I Can't Believe James Travers is Gone. One of the Few Good Journalists Left

This news is devastating. In a country with so few real journalists, he was one of the good guys. He gave them hell no matter what party they belonged to.

Integrity up the ying yang.

You will be missed Mr. Travers.

If we Remain Cynical we Lose Hope. I have Hope.

James Travers has another excellent column in the Star about the fairy tale economic predictions and the importance of honesty. It was a cynical column, reflective of the Canadian mood, I'm afraid.

Let’s be perfectly honest: Sometime before the Millennium, “spin” crept into the political vernacular as an elastic substitute for “truth”. Old promises were recycled as new, brush was furiously dragged across the money trail and governments flying both red and blue colours found ever more inventive ways to frustrate the public’s right to know.

We can add orange to that spectrum, as politics have become far too political, and Jack Layton is not immune to the disease. He's just never formed a government, and if the corporate sector have anything to say about it, never will.

Some people wonder why I'm promoting Michael Ignatieff and my friends wonder why the Liberal Party. I was never really a fan. I am a conservative at heart, but not this new brand of conservatism. Never.

I say that I was "pushed to the left" when the Progressive Conservatives folded in 2003, ending a 150 year old tradition, but I realize that my politics really haven't changed. I wasn't pushed anywhere. I'm still smack dab in the centre. And Stephen Harper killed the only other party in the centre, so I guess I'm a Liberal now. And it's not so bad.

I like Michael Ignatieff's new video. He reminds us that he is not a career politician.




It has been said that he would make an excellent prime minister but a lousy politician. When he tried the honesty thing, once suggesting that "no leader would be worthy of the name if he or she didn’t place the possibility of raising taxes on a long list of future considerations if a deficit couldn’t be brought under control", he inadvertently created a bombshell.

It was the kind of honesty Travers claims he was looking for. But what happened after he made that remark? Glenn Pearson was there and describes the inevitable results.

Political staffers mulled around, worried that it would be taken out of context, which it inevitably was. Media had a field day with it. Ignatieff, suffering from a gruelling cold, sat in a chair prior to the event in London and wondered what became of honesty in the public space. The very next day in the House, Conservative members used every possible occasion to ridicule Ignatieff, calling him just another “tax and spend” Liberal. The media ate it up.

So the media can be critical of politicians who lie, but they don't really encourage honesty. Honesty doesn't sell. They need sensationalism, and if that creates a cynical public, turned off political showmanship, it's not their problem. They got their story.

And then they wonder why politicians lie. In my best Jack Nicholson, they "can't handle the truth".

I liked Michael Ignatieff, because I had read several of his books, and he understood what it means to be a distinctly Canadian. His intellect is not in cunning or political strategy. When he "thinks" it's not about how he can knee cap his opponent. His message is positive and sometimes painfully honest.

The fantasy today is that Jim Flaherty and Stephen Harper are economic wizards. And that's because they know what to say to make people believe that, even though it is an absolute lie. As Travers says:

After hitching party fortunes to the twin myths that he’s a practiced economist and a prudent manager, Stephen Harper is now misleading the country about its immediate past and imminent future. Two truths are particularly inconvenient for this Prime Minister. One is that record Conservative spending had Ottawa heading for deficits long before the financial crash and economic stimulus made them inevitable. The other is that this government has no credible plan for balancing our books.

Harper and sidekick Jim Flaherty blew enough smoke to obscure looming deficits during the last election. Now they are counting on voters to suspend disbelief long enough to carry Conservatives safely through the next.

The Liberals are now offering a viable solution. We've already accepted that it will not be painless, so I think we should hear them out. And they are willing to cancel those damn corporate tax cuts.

The message was the same in all three locations: the Liberals would balance the budget in roughly the same time frame as the Conservatives, but would cancel about $6 billion in future corporate tax cuts to spend on Canadians. As well, they would re-establish the "prudence" fund put in place by Paul Martin when he was finance minister to guard against unexpected economic downturns.

And they say they will not introduce any new spending measures that would increase the deficit. "I am no pirate," Deputy Leader Ralph Goodale told the Economic Club in Ottawa in reference to Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's
charge that "nothing would be safe" under the Liberals. "Fiscal responsibility, certainly. That's part of our Liberal brand and unlike (Prime Minister Stephen) Harper, we have a track record to prove it."

In Toronto, finance critic Scott Brison said the country cannot afford any more corporate tax cuts while there is a deficit. The full-court press, with Leader Michael Ignatieff holding a town-hall meeting in Guelph, Ont., to round out the program, was meant to counter Conservative charges that the Liberals would act irresponsibly in government. The accusation is particularly galling to Liberals because they believe their record of building surpluses prior to the Conservative victory in 2006 is a key reason Canada outperformed the rest of the G7 economies during the recession.

Their record does speak for itself, and every economist agrees that we weathered the storm because of measures put in place by the Liberals.

Michael Ignatieff wasn't involved in the sponsorship scandal anymore than Stephen Harper was behind Brian Mulroney's deficit. It's time to move on.

"The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew and act anew." Abraham Lincoln.

Another Winner James Travers. But ... but ... but ...

I really like James Travers and will continue to promote him as a progressive member of the media, who are sadly too few and far between these days.

I have found myself annoyed with even him, sometimes though. Mainly because he is, or at least he was; constantly bringing up the sponsorship scandal, seemingly using it as balanced reporting when writing of Reform-Conservative corruption.

That doesn't mean I condone Adscam. Not by a long shot. I never really liked Jean Chretien and never voted for him, though I think he makes a great statesman now.

The infrastructure for the sponsorship scandal was created by Brian Mulroney and capitalized on by the Liberals; but I felt that by bringing it up so often, it hindered our chances of getting rid of the horrible Harper regime. We can't defend Harper by comparing him to Chretien. Both men may be devoid of principles; but Chretien is gone and Harper is still the albatross around our necks.

Travers column today is very good, as he suggests that backward thinking by the Harper team will hurt us in the long run. However, he, like many others, is clearly missing the point. The media and pundits and everyone else, who thinks that Harper or Flaherty have abandoned Conservative principles; need to understand one thing and one thing only: THEY NEVER HAD THEM!

Neoconservatism is like the anti-Christ of conservative economic theory. They might want to read up on radicals like Friedrich Hayek (correction) and Roger Douglas, to get a glimpse into our financial future.

Hayek urged reducing government intervention in people's social and economic lives to a bare minimum. No social programs, no environmental or consumer regulation. In Hayek's world, government officials do not serve the public. Instead, they are self-serving empire builders ... Harper studied Hayek as an undergraduate at the University of Calgary and developed his free-market philosophy.

Hayek opposed democracy referring to a nation's citizens as the 'bewildered herd', and one Hayek strategy was to : starve government and fuel the voluntary sector. Remove as many activities as possible from the public-policy arena and put them in the hands of private charity providers. Let the wealthy elite, not the people, determine Canada's social and environmental justice policies.

George Bush ascribed to this free marketeering and almost bankrupted the United States. But that doesn't stop Harper and Flaherty from moving full speed ahead. A record deficit is a dream come true, and from here on in; Roger Douglas takes over, with his simple message; "Don't blink". They won't.

Travers: While U.S. looks ahead, we drift backwards
February 2, 2010
By James Travers National Affairs Columnist

Some coincidences are too delicious. On the very morning this week that Canadians woke to find they have new, even lower greenhouse gas emission targets, Americans learned that China is surging ahead in the renewable energy race.

Before any remaining climate-change deniers fire email bullets from their grassy knolls, what follows is not primarily about climate change or even how successive federal governments failed to act. No, it's about the difference between talk and a conversation ....

Why James Travers Has The Detainee Issue All Wrong

When we first went into Afghanistan, it was soon after 9/11, and I supported the initiative. We were going after the guys who did this horrible thing, and like most people at the time, I really wanted to make someone pay.

However, the glow soon wore off for me, and I began to question our real purpose. By then the US had invaded Iraq, and knowing that was wrong, I quickly became opposed to the so-called "War on Terror".

I never voted for Jean Chretien, but applauded his decision to keep Canada out of it. Afghanistan continued but was put on the back burner.

However, soon after the 2006 election, Stephen Harper brought the war to the forefront again. He was going to make this his and was determined to put his signature on it. His first official visit was to Afghanistan, and even though he recited a watered down George Bush "cut and run" speech, he seemed to earn the respect of the troops. He was going to lead an army (figuratively). Afghanistan was his.

Almost immediately it was no longer a war, but a 'mission'. He would hear no protests, but demand that we 'support the troops'. That became the nation's battle cry, and despite increasing casualties he soldiered on.

But soon after the realities of being a 'war prime minister' took hold. Things he hadn't anticipated began to arise that threatened to put a damper on our renewed patriotism. Suggestions that Canada may be complicit in the torture of detainees.

However, fueled by George Bush's proclamations and borrowing from his rhetoric, he would not falter. They were all terrorists who got what they deserved. If you questioned his judgement you supported the Taliban. There was no grey area. You were with our troops or against them. End of.

So instead of dealing with the allegations, he swept them under the rug. Taking control of all press releases, Canadians were put on a need to know basis, and according to the Harper government, we didn't need to know much. Just wear our yellow ribbons and shut our mouths and they would handle the rest.

And when the Globe and Mail first broke the story in 2007, the PMO went into overdrive. Deny, bully, intimidate and accuse the opposition of demonizing our men and women in uniform. When Gordon O'Connor was forced to admit that he had erred in judgement, Harper demoted him and the whole thing went away. Not a dead issue, but barely breathing.

Then along came Richard Colvin, who blew the whole thing wide open. How this will end is any one's guess. Hopefully, the Harper government will do the right thing and allow a full public inquiry this time, but I'm not holding my breath.

In the video above, we can see our soldiers doing their best to engage the Afghan people. In their minds they are doing a noble thing, and regardless of how I feel about the war as a whole, I have the utmost respect for these people. They are handling themselves with dignity and honour. When they saw a prisoner being beaten they took him back. Fearing that others were being tortured they took pictures before handing them over.

They know about the Geneva Convention and would not compromise their integrity as soldiers. We need to do the right thing for them.

I think many in the media are starting to see this. I got a little angry with Craig Oliver on CTV news tonight, focusing on the political, rather than the criminal, and suggesting that Harper was still well ahead in the polls so it wouldn't hurt him. Of course he was wrong. The latest EKOS had him at 33% and he is losing the battle of public opinion.

I was also annoyed, after reading James Travers column on the subject. (Greg Weston spun the same nonsense) Most of it was factual and on the money, but I took exception with his statement that "Conservatives who inherited the detainee transfer problem from Liberals are now struggling to control the damage from the original miscalculations... "

You don't inherit the Geneva Convention. Every single soldier in the field knows what it is. Their honour depends on knowing what it is and living by it. You don't control the damage, you make sure that the damage does not occur. The military is responsible for this and while they know that a change in government can affect things for them, the war continues.

It is not a Liberal war or a Conservative war, it is a Canadian war.

The Canadian military originally signed a deal to hand over prisoners to the Americans in 2002. This seemed like the most logical thing to do, since they were running the show. However, when 15 US soldiers were charged under the criminal code for horrendous torture, including deaths, at Bagram in Afghanistan; Hillier needed a change of plans.

It was in the middle of an election campaign, and Paul Martin signed off on his deal to hand detainees over to the Afghan authorities. According to Amnesty International, General Hillier indicated that he didn't care what happened to them once he caught them, so long as he was privy to any information obtained. As such he made Canada the only NATO country that did not demand to know what happened to it's captures.

Not long after, the reports started to arrive and the rest is making history.

Mr. Travers does redeem himself, somewhat. However, we have to remember that this is not a partisan issue. Mr. Ignatieff wants all reports from day one, including those from when the Liberals were in government, though I suspect if there was anything damning there, Harper would have already 'leaked' them.

Travers concludes;

Soldiers did their duty when those shortcomings became obvious on the ground; Colvin did his job by reporting what he saw and learned, mostly from the Red Cross. After that, the trail disappears in documents that bureaucrats say privately are being blacked out more to protect political skins than national security and are now at the centre of the constitutional conflict between hide-all Conservatives and show-all opposition parties.

There's a certain symmetry in that confrontation – a year after Harper successfully saved his government by suspending Parliament, MPs are pushing back in an effort to re-establish the principle that elected representatives, not the executive, are supreme. Important, complex and perhaps headed for the Supreme Court, that struggle also marks the transition of a controversy about the treatment of prisoners into a much more politically fraught debate over the shattered Conservative election promise to be open, transparent and accountable.

What began as a military effort to manage an inconvenience is now a priority problem for Conservatives trying to control inconvenient truths.

More from our Canadian soldiers, who are doing an incredible job. I salute them.

But it is still a war. And we need to bring our soldiers home.