With or Without Permission Debauchery is Still Debauchery

Debauchery usually has a sexual connotation, but can also be used to describe any overindulgence.  Political debauchery is quickly making its way into our vernacular, as we witness overindulgence in campaign spending, attack ads and ugly divisive rhetoric.

Whether we're watching the impassioned faces of the Tea Partiers in the United States, or listening to the often senseless barbs tossed about in the House of Commons, we can see that these pleasure seekers have found their vice.

Not that there's anything wrong with political passion.  That kind of passion not only fuelled the Civil Rights Movement, the Woman's Rights Movement, implemented child labour laws,et al, but has been responsible for our very democracy.

Political engagement, not war, has created our modern civilization.

But just as debauchery can destroy lives, political debauchery can destroy nations.

The New Drug of Choice - Hyerpartisanship.

I don't think anyone could argue that our politics has become ugly and getting worse.

When someone from one side of the room in the Commons, accuses someone on the other side of something, you rarely get an explanation. Instead they pull out a piece of paper with some quote from a newspaper "proving" that the accuser had once engaged in similar behavior.

Political debate is being reduced to "I know I am, but what are you?"

Recently we have learned that the NDP is being charged with the mishandling of public funds, when they peppered ridings about to hold bi-elections, with Party campaign ads, using their Parliamentary envelopes and letterhead. They also took advantage of free postage, which is only permitted, or at least is supposed to be only permitted, to send notices to constituents.

They have been told that they will have to repay 1.17 million, the amount deemed to be the cost of the inappropriate use of public money.

Instead of paying up, apologizing, and promising not to do it again, they have decided to fight the decision, even if it means delaying summer break.

NDP leader Thomas Mulcair claims that the decision was made in a "Kangaroo Court" and that the other parties are guilty of the same crime.

He's right.

It's hard to look at this "ten percenter", sent out by the Conservatives, and not see it as partisan campaigning.

However, the other parties being wrong too is not a defense, it's an excuse.

The abuse of mailing privileges hit a peak in 2009, when it was determined that MPs had spent ten million dollars on what mostly amounted to Party PR. The Conservatives were the biggest spenders at twice what the combined opposition spent, most echoing their campaigns. "Not a leader", "Just visiting", always with a poll asking who was on the right track?

The practice has become less frequent, mainly due to public outrage, but I still receive nonsense suggesting that Justin Trudeau is in over his head or Thomas Mulcair wants to raise taxes.

Mulcair also claims that he received permission for the mailings from the Speaker of the House, who denies he ever approved them.

It does seem highly unlikely, that if the NDP asked if it would be okay to spend more than a million dollars of public money to campaign for upcoming bi-elections, that the Speaker would have said "sure".

So this is not about Kangaroo Courts or secretive House of Commons committees; it's about elected officials, who have become so hyper-partisan, that they see it as OK to use our money to guarantee their Party's political success.

The word debauchery comes from the French word debauchee, which means to “entice from work or duty.” It's pretty clear that duties are being neglected when the lure of oneupmanship and beating the system, take precedence over doing what they were elected to do.

No one campaigns on abusing tax dollars and I doubt they would win if they did.

So How Do We Clean Up This Mess?

Politicians are not the only ones guilty of being hooked on partisan porn. Debates on Twitter and Facebook, some healthy and some not so healthy, often become about defending your own Party's wrong doing, while pointing out the wrong doings of others.

In the last Ontario provincial election, NDP leader Andrea Horvath, constantly referred to the Liberals as "corrupt", claiming that only she could clean up government.

A ridiculous statement. At one time or another, most, if not all, governments, have had at least one member, who bends or breaks the rules.

To really clean up government, we need to clean up politicians who look for ways to abuse the trust we place in them.

Proof That Abolishing the Gun Registry Was Always For the NRA

Unless hunters and farmers are snipers, the Conservative abolishment of the gun registry was always, as suspected, for the NRA.  ALWAYS!  ALWAYS! ALWAYS! 

Not one single farmer or hunter ever crossed their mind, except to solicit funds or votes.  NRA! NRA! NRA!

The neocons turned down an NDP amendment to at least force registration of sniper rifles, but the heartless SOBs said NO!  It didn't help that the NDP put the wrong gun on their advertising leading up to the motion.

I think this will hurt them in Quebec, especially since one of those presenting the amendment, NDP MP Nathan Cullen, had voted in the past to end the registry.  The Bloc are already regaining ground (NDP 37, Bloc 27) and Quebecers are very passionate about this issue.

In other news, it would appear that Harper lied about directing public servants to remove 'Canada' from government parlance and replace it with 'Harper'.

And the Liberals are rising in the polls. 

Several recent polls have suggested the Liberals have rebounded as much as 10 points since their election drubbing, pulling even or even slightly ahead of the NDP, which supplanted the Liberals as official Opposition.

That last election was a fluke, but a fluke that we're all paying for.

Our only hope for the next four years is the "Occupy" movement and we need to get behind it.

The Report of the Liberals Death Was Greatly Exaggerated

"The report of my death was an exaggeration" - Mark Twain

Everyone loves that Mark Twain quote in all of its variations.  It was prompted by the visit of a reporter, sent by his paper to investigate whether or not Twain (Samuel Clemens) had died after news of a lengthy illness.

Twain was very much alive and not even sick.  It was his cousin who was failing.

Chantal Hebert wrote a column this week predicting the death of the Liberal Party.  Her reasoning was that they are losing ground provincially.

What a silly assumption.

Provincially, the Liberal Party has never had a stronghold.  They haven't governed in Alberta since 1921, Manitoba since 1958, and Saskatchewan since 1971.  They now hold power in Ontario, Quebec, B.C. and PEI.  And her comment that they almost lost opposition status in Newfoundland?  We are talking the difference between 6 seats and 5, and she fails to mention that the Liberals actually gained two seats.

Since she's moved to the right, she's really lost perspective.

In the words of Mark Twain:  "Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please".
 
A few facts.  In 1984, the now defunct federal PC Party won a majority with a staggering 211 seats.  The Liberals were reduced to 40 with the NDP gaining and not far behind them with 30.

Everyone was predicting then that the Liberals were on their way out and that the NDP would take their place.  Yet the NDP at the time were losing ground provincially.  They were beat out in Saskatchewan in 1982 and would not rule again in B.C. until 1991, and Manitoba until 1999.

Ed Broadbent's popularity had no affect provincially.

In 1988, the NDP did even better with 43 seats, though the Liberals also gained with 83.  No provincial surge for either party,  though the NDP did take Ontario, based more on the popularity of Bob Rae, than his federal counterpart.   By 1993, the federal NDP was reduced to 9 seats, and everyone was writing their eulogy.

Recently, in Ontario, the Liberal incumbent Dalton McGuinty had been written off, but he campaigned well and beat the odds, finishing just one seat short of a majority.  NDP's Andrea Horwath had a good showing because she is smart and endearing.  She rode no one's coattails.

The federal Liberals were reduced to 40 seats in 1984 and less than a decade later won a majority.  The NDP were down to 9 in 1993 yet are the official opposition in 2011.
 
The Liberal Party is now the oldest and most experienced, and they will find their way back.  The NDP, the second oldest, will continue to be successful if they can move beyond the personal success of Jack Layton, who brought them to where they are, and define who they want to be.
 
I think if the Tories had held on after being reduced to two seats, they could have eventually beat out the Reform-Alliance.  In 1993, that fateful year, they still garnered 2,186,422 votes, a million more than the Bloc's 1,846,024, who netted 54 seats, and pretty close to the Reform Party's 2,559,245, who took 52 seats. 
 
In 1997 their vote count was 2,446,705 for 20 seats, to Reform's 2,513,080 (60 seats) and the Bloc's 1,385,821 (44 seats).
 
But Peter Mackay owed $500,000 and Stephen Harper found someone willing to pay it off ( MacKay's financial secret safe with Harper: No conflict, party leader says, by Stephen Maher, The Halifax Herald Limited, May 13, 2004),  and as the old saying goes, the rest is ... well you can finish that sentence.
 
The Liberals are not dead.  It's only a rumour.

"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog." - Mark Twain 

Fresh Merger Talks Raise the Question: Is it Time?

Thomas Walkom had a column in the Star this weekend, raising the possibility of Bob Rae as the next federal NDP leader.

A rather silly attempt at reminding Canadians that he once led the NDP in Ontario, even acting as premier. While in office, Walkom wrote a scathing book: Rae Days: The Rise and Follies of the NDP.

It's a one-sided rant, that fails to mention that before the balloons starting losing air on election night, the right-wing noise machine sprung into action. Another reaction to an NDP victory.

Gerald Caplan wrote an excellent piece for the Globe in October of 2010, in which he says:

Mr. Rae's government faced an unrelenting, brutal four-year onslaught that was unprecedented in Canadian history. The attacks came from all sides. It is no exaggeration to say hysterical fear-mongering and sabotage was the order of the day. Launched within the very first year of the new government, the attackers included every manner of business big and small, both Canadian and American-owned, almost all private media, the police (especially in Toronto), landlords and lobbying/government relations firms. Their goal was clear, and they had the money and power to achieve it.

They were determined to undermine the government every step of the way, to frustrate the implementation of its plans and to assure its ultimate defeat. In all three goals they were successful. The considerable achievements of the government – often forgotten or dismissed –were wrought in the face of a deep recession and ferocious obstruction.

The National Citizens Coalition created the Ontarians for Responsible Government, running radio ads and placing billboards in prominent places.

And of course, Walkom wrote a book.

Yet nowhere in that book does he mention Ontarians for Responsible Government, or Conrad Black who vowed never to invest a penny in the province under the NDP.

And even the rank and file abandoned him because he wasn't implementing the changes they wanted, failing to understand why it was almost impossible. Said Caplan:

... corporate interests threatened a virtual strike of capital unless the government relented on its intentions to introduce higher business taxes and to strengthen union rights, environmental regulations and equity programs.

Mr. Rae and treasurer Floyd Laughren made themselves easily accessible to business representatives, many of whom ran Canadian branch plants of huge American multinationals, only to be threatened with capital blackmail. The premier was warned that their U.S. head offices weren't about to invest further in Ontario unless the government abandoned most of the programs it had run on.

Bond traders declared that slashing government programs to reduce the deficit was a prerequisite to Ontario borrowing at competitive rates, even though Ontario’s deficit was equivalent to that of Conservative-run Alberta. Suddenly the entire media was fixated on the government’s threatened credit ratings, never mind that Ontario had the only Standard & Poor’s AAA rating in the country. The Social Credit government in British Columbia, the Conservatives in Alberta and Robert Bourassa’s Liberals in Quebec all had lower credit ratings. Yet only in Ontario was the government threatened.

What happened in Ontario then was an almost carbon copy of what President Obama is facing in the United States because he dared to suggest that big business should pay more, and wanted a universal healthcare plan, right down to the "debt crisis".  So I wouldn't put too much stock into anything that Walkom says about the NDP. He was part of the problem.

Pat Martin, one of my favourite MPs on the Hill, is again calling for a merger. A realist, he appreciates the challenges the NDP face from corporate interests. Unfortunately he was booed off the stage for suggesting they drop "socialism" from their mandate.

Martin is a smart man, and while there was much rejoicing over their latest victories, let's be real. Most of the gains were in Quebec and a surge of popularity for Jack Layton.

It resulted in the loss of many progressives from both the Bloc and Liberals. Hard working MPs replaced with paper candidates, and vote splitting that gave the neocons Ontario.

But how well will those paper candidates do next election, when they have to actually raise funds and campaign? Many never even had campaign offices. Their constituents didn't vote for them, only their leader.

I'm afraid that if the Liberals and NDP don't work together, whether in a formal merger or spirit of co-operation, we are going to end up with a neoconservative dynasty.

One thing that Walkom did get right, was his observation that Jack Layton was trying to move the party to the right, in an attempt to garner support from the mainstream.  However, Canada is not a right-wing country, and Stephen Harper's success is in large part due to the fact that he pretends to be governing from the centre, while moving the centre with his usual "stealth".

So if there is a new party created, they have to offer a real alternative for Canadians, not just give it lip service.

Personally, I would prefer that the Liberals rebuild, drawing in support from the old PCers, or "red Tories".  Canada had a unique political culture, in that for decades, we were led by centrist governments, who drew from the right and left.

The only drawback to that was that while the right wing Reform/Alliance earned concessions, and the left-wing NDP earned concessions, any fallout was placed on the party in power, and ironically, later used by those same people seeking concessions.

I don't want to lose the NDP because they gave us so much, including universal healthcare and prison reform.  But I don't want to lose our centre either, and that's where the only alternative to Harper should be.

Congratulations Ted Hsu on Your New Appointments

Kingston's Ted Hsu has been named to two positions in the Liberal shadow cabinet, Critic for Science & Technology, and for the Federal Economic Development Agency of both Southern and Northern Ontario.

Ted has a PhD in physics from Princeton, and is not only fluent in French, English and Chinese, but also speaks the language of science. Something the Harper government is completely illiterate in.

He's hard working and personable, and will be a great asset to the team as the party rebuilds.

Marc Garneau as House Leader, is also a good choice, as he presents a contrast to the bombastic Peter Van Loan, and often volatile Thomas Mulcair. And Ralph Goodale, one of the most likable and honest in the House, as Deputy leader is a perfect fit.

To Rebuild the Liberal Party There's No Place Like Home

Despite the fact that the Conservative Party poured thousands and thousands of dollars into the riding of Kingston and the Islands, the Liberals won, with a rookie candidate Ted Hsu.

And the reason for this is that they built up the riding association, in part by playing an active role in all issues relating to the community.

During the Coalition crisis they helped to organize an information session at City Hall, along with candidates for the NDP and Green Party. The Conservative candidate was invited but declined.

During Harper's last self-serving prorogation, they again took part in an information session and rally, along with the NDP and Green. The Conservative candidate was invited but declined.

And throughout all of the protests against the closing of the Prison Farms, they were a presence, again with the NDP and Green. The Conservative candidate was invited but declined.

They also took part in local fundraisers for the foodbank, Martha's Table (a soup kitchen) and the Terry Fox Run.

And several high profile MPs were invited to Kingston to speak. Not as rah rahs to the faithful, but to address specific issues. Mark Holland and Wayne Easter paid several visits, working with the Save the Prison Farm group. Sadly it cost Holland, because the Conservatives, with the help of the gun lobby, took his seat. It was very sad.

We had an expert on criminal issues speak and while he said that he didn't want to be partisan (when asked who we should vote for), he was impressed with Holland and said that he was very well informed and committed to social Justice issues.

Now we have a Conservative MP brought to power by a group calling themselves Gunnutz. Oye.

Carolyn Bennett also made an appearance to discuss our dwindling democracy, and the place was packed with people of all political stripes.

That event alone raised over $6,000. Impressive given that we were told that cash donations couldn't exceed $20.

In all Ted Hsu managed to raise over $100,000 while raising his profile.

That's what the Liberals need to do in all ridings, starting now. Use public dissent to their advantage. Find the issues, the causes and the deficiencies, and then get pro-active.

The hat was passed at Liberal sponsored events, but at others only their faces and their hands.

Remember the old saying that if you look after the pennies, the dollars will take care of themselves. Well, we need to look after our home communities and the national victories will come.

Just my thought for today.

Marc Garneau: He Didn't Leave Outer Space For You

One person being considered to act as interim Liberal leader is Marc Garneau. A former astronaut and president of the Canadian Space Agency, Garneau jokingly says "that he can take any possible Conservative attack ad that they may want to consider."

He underestimates the Harperites.

However, I do think that he would be an excellent choice to lead the team during this difficult period.

But making three journeys to outer space? Is he "just visiting"? Did he return to earth for us?

So many important questions.

Are Canadians Having Buyer's Remorse?

The last election results seems to have brought Canadians out of their stupor, now stuck with a Harper majority and a weakened opposition. The Bloc is all but wiped out and the NDP is almost 60% from Quebec and rookies.

The Liberals are still breathing but will have no more clout in Parliament than Jack Layton. This couldn't have turned out better for neoconservatism.

However, the Liberal Party is reporting that since the election they are gaining 150 to 200 new members a day. Canada has completely lost it's centre, and it would seem that many are interested in getting it back.

The Liberals can use this time, while out of the limelight, to rebuild. And I hope they do it with youth and not the same old, same old.

Why I Would Vote for Justin Trudeau as the New Liberal Leader

The Liberal Party needs a shake up. And they need to schedule a leadership convention sooner rather than later.

Generate a bit of excitement, before they fade away into political oblivion.

These next four years, the focus will be on the Conservatives and the NDP. Harper will push through his agenda and the official opposition will be powerless to stop it. But if the Liberals protest loudly, rally advocates and make a lot of noise, they could very well launch the Progressive Revolution we hoped to have this election.

Canada's Conservative party is part of a movement. The NDP began as a movement but has became too political. Some of their supporters suggest they tap into J.S. Wordsworth, the founder of the party, so it's time the Liberals tapped into the Trudeau era, re-fighting battles we already won.

And Justin Trudeau would be the perfect leader. He's young, hard working, gorgeous, and has the name recognition required to generate the nostalgia required to get this country back on track.

Layton threw his lot in with the wrong person, and he'll have to deal with his error in judgement on his own.

Lawrence Martin believes that the Liberal Party must now turn to to their youth, as the path to renewal, and I agree.

It is said that Trudeau will never be accepted by the West and that he's too arrogant. But c'mom, few Liberals are accepted by the West, and it requires a bit of arrogance to become a politician, believing that you can get people to vote for you.

Michael Ignatieff has shown us that qualifications mean nothing. And the Layton "surge" showed us that people are into superficial. They'll vote for someone they've never seen or heard from, if it makes them feel good.

Choosing an older person to lead, means that they'll be four years older by the time the next election rolls around. Justin Trudeau will be 44. Just five years younger than his dad, when he became prime minister.

We can write the Conservative attack ads now, but who cares?

I hope the Party takes Martin's advise and chooses youth. If not, I see the party ending up in the political graveyard.

Omnibus Crime Bill: Coming Soon to a Country Near You

One of Harper's campaign promises was to push through an omnibus crime bill, within the first 100 days of his new mandate.

What he has done is simply lumped several law and order initiatives into one huge missive, making it a bit more difficult to critique.

He has blamed the Liberals for the necessity of this venture, but the fact is that many of these individual bills died when he prorogued Parliament for naked self interest.

But with no real opposition now, he needn't worry. The most aggressive shift to Canadian justice is upon us and we are powerless to stop it.

Of immediate concern, is Internet surveillance, which will move us closer to becoming a police state.

According to Michael Geist:

...the Conservatives new commitment to lawful access - new laws that would establish massive Internet surveillance requirements and the potential disclosure of personal information without court oversight - is incredibly problematic for the Internet, privacy, and online freedoms. It requires real debate yet seems likely to slip under the public radar ...

There are several concerns with the Conservatives lawful access plans. First, it bears noting that these bills have never received extensive debate on the floor of the House of Commons and never been the subject of committee hearings. Police officers may support the legislation, but there has never been an opportunity to question them on the need for such legislation or on their ability to use lawful access powers if the bills become law. Federal and provincial privacy commissioners have expressed deep concerns about these bills, yet they have never had the opportunity to air those concerns before committee. Internet service providers, who face millions in additional costs - presumably passed along to consumers - have never appeared before committee. By making a commitment to passing lawful access within 100 days, the Conservatives are undertaking to pass legislation with enormous implications for the Internet that has never received parliamentary scrutiny and will receive limited attention.

Second, more important than process is the substance of the proposals that have the potential to fundamentally reshape the Internet in Canada. The bills contain a three-pronged approach focused on information disclosure, mandated surveillance technologies, and new police powers.

But that will not happen now. Why form committees, or hold hearings, when we know that absolutely nothing will change Stephen Harper's mind, once he decides to do something?

And it will be difficult for Jack Layton to argue against the crime bills, because according to James Laxer in his piece, 'Fake Left Go Right', Layton has also tapped into urban fears of gangs and rampant lawlessness.

His platform included the promise to add more police officers, and during the debates he caught Harper off guard when he accused him of promising more officers, but not delivering.

However, this could give the Liberals an opportunity to set themselves apart from both the Conservatives and the NDP. They need to raise holy hell about this. Accusations of being soft on crime must be brushed off, while instead focusing their debates on being smart on crime.

And they can tap into history to justify their arguments. Successive Liberal governments gave us our once envied Just Society. According to Michael Ignatieff in the Rights Revolution:

Our legal culture has roots in the three great legal traditions of France, Britain, and America, and yet we do not carry the baggage of an imperial past or the menace of an imperial present. We have few enemies and many friends, and we have the problems to which the world needs answers. So it is not surprising that when the chief justice of our Supreme Court, Beverly McLachlin, visited a judicial training college during a recent trip to China, she found Chinese judges discussing Canadian Supreme Court cases."

When I visited the Constitutional Court of South Africa, I discovered that the judges there make frequent reference to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The originality of Canadian rights culture may be obvious to South Africans, but it is not obvious to Canadians. (1)

Crime rates in Canada are the lowest in our history, and our unique rights culture can take much of the credit.

Many believe that the NDP will have to move the centre, if they hope to compete with the Conservatives next election. But unfortunately, Conservatives on both sides of the border, have moved the centre. So just how far to the right is Layton willing to go?

The Liberals need to focus on the contributions that their party has made in shaping the Canada that most want to live in, offering themselves as the only option to restore both our image and our Canadian values.

And they have at least four years to do it.

Sources:

1. The Rights Revolution: CBC Massey Lectures, By Michael Ignatieff, Anansi Books, 2000, ISBN: 978-0-88784-762-2, Pg. 13

Gun Control Advocates Say Don't Vote NDP or Conservative

Gun control advocates are urging Canadians to vote either Liberal or Bloc if they want to save the gun registry.

“What’s unfortunate from the NDP is that Jack Layton came to Dawson once and promised us to have a strong position about gun control in his party,” said Hayder Kadhim, who was wounded in the 2006 shooting at Montreal’s Dawson College. “But unfortunately in September I witnessed with my own eyes, that he didn’t hold his promise.”

On Sept. 13, 2006, Kimveer Gill stormed Dawson and opened fire. One student, 18-year-old Anastasia De Sousa, was killed, and many others were injured before Gill turned the gun on himself. Several people who were affected by the Dawson shooting and the 1989 Montreal Massacre held a news conference in Montreal on Thursday. The conference was held at the home of the parents of Anne-Marie Edward, one of 14 women killed in the École Polytechnique massacre in 1989.

Think twice, vote once.

Andrew Coyne is Voting Liberal Choosing Democracy

Andrew Coyne has written a great column today where he provides his reasons for voting Liberal.

For me there are two issues of overwhelming importance in this election. The first is the economy, not only in its own right but for what it means for our ability to finance the social programs we have created for ourselves. The second is the alarming state of our democracy: the decaying of Parliament’s ability to hold governments to account, and the decline, not unrelated, in Parliament’s own accountability to the people.

I can eliminate two options off the top. While both the NDP and the Greens offer appealing proposals for democratic reform, I can’t bring myself to vote for either. It isn’t only their policies—the enormous increases in spending and taxes, the ill-judged market interventions—but their personnel. Simply put, neither party is ready for government.

So the choice for me is between the Conservatives and the Liberals. And as I have wrestled with it, the ballot question that has occurred to me is this: would the Liberals do more harm to the economy than the Conservatives would do to democracy? Or perhaps: would the Liberals harm the economy more than the Conservatives would? Would re-electing the Conservatives do greater harm to our democracy than electing the Liberals? And: which concern should weigh more heavily in the balance?

This is what I try to tell people about Kingston. We are a moderate, Conservative, military town. People here usually see two options: Liberal or Conservative. I don't see a major shift to the NDP.

At the end of the day, with so many problems facing the country today, are we really prepared to go with an untested party? Neither the NDP nor the Green are prepared to govern.

As Coyne says, the economy is important, but our democracy is worth more. The Liberals already have a good record on the economy, and it was the Liberals who put things in place that safeguarded us from economic collapse.

Michael Ignatieff is still standing and I have faith in the Canadian people that they will do the right thing.

We're not looking for people to just fill seats. We need a realistic replacement to the Harper government. Coyne made the right choice.

I Love This Video for Shafik Ruda Edmonton East Candidate

It's fresh and fun. And you can dance to it.

Good work Shafik. Inspiring.

That's What I'm Talking About Mr. Layton. David Lewis Would be Proud.

I had posted a while back, suggesting that Canadians needed to revive the Committee for an Independent Canada, a grassroots movement formed in the early seventies, who were afraid that the Liberal Party was moving to the right and was blind "to the sale of Canadian resources to foreigners".

NDP leader David Lewis campaigned against corporate greed, with the slogan "corporate welfare bums" in response to those who felt that Trudeau's increase in UI premiums was creating a sub-culture of "welfare bums".

And it worked. In 1972, the Liberal Party was reduced to a minority, with Lewis's NDP holding the balance of power. But the most important accomplishment was that they steered the Liberal Party to the left, moving us toward a Just Society.

From my keyboard to some deity's ears, I guess, because Jack Layton is now coming out against corporate tax cheats.

Jack Layton is demanding the Harper government crack down on sleazy millionaires who hide their fortunes in offshore tax havens. “Mr. Harper cannot keep standing by while the wealthy tax cheats and the biggest corporations ... essentially take tax dollars out of the pockets of hard-working Canadians,” the NDP Leader told reporters Tuesday. “It’s not right.”

Harper's new, so-called, tough on crime laws, only target this country's most vulnerable.

The Corporate Welfare bums and tax cheats, flaunt their "stolen goods", and no one arrests them.

This is what the progressives needs to do. Michael Ignatieff has already promised to stop the new corporate tax cuts (theft of taxpayers money), and now Jack Layton is promising to close up tax loopholes.

This could be the start of a movement to restore sanity to this country.

The term "Corporate Welfare Bums" needs to become part of our vernacular, and the centrepiece of the next election campaign. They have not kept up their part of the bargain. They caused the economic downturn, but we are the ones who have to pay for it.

I'm sick of reading "record profits" in the headlines. Enough is enough.

Toronto's new mayor, Rob Ford, did not put any "Lefties" in his government. Good. I would have kicked them out of my Karl Marx Chai Party.

I'm kidding. Don't tell Jason Kenney. He's likely to slip in his own spit. Have you seen him when he gets flustered?

This is not a socialist issue but a Canadian one. We need to turn this county around for the benefit of Canadians, and we need all parties from the centre and left to work in tandem.

My Crisis of Faith and What Must be Done to Restore it

I am having a crisis of faith. Not faith in my country but faith in liberalism. This is very serious in a country known for it's liberal values.

When the Progressive Conservatives were eaten alive, I supported the NDP, and while I still have a great deal of respect for many of their MPs, I lost faith in their leader. He no longer stood up for Canadian values but had become just another politician.

Then when Michael Ignatieff was named party leader, I joined the Liberals. The first time in my life that I had officially joined a political party. And putting my money where my mouth was, I contributed funds. In fact my husband and I will have contributed the maximum this year. The first time either of us have ever given to a political party.

But I had read Blood and Belonging and The Rights Revolution, and I believed in what Mr. Ignatieff stood for.

But where is that man?

The latest fiasco over the extension of the Afghan War has me wondering if I chose the right route to getting rid of our dictator.

That doesn't mean that I'm going to cut up my Liberal card or stomp off mad, because I still believe in the basic fundamentals of this party. But if they are going to agree with one of the worst decisions ever made by this government, without even telling us why, then the Liberal Party can no more call themselves liberal than the Conservative Party can call themselves conservative.

This is not what I signed on for.

I think I have a better understanding of the events leading up to the Afghan extension announcement. Bob Rae visited Afghanistan and saw an opportunity for a peacekeeping role. Stephen Harper got wind of it so made it political, as he does with everything, announcing the Liberal plan as his own. Then when the you know what hit the fan, he rallied the right-wing media, to spin the story, deflecting blame from Harper himself.

But I don't care. Our role as Peacekeepers should have been put in place years ago, before we allowed Rick Hillier to suggest that it is our military's job to kill people.

That ship has sailed.

I understand that sometimes if you want to help the world's most vulnerable, you have to take up arms against their oppressors. But in Afghanistan, we are the oppressors.

We are propping up a corrupt government and killing people. Lots of people. Women and children. The elderly. Innocent civilians. They no longer want our "help", trust me. They just want to be left alone.

Paul Krugman has an excellent column in the New York Times: The World as Obama Finds It, where he is questioning whether there is any difference between the Republicans and the Democrats.

On Wednesday David Axelrod, President Obama’s top political adviser, appeared to signal that the White House was ready to cave on tax cuts — to give in to Republican demands that tax cuts be extended for the wealthy as well as the middle class. “We have to deal with the world as we find it,” he declared.

The obvious point is the contrast between the administration’s current whipped-dog demeanor and Mr. Obama’s soaring rhetoric as a candidate. How did we get from “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for” to here?

Obama was going to change the world.

In fairness he has had to face a lot of corporate funded opposition with the Tea Party and Fox News, who have been relentless. But if you really want to show that you are different, say to hell with them all. He'd probably find more Americans agreeing with him than he thinks.

In Canada we are facing the same corporate funded opposition, but it's time the Liberals said to hell with them all, and I thought I had seen a few signs of that.

Michael Ignatieff stated recently that while he opposed anti-Semitism, "...stressed that a balanced and informed questioning of Israeli policies was not anti-Semitism". We need more of that.

Michael Ignatieff agreed to decriminalize marijuana for personal use. We need more of that.

The Liberals will reopen the Prison Farms. We need more of that.

They helped to save the gun registry. We need more of that.

They promised to reopen the fighter jet contract. We need more of that.

They promised to end corporate welfare. We need more of that.

They promised to preserve Medicare. We need more of that.

What we don't need is more Stephen Harper, and that is what we are getting with this Afghan WAR.

The right-wing's latest convert, Chantel Hebert, has given Ignatieff his death notice. I'm putting him on life support. Don't make me pull the plug, by showing me there's some signs of life.

The Difference Between Liberals and Conservatives is Found in Their Victims

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

Bill Maher commented a couple of weeks ago that to him the difference between liberals and conservatives, is that conservatives lack the ability to feel empathy for anyone else.

I think that sums it up nicely.

And I don't mean the original conservative party in Canada, who had a social conscience, but the new definition of a conservative*.

What do they protest?

Don't touch my guns. Don't raise my taxes. Keep out of my business.

My, my, my. Me, me, me.

And there is such a profound hatred for their fellow human beings. Gays, Muslims, feminists, immigrants ... white Judea-Christians sit here, everyone else to the back of the bus.

And they dismiss those fighting for social causes as being "special interest" or "Left-wing fringe groups."

But what do liberals* protest? Poverty, homelessness, injustice. And most of the protesters who march are not poor or homeless and have never been the victim of injustice. But they have the ability to empathize.

Altruistic vs egocentric.

I know right off the bat there will be many calling themselves conservative who would refute this by saying that they give to the food bank, volunteer at soup kitchens, etc. but that does not change the fundamentals of the movement.

Conservatives want all charity to be handled by religious organizations, but that just feeds their egocentricity, because it puts them in control of people they believe are beneath them.

And it is this that AstroTurf organizations are feeding off, and it is how they have so easily been able to take control of the right-wing, conservative movement.

FreedomWorks

When Barack Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act into law, he said "We must stem the spread of foreclosures and falling home values for all Americans, and do everything we can to help responsible homeowners stay in their homes." Foreclosures in the U.S. are of epidemic proportions, so the reason for this was to help those who needed it most.

The backlash from the right was immediate. Bailing out corporations was fine, but Obama wanted to bail out ordinary Americans. Americans without jobs. Americans with few prospects.

This was Socialism.

So they took to the streets. But not on their own. An organization dubiously called FreedomWorks, set up a website called AngryRenter.com. They claimed to work for "prudent renters" outraged over the government bailout for "irresponsible homeowners".

But as Michael Phillips of the Wall Street Journal discovered, this group were not renters, nor was this a spontaneous uprising.

AngryRenter.com is actually a product of an inside-the-Beltway conservative advocacy organization led by Dick Armey, the former House majority leader, and publishing magnate Steve Forbes**, a fellow Republican. It's a fake grass-roots effort -- what politicos call an AstroTurf campaign -- that provides a window into the sleight-of-hand ways of Washington. (1)

And Republican Dick Armey and his FreedomWorks, is also behind the current Tea Party movement. And what they have been able to do is nothing short of a miracle.

They have been able to turn public anger away from the corporate hand outs and toward the victims of the economic meltdown. Wall Street was not responsible. Workers were. Lazy Americans were. Too many demands.

Read the signs above carried by a group of Tea Partyers. "Honk if you're paying my mortgage". "Don't spread my wealth, spread my work ethic". If they were really concerned with these issues they would demand that more be done to find work for those falling behind. You can't spread "work ethic" without first spreading "work".

But these protesters lack the ability to empathize. They can only flaunt.

Glen Beck tells them to ignore Obama when he claims that all Americans deserve a piece of the pie. He wants to keep all of his pie.

They are creating a culture of greed.

And what do they teach their children? It's fine to encourage them to stand up for themselves, but they should also be encouraged to stand up for those unable to. That's what's missing in this movement.

And that is how we must frame the next election campaign. The difference between liberals and conservatives is just that simple.

Michael Ignatieff wants to put an end to the corporate tax cuts. Jack Layton has always opposed them and Elizabeth May wants to roll them back.

They want to make "victims" of the greedy. Conservatives want to make "victims" of those already suffering.

"Experience demands that man is the only animal which devours his own kind, for I can apply no milder term to the general prey of the rich on the poor." Thomas Jefferson

Footnotes:

*When I mention liberal and conservative I am not referring to political parties, only values.

**Steve Forbes is also on the board of directors for a group called the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. According to SourceWatch:

In early 2001, a tightly knit group of billionaire philanthropists conceived of a plan to win American sympathy for Israel's response to the Palestinian intifada. They believed that the Palestinian cause was finding too much support within crucial segments of the American public, particularly within the media and on college campuses, so they set up an organization, Emet: An Educational Initiative, Inc., to offer Israel the kind of PR that the Israeli government seemed unable to provide itself.

Another member of that group is Alykhan Velshi, who is currently Jason Kenney's Director of Communications and Parliamentary Affairs.

Sources:

1. Mortgage Bailout Infuriates Tenants (And Steve Forbes) 'Angry Renter' Web Site Has Grass-Roots Look, But This Turf Is Fake, by Michael Phillips, Wall Street Journal, May 16, 2008

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.

The Politics of Hate: Where Will it Lead?

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

"Canada appears content to become a second-tier socialistic country, boasting ever more loudly about its economy and social services to mask its second-rate status, led by a second-world strongman appropriately suited for the task." Stephen Harper (1)

A friend just loaned me Harperland, and in the first chapter there was something that hit me.

It wasn't the revelation that Stephen Harper is a "different Conservative", with no ties to the party of Sir John A. or John Diefenbaker. I already knew that, though I think it was an important statement to make for those who vote for Harper's party believing that they are Tories. This was more of a hostile takeover of the Progressive Conservatives by the Reform-Alliance movement.

As Martin says:

The merger was a ruse of sorts. This was no equal partnership. The merged party had five times as many Alliance MPs as old Tory ones. In the election before this merger, the Alliance Party had won sixty-six seats, the Tories only twelve. Before long, Harper won the leadership of the new party, making the domination of the Reform-Alliance wing even more pronounced. This wasn't so much a merger as the Alliance Party's annexing of an auxiliary group. (2)

But what struck me was his reference to Stephen Harper hating Liberals. Not competing with, but a deep-rooted visceral hatred. Where I believe Martin is a bit misguided though, is in his belief that Harper simply hates the Liberal Party. It's much more fundamental than that.

Stephen Harper hates liberalism in all of it's manifestations, including the former Progressive Conservatives. What the right-wing Brits, especially Margaret Thatcher, would refer to as "wets", he called "pink liberals".

The opening quote referring to Canada as a "second-tier socialistic country" is seen often, but usually ends at "status". However, I think the rest of that quote is more important, as he refers to Jean Chretien as a "second-world strongman".

The term "second-world" was usually applied to the Soviet Union or Communist Block, though it's not a term used much since the Cold War. But it does reveal the Harper mindset.

I once thought that he played the 'socialist' card like a silent dog whistle to his base, but I now believe that he himself, is personally driven by a fear or loathing, perhaps both, of Communism. And it may go back to the time before the Reform Party was established, but accelerated after his involvement with men like Peter Worthington, Lubor Zinc, Peter Brimelow and David Somerville.

Worthington was obsessed with the belief that Pierre Trudeau was a Communist. Guy Giorno fell under his spell after hearing him do a radio interview, and it helped to impact his political thought. Stephen Harper joined the Northern Foundation (3) which was not only anti-communist but also anti-gay, anti-abortion and pro-Anglo; when Worthington was a member and Peter Brimelow a regular speaker at their conventions. (4)

Lubor Zinc was also a member of the 'Trudeau is a Communist' crowd, a Reform Party member and the man who coined the term 'Trudeaumania', though he meant for it to have a negative connotation.

Peter Brimelow calls himself a Paleoconservative and his book The Patriot Game so inspired Stephen Harper that he went out and bought 10 copies to give to friends. (5)

Brimelow also detested liberalism and says of Trudeau that while he espoused the notion that the individual must be protected from the State, he was alarmed when he also noted that the "State has to intervene to protect the weak members of society, minorities, those who need protection from the State against stronger forces than themselves." (6) And of course this was reflected in the Charter of Rights.

All anathema to the far right.

And then there's David Sommerville, the man that Stephen Harper replaced as president of the National Citizens Coalition. When Ernest Manning and Colin Brown first decided to create this right-wing advocacy group, they chose him to head it up, inspired by Somerville's anti-communist columns, and his book Trudeau Revealed was a Bible to the 'Cold War' crowd.

At the time, these men were considered to be crackpots by most Canadians, viewed under the shadow of McCarthyism, but to an impressionable young man just entering active politics, they were his mentors and they would have used terms like "second-world strongman".

So while Martin agrees that Harper is a different conservative and a different political figure, driven by hate, and a desire to destroy the Liberal Party (aka liberalism), he also reminds us:

Given that party's domination of the power structure through time, the Liberal order and the Canadian order were almost one and the same. To take down one was to take down the other. (7)

He had already destroyed the Tories as "pink liberals" or "wets", by swallowing them whole, and is determined to anhilate the Liberals.

The only thing standing in his way then would be us.

Sources:

1. "It is time to seek a new relationship with Canada", By Stephen Harper, December 12th, 2000

2. Harperland:The Politics of Control, By Lawrence Martin, Viking Press, 2010, ISBN: 978-0-670-06517-2, Pg. 2

3. Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper demonstrates continued ultra right wing affiliations by blocking pro social justice Toronto candidate, by Dr. Debra Chin, The Canadian

4. Of Passionate Intensity: Right-Wing Populism and the Reform Party of Canada, By Trevor Harrison, University of Toronto Press, 1995, ISBN: 0-8020-7204-6 3, Pg. 122

5. Stephen Harper and the Future of Canada, by William Johnson, McClelland & Stewart, 2005, ISBN 0-7710 4350-3, Pg. 52

6. The Patriot Game: National Dreams and Political Realities, By Peter Brimelow, Key Porter Books, 1986, ISBN: 1-55013-001-3, Pg. 49

7. Martin, 2010, Pg. 6

I Want You to Meet my Friend: Ted Chartrand

Ted Chartrand is seeking the Liberal nomination for Ottawa West Nepean.

He will be an excellent choice for the riding of John Baird. Canvassing the area, he has found a lot of discontent with Baird, and I think the residents are eager for a change.

When you meet Ted, you instantly fall in love with him. He is funny and bright and very well qualified.

So if you live in this riding or know someone who does, please tell them to check out his website. If you or they are already members of the Liberal party, you have a chance to vote. And if not you can join for $ 10.00.

I attended my very first nomination meeting in Kingston this week, and it's very exciting.

Ralph Goodale Sums Up the Reform-Conservatives Nicely

Ralph Goodale has explained very nicely the reasons for the census change, as well as clearly outlining the history of the Harper government ignoring facts, and attacking anyone who disagrees with them.

Thomas Walkom also points out the hypocrisy of this government:

Industry Minister Tony Clement says he’s axing the mandatory questionnaire because the state has no right to demand intrusive information, such as the number of bedrooms in a home. Yet his is the same government that requires airlines to collect and hand over detailed personal information on everyone who flies – and then give much of it to a foreign state.

It’s also the government that last month transformed downtown Toronto into an armed camp, where police arbitrarily stopped and searched people going about their lawful business and then—equally arbitrarily—arrested and jailed scores more. Until forced by the courts last year, Harper’s “non-intrusive” government used all of its power to keep Canadian citizen Abousfian Abdelrazik from returning to Canada.

Once Abdelrazik (who has been charged with no crime in any country) did return, this government intruded into his life to deny him the most basic rights: to work, to earn an income, to open a bank account. So no. The Harper government is not libertarian. It has used the full muscle of the state to walk over the civil and constitutional rights of those it purports to represent.

Or maybe they are just using the census to deflect attention away from the billions spent for the G-20, the billions being spent on military jets and the billions being wasted on tougher crime measures, when Canada's crime rate continues to decline.

Everything's a game.