"(Calling an election) is a decision that belongs to me, that's true ... I will choose a good moment." Stephane Dion, July 2008
"We're going to have a good discussion, and we'll make a decision when it suits us," Michael Ignatieff, August 2009Aside from Iggy's use of the "royal voice", one statement is virtually indistinguishable from the other. Hat tip to Warren Kinsella. Recommend this Post
The problem for Ignatieff is not that he doesn't have ideas. Rather, I believe his problem is that his ideas to cope with the economic crisis, aside from some partisan packaging, are the same as those of Harper's government.What can one add to such an insight? Recommend this Post
“To be honest with you, I am a lot more concerned by God's verdict regarding my life than the one of historians,” the Prime Minister said with a laugh, according to the article.No doubt it was a nervous laugh, because I am certain our dear leader has read what Jesus has to say on how judgment day will be run:
Matthew 25:31"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.I wonder if Steve whispers Omar Khadr, Suaad Hagi Mohamud, and Abousfian Abdelrazik's names, in his sleep? Recommend this Post
34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'
37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'
40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'
41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'
44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'
45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'
46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."
I suppose you can mount some sort of chess-playing rationale for Harper’s latest descent: he had to appoint somebody — might as well be people whose loyalty he can depend upon; with a majority in the Senate as early as next year, he’ll be in a better position to pass Senate reform; if he’d appointed respectable, upstanding pillars-of-the-community types, the kind with cross-party support, he’d simply be rehabilitating the status quo. So you see, by appointing egregious partisan hacks, he’s actually still a reformer.Mr. Coyne, is of course, referring to the infamous incident in which the mad Emperor Caligula named his favorite horse as a Senator. I think it an apt comparison, although I think it does do a bit of an injustice to Caligula. Recommend this Post
But if that’s his strategy, why be so timid about it? Why not appoint his horse? Or convicted criminals? Colin Thatcher to the Senate!(emphasis mine)
"You can't push the election button every time . . . I think that is irresponsible."The eternal cry of the Liberal Party. "We think it is irresponsible to have an election, unless we think we are going to win. In which case, no one had better stand in our way, or we will be cross!" Christ, what wankers. Recommend this Post
Many Canadians no doubt think that our country would have been better off had he [Harper] fallen on his sword before now. Others, and I’m in that group, think we’re better off with Conservative hacks, flacks and bagmen, and not just Liberals, sitting in a Senate that should be but is impossible to abolish and that is virtually impossible to reform.Translation: We haven't tried to abolish the Senate, but it must be too hard, right? So, let's pack the place with our hacks, instead. Why should the Liberals be the only ones to wallow?
“The meeting was cordial. But it's also clear to us that the NDP want to work with the Liberals and the Bloc Québécois. I think that Mr. Layton asked for the meeting so he can pretend he's not working with his coalition partners, but the reality is that he is.”Jack Layton must be the greatest political mastermind since Machiavelli. Or, he has the looniest opponents, ever. Recommend this Post
Because of its willingness to bleed and lead, Canada has gained power, influence and stature. All that could disappearIn one sentence, the writer has managed to trivialize our sojourn in Afghanistan. He has turned our sacrifice into a contest for the attention and affection of the "cool kids". That is the justification for a lot of stupid behavior among 16 year olds, but should not be the basis of foreign policy decision-making. This is not a high school and we should not base our decisions on whether it's "what everybody else is doing" and fearing that any step away from the herd will diminish our chance of getting laid by the cheerleaders. Recommend this Post
Lanny Davis is just a face that reflects the grime and sleaze that lies at the core of our political culture. But it's a rather vivid face for what is typically meant by Centrism (i.e., it's shrill and irresponsible to suggest there's anything fundamentally wrong with our political culture); Civility (it's rude and disrespectful to highlight the oozing conflicts of interests and paid whoredom which animate our leading political luminaries); and Bipartisanship (the same narrow set of corporate forces always prevail no matter which party is in "control" by constantly paying those who control those parties). As unpleasant as it is, that's why there's value in casting one's eyes on how Lanny Davis functions.Recommend this Post
For a few fleeting days, it almost sounded like the NDP was about to turn itself from the self-appointed conscience of the federal Liberal party into a Liberal franchise in its own right.That didn't happen (thank God) and our betters are bitter. Yes they are. Recommend this Post
Now, the NDP has evolved as more of an enabler for the Conservatives, while playing spoiler against the Liberals.In reply, I refer to Jesus, from Matthew 7:4:
"Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' and behold, the log is in your own eye?The Liberals have propped up this government for three years, but why should reality get in the way of making a point? Recommend this Post
Lawrence Martin laments: Young Canadians have scant interest in old-style politics and old-style politicians. As they see it, the boring old guys (BOGs) who run this country offer no hope for real change. So they stay away from the polls and support a party that is seatless.If only there was a way to elect our members of parliament so that the party young people support wouldn't be seatless. If only old farts like Martin didn't shit on the idea of electoral reform. If only Martin wasn't such a wanker. If only.
Let’s face it: The stronger the Dippers and the more they eat into the Liberal vote, the greater the chances that Stephen Harper and his family will continue to enjoy their chef’s fine food and that great view overlooking the Ottawa River after the next election, notwithstanding the Conservatives being supported by a mere 36 per cent or so of Canadians. Plus he’ll have the power to name senators and judges and fly around the world in his own jet meeting interesting folks like Barack Obama, if not Bono.That is a humdinger all right. Having a government supported by only 36% of those who bothered to vote, is an outrage in a supposedly modern democracy. I bet you can't wait to hear Spector's solution. I hope it is electoral reform! Let's go see.
It took numb-skulls on the centre-right three consecutive Chrétien victories to figure out that they had to unite their forces if they hoped to form government again. Now, with Michael Ignatieff hugging the centre and playing doppelgänger to Mr. Harper, it’s beginning to look as though it will take dim-wits on the centre-left at least as long to figure out their path to victory. In fact, after striking out on their coalition coup — an embarrassment that you’ll not hear mentioned by the speechifiers at this weekend’s meeting — it might take them even longer.Doh, it's unite the "left"! Of course. What Canada needs is a two party system, just like the United States. What a fucking brilliant idea. I'm surprised Ian Capstick hasn't written about it.
"The untrained masses," he explained, "are incompetent to pass judgment upon the complicated problems of capitalism."(perhaps Mr Woodsworth was talking about the grandparents of today's Canadians who believe we elect our Prime Minister directly -- ed.) . Imagine, a person from another era saying something that might seem strange to modern ears? I expect capitalists from the same era were all sunshine and roses? Given the context of the time, Woodsworth was a saint. Mr. Reynolds owes him an apology. Recommend this Post
Democrats in Canada are centrist and leftist socialists, social democrats, unionists and workers, either fiscally conservative or liberal. Democrats believe fundamentally in democracy and the will of people, we believe government does not exist only to be made smaller or, worse, only to “earn” votes in the next election. Democrats can work with people in all political parties to forge compromise and build solutions. Democrats can lead governments.If the Democratic Party of Canada thinks that class issues are now passé (even going so far as showing "critics on the left" the door), in the midst of a crisis rife with class issues, then the political spectrum of Canada is getting closer and closer to being a monochromatic "choice" between neo-liberalism and neo-liberalism lite. Is this what social democrats in Canada really want? Recommend this Post
I want universal health insurance. And having had a front-row seat in 1994 when Big Pharma and the rest of the health-industry complex went to battle against it, I can tell you firsthand how big and effective the onslaught can be. So I appreciate Big Pharma's support this time around, and I like it that the industry is doing the reverse of what it did last time, and airing ads to persuade the public of the rightness of the White House's effort.Go read the rest. It is important. Recommend this Post
But I also care about democracy, and the deal between Big Pharma and the White House frankly worries me. It's bad enough when industry lobbyists extract concessions from members of Congress, which happens all the time. But when an industry gets secret concessions out of the White House in return for a promise to lend the industry's support to a key piece of legislation, we're in big trouble. That's called extortion: An industry is using its capacity to threaten or prevent legislation as a means of altering that legislation for its own benefit. And it's doing so at the highest reaches of our government, in the office of the president.
There are many other possibilities for a new name for the NDP. By way of conclusion, we would only echo that old adage: if you don’t stand for something, you will fall for anything. (emphasis mine)This is certainly true and Mr. Kinsella knows whereof he speaks. That has been the Liberal Motto for well over 100 years. I hope the NDP takes his advice to heart and avoids the same sorry fate as the Liberal Party of Canada. Recommend this Post
When Canada decided to allow employers facing acute labour shortages to hire temporary foreign workers, seven years ago, no one foresaw where it would lead.That is complete bullshit. Anyone who says they didn't know, is either lying or didn't bother to do even a cursory investigation into temporary worker programs in other countries. If they had spent about five minutes looking into the history of "guest workers (gastarbeiter)" in Germany, they would have realized that "temporary workers" are almost never temporary. There is an economic imperative to their staying in the country that receives them, both on the part of the workers, who need the money to send home to their impoverished families and the employers, who love the pool of cheap labor. As the system matures, the "temporary workers" who stay illegally, after their visas run out, are under even more economic pressure and are ripe for exploitation. As I say, this has all been seen before in other places and is very well documented.
Neither the administration, nor our political system in general, is ready to face up to the fact that we’ve become a society in which the big bucks go to bad actors, a society that lavishly rewards those who make us poorer.I would say the same about Canada, but add that we are however, a society that is willing to attack working people with sick benefits. Aren't we brave? Recommend this Post
Having said that, let me elaborate on some of the myths that some still believe are the essence of the union movement.This suggests that Mr. Persichilli believes that unions are bad because they fight for the interests of their members and are not willing to accept the wages and conditions of their Chinese counterparts. This is no surprise to me. The Oligarchs and their mouthpieces have argued for years that we treat the working class too well and them too harshly. Thank God the unions are around so public anger can be redirected away from things like executive compensation reform (which isn't even on the radar in Canada). Otherwise, people might start asking uncomfortable questions, like, why is it that the gap between rich and poor is getting larger, in spite of those evil unions? Recommend this Post
First, unions do not represent the entire working world. They are only interested in defending the wages and benefits of their members, most of the time at the expense of other, non-unionized, workers.
Second, even though they may claim to support the interests of children, students or patients, in reality there always is a demand for better wages or benefits behind almost every dispute.
Third, they live in isolation. Most of the time, their demands are made with no consideration for the conditions of other workers in the same country, not to mention the reality in other parts of the world.
Unfortunately for them, globalization has exposed their idyllic oasis and they refuse to realize that the emperor is naked. That's why they keep asking for benefits like the sick days Miller has just confirmed for them: pay them because they are not sick!
