Stephen Harper Comparing His Losing an Election to the Japanese Tsunami Sums up His Five Years in Power

When Stephen Harper first compared the possibility of an election and his losing power, to the horrible Tsunami in Japan, I was livid. I posted a rant on my blog that I later deleted, feeling that it was a little over the top. But then I was mad at myself for deleting it, because it reflected my anger over the arrogance of a man, who would try to turn a tragedy into a political talking point.

As Aaron Wherry so succinctly put it: This is no time for democracy

I've since realized that Stephen Harper's response to this disaster sums up his five year hold on power. There is one thing, and one thing only, that drives this man, and that's his love of self. Everything those around him do, must be to the benefit of Stephen Harper.

If there is nothing in it for him, then there's nothing in it.

His reaction speaks to his narcissism, in the same way that his removing all historic portraits in his surroundings on Parliament Hill, and replacing them with photographs of himself, does.

It speaks to his contempt for those less fortunate, that allows him to blatantly ignore recommendations to help alleviate poverty in Canada. His party recently lost another high profile candidate who claimed that "... there's no humanity, no soul, there's no kindness, there's no femininity — the things that give people the greatest pleasure in life are absent. Feeling acknowledged, feeling understood, feeling respect, they're just not there." And what were her crimes that earned her a stripping down from the party elite? She spoke to the media without permission and advocated for the homeless. Two cardinal sins in Harper's world.

His crass comments also speak to his disinterest in helping Canadians abroad. From Brenda Martin to Suaad Hagi Mohamud. And now he is also failing Canadians living and working in Japan, by refusing to help evacuate the stranded. "The situation is very critical, ... we are probably going to die here unless the Canadian government gets us out."

And in a more literal sense, this also speaks to the imminent danger imposed by Japan's nuclear stations, where safety warnings had been ignored. When Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission president Linda Keen warned the Harper government of safety concerns at Chalk River, she was fired, and there are now traces of nuclear waste in the Ottawa River. Of course, his allowing companies to dump it there doesn't help.

Which speaks to his commitment to profits coming before people, and makes us wonder just how safe our own nuclear stations are, especially in light of the small earthquake this week, where tremors were "felt from Ottawa to the Greater Montreal Region".

So maybe the current political situation in Canada is like a Tsunami. A huge wave is exposing this government's corruption, secrecy and disdain for democracy. And there is a loud thunderous roar from the disenfranchised while the sirens are blaring.

Time for Stephen Harper and his gang of thugs to head for higher ground.

I hear the Himalayas are nice this time of year.

New Contest. Guess How Many Harper Buddies are Now High Priced Consultants?

Not happy with setting new standards for cronyism and patronage, the Harper government is now spending billions on consultants for work that could be done by our civil servants.

The president of a union representing thousands of professionals is slamming the federal government over its increasing use of consultants, saying the practice could lead to weaker services for Canadians.

"It changes subtly at first, because most taxpayers don't understand the importance of the public service until one day the light come on and they're paying a lot more or there's some kind of disaster like with Walkerton," said Gary Corbett, head of the Professional Institute of the Public Service.

"These services that were once in the domain of the public sector have now been privatized and that's really what's happening here."

I think we need a list of those consultants. Maybe WikiLeaks could post one, because Harper, as usual, is not talking.

If 100 Million Was Spent For Public Opinion Polls, Why Does the Public's Opinion Not Count?

When it was discovered recently that the Harper government spent 100 million dollars on public opinion polls, they justified it by saying that they need the public's opinion so they can set policy.

And yet, they do not base their policies on public opinion.

The public wants the mandatory long-form census. It's being scrapped.

The public wants the gun registry and despite a vote in the House of Commons, Stephen Harper is still playing games with it.

The public wants marijuana legalized. Harper is making the laws tougher.

The public wants the Prison Farms kept open. They are being closed.

The public doesn't want more prisons. We are getting more prisons.

The public wants action on climate change. The Harper government has spent billions convincing us we don't need it.

The public opposes more corporate tax cuts. Corporations are getting billions more.

When exactly will public opinion matter?

As one of my readers pointed out, when I blogged on this before, the polls that this government conducts are an attempt to change public opinion, so that the wording of the question itself is more important than the answers.

And yet public opinion continues to run contra to Harper's policies.

I think he owes us one hundred million bucks.

Harper Refuses to Tell Canadians How Much of Our Money Went to American Pal. IT'S REDACTED!!!

So much for accountability. The Harper government is obviously trying to win the award as the most corrupt, unaccountable government in the history of our country.

Shouldn't someone tell them they've already won?

We can't afford having them working so hard.

Canadians may never know how much taxpayers shelled out to American-owned Deerhurst Resort in Huntsville to play host to G8 leaders in June. The Harper government recently released hundreds of pages of details on how it spent $857 million at the G8 and G20 summits. But millions of dollars of expenses were blacked out in the documents and further inquiries reveal the federal Conservatives have no plans to divulge these payments to real estate giants, construction companies and resort owners.

If you're looking for an investment tip. I'd go with black magic markers.

Harper Using Our Money in Hopes of Buying Next Election

With our economy in a mess, the Afghan war a disaster and our cupboards bare, Stephen Harper is hoping to take that to the next election.

Flawed logic and lowered expectations.

Thomas Walkom has an excellent column today:

Stephen Harper’s decision to extend federal economic stimulus spending another seven months is a blatant pre-election bribe. That’s obvious but trivial. The more interesting question is why this spending has done such a poor job of kickstarting the Canadian economy.

The Prime Minster’s decision to announce his good news in Mississauga was not accidental. The 905 region around Toronto — the region that gave former Ontario premier Mike Harris his majority — promises to be a key battleground for an election expected in the spring. Conservatives hold 14 of the 905’s 24 seats. To break Ottawa’s current parliamentary deadlock they need virtually all of them.

So that’s the politics of the equation. Ontario accounts for the lion’s share of the $7 billion that the federal government promised to spend through four infrastructure programs between January 2009 and March 2011. Yet some 166 Ontario projects won’t be finished by that March deadline.

Alberta should be happy. This goes against absolutely everything he promised them. Fiscal conservatism and no special favours for central Canada.

Maybe the West will want back out.

I, Me, Stephen Harper, Will Never Stack Up

In an attempt to answer the ridiculous Ignatieff Me website set up by the Conservatives, I think its important to elaborate on the nine second spot of Mr. Ignatieff calling America his country.

It was part of an interview about his book, The Lesser Evil, which was an attempt to seek a balance in the aftermath of 9/11. He recognized that sometimes force is necessary, which he refers to as the 'lesser evil', but cautioned against the use of excessive force.

The book received great reviews; and apparently was even read by Barack Obama. But more importantly, it opened a necessary discussion on how to deal with terrorism, and what rights we were willing to sacrifice in the name of dealing with that terrorism.

To have his work diminished to cherry pick a few words to use in attack ads, is disgraceful. We should be proud that a Canadian made such an impact on those wishing to understand their lives after that life altering day.

The Lesser Evil: Political Ethics in an Age of Terror
Michael Ignatieff
Finalist for the 2004 Lionel Gelber Prize

Must we fight terrorism with terror, match assassination with assassination, and torture with torture? Must we sacrifice civil liberty to protect public safety?

In the age of terrorism, the temptations of ruthlessness can be overwhelming. But we are pulled in the other direction too by the anxiety that a violent response to violence makes us morally indistinguishable from our enemies. There is perhaps no greater political challenge today than trying to win the war against terror without losing our democratic souls.

Michael Ignatieff confronts this challenge head-on, with the combination of hard-headed idealism, historical sensitivity, and political judgment that has made him one of the most influential voices in international affairs today.

Ignatieff argues that we must not shrink from the use of violence--that far from undermining liberal democracy, force can be necessary for its survival. But its use must be measured, not a program of torture and revenge. And we must not fool ourselves that whatever we do in the name of freedom and democracy is good. We may need to kill to fight the greater evil of terrorism, but we must never pretend that doing so is anything better than a lesser evil.

In making this case, Ignatieff traces the modern history of terrorism and counter-terrorism, from the nihilists of Czarist Russia and the militias of Weimar Germany to the IRA and the unprecedented menace of Al Qaeda, with its suicidal agents bent on mass destruction. He shows how the most potent response to terror has been force, decisive and direct, but--just as important--restrained. The public scrutiny and political ethics that motivate restraint also give democracy its strongest weapon: the moral power to endure when the furies of vengeance and hatred are spent.

The book is based on the Gifford Lectures delivered at the University of Edinburgh in 2003.

Reviews:

"In The Lesser Evil, Michael Ignatieff addresses the ethical problems faced by liberal democracies. . . . [H]e soberly deals with permanent problems of American foreign policy, not only those specifically provoked by the Bush administration's war on terror: the problems of attempting to rule without demonstrated legitimacy, the prudential problem of choosing the lesser evil, the expedient choice of deliberative abuse or suspension of rights considered defining qualities of democracy, the limits of acceptable violence and coercion, and the problems of arbitrary detention, torture, assassination and disregard of the rule of law--all the subject of policy choices made in Washington since September 2001."--William Pfaff, Los Angeles Times

"Michael Ignatieff assesses America's war on terror and tries to determine what security measures a society can tolerate and still consider itself virtuous."--New York Times Book Review

"We need calm, reasoned advice on how to balance the interests of security and liberty. We have it now in a remarkable book. Michael Ignatieff brings history, philosophy, law, and democratic morality to bear on the problem. That may sound daunting, but Ignatieff is such a forceful writer that it is a fascinating book. . . . Reading him is a bit like having a conversation with an eminently reasonable but convinced and powerfully convincing man."--Anthony Lewis, New York Review of Books

It's no wonder Stephen Harper is so afraid of Michael Ignatieff. A brilliant man and a Canadian who has done us all proud. Michael Ignatieff: The 23rd prime Minister of Canada has come home to roost.

And Stephen is just leavin'!