their fellow Ayn Rand bootlickers by under-reporting a story — or even ignoring it altogether.

I think they’re not just playing to type here. From all reports, most conservatives at large think the CPC pork barrelling merits a huge, fat “so?” Conservative reaction seems to range from “par for the course” to “but the Liberals did way worse.” Such choice rationalizations for not just inappropriate but patently unethical behaviour! In spite of any past LPC — or that of any other party for that matter — practices one needs to remember that der Harper promised to behave differently. I am sure his confrere, Tom Flanagan, will be quoting something apropos (or more likely maladroit) from the Roman empire to justify their prevailing ethics and odiousness. ⇒ Thu. 09:09 22-Oct-2009

Lessons Learned?

It seems Wall Street and those in the financial know are marking 15-Sep-2008 as the start of the current day troubles.

Of course, that was the day when Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the US. Curiously the same in the know people — who notwithstanding their failure to anticipate the global financial system’s crash — call that day the start of the recession.

The flaw I see in their various pronouncements is that of mere causality. Never mind that Lehman Brothers was allowed to die whereas Merrill Lynch & Co., AIG and Citi were bailed out. To be sure, I am not dismissing the significance of the collapse of Lehman Brothers. What I dispute is that the recession started earlier than that date (by any definition of recession). Furthermore, the cause of all these financial troubles have a common root cause, namely the deregulation of the industry in the US in the late 1990s.

Of course, conservatives would rather claim otherwise — going so far as to assert that this crisis was due to over-regulation. As a matter of fact, even some members of the current US cabinet feel the status quo ought to be kept pat. Curiouser and curiouser, indeed!

Nothing has changed legislatively in the US to prevent what happened from recurring. Au contraire, the big financial companies are lobbying — as I typed this very sentence out — with the aid of small business to secure even more deregulation and give them an ever more freer hand.

What did happen, anyway? To distill it all in a few words, the financial institutions who have been traditionally the stewards of risk instead became enamoured of and with higher financial rewards — and financial risk concomitantly and certainly by direct relation — thereby embracing it in a tragic and downward-spiralling dance. Some would glibly distill it further to the most commonly bandied about word these past few months: greed.

Too, the cousin of the abuse of financial risk — mandated and sufficient disclosure — is still missing–in–action amidst all the prevailing noise. In fact, I feel it will be the first victim of being disappeared after all is said and done.

It just strikes me odd that the fundamental tenets of financial accountability were dismantled in the late 1990s and further by George W. Bush — via his various and choice appointments of laissez faire minded folk to the more influential posts — and no one has swung policies, legislation and/or regulations to the other side yet. I have a feeling that the status quo will indeed remain thusly. God help us! ⇒ Sat. 08:34 19-Sep-2009

Musings about Marketing

While I’ve been in IT for some years now, it has always astounded me — and without meaning to sound like a luddite — how marketing manages to manipulate the general public into lapping up (read “buy voraciously”) products which they don’t really need at all. That people swear up and down how they don’t know how they got along with these products before is testimony to how successfully we, the public at large, do get sucked in big–time every time we’re told to “Psst… wanna buy this!?!”

Before the image of a trench–coat–clad sleaze selling you some inane product(s) gets totally seared into your brain, I need to point out I am not pointing at the latest Ginsu knife ad campaign. I include in this merry batch, the iPhone and the other iProducts that Apple trots out. No, this is not an Apple–bashing rant. While I myself cannot afford Apple computers I would buy them if I could. That is the only reason I haven’t indulged — at present I have no choice but stay with the legacy machine I built. However, I do draw the line at the iPhone, iPod etcetera, etcetera.

I guess without going into further details or enumerating any more products of dubious intrinsic value or worth, I can only pass on this exhortation to consider what you really need a product for before indulging the impulse to buy it. In other words, please do ask yourselves the question: “Are you buying it merely because you heard the marketing whisper in your ear even if you didn’t see (or heaven forfend, smell) any trench–coats?!?”

One particularly good index as to the dubiousness of a product&rsquo's intrinsic worth is how long a marketing train follows it? Just how much do you have to buy afterwards to slake your thirst for the novelty — never mind the true utility — of the products. These days nary a product would allow you not to have to buy follow-on purchases but if that train is never-ending — or particularly self-perpetrating no matter which party benefits most — do think about it first. Are you being sold a product or the “bill of goods?!?” Will your “thirst” ever be slaked?

Putting aside cost-considerations in these frugal times, pose the question from this angle instead: “Will your use of this product benefit you more in the long run or the company that originally marketed it?” The bottom line is are you getting your money’s worth or do you sense a trench–coat about? Admittedly, it is a fine line to draw; still it is worth considering next you pony up the money for a newfangled device. ⇒ Thu. 07:24 17-Sep-2009

“Two Wolves and a Lamb…”

The Republican Party’s campaign against US President Barack Hussein Obama II’s health care bill (please see “Obama Supporters Brought Knives to the Gunfight over Health Care”) is simply fraught with inaccuracies, exaggerations and various — as well as “incredible” — mendacities. It actually reminds me of what the CPC fielded during the November 2008 crisis (see below) precipitated by none other than PM “der Harper” (aka Stephen Joseph Harper) himself.

Prudence — or mere curiosity — dictates one ask if this is just the usual manifestation of the CONservative mind’s natural propensity to use fear and loathing instead of intelligent and honest discussion/debate to sway public opinion.

Benjamin Franklin said that:

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch…

I would not be surprised at all if upon seeing this miniscule entry of mine that a conservative would adamantly claim that the wolf in this case is the liberal spectre!

In addition, I am certain that a conservative would claim — with the proper measure of self-righteousness and indignation (if not “menace”) — that my using Benjamin Franklin’s quotation in this context indicates that I am against democracy. Now that assertion — albeit lame and ridiculous— can only elicit one phrase from me: I rest my case… ⇒ Tue. 11:50 25-Aug-2009

Low Threshold for Amusement

Just bought and started playing “Empire: Total War” (published by the Sega Corporation). I just noticed that on the North American map, they labelled Montreal as “Montreal, Upper Canada” — what a gaffe! That should have read “Montreal, Lower Canada” since it is at at the lower end of the Saint Lawrence River. “Upper Canada” — what would become the province of Ontario — was up river of “Lower Canada” or what would become the province of Quebec. Of course, one cannot really expect total accuracy and precision in a game but, what the 'ey, eh? ⇒ Tue. 09:59 25-Aug-2009

Tory Paradox

The just-past brouhaha with the Lisa Raitt and John Baird caught-on-tape moments (or “gaffes” depending on your point of view or ideology) beggars stating one thing here. There is absolutely nothing wrong with individualism per se. However, I cannot help but wonder about the seemingly pervasive selfishness evident amongst the cabinet of the government of the day. I mean, where does public service begin and the "public-ought-to-serve-me" end after all? ⇒ Sun. 14:30 14-Jun-2009

Deficit Conundrum

While everyone will be able to list the reasons and causes of the looming federal deficit, one thing ought not be forgotten in the mire. Since 1995, federal governments (both Liberal and Conservative) have been cutting taxes. Popular and politic, yes. Let us just not forget that and in the same breath moan about deficits — let us not lose perspective. ⇒ Tue. 02:00 09-Jun-2009

The Tory Anti-Ignatieff Ad Campaign

This is neither about the ethics or the efficacy of personal attack ads in politics. Rather it is about the stark hypocrisy of the latest Tory attacks ads against Michael Grant Ignatieff.

Simply put, even if the main thrust of their ad campaign (that Ignatieff is only “in it for himself”) were true, I find it brazen for the party that not only espouses the principles of but worships at the Ayn Randian altar of self-interest to accuse their main opponent of the same trait/attribute. ⇒ Mon. 20:51 01-Jun-2009

Over/Under Regulation?

Shortly after the world awoke — albeit slowly — to the current recession, conservative pundits started spewing their revisionist spiels. Their homilies drove home their point that the Wall Street problems were caused by over-regulation, not under-regulation. This is a claim consistent with their political philosophy that government ought to have a smaller footprint altogether. Too, this is consistent with their quasi-religious preference for laissez faire economics.

Now, not only do these right-wing claims fly in the face of reality but contradict all government and private remedial actions taken to date. Even the current G20 summit has included in their communiqués clamours for more regulation to address the crisis and prevent its recurrence.

Like most other political philosophies, the thought model of conservatism is well-intended. However, in this arguably extreme case, I submit that laissez faire political economic thought, tendencies and (in)actions allowed the market to be unduly influenced by large corporate entities — acting as quasi-individuals. Is it not the moral obligation — nay, mandate — of government(s) to intervene and regulate when the free market itself is being compromised and undermined by these very agents of short-term gain — greed?

Heady stuff this — individuals (we, all) have been affected by the misdeeds and mistakes of quasi-individuals (corporations). The individual rights have therefore been jeopardized and sacrificed on the altar of greed — in this case, corporate. Is that what conservatives truly feel in their hearts is appropriate and acceptable? Contradictions abound it seems with the conservative faith and unfettered capitalism … ⇒ Thu. 11:27 02-Apr-2009

The Conceit of Harper – The Economist

Harper claims Canada will be the first to come out of the current economic malaise. His Finance Minister, Jim Flaherty, also says that the resolution of the crisis will depend on the U.S. economy. That is precisely the big contradiction with Harper. The maladroit spouts optimistic jingoisms for domestic consumption when he, as a economist, knows the truth — Canada is not the economic engine of the world and could not possibly come out leading the rest of the world from this recession. Granted that there are obvious virtues of the banking system here. Yet, aside from the refusal to go along with the tide of lemmings that the rest of the world's banks proved to be — Hey! That's a great idea … Let me do that, too — as they went over the cliff, Canada’s hardly the leader then nor in the near-term. ⇒ Thu. 15:41 29-Mar-2009

40^th Parliament — Redux

The throne speech had collegiality, cooperation and sweetness about it — as if. These were pretty much words similar to those spoken by the same government mere weeks before the economic update of 2008. This prompted Michael Grant Ignatieff to accuse the Harperites of having a “split personality.” ⇒ Mon. 15:21 26-Jan-2009

Flaherty’s $35-billion Dollar Oscillation

When Federal Finance Minister James Michael “Jim” Flaherty made his economic statement on 27-Nov-2008, he projected an $800-million surplus. During the week ending Saturday 24-Jan-2009, the leaks about the 27-Jan-2009 budget — as bemoaned below — or unprecedented public announcements from the Harper administration claims a $34-billion deficit for the coming year. Kindly contemplate the incompetence — were one predisposed to be polite and kind — or downright dishonesty — were one wont otherwise. This same person who was part of the Ontario Mike Harris administration which left the province of Ontario with a $5.6-billion deficit after 8 years of cuts, damage, and neglect. This same person who was part of the Ontario Mike Harris administration which mostly benefited the private-sector Harris cronies to the detriment of the province by disassembling most of the in-place support infrastructure and devolving the services to be provided by you-know-who. ⇒ Mon. 03:15 26-Jan-2009

Harper’s Notion of “Transparency”

Traditionally, government budgets are kept secret up until the finance minister’s speech in the legislature is given. In the last few days, the Harper government has been leaking bits and pieces of its 27-Jan-2009 budget in various ways and venues.

To be fair, budget leaks and disclosures happened during the Chrétien and Martin years. However, disclosures in those two administrations were generally vague anonymous leaks unlike the public — definitely show-cased — statements by cabinet ministers under der Harper’s regime. Considering how secretive and non-transparent the Harper administration is and has been throughout its two mandates it is disingenuous for them and their supporters to persist in this practice — it just smacks of hypocrisy, in fact. Moreover, the scrambling the Harperites have had to do in the last few weeks presents a stark contrast indeed to their “don’t-worry-be-happy” attitude and pronouncements during and after the last election campaign.

One can only infer that the leaks serve only two purposes. First is to warn and soften the public of what is down the road. The other is to gauge the reaction of the public — possibly having the effect of polling the public waters as it were. The natural subsequent thread would, of course, be whether they would change details based on the reactions garnered.

It is remarkable Harper would disclose its secrets only if it fits and serves his agenda. Utterly convenient and remarkable … The brazenness with which der Harper manipulates the political process as if everything is a campaign is singular if not astounding. If it’s not buying votes with tax cuts, it’s forestalling dissent and opposition by mollifying the public into a stupor, or undermining the opposition sans finesse — it just doesn’t stop with this guy. There is not even a pretense of wanting to simply govern — instead, it is solely power maintenance and consolidation. The desire for power and the ambition is absolutely barefaced. ⇒ Mon. 01:32 26-Jan-2009

Economic Forecasts in Hard Times

Have you noticed how economists have been particularly off in predicting the vital numbers lately? Not that they have been especially accurate previously, mind you.

To be fair, though, you can scarcely blame them. What I mean is that if they predict the worst-case, there is always the danger of inducing a “self-fulfilling prophecy.” Apart from that they need to look good, of course, and if they overshoot they will look particularly bad.

From a particularly perverse perspective, it becomes acceptable for economic predictions to be wrong if they under-shoot because the counter-claim/excuse is simple: the model did not take into account this-or-that. I’m willing to wager that during hard times, you have to up the forecasted numbers during hard times by up to 10-20% to get close to the true results — as opposed to 5-10% during other times. ⇒ Fri. 17:05 09-Jan-2009

“der Harper” Strikes Back — Senate Appointments

PM Stephen Harper is breaking his word again. This time he will be filling all Senate vacancies. You can bet he will appoint CPC loyalists, too.

The most interesting — and certainly most telling — appointment is that of Michel Rivard who, until his defeat in 1998, sat as a Parti Québécois member of the Quebec National Assembly. Hmm … so what was all that guff from der Harper and his CONservatives about how a Liberal-NDP government might appoint separatists to the Senate? Absolutely amazing the unprincipled and hypocritical flip-flops this joke of a PM with which we are presently saddled. ⇒ Original posting Thu. 12:33 11-Dec-2008 updated Sun. 12:08 28-Dec-2008

Ignatieff: CPC Target

Now that Michael Grant Ignatieff is the new interim LPC leader, one can be sure that the CPC’s propaganda machine will be gearing up for its next goal. That goal will be to frame and paint Ignatieff in a negative way in order to undermine him and the LPC itself. It’s their proclivity to use American techniques and this is consistent with what they did with the out-going LPC leader, Mr. Stéphane Maurice Dion.

Meanwhile, as der Harper reached out to Ignatieff on Wed 10-Dec-2008 he had his henchman, Doug Finley, do a mass e-mailing to the CPC faithful [faith-less?] slagging Ignatieff’s acclamation as interim leader — painting it as an undemocratic means of ascendancy even though he is an elected MP and this is an interim leadership. ⇒ Originally posted Wed. 08:29 10-Dec-2008; updated Thu. 06:28 11-Dec-2008

At Least, I am not Alone …

Below is a letter to the Editors of The Hill Times:

Prime Minister Harper will have to face the music, sooner or later

Could a Parliamentary coup d’état be underway in Canada? Absolutely. And it would appear that such a plan is being hatched by Stephen Harper. Never in Canadian history has a Prime Minister refused to face a vote of confidence in the House of Commons. Even in the famous “King Byng Thing” of 1926, prime minister Mackenzie King asked for a dissolution of Parliament in the face of a possible motion of censure, not of non-confidence.

The bedrock of Canadian constitutional democracy and Parliamentary procedure is that Canadians elect representatives to a House of Commons. They do not elect a government. They do not elect a Prime Minister. The government of the country is formed in the House, lead by a political leader who can command its confidence. If a Prime Minister loses the confidence of the House of Commons, he has no choice but to resign. The Governor General of Canada can then chose to dissolve Parliament and call an election, or else call on another political leader to see if they can form a coalition.

It is (at least hitherto) unthinkable that a Canadian Prime Minister should attempt to evade constitutional responsibility to the citizens of Canada by threatening to prorogue Parliament to hide from its will. This would be a catastrophic departure from Canadian Parliamentary democracy and the rule of law, and would cause grave damage to the office of the Prime Minister, let alone to the person holding that office and the party he represents. If we value the rule of law, and of democracy in Canada, we must resolutely resist such creeping tyranny. To abandon 150 years of tradition that has respected the rule of law in Canadian society would be a major setback for our country. We must not cave in to the tactics of a bully, desperately seeking to cling to power by any means.

Christopher Majka

Halifax, N.S.

The entire Letters to the Editor page is reproduced here. Some are from the rabid supporters of der Harper but I find the ones against him most reasoned and thoughtful.

Over the weekend I saw a confrontation at a pro-Harper rally. It was fascinating watching this hulking mountain of a der Harper supporter telling the pro-coalition demonstrators to begone. I overheard phrases like “If you’re against us, why did you come here?” Shades of standard American Republican thinking: We don't want to hear what our opponents have to say (witness Fox News’s fair and balanced approach to newscasting)! Perhaps they are scared they might be persuaded by logic or perhaps they are just unable to process views different from their own without getting combative? I could go on but I’ll stop short of impugning their IQ’s — collective or otherwise. I’m sure if the shoe were on the other foot, they wouldn’t just impugn mine but whether I even had any … LOL.

Idle Speculation

Do conservative supporters (especially those western-Canada based) support der Harper’s stance on the economy because they do not see the effects at all? Could it be that the dismal unemployment news released recently describing November’s performance have been dismissed because only Ontario and Nova Scotia suffered employment declines (steep ones, I might add)? Would their stance change at all when the unemployment scythe hits their region(s) as well? Food for thought. ⇒ Sun. 12:28 07-Dec-2008

Major Conclusion

Among the several major conclusions that can truly and honestly be drawn about the Parliamentary crisis precipitated by Jim Flaherty’s Thu 27-Nov-2008 fiscal update is that a lot of Canadians have to educate themselves about the Westminster System. This especially in light of the ignorance betrayed by the various, numerous, and sundry — albeit heartfelt and passionate — protestations voiced by scores upon scores of Canadians. Kindly mind the American culture seepage! Try to differentiate, my fellow Canucks!

In addition, one question needs to be asked: How can der Harper sound conciliatory while mobilizing his propaganda machine to counter not just the opposition but the very idea (how dare they!) of a coalition!?!

Lastly, Flaherty keeps claiming that they, the CPC, already have done all the stimulus that the economy needs. The economy is tanking, Jim! It needs more stimulus! ⇒ Sat. 13:52 06-Dec-2008

Harper's Vaunted 52-Day Respite

Has it occurred to anyone else that the reason Harper needed 52 days to build what he called the quickest budget in Canadian history is that he has no idea what to do for the Canadian economy? It has been argued that he is waiting for what the USA has planned in order to act accordingly. It has also been argued that there is little Canada can do to impact or affect the global economic crisis? Excuses all — mighty weak, at that.

While the latter may be true, there is still the matter of the national economy. With the dismal employment figures just released, it is clear to me that der Harper has once again been caught flat-footed in the face of the economic crisis just as he was during the election. Then as now he diminished the seriousness and scope of the problem. I can almost be sure that the choicest of his stimulus package will favour his constituents and supporters and punish those who did not (do not) support him. I am certain as well that he will go out of his way to protect the oilsands industry — not just because his power-base is in Alberta but because he is the son of an Imperial Oil executive after all. That is only a small part of the rationale why this man must go.

Lamentably, people seem to like him. I guess a good advertising and marketing team does him good. I wonder if this is one prime example of government being run as a business? Hoodwink the public with lies, false advertising, and bombast. Win them over with the most virile image even if it is morally and ethically bankrupt! ⇒ Sat 06:26 06-Dec-2008

40^th [Poisoned] Parliament Prorogued

The Centennial Flame sits unlit after going out for an unknown reason following the prorogation of Parliament. (Sean Kilpatrick/Canadian Press)

The CPC has won their “time-out.” He has managed to convince the GG to prorogue Parliament. In the speech Harper made after the long meeting with the GG, he sounded conciliatory and invited the other parties to consult with them. The truth of the matter is that the other parties had been consulted and the CPC rejected those out-of-hand then (week of 24-Nov-2008). Of course in his speech, he makes it sound as if the Loyal Opposition has not come to him to consult at all. The mendacity continues. He had the audacity to state that all MP’s are responsible for what happened in Parliament. That was hardly contrition but in Harper’s case that could very well be his way of apologizing — I cannot tell with this person, though.

Now commences the big CPC propaganda machine spending its way into people’s hearts and minds by engaging their demagogy leverage rather liberally (no pun intended). They will make it sound like they are consulting the public when that is not all they will be doing — the 7-week break will be used by the CON’s as campaign period. It will be interesting to see if the CPC will be able to resist not spending public (government funds) to aide their campaign in the next 7 weeks.

Harper does not have the confidence of the House and he has repeatedly spat at Parliamentary rules and conventions. People might marvel at his Macchiavellian genius and skill but he has just evaded the will of and undermined Parliament itself. It is sheer cowardice and duplicity — Harper has proven this time and time again but what he managed to do today is the crowning glory of his career. In his best demagogic way, he will go over the heads of Parliament, bypassing its duly elected representatives — particularly those who disagree with him and whom he has conveniently branded as traitors — and indulge all exploitable populist tendencies wherever they may be to legitimize his arrogant regime. He has a minority and to him that is a minor inconvenience (I wonder if he planned all this so as to accelerate his run for a majority?) It is sad that we have the likes of him with so much power and influence. They say they want to work with other MP’s and yet they are rejoicing their 7-week break. Harper is wanting in what counts most as a Parliamentarian: credibility and trustworthiness. ⇒ Thu 12:47 04-Dec-2008

The Non-Traditional CONservatives

Irony of ironies. One would think that the CPC would embrace and respect — by dint of their very DNA (to paraphrase Stockwell Day) — the Parliamentary tradition of Canada … yet here we remain. ⇒ Thu 11:15 04-Dec-2008

The One Sure Thing

The one and only one certainty at this moment in the life of the 40^th Parliament is that no matter the outcome of the PM’s meeting with the GG, Parliament will be dysfunctional. Judging from the acrimony and raucousness in the House this week alone — despite the PM’s call for collegiality and cooperation two weeks ago — none of the Opposition would be willing to work cooperatively with the CPC for the foreseeable future. I unfortunately have to put the blame on PM’s shoulders. He chose to rule combatively and his performance this week has left a bad taste on the mouth of everyone in the Opposition.

The point of asking for prorogation? For the CPC, the game plan is very simple. They will use their propaganda machine to amplify their need to stay in power by invoking as well as stoking fear and intimidation. They will lie and bend the truth to make reality fit into their talking points. You will witness them attacking the media (in their practice of their responsibility) when the media attempts to correct whatever is misspoken and expose what is simply untrue — note that in the past few days, the media has had to correct several things that have been offered up by the CPC. The game plan is to go over the heads of the constitution, the House of Commons and even the Governor-General to engage the people themselves in the guise of “preserving the democratic tradition.” They will pretend to be soliciting the people’s opinion while manipulating the same. That is the very nature of demagogy and the CPC truly excels in the craft. ⇒ Original posting Thu 09:16 04-Dec-2008; updated Thu 10:06 04-Dec-2008

Sedition, Treason

The CPC has ramped up its language today by accusing the opposition coalition of treason and sedition. Absent the hypocrisy and lies that are apparent from the Harperites (ever so strident, a wee bit bent; ever so “right”, but not too bright), this just makes me laugh that they are still using the usual neo-conservative tactic (borrowed from the Bush Republicans) of accusing whoever does not agree with their agenda and/or beliefs of treason. Better to demonize the opponent, I guess than go down in flames alone. To date (post his polished and well-acted speech to Canadians), there is still no contrition from der Harper about mistakes — never mind his arrogance. ⇒ Wed 22:11 03-Dec-2008

der Harper’s Mistake(s) — Redux

During Question Period on Tue 02-Dec-2008, as a very raucous and impassionate exchange continued, Stephen Joseph Harper claimed that the separatist coalition — as the CON’s are now calling the coalition — could not even sign the coalition agreement document in front of a Canadian flag because of the complicity of Bloc Québécois.

Well, there’s a little bit of a problem with that blusterous claim. Please note the flag in this picture. There was another flag as well on the other side (off frame).

The double-speak in which the Combative Party of Canada specializes is absolutely telling often. However, in this instance, it is just wrong — a misrepresentation if not an outright lie. This is what they are and have been all about. Moreover, another astounding technique that the CPC employed in the debate — as they have on previous occasions — is to say one thing in English and another altogether in French. In Question Period today, in English, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty attacked the Liberals as part of “the separatist coalition” who will betray Canada. In French, the Conservative Christian Paradis attacked the Bloc Québécois for giving a blank cheque to the Liberals and “betraying independence.” Moreover, just how does a separatist betray independence!?! Both statements are lies and the CPC seems to want to have both at the same time.

Yet another lie in this item is that by painting the coalition as separatist he neglects to inform that the Bloc Québécois is not part of the coalition but merely providing a formal agreement to support. der Harper apparently needs frequent reminding that he solicited and received the support of the BQ no less than 14 times in the 39^th Parliament.

The biggest lie of all is that by invoking the BQ spectre, the CPC is now couching the crisis (which they instigated) in national unity terms. The lie is that the only possible national unity impact here is not with Quebec but with the West. I can empathise with the West for feeling not just concerned and threatened but being left-out altogether (yet again) if the coalition comes to fruition. They, especially Alberta, identify more with the USA and therefore are more likely to yearn for the presidential system versus our parliamentary system. That they, out of hand, are unwilling to consider that the coalition may want to govern not just for those who voted for them but for those who did not is lamentable (In the West, a Deep Sense of Betrayal) but likely clung to tenaciously — unlike the current government who only rules to satisfy its caucus and party members. I wish the CPC could be more honest and just come out and say this instead — but that would significantly water down their preferred method of spreading a message of fear.

On the other hand the very fact that this government prefers to rule like it was a majority perhaps is a function of its core support being from the West. The latter have always felt like they have been left out and without a voice in Federal government. Now that they have the “control” they want to keep it for fear that they would be undermined again by the dreaded Easterners. When they vent anger about the seeming bickering in Ottawa, they do so out of a fervent belief of being cheated, a fear that the coalition will do something like the 1980 NEP (which is remembered in the West subsidizing of all Canadian consumers at Alberta’s expense by legislating the sharing of the latter province’s oil profits), and finally of being disregarded once again. Couched in these visceral terms from their grass-roots supporters, the vociferous manner with which the CPC is protecting its territory comes to stark clarity.

Still, during the campaign, the CPC promised that fiscal matters will be matters of confidence yet here we remain. We are witnessing a PM who is so obsessed with power (an attribute manifested repeatedly — remember the 14-Oct-2008 election despite his own fixed-date election law?), so wanting in personal and professional integrity, and unabashedly cowardly that he has delayed the non-confidence vote once already and is gunning for prorogation to delay it further. ⇒ Originally posted Tue 15:18 02-Dec-2008; updated Tue 23:58 02-Dec-2008; further updated Wed 21:55 03-Dec-2008

The CPC Propaganda Machine

The cash-rich CPC has rolled out its vast propaganda machine to spread lies, intimidation and fear amongst its members and the public at large. It is der Harper at his best. There is even a rumour that he’s arranging a picketing of Rideau Hall — GG’s residence. I am not surprised — in fact, I would not be surprised if, in the event that she declines his wishes as he communicates them to her, he starts to plot to advise Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II to sack Governor-General Michaëlle Jean. The desperation is thick in the air in Ottawa.

People are also talking about the risks and pitfalls of the coalition for the participants involved. In my view, the more dangerous and sinister exposure is truly keeping Stephen Joseph Harper in power. ⇒ Wed 02:44 03-Dec-2008

Amazing Ignorance

When one listens to the recent “man-on-the-street” interviews about the prospect of a coalition here in Canada, one is impressed with how the general populace knows very little about civics and how their government works. This saddens me tremendously, actually. I hear people saying it is “undemocratic”, that a government must be the one that won the election, and even that the coalition government would be an “unelected” government.

It does not help matters any that the CPC is taking advantage of the ignorance of the general populace — it is pure, unadulterated, and unabashed demogogy. They are feeding the prejudices as well as the shortcomings of either the educational system or the individuals at large themselves who are walking around with a remarkable lack of awareness of the very system they profess they love (or, for some, to which they are indifferent, anyway). I cannot say I blame the CPC (for example, they are walking around with buttons that say “Say NO to the coup!”) especially since it is an absolute windfall for them in terms of marketing and propaganda purposes.

The most often repeated (and convenient) claim by the CONs is that Canadians elected der Harper as the PM. I am not trying to play semantics but we Canadians do not do that. In the parliamentary system, you vote for a riding representative. It may be argued that it is the intent of the method. However, the reality is that we vote for a local representative who may or may not be a member of a party. After the election, the party with the most elected riding representatives get to have their party leader as the PM.

The bottom line is this: We elect members of Parliament. Parliament makes (i.e., forms) and therefore can break governments.

It shocks me, though, that most people seem to think of our electoral system is a direct analogue of the American system. Indeed we have people complaining that "I didn’t vote for anyone in the coalition!” This despite the well known fact that the opposition members are all duly elected representatives. It also saddens me since American culture is evidently bleeding into our social consciousness. I am not blaming America, Americans or their culture for our shortcomings — far from it. Rather I lament that we have allowed this happen — to us.

I also find it disingenuous (and as usual hypocritical) that der Harper would condemn the coalition out of hand mostly because of the coalition arithmetically requiring support of the Bloc Québécois. His caucus keeps “harping” that the coalition will give Canada over to separatists — even going so far as absurdly calling it the separatist coalition. They repeat it over and over again as if they feel it necessary to feed into the ignorance and fear out there. They have a lot of gall to say such things when der Harper himself used the Bloc Québécois’ support during the 39^th Parliament. Ah! The wonders of politics. If only der Harper had a better handle on maintaining and consolidating power instead of indulging his obsessive hyper-partisanship. He has indeed founded the Combative Party of Canada.

One aside I found quaint and worthy of consideration — a notion enunciated by Deborah Grey during an interview with CBC this morning. She said that if she was GG, she would lock the four party leaders in a room and tell them that there will be no proroguing, no election, and no coalition. She would lock them up until they worked it out.

Myself? I think it is too late for der Harper. He screwed up big-time by ruling like he had a majority then irreparably damaging his party’s support and confidence in the House by his latest antics embodied in the fiscal update last week. What the GG will probably allow is a prorogation of Parliament (although it would be unprecedented to do so a mere few weeks into the current session) as a further cooling-off period. The latter is to buy the Harperites time to present their budget at which time if there is still no confidence from the Loyal Opposition then either an election or the coalition proposal can be decided upon. ⇒ Tue 09:09 02-Dec-2008

The “Talented” Mr. Pierre Poilievre – MP

Around 7:45am on Monday 01-Dec-2008, Heather Hiscox of the CBC interviewed Pierre Poilievre — the Parliamentary Secretary to the PM and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs — on CBC Newsworld. Here is a link to the CBC News web page summarizing the interview.

I write here about his claim that the 09-Sep-2004 letter (reproduced below) authored by Stephen Harper:

Does not mention the word “coalition” anywhere; and
“Never suggested in the letter that … then opposition leader Harper would become prime minister.”

It was remarkable watching this man perform with such greasy arrogance. What the article did not portray — as only the professionalism of CBC mandated — was the contempt and condescension towards Ms. Hiscox that Mr. Poilievre exhibited.

There was a moment in the interview when he actually asked Ms. Hiscox if she was around during the October 2008 election. His context then was to frame his assertion that Harper won the election on a “leadership” platform. To be sure, Ms. Hiscox has been in broadcasting since 1982 and in TV news since 1991.

In another exchange, Ms. Hiscox observed how closely Mr. Poilievre was following the talking points outlined in the leaked Guy Giorno e-mail (here is a link to the article describing that e-mail message). Mr. Poilievre’s response was a caustic “Are you saying the Bloc [Québécois] is not separatist?” It was meant to deflect the observation and its ramifications — the delivery was dripping with contempt — a well known CON tactic: Attack when you require an evasive-maneuver.

How valid was Ms. Hiscox’s observation that elicited the above response? It may help to mention that, as an example, Mr. Poilievre repeated the phrase “according to the OECD, Canada will lead the world out of this recession” no less than 5 times during the interview which ended around 7:58am. The interview lasted no more than 12-13 minutes.

A repetition of 5 times is my conservative count because I could not help laughing at this little parrot … err, man after the 3^rd time he echoed the phrase — it was a struggle to listen to him in any event. I would wager that Ms. Hiscox instead of chuckling at his ham-fisted antics, chose to make her open-ended observation about his fidelity to the talking points prescribed in Giorno’s e-mail. She is a credit to her profession for not internalizing his taunt.

It was one of those times … it was amusing and entertaining but also frightening knowing how close this man is to der Harper.

To remove all doubt here is a link to the wikipedia.com entry about this gentleman. ⇒ Mon 13:30 01-Dec-2008

The CPC Made a Daring Dash to the Brink — Only to Blink

When the CPC announced on Saturday afternoon of 29-Nov-2008 that they were reversing their at-one-time staunch and principled (albeit “showy”) decision of cancelling the political party subsidies, such a gesture of appeasement was expected but again an uncanny proclivity to misapprehend signs full of portent was instead put on display.

I am sure the CPC is not yet through with their “stance adjustment” since that is precisely why they called for a time-out yesterday when the opposition banded together and indicated intent to form a coalition. The obvious one is to at least present a stimulus package (no matter its magnitude) other than what the CPC’s usual tripe that ever since 2006 they have already been stimulating the economy (via their vaunted tool of choice — tax cuts) in anticipation of 2009 and onwards. That way they can offer a counter to while at the same time shame as well as dare and taunt the opposition. After all, if they can cobble a stimulus package before Mon 08-Dec-2008, then they will have defused what they instigated. That is how it will play in their minds.

It is my belief that the Conservatives wanted to dearly replicate the playbook (I had mentioned earlier here in AoI soap box) from the 39^th Parliament that served them oh-so-well. They anticipated — expected, since in their mind, they trashed the Loyal Opposition in the last election — a fractured and fractious opposition which they could exploit to their advantage. They figured that they could wheelbarrow the whole lot (especially under the cover of the current economic crisis) under the noses of the uncaring and impotent Loyal Opposition. What happened was a bit of a glitch as far as the CPC’s plans and apprehension went: For some ungodly reason, the Loyal Opposition called the CPC’s bluff and bluster. Now, it is not that the Loyal Opposition was suddenly coalesced magically out of some sacred cloud mystically descended from who-knows-where-and-what. It was just that this time, Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition found and mustered their — and this is important — collective guts to say Enough!

In reality, the CPC garnered 37% of the popular vote in the October 2008 election. This is what everybody else knows; the CONs, though, feel in their very hearts — and I think sincerely — that they accumulated a majority. This is not a mere play on flowery words. They need to grow support and confidence, not imagine it.

I truly wonder if they realize what and how they have portrayed themselves to their non-partisan audience — in the public at large, I mean. I am sure they poll frequently and found that most of the Canadian public supported their steward-ship of the economy. What this confidence borne of numbers brought them is another story. For some reason, they translated these advertising/marketing numbers — pertaining specifically to fiscal stewardship — to support for not just fiscal conservatism but anything and everything conservative. It was a misapprehension borne of hubris, none more so than other things der Harper has done in the past. This is the sense and very quiddity of their (the CPC’s) and his (der Harper’s) very flaw.

Of course, that is the very thing.

In many ways, the public (all of us) likely sees all this as mere ideological politicking. Perhaps, true and all that. I myself have often wondered if anything a government does or not makes an absolute difference as far as the economy, national or whatever, goes. The answer volunteered is usually so embedded inextricably in the ideological that the truth is usually obliterated in the very asking. In my heart, I just hope that it is not just because it is convenient to say all that merely to dismiss the very notion of having to discuss nay think of it further. ⇒ Sun 04:08 30-Nov-2008

The PMO Knives are Out

… not that they were ever sheathed (just don’t hold your breath about civility from the CONs; it’s a nice pipe-dream of theirs but they just cannot carry it off).

The Globe and Mail got their hands on a copy of an e-mail message from Guy Giorno — Harper’s Chief of Staff. Just as I had predicted, the spin-doctoring will be hot and heavy in the next few days. You can read about it here in AoI as “Use Every Tool at your Disposal”

Here is the really sad part … a lot of people will buy what passes from the advertising/marketing geniuses who really drive the CPC and its ascendancy. Oft times, in politics, as it is in life, the truth does not matter. What does is how best a party’s message can be sold to the public (both witting and unwitting participants) by latching on to our emotional baggages and appeal to our collective laziness where it is easier to make it stick rather than to our rational/intelligent centre. It is easier for the masses (the unwitting) that way and better for the party-faithful (the witting). ⇒ Sat 14:43 29-Nov-2008

der Harper’s Constitutional Law 101 Class

Late Friday (28-Nov-2008) afternoon, the PM took a hastily erected podium in the foyer of the House of Commons. In what was a seemingly impassioned (let us remember that this is der Harper after all) press briefing (no questions … of course … thank you very much), he made a few marvelous statements.

Among those was this stupendous gem (which I am sure we will hear repeatedly from the CON (neo- and otherwise) faithful out there in the next few days: The opposition has every right to defeat the government but Stéphane Dion does not have the right to take power without an election.

You just gotta love this guy! He just gives you such a huge, easy albeit angry target.

Not only is his statement untrue but hypocritical.

It is not up to any individual member of Parliament really. Here’s the truth:

We, Canadians, do not elect a Prime Minister. We vote for a riding representative who may or not be a member of a political party.
The accountability and responsibility therefore flows from the people (us) and through these elected representatives — members of parliament.
A Prime Minister and the Cabinet he appoints can only govern as long as they have the support and confidence of a majority of the House of Commons.
If a government (consisting of the PM and his Cabinet; they collectively make up the executive branch) falls &mdash i.e., loses the confidence of the House of Commons via a vote — the options available to the Governor-General (the representative of the Sovereign) include:

On the advise of the PM, to dissolve Parliament and call a general election (this is called dropping the writ); or
Refuse the PM supply or confidence and force the PM to resign and allow another member of Parliament to form a government

A coalition government actually can be formed even in a majority government situation, for example during a war or time of crisis the PM may want to invite the opposition to join him in solidarity and government.

Beyond all of that, however, the real kicker is that on Thu. 09-Sep-2004, a letter to then Governor-General Adrienne Louise Clarkson, Stephen Joseph Harper, leader of the CPC authored a letter, signed by himself and the other two oppositon party leaders — Gilles Duceppe of the Bloc Québécois and John Gilbert “Jack” Layton of the NDP which is reproduced below:

September 9, 2004

Her Excellency the Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson,
C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D.
Governor General
Rideau Hall
1 Sussex Drive
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A1
Excellency,

As leaders of the opposition parties, we are well aware that, given the Liberal minority government, you could be asked by the Prime Minister to dissolve the 38th Parliament at any time should the House of Commons fail to support some part of the government’s program.

We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation. We believe that, should a request for dissolution arise this should give you cause, as constitutional practice has determined, to consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority.

Your attention to this matter is appreciated.

Sincerely,

Hon. Stephen Harper, P.C., M.P.
Leader of the Opposition
Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada

Gilles Duceppe, M.P.
Leader of the Bloc Québécois

Jack Layton, M.P.
Leader of the New Democratic Party

If that is not hypocrisy, I do not know anything!

Moreover, in an interview on Wed. 20-Oct-2004 with the CBC’s Evan Solomon, Stephen Joseph Harper said this [ … Kindly fasten your seatbelts, ladies and gentlemen … ]:

… I can’t forget my first responsibility — which is to be the Leader of the Opposition and that’s to provide an alternative government. We’ve always said we’ll support the government when they do things that we can accept, which you know the health accord. I supported the health accord, I called for the government to end the pay increase, they’re going to do that, I’ll support that, but in general my obligation is to provide an Opposition. It’s the government’s obligation to look really to the third parties to get the support to govern.

Clearly, these citations strongly suggest fervent partisanship, mendacity, arrogance and hypocrisy on somebody’s part for his own good — and ours, in truth.

Are you still in your seat? I’ll leave you with that while I crawl to the phone to dial 9-1-1 …. ⇒ Sat 10:02 29-Nov-2008; updated Sat 13:55 29-Nov-2008; updated again Sat. 23:17 to include the full text of Harper’s 2004 letter to the GG.

What to Make of the Canadian Federal Economic Statement — Thu. 27-Nov-2008

While the opposition rebuttal speeches pointed at the absolute absence of nary a smidge, speck or hint of a stimulus package in today’s Federal Economic Statement (courtesy of Jim Flaherty) entitled “Protecting Canada’s Future”, there is something pernicious about how der Harper is sneaking a knife into the collective innards of opposition parties — particularly the LPC. In actuality, it is an absolutely brilliant move on der Harper’s part since it allows him to:

Buy some time since he and Flaherty are deep in an all too familiar (to be fair — to us all) miasma of uncertainty as to the state and direction of the economy. The latter’s scope alone (does one restrict oneself to Canada’s boundaries or the global economy) is enough to freeze anybody in their tracks.
While doing nothing as far as stimulus is concerned and rather than be seen as just that — doing nothing — der Harper is trying to secure an image of both being a responsible fiscal conservative (huzzahs — or hallelujahs[?] — erupt from the CPC gallery) and of making an effort (albeit a truly anemic one at that) to at least buckle down.
Skewer the financial viability of the opposition parties in general, and the LPC in particular, with the prospect of losing the political party subsidy — which works out to about $30-million.

Having said that, it is quaint to note that after triggering the last election to secure a few more seats — der Harper spent almost $300-million of taxpayer money to finance that election — he now has the gall to carve hardly a tenth of that extravagance for his pleasure in seeing the opposition squirm.

In truth, it would be absolutely suicidal of the opposition parties to trigger an election solely based on the political party subsidy issue.

Just this Sunday, 23-Nov-2008, der Harper said that Ottawa might need to take unprecedented actions to stimulate the faltering economy. I truly and honestly hope he did not mean this treacle Flaherty has foisted on Parliament and the Canadian people is it. To be sure, what was outlined within is hardly unprecedented and the actions within that Economic Statement do absolutely nothing as far as economic pronouncements go. Even the OECD urges more stimulus to fight recession. Where is the creativity? Where is the brilliance? I certainly discerned neither beneath all the ideological contained in the statement. I wonder whether the title of the paper, “Protecting Canada‘s Future” was really a partisan/ideological label instead? Does it merely protect Canada from the “non-conservative?”

I also wonder if there is any conflict between Flaherty and Harper? Being a neo-conservative of the Mike Harris ilk, Flaherty is a proven fiscal conservative. However, considering the most recent statements by the seemingly more pragmatic der Harper, is there a contradiction of statements if not purposes?

As it contains neither true creativity nor brilliance (should I even add “truth?” — Nah! Too tall an order for politicians, eh?), the economic statement as such hardly inspires confidence in Parliament as evinced by the clamour by the opposition — so much for the spirit of collegiality that der Harper slated in his Throne Speech, BTW. Inspiring confidence in the House was the very point of making an Economic Statement and, once again, Flaherty has failed soundly.

Little wonder then that the opposition parties have made it known, in quite certain terms, that they will not endorse this Economic Statement. For their credibility, they have to downplay the political party subsidy cut — not just because it is a minor item in the paper but because it is and always was meant by der Harper to be a poison pill. Calling an election over it can only work if the opposition manages to downplay that ugly bit of business but it still would be costly indeed for the opposition — in terms of credibility. That is why the intriguing possibility of the opposition parties asking the GG for permission to form a coalition government is enticing to some — well, definitely amongst the opposition, anyway.

One prediction I can make is that the beloved (by der Harper anyway) Mr. Tom Flanagan will be coming out of the woodwork anytime now spouting his usual chortling albeit delusional allusions and approximations of Cato’s ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam. He champions the destruction of the LPC more openly than any other single CPC functionary up on the Hill — whereas the rest of the Harperites only harbour it covetously in their dark hearts. He will exude his customary, arrogant and contemptuous disdain of anything non-conservative and laugh at the reaction to the Flaherty fiscal update. He will also dispense unctuous benedictions and hossanas about how everything CONservative is good for everyone under the sun. I also already hear the die-hard CPC neo-CON supporters agitating for running the government like a business — sure, just like AIG, Citi, Lehman Brothers … Ya, sure. Ya betcha! ⇒ Fri 00:31 28-Nov-2008 — last paragraph was updated Fri. 11:56 28-Nov-2008.

Flaherty, Neo-CONs and “Tax Cuts”

Jim Flaherty just spoke to the press today and carried on about the virtue of tax cuts as the best way to stimulate the Canadian economy. Spoken like a true neo-con — dogmatic, sure and deluded. The last time it worked was the only time — during Margaret Thatcher’s rule when she used the North Sea oil revenues to cover-up the true cost of the tax cuts she instigated. If one thinks there is a parallel to Canada and the oil sands, I would caution against it since oil prices have been dropping as well — thereby impacting not just tax revenues but the economy as well. Moreover, the price decreases may well be due to less demand for oil what with the global economy taking bad body punches lately.

Over the past twenty years, tax cuts have not proven to be the professed panacea that the CONservatives would make you believe. The only thing tax cuts accomplish is to buy votes since it seems to make sense to people and businesses. However, it has never paid for itself. In bad times, as we are currently, it does not take a counter-intuitive, massive leap to realize that all the tax cuts in the world will not stimulate an economy. If anything, businesses will only use tax cuts to ameliorate their losses, at worst, or poor performance, at best. Individuals will likely not spend more as a consequence of tax cuts since the tax cuts are nominal at best; except perhaps for the wealthy. In any event, it will not spur spending and for a government to foresee that such a boost would improve the economy never mind its purses is the truly the height of delusion. This is after all an ex-Harris confrere who bestowed Ontario a hidden deficit. I wonder if he is not hiding a federal deficit already!

Why has it not worked — except in Thatcher’s case where she had a surreptitious revenue stream in the form of North Sea oil to compensate? In economics, a tax cut has two effects:

Price effect – if your wage seems higher due to a tax cut there is an incentive to work more if only to get more; it makes working an extra hour or so likely.
Income effect — if your wage seems higher due to a tax cut there is also a likelihood that since you now can attain the amount of money you require sooner, you are just as likely not to work that extra hour.

These and other diametrically opposed effects work to conspire against the so-called efficacy of a tax cut — at least for the publicly professed purpose of inducing economic incentive. However, its appeal to neo-conservatives such as Flaherty is to make themselves and their ilk look good — at least until they are elected/re-elected — is absolutely potent. ⇒ Fri 2:10pm 24-Oct-2008

Canada’s 40^th Parliament

Deja vu all over again — Yogi Berra

I fully expect der Harper to take full advantage (he would be a fool not to do so) of the Liberal divisions, weaknesses and morass for about a year or so. Upon the selection of the next Liberal leader, der Harper will yet again bully and berate the House of Commons as well as whine about the Senate (and maybe throw in an aspersion or two about the Supreme Court or even the Civil Service).

Oh! Der Harper will also immediately spend millions of dollars on bombarding Canadians — once again — with an ad campaign chock full of personal attacks to frame the next Liberal leader as ineffective and a non-choice. The same playbook pages will be resurrected by his team of advertising and marketing wunderkinds — his propaganda team.

Essentially, the Tories see everything as an advertising opportunity with a view to promote themselves and paint the adversary in the worst light possible — bending the truth, if necessary. Remember how they “re-branded” the entire federal government? It’s like his team is made up private firm rejects! Suddenly instead of just red-and-white web pages, we now have a very telling (overwhelming?) splash of blue and only a puny hint of red-and-white — unless they are invoking the memory of the British Union flag. The last time I looked, the Maple leaf was bi-colour: namely red and white. Recall how they used the phrase “Canada’s new government” for almost a year not just on web pages but on stationery as well as sound-bytes in speeches and media releases? It would be irresponsible not to mention how they spent lavishly from their deep party pockets to broadcast their anti-Liberal ads way before any hint of an election was even present in the wind. That is the reality of the Tory way. The sad thing is that it works and sadder still that we are being manipulated by it so masterfully.

The only difference this time might be that he — and, I would hope, any other leader — would pick up the effect that 3 elections in 4 years i.e., voter fatigue, has wrought (just look at the turnout in Canada’s 40^th election!).

In addition, the usual clamour for electoral reform will arise from the masses but will be dismissed by the Tories and their supporters who (can you blame them?) who, by definition, will want to keep (remember, “tradition” … ) the “single member plurality” system — a.k.a. “first past the post.” The only question is how vociferous they’ll be in dismissing the proposals for reform. ⇒ Mon 10:30am 20-Oct-2008

Harper’s Really Original

Fascinating that “der Harper” would — yet again — plagiarize. This time what he co-opts is Dion’s tabled economic plan. Apparently, he really loves to snatch other people’s ideas and concepts with neither attribution nor credit. Let us not forget how “der Harper” dismissed the very same Liberal economic plan during the debate as Dion “panicking”. ⇒ Thu 16-Oct-2008

After all of That

There you have it! A CONservative minority. What a waste of money! As I had hinted below, if you look at the Canadian electoral map, the rural areas (and transitional areas, i.e., suburban) are absolutely blue (with the exception of Newfoundland and Labrador) and the urban areas (with the exception of Calgary) is non-blue (i.e., Liberal or NDP). The probability that this minority government will work better is slim since Harper will rule as if a majority (again) instead of mustering compromise and cooperation with the other parties. He cannot help himself. There is yet again a weak Liberal Party leader across the floor for starters. More significantly, Harper is just not congenitally predisposed to be chummy and foster cooperation or compromise with his opponents.

Harper may have won a minority but he lost a majority that should have been his were it not for his own mistakes (arts and culture, the economy insensitivity and the 14-year old life sentences). Sometimes he just seems to waddle robotically when his goal is in his very grasp. I guess self-awareness is not his forte. ⇒ Tue 23:12 14-Oct-2008

If today Harper gets his second-best wish — a CONservative minority government — will he whine and complain about a dysfunctional House again as he did in the 39^th Parliament and within that same utterance brag about his accomplishment(s) (a trite contradictory but typical of “der Harper” nonetheless)? ⇒ Tue 14-Oct-2008

Articles of Interest — andy J.S. Decepida's Soap Box