Will Mike Duffy's Chickens Come Home to Roost in Harper's Backyard?

“Because my family has no money, I’ve decided to become a prostitute. That’s right, I’m going into politics.
” ― Jarod Kintz, The Merits of Marthaism, and How Being Named Susan Can Benefit You

During the final days of the 2008 Canadian federal election campaign, the Liberals were starting to climb in the polls. Stephen Harper had not done well in the debates and Climate Change was increasing as an election issue.

According to Nik Nanos

The fallout from the French and English debates shows the previous pre-debate 10 point Conservative margin is now four percentage points. Tracking shows incremental movement in favour of the Liberals and Stephane Dion. Dion registered his highest score as the person Canadians think would make the best Prime Minister.

Stephen Harper was in trouble and he knew it. Attacks on the carbon tax were losing traction, and his "bubble campaign" was about to burst.

Enter CTV and Mike Duffy. (Insert drum roll)

In the now infamous interview with Stephane Dion, Steve Murphy, an anchor with CTV Atlantic, presented a question that many linguists have called convoluted at best, and intentionally crafted at worst. I believe the latter to be true.

The French speaking Dion, who is also hearing impaired, struggled to make sense of Murphy's verbal diarrhea, asking several times to start again. Murphy assured the Liberal leader, that he would be afforded the same courtesy as many others who needed restarts, and that the "out takes" would not be broadcast. He lied.

Tripping over themselves for headlines, CTV included them in their nightly news.

Mike Duffy used the incident as a panel topic on his program, mocking Mr. Dion and steering the conversation away from his defense, and toward simply sticking it to him. Days later Stephen Harper won his second minority.

However, the stunt pulled by Duffy, Murphy and CTV had a more dire affect. Not more dire than being stuck with Harper for another term, but Canadian democracy was struck another serious blow. The Liberal votes did not go to the Conservatives, or even the NDP. Instead those voters simply decided to stay home on election night.

The players, Mike Duffy and Steve Murphy, were charged by the CRTC with ethics violations. Yet Murphy was given a rare one-on-one interview with Stephen Harper, and Duffy a Senate seat, along with CTV board member, Pamela Wallin.

Early Warning Signs

Many in the media were aware of how badly Mike Duffy wanted a Senate seat. A once respected journalist, he had become little more than a gossip monger, willing to prostitute himself for the chance to sit in the coveted Chamber. They even nicknamed him The Senator.

So his manipulation of the "news" to worm his way into the good graces of Stephen Harper, came as no surprise to them. They would finally be afforded an opportunity to expose the scam, when just a few months later, Duffy's expense claims would be brought into question.

NDP MP Peter Stoffer, drew attention to the fact that Duffy had racked up $44,000 in travel costs in just three months. Odd, given that much of his travel was for speaking engagements on behalf of the Conservative Party of Canada, for which he charged a fee.

Duffy was livid and called Stoffer a "faker", prompting Don Martin to write a piece, Mike Duffy Jumps the Shark.

It takes considerable effort to become a complete embarrassment. Congratulations Senator Mike Duffy, you've finally done it.

With his wild rant on a CBC national politics show this week, the television icon has accomplished the difficult feat of offending all those in his parliamentary orbit -- his former journalistic occupation, the Conservative party, senators, MPs and even the prime minister who appointed him ....

...Now, Duffy calling someone a faker equals pot calling the kettle black. This is the same Duffy who, as host of his own politics show, presented himself for decades as journalistically neutral, then accepted Harper's $130,000 appointment ten months ago and now devotes his energies to shamelessly shilling for the Conservatives.

That's the definition of fakery for you, particularly given he was appointed after airing that infamous CTV interview with then-Liberal leader Stephane Dion, a bumbling performance credited by some as the turning point of the 2008 election campaign for Stephen Harper.

Duffy's on air political views were already becoming increasingly right-wing, perhaps recognizing that hitching his wagon to the Conservative Movement would be better for his career.

In 2004, when there was concern over a coalition attempt by Stephen Harper, Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe, that would have made Harper Prime Minister then, Duffy was one of the few to hail this as a good thing.

On the day in October 2004 when Mr. Martin’s government delivered its throne speech, CTV journalist Mike Duffy — later appointed by Mr. Harper as a Conservative senator — reported that some Conservatives saw the Liberals’ troubles as a chance to make Mr. Harper prime minister. “It is possible that you could change prime minister without having an election,” Mr. Duffy said on CTV on Oct. 5, 2004. “If you could put Stephen Harper — and this is some of the thinking of Conservatives — in 24 Sussex Drive, even for five or six months without an election, it would make the Conservative option much more palatable to Canadians because they’d see that they don’t have horns and a tail.”

Unfortunately, it would turn out that he did in fact have horns and tail. In 2004, Canadians were concerned with his threats to Public Healthcare and our Charter of Rights. Touché.

But Duffy was now true blue, hitting the circuit with neocon diatribe against anything remotely liberal, even warning journalism students not to read Noam Chomsky, for fear they might be inflicted with critical thinking. The horror!

When They Fall They Fall Hard

Now Mike Duffy is facing 31 criminal charges of fraud and breach of trust, despite enormous efforts by the PMO and Conservative Party, to sweep this under the rug; including money to pay for his defense.

What were they afraid of? Surely not just the scandal. They were already facing enough scandals to sink their ship.

However, well aware of Duffy's penchant for gossip and need to stay in the limelight, they were probably afraid of what he already knew and what he would share, and indeed, he has promised to do just that.

There is already overwhelming evidence that Harper knew of the Duffy payoff, just as he knew of the Cadman payoff, and Porter's criminal record. A continuation of controlling everything but being accountable for nothing.

Besides dreaming of a Senate seat, however, Duffy also had designs of one day being awarded the Order of Canada. Says former drinking buddy, Linden MacIntyre:

“Mike developed ‘host’s disease,’ ... That's where you start to believe all the flattery, believe you’re bigger than the story. The affliction gets worse, the head swells up and anything that threatens your celebrity becomes a problem.”

Duffy now has a very big problem, and instead of ending his career in glory, he will be remembered as a "faker", a fraud and a cheat.

But he will not be alone.

If There is a Referendum, I Will Vote to Abolish the Senate

There is a lot of discussion about Stephen Harper's plans to reform the Senate, by placing term limits of nine years, but only on those appointed after 2008.

Most of the opposition is coming from Harper's own senate appointments, many of whom have been rejected by the electorate, so would have difficulty finding such a cushy job, not to mention a pension for life.

Harper's other plan of an elected senate, would require a referendum, but even his current tweaking, demands a consensus from the provinces.

Being a Senator use to mean something in Canada, but the Senate is now just a $100 million a year drain on tax dollars, as a home for Harper flunkies.

They used to be there to protect us from someone like Stephen Harper, now they only protect him from people like us.

A three year study on poverty in Canada by the Liberal dominated senate, with vital input from Conservative senators, was presented to Stephen Harper. He gave it a glance then threw it in the trash.

The Parliament debated and passed a climate change bill. The Conservative dominated Senate gave it a glance, then threw it in the trash.

And any Senate bills that might help Canadians or make government more accountable, never have a chance. Even if they could get enough support from Conservative senators, the Harperites have found a way to make sure they never see the light of day.

In 2009, the Canadian Press learned of the tactic they used to hijack senate bills.

Normally, the author of a Senate private member's bill arranges to have a sympathetic MP sponsor it once it clears the upper house and arrives in the Commons. The sponsor informs the clerk's office that he or she will take responsibility for shepherding the bill through the Commons. But last month, Tory MPs began rushing to the clerk's office to sponsor bills almost the moment they were introduced in the upper house, whether or not they actually supported the bills and without waiting to see if they'd actually ever make it to the Commons.

A bill automatically dies if its sponsor fails to show up twice for debate on it. The Harperites who rush to sponsor the bill, make sure that they never show up to debate, stopping it in its tracks.

Ralph Goodale said the latest ploy is "an effort to muzzle a house of Parliament," and part of the government's continuing "vendetta" against the Senate. He said it's particularly hypocritical given the Tories' denunciations of the unelected chamber as an affront to democracy. "What they're basically saying is these topics (in the senators' bills) will not be debated. So it is very clearly the stifling of free speech."

It has just become another body that Harper can control at his whim.

A senator, especially a Conservative senator, is nothing more than a high priced bench warmer.

I did get my own back on one of them though. Senator Hugh Segal lives in Kingston, but we only hear from him when there's going to be an election. Like Wiarton Willie, if we see Segal's shadow, we know we're going to the polls.

When Stephen Harper was in Kingston, protesters were treated like criminals, kept behind imaginary lines and vivid barbed wire.

I was there, and when it was over made my way to the restaurant to use the bathroom and phone my husband. The door I normally used was locked, but I spotted Segal coming out the side door.

I approached him, and with all the innocence I could muster, asked him if he worked there, and could he let me in. He bent his head slightly, perhaps thinking I hadn't recognized him, and "feared" that I might ask for his autograph. I knew who he was, but it felt good to pretend I didn't.

He's done nothing to earn my respect, and that's something I don't hand out for free.

So if there is a referendum, I will be voting to abolish the Senate. It no longer has a legitimate function.

Mike Duffy and the CRTC. A Hint at What is to Come

As the Harper stacked CRTC is looking at allowing Canadian news programs to just make stuff up, I'm reminded of Mike Duffy and his role in hijacking the 2008 election.

This was done by creating an entire show around the false starts of Stéphane Dion, when he was asked an obviously carefully drafted convoluted question by CTV's Steve Murphy, that even linguistic professors determined made no sense.

But what didn't come out in the media, was that both Steve Murphy and Mike Duffy were charged with ethics violations, as a result of their complicity in influencing the results of an election.

The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (CBSC) today released two decisions concerning the broadcast of three false starts of an interview by CTV anchor Steve Murphy with Liberal leader Stéphane Dion during the October 2008 federal election campaign. Each restart had been requested by Mr. Dion and granted by Mr. Murphy, CJCH-TV (CTV Atlantic)’s news anchor.

One decision related to the first broadcast of the false starts (which were followed by the broadcast of the full 12-minute interview) on CTV Atlantic’s newscast CTV News at 6 on October 9. The other related to the rebroadcast by CTV Newsnet of the restarts on the public affairs discussion program Mike Duffy Live Prime Time later that same evening. The CBSC concluded that both broadcasts violated certain provisions of the Radio Television News Directors of Canada (RTNDA) Code of (Journalistic) Ethics and the Canadian Association of Broadcasters’ (CAB) Code of Ethics.

After the debates Stephen Harper's popularity had plummeted and he only regained the lead after this little stunt.

The fallout from the French and English debates shows the previous pre-debate 10 point Conservative margin is now four percentage points. Tracking shows incremental movement in favour of the Liberals and Stephane Dion. Dion registered his highest score as the person Canadians think would make the best Prime Minister.

Of course Mike Duffy was rewarded with a senate seat, where the Canadian taxpayers now shell out more than $150,000.00 a year so that he can campaign full time for the neocons.

But this is the kind of thing that the new CRTC ruling would make commonplace. News stories will be about cherry picking statements, and fabricating a story around them. And Canadians won't know what hit them.

How Mike Duffy Forced me to Listen to Noam Chomsky

"An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it." Mohandas Gandhi

In March of this year, patronage appointed senator, Mike Duffy, went on a rant, attacking Canadian journalism schools for promoting critical thinking, singling out the University of King’s College.

“When I went to the school of hard knocks, we were told to be fair and balanced,” Duffy was quoted from his speech in yesterday’s issue of the Amherst Daily News. “That school doesn’t exist any more. Kids who go to King’s, or the other schools across the country, are taught from two main texts.” ... those two texts are Manufacturing Consent, Chomsky’s book on mainstream media, and books about the theory of critical thinking.

“When you put critical thinking together with Noam Chomsky, what you’ve got is a group of people who are taught from the ages of 18, 19 and 20 that what we stand for, private enterprise, a system that has generated more wealth for more people because people take risks and build businesses, is bad,” ... Duffy then told Conservatives they have nothing to apologize for because most Canadians are not “on the fringe where these other people are.”

On the fringe of where these people are?

Since when does an unelected government mouthpiece get to decide what is taught in journalism schools? It's not bad enough that they've swung our media to the right, but they are clearly trying to make sure that they stay that way.

Do they now have spies taping lectures?

The Hitler youth were encouraged to report teachers who were critical of Hitler's Germany and those teachers were immediately sacked, and textbooks the government disapproved of, were withdrawn and rewritten.

"Fair and balanced" media Mr. Duffy? Really? Since when?

Rich coming from a man charged with ethics violations for election tampering. His senate seat was bought and paid for.

So who would Duffy prefer that Canadian journalism students listen to? Rush Limbaugh? Glen Beck? Bill O'Reilly?

Noam Chomsky was interviewed on Democracy Now after the American mid-term elections (video below) and he makes some very valid points. Our democracy is in trouble, in large part because we are no longer participating in it. We are allowing those with the loudest voices to drown out all others, and no matter how ridiculous or off the wall, they are permeating the public psyche.

"Less government". "No taxes".

And yet polls consistently show that the general population want things like healthcare, access to education, public transportation and the eradication of poverty. But they can't have those things if they don't pay taxes. What we need is a fairer taxation system, so that those who take the most, must give the most back. But as Chomsky says, public money is going into fewer pockets.

Wealth is now illusive and democracy only in the abstract. Middle class wages have stagnated while big business has money coming out of their ears.

Should it surprise anyone that industry and oil execs get the most access to our prime minister, while health and environment lobby groups get markedly less? Or that Stephen Harper completely ignored a senate report on addressing poverty? Or sabotaged the climate bill?

Who Now Represents the Left?

Chomsky points out that both the Republicans and Democrats have swung to the right, mainly due to corporate propaganda. And the Tea Party is further to the right of them. So who now speaks for the left?

In Canada the Liberals represent the centre, controlled in part by big business though not monopolized by it, while the NDP were the closest thing we had to left leaning politics. But even the NDP have caved. Jack Layton sabotaged Kyoto for political leverage and recently attacked Libby Davies for supporting Palestine.

Not that the corporate sector would ever allow the NDP to govern. The Fraser Institute was created to destroy the NDP government in British Columbia, and in Ontario, the National Citizens Coalition, refused to allow Bob Rae's then NDP government to function.

Public access to public money is dwindling, and we are told that the priorities are now war to keep us safe, military hardware for war, and providing welfare to corporations because as Mike Duffy claims, it is : "a system that has generated more wealth for more people because people take risks and build businesses."

Since when?

The gap between rich and poor is at it's highest level. We are generating more wealth for fewer people, while creating a culture of greed.

And families now no longer just require two incomes to survive, but often demand that both parents work more than one job.

Foodbank use is on the rise and our healthcare system is in peril. Corporations don't need more money, they need less.

But nothing will change unless we get more involved in the democratic process, before we lose our democracy for good.

"If liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in government to the utmost." - Aristotle

A Deceptive Democracy: The Annihilation of Stéphane Dion and the Media's Complicity

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

"For the first time in Canadian political life, attack ads have been launched outside an election cycle. The Conservative "Not a Leader" tag line for Stephane Dion was drummed into voters' heads in January 2007 — mere weeks after Stephane Dion won the Liberal leadership. The increasing prominence of a presidential-style prime minister is steadily denigrating the traditions and institutions of Canadian democracy." - Elizabeth May (1)

From television ads to tax payer funded ten percenters, the Reform-Conservatives hammered the message that Stephane Dion was not a leader, based on nothing more than a fabricated perception of weakness.

And when that wasn't enough, they resorted to lies. The MP from Blackstrap Saskatchewan, Lynne Yelich, used her taxpayer funded handouts to suggest that Mr. Dion was going to end the Universal childcare benefit, when he had never said such a thing. He was only promoting a national child care plan, instead of throwing crumbs at a problem. But that never factored into Yelich's attack. Fear mongering was her only goal.

They also used a soundbite from the leadership convention, when Dion asked Michael Ignatieff "Do you think it's easy to make priorities?", when in fact the translation would have been to "keep". And besides, if we were going to use comments made at leadership conventions or during leadership races, the Conservatives, when they were Reform and then Alliance, were ruthless. You could write a book.

And if the push-poll handouts, TV ads and fabrications weren't enough, they even resorted to spying, using our employee James Murray to run covert operations.



But the worst was yet to come.

The 2008 Undemocratic Election

In their book: The provincial state in Canada, Keith Brownsey and Michael Howlett, referred to the 1999 election campaign of Mike Harris in Ontario as "probably the most undemocratic Electoral campaign that post-war Ontario had witnessed." (2) If that was the most undemocratic in modern Ontario history, the 2008 Conservative federal election campaign, was hands down the most undemocratic in Canadian history.

First off, there should not have been an election at all. Not only did Stephen Harper break his own law to call a snap election, but there was a criminal investigation underway against his party for the "In and Out" election scheme. An investigation in which he was doing everything in his power to squash.

According to Dr. Joan Russow of the Global Compliance Research Project:

There should never have been an election in Canada. The Governor General should have refused to accept the Right Honourable Steven Harper’s request for an election when there was an outstanding investigation into the fraudulent practices of the Conservative Party during the 2006 election. The investigation was underway by the Parliamentary Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. With the calling of the election, the Committee was disbanded. In addition, there was a similar investigation by Elections Canada. (3)

I think that was probably one of the main reasons the election was called. It halted the investigation and gave Harper a chance to get a legal team in place.

And they had not even dealt with the Chuck Cadman affair, when Stephen Harper was caught on tape admitting that he knew of the one million dollar bribe presented to the dying MP for his vote. (4)

But the Conservatives were confident that they had irrevocably damaged the reputation of the Liberal leader, and were going to ride that to a majority.

The Campaign Hits a Snag

One thing that the 1999 re-election campaign of Mike Harris, and the 2008 re-election campaign of Stephen Harper had in common, was Guy Giorno. He handled them both, but despite leaving nothing to chance and keeping Stephen Harper in a bubble throughout, they still found themselves in trouble.

The environment was becoming an election issue, and Harper's climate change denial was already well known. Then a group of Nobel prize winning environmentalists came out in favour of the carbon tax, which was considered by many to be the best in place to fight global warming.

The Liberals then started to rise in the polls and Stephen Harper was in trouble.

The fallout from the French and English debates shows the previous pre-debate 10 point Conservative margin is now four percentage points. Tracking shows incremental movement in favour of the Liberals and Stephane Dion. Dion registered his highest score as the person Canadians think would make the best Prime Minister. (5)

Enter CTV*, Steve Murphy and Mike Duffy

We probably all remember the airing of the false starts, when Stephane Dion appeared on Steve Murphy's program. False starts that were later made into a Mike Duffy episode, and a rare press conference by Stephen Harper. But what most people may not know, considering that the media buried the story, is that both Steve Murphy and Mike Duffy were charged with ethics violations, as a result of their complicity in influencing the results of an election.

The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (CBSC) today released two decisions concerning the broadcast of three false starts of an interview by CTV anchor Steve Murphy with Liberal leader Stéphane Dion during the October 2008 federal election campaign. Each restart had been requested by Mr. Dion and granted by Mr. Murphy, CJCH-TV (CTV Atlantic)’s news anchor.

One decision related to the first broadcast of the false starts (which were followed by the broadcast of the full 12-minute interview) on CTV Atlantic’s newscast CTV News at 6 on October 9. The other related to the rebroadcast by CTV Newsnet of the restarts on the public affairs discussion program Mike Duffy Live Prime Time later that same evening. The CBSC concluded that both broadcasts violated certain provisions of the Radio Television News Directors of Canada (RTNDA) Code of (Journalistic) Ethics and the Canadian Association of Broadcasters’ (CAB) Code of Ethics. (6)

The CRTC also found that the question asked (I wonder who wrote it?) was convoluted and in violation of media fairness:

The CBSC’s Atlantic Regional Panel examined the CTV Atlantic broadcast, while the National Specialty Services Panel adjudicated the Mike Duffy Live broadcast. The Atlantic Panel reviewed the complaints under the provisions of the RTNDA Code of (Journalistic) Ethics and CAB Code of Ethics relating to accuracy and fairness, as well as an article of the RTNDA Code that requires journalists to treat people with decency and courtesy. The Panel observed that the phrasing of Murphy’s question was “confusing, and not only to a person whose first language is other than English. In the strictest grammatical sense, Steve Murphy’s question mixes not only tenses (present and past), but also moods (subjunctive and indicative),” so “blame for misapprehension cannot simply be laid at the feet of the interviewee.” (6)

They also found that:

In the rest of the full interview, which continued from that point but was not broadcast on the Duffy show, the Liberal leader, in response to Murphy’s several questions, dealt with what he would say “to ease the minds of Canadians”, the Liberal economic plan, the proposed carbon tax, deficits, the green shift, taxes, comparable European national policies, and Canada’s military mission in Afghanistan. The transcript of that interview can be found as Appendix A to the Atlantic Regional Panel’s decision in CJCH-TV (CTV Atlantic) re CTV News at 6 (Stéphane Dion interview) (CBSC Decision 08/09-0196+, January 12, 2009). (7)

And even the airing of the false starts by Murphy raised questions:

As anchor for that newscast, Murphy introduced his full interview session, including all restarts, with Liberal leader Stéphane Dion as follows: "Someone once said that in politics a week is a lifetime. Well, it’s now several weeks since we last spoke with Stéphane Dion and a great many things have changed. The world markets are now in turmoil, interest rates and the dollar are falling and the Liberal Party has seen its popularity rise in the polls after the two leaders debates. Against that backdrop, we sat down this afternoon with Stéphane Dion. I began by asking Mr. Dion about his comments that the prime minister has done nothing to put Canadians’ minds at ease about the current economic problems. I asked him, quote, “If you were prime minister now, what would you have done that Mr. Harper has not done?” After beginning to answer that question, Monsieur Dion asked to start the interview again because he did not understand the question.

After a second false start, a member of Monsieur Dion’s staff explained the question to Monsieur Dion and there was also a third false start. Perhaps we shouldn’t have agreed to restart with the questioning and the Liberal campaign was anxious that this exchange not be broadcast and initially we indicated that it would not be. However, on reflection, CTV News believes we owe it to you to show you everything that happened." CTV Atlantic then proceeded to broadcast the full interview, preceded by the false starts and retakes. The false starts consisted solely of a head shot of Stéphane Dion, Murphy’s voice being heard off-camera. The complete interview reflected the more traditional cutaways to the interviewer. (8)

Two months after the election, on December 22, 2008; Mike Duffy was given a plum senate appointment for his efforts. But considering the fact that he had not only violated ethics, but had grossly interfered in the democratic process, should there not be a parliamentary ethics investigation? Should he not be removed from senate?

I don't think he can simply walk away from this, especially when he's still on our dole. What do you think?



Footnotes:

*Peter MacKay's fiancee is an executive at CTV. (they have since split but were together then)
Sources:

1. Losing Confidence: Power, Politics and Crisis in Canadians Democracy, By Elizabeth May, McClelland & Stewart, 2009, ISBN: 978-0-7710-5760-1, Pg. 8

2. The Provincial State: Politics in Canada's Provinces and Territories, by Keith Brownsey and Michael Howlett, UTP Higher Education, 2001, ISBN-13: 978-155111368, Pg. 193

3. Canadian Election: Perhaps the most absurd in Canadian History, By Joan Russow (PhD), Global Compliance Research Project, October 8, 2008

4. Cadman confided Tory offer, 'hurt' daughter says, By Petti Fong, Toronto Star, February 29, 2008

5. CPAC-Nanos Daily Election Tracking CP 34, LP 30, NDP 19, BQ 10, GP 7, October 4, 2010

6. Airing of Stéphane Dion Interview False Starts Violated Broadcast Codes, Says Canadian Broadcast Standards Council, Canadian Broadcast Standards Council, May 27, 2009

7. CTV Newsnet re an episode of Mike Duffy Live Prime Time (Stéphane Dion Interview), CANADIAN BROADCAST STANDARDS COUNCIL, national specialty services Panel, April 6, 2009

8. CJCH-TV (CTV Atlantic) re CTV News at 6 (Stéphane Dion interview), CANADIAN BROADCAST STANDARDS COUNCIL, Atlantic Regional Panel, January 12, 2009

Sneak Preview of Fox News North

Love the new video. The all idiots, all the time station.

And speaking of idiots, or maybe I should should say blowhards, the campus Conservatives at the University of Ottawa are in a flap because student fees were used to rent a bus to go the G-20.

These students were performing their civic duty, part of becoming a responsible adult.

I'm sure if the fees were used to attend a Harper rally they would have no problem with it.

Give it up guys.

Mike Duffy Unmasked. Put it Back on Duffy!

What happened to Mike Duffy? I never watched his show on CTV, but don't remember anyone saying that he was nuts, in the certifiable sense.

Boy when they fall, they fall hard.

Senator Mike Duffy has attacked the University of King’s College and other Canadian journalism schools for exposing students to Noam Chomsky and critical thinking.

In a speech Saturday to Conservative party members in Amherst, Duffy reportedly slammed journalism programs for churning out leftist graduates.“When I went to the school of hard knocks, we were told to be fair and balanced,”
Duffy was quoted from his speech in yesterday’s issue of the Amherst Daily News.

“That school doesn’t exist any more. Kids who go to King’s, or the other schools across the country, are taught from two main texts.”

This sounds eerily like the speech Reformer Steven Flethcer gave to University of Manitoba students, where he referred to their newspaper as a 'socialist rag'.

Kim Kierans, head of the King’s School of Journalism clarified that the school does not teach from Chomsky, but does encourage critical thinking. Obviously they are preparing these future journalists to work for international papers, because Canada's media no longer engage in much thought of any kind.

But if Duffy learned his skills from the "school of hard knocks" he was obviously knocked in the head a few too many times, because he's absolutely ridiculous.

Besides, how can he preach respectable journalism to anyone? He was charged with etchics violations for his alleged complicity in engineering Harper's 2008 election victory.

Even Don Martin remarked on this:

...Now, Duffy calling someone a faker equals pot calling the kettle black. This is the same Duffy who, as host of his own politics show, presented himself for decades as journalistically neutral, then accepted Harper's $130,000 appointment ten months ago and now devotes his energies to shamelessly shilling for the Conservatives.

That's the definition of fakery for you, particularly given he was appointed after airing that infamous CTV interview with then-Liberal leader Stephane Dion, a bumbling performance credited by some as the turning point of the 2008 election campaign for Stephen Harper.

Yet journalism students are living on the fringe? Yep, that's it Mike. That 'fringe' is getting pretty crowded though.

Dean Del Mastro and Mike Duffy Tell an Interesting Story

Since Stephen Harper does not allow his MPs to speak on the national stage, confining them to local events and media sources, I'm bringing them kicking and screaming into the national story.

Dean Del Mastro, the Reform Conservative MP for Peterborough, always likes to throw in his two cents worth, and in compiling a profile of the man in preparation for the next election, I came across something quite interesting.

The possibility of collusion?

In December of 2007, there was kind of a mini scandal, involving a Liberal MP, Pablo Rodriguez, and a CBC reporter who fed him a question to ask during the Mulroney/Schreiber hearings.

She was exposed and dealt with by her bosses, but not before Del Mastro had his hissy fit. He fired off this press release.

Conservatives demand answers from the CBC over the alleged collusion with the Liberal Party. Today former Liberal Party cabinet minister and current TVA journalist Jean Lapierre made shocking allegations about strategic collusion between journalists at the CBC and Liberal members of Parliament at the House of Commons Ethics Committee. According to Lapierre Liberals asked Brian Mulroney questions that were written by CBC journalists ... If proven true, these allegations would mark a major third case of orchestrated anti-Conservative bias from a broadcaster that is financed by all Canadians.

Now it was a serious matter, but possibly something that was not necessarily an unusual thing.

In fact, according to the site Proud to be Canadian, a home for right of right-wing journalists, one Mike Duffy all but admitted that he may have also engaged in this type of activity.

Now this was before Duffy was appointed senator by Stephen Harper, or Dean may not have been so quick to make accusations.

... a former Liberal Party MP, cabinet minister, and currently a media broadcaster, has made a serious allegation on CTV Newsnet just now, while speaking to the CTV’s Mike Duffy ... the topic being the effort by another Liberal to try to swing the Mulroney/Schreiber hearings into a new area ...

Jean Lapierre: Well, Mike, I will surprise you, but last night I knew all about those questions. They were written by the CBC and provided to the Liberal Members of Parliament and the questions that [Liberal MP and committee questioner] Pablo Rodriguez asked were written by the CBC ...

Mike Duffy: Well I would say that’s uh libelous or defamatory so we’ll have to uh put a caveat on that—far be it from us to ever suggest they were ever doing anything…

Duffy then strangely appears to be admit that he, too, suggested questions be asked, but issues forth a plausible explanation: Duffy: ...when I was uh you know in telling MPs what questions to ask I was raising it with you really more on the point ...

You could argue, as Del Mastro did, that the CBC is a public broadcaster who should not be partisan (not that it was really a partisan question), but it brings us to the matter of ethics, Mike Duffy and the Conservative Party of Canada.

During the 2008 election campaign, when the Liberals were starting to show a significant gain in the polls, leader Stephane Dion was interviewed by Steve Murphy on CTV in the Maritimes. We all know what happened next. Murphy asked a convoluted question, that even English scholars couldn't decipher, and Mr. Dion subsequently had several false starts.

He was assured at the time, that CTV would not air those. However, they went back on their word. Murphy would later be charged with ethics violations, but scored an interview with Harper during the first Parliamentary crisis.

But Mike Duffy, not happy to simply let it go at that, ran an entire show on Dion's difficulties, suggesting that the problem was his comprehension of the language. Mr. Duffy was also charged with ethics violations, because he failed to show that the Liberal leader, once the question was presented properly, gave a very good answer.

After the clearly partisan program, the Liberals tanked in the polls and were never able to turn things around. Duffy feigned innocence, but it was pretty clear he may have been auditioning for something.

MacLean's Scott Feschuk agrees. In discussing Duffy's comedy tour (my description):

For some reason, he started talking about how he’d never had any interest in being appointed to the Senate. No interest in the Senate? Mike Duffy?? Come now. Mike Duffy was not interested in the Senate the way Kirstie Alley is not interested in whether you’re going to finish that burrito.

The final three years of Duffy’s television show were so blatant an audition for a Senate appointment that he practically held up a sign saying, “Will work for sinecure.”

Then Duffy made the claim that he’d wanted to go into the upper chamber not as a Conservative but as an Independent. And man, he was soooo passionately devoted to the principle of serving as an Independent that he completely and utterly resisted being a Conservative right up until the moment Stephen Harper politely asked him ... Over the past several months, the allegedly Independent Duffy has become so hyper-partisan that his 2009 tax return will have to list the Prime Minister’s posterior as the common-law spouse of his lips ...

And even Don Martin questioned Duffy's motives, after the senator called NDP Peter Stoffer, a faker:

...Now, Duffy calling someone a faker equals pot calling the kettle black. This is the same Duffy who, as host of his own politics show, presented himself for decades as journalistically neutral, then accepted Harper's $130,000 appointment ten months ago and now devotes his energies to shamelessly shilling for the Conservatives.

That's the definition of fakery for you, particularly given he was appointed after airing that infamous CTV interview with then-Liberal leader Stephane Dion, a bumbling performance credited by some as the turning point of the 2008 election campaign for Stephen Harper.

So the next time Dean Del Mastro calls the Liberals corrupt or suggests that CBC has no journalistic integrity, remind him of this. I would say a journalist (now on our payroll) who allegedly engineered election results, far outweighs one providing a question to ask at committee, don't you?

IS THIS REALLY YOUR CANADA? IS DEAN DEL MASTRO REALLY THE BEST CHOICE FOR PETERBOROUGH?

Hitler Youth and Other Young Radicals

The Canadian Manifesto: How the American Neoconservatives Stole My Country

In November of 1922, a Mr. K. Friedrich visited Harvard University to speak to their Liberal Club about post-war Germany.  He gave an animated account of a new phenomenon: the "Youth Movement" or "Gugenelbewegung."

"'The Youth Movement' expresses the new spirit in Germany. It feels that the old life was cold, hard and unprofitable, stifling all the better instincts of the young people of the nation. The old militaristic system could not be called culture.

"It was merely a mechanical perfection, wholly lacking in spontaneity. The 'Youth Movement' is embracing a different theory of values in the educational standard. The tendency is constantly towards a more liberal ideal. Its studies are more and more in the realm of Philosophy, Literature and Religion. The old shackles are being cast off by a new and spontaneous enthusiasm." (1)

When we think of a German Youth Movement, we automatically think of the Hitler Youth, and the disturbing images of indoctrinated children proudly giving the infamous salute.  However, the youth movement actually began before the War, as a vehicle for young people to commune with nature and escape the oppressive regime of Wilhelm II. Their hikes were intellectual and cultural endeavours, as they shared poetry; discussed and debated philosophy, current events and politics. And while many groups had uniforms, more common would be musical instruments and books.

During the war, the movement gained momentum, when shortages in essentials, resulted in many schools being closed; so for children and young adults, these hikes provided their education.  After the war, the groups began to organize and many became more political in nature; some even sponsored by political parties.

The German Zionist Youth Movement

Leo Strauss, the German emigre who inspired the neoconservative movement,  would become an active participant in the Zionist Youth Blau-Weiss, then led by Walter Moses.  And while the group enjoyed the typical hikes in the mountains, they were also very militaristic. Strauss would refer to it as pagan-fascism, and indeed Moses liked to imitate Mussolini, who had come to power in 1922.

It was here that Strauss claimed to have nurtured his authoritarianism, and the concept of a "clique", led by a dictatorial style leader. As early as 1923 he spoke of a preference for a quasi-totalitarianism, and detested “bourgeois” or “liberals” seeking to preserve their lives and comfort.

He would actually try to join the Nazi Party but was turned away because he was Jewish.  Said Strauss of Hitler, his “political theology” was hostile toward “me and my kind”. (2)

You Don't Have to be German to be a Hitler Youth

When civil rights activist, Tom Hayden, (formerly married to Jane Fonda) was a student at the University of Michigan, he became the editor of the Michigan Daily, and one of the founders of  Students for a Democratic Society.  SDS was in direct contrast to Young Americans for Freedom, and the two groups often clashed.

In one article of Hayden's in the Daily, he compared YAF to the Hitler Youth.  They were certainly cult-like, in their attempts to dress and act like William Buckley Jr., and accepted no opposition to any of their arguments, which they like Buckley, were always well prepared for.

YAF responded to Hayden's article in their own newsletter.  "Next to the Twist and barely knee-length skirts, the most fashionable thing of the season is the rousing , vitriolic attack on the so-called 'Extreme-Right'".

Buckley approved of the counter-attack, but privately he worried that  Hayden was right.  The John Birch Society, that was providing funding and moral support to the conservative youth group, had suggested in one of their reports, that if Barry Goldwater lost the 1964 nomination,  they would assemble forces in his [Goldwater's] fascist army. (3)

Leo Strauss would develop a philosophical argument which he called Reductio ad Hitlerum.  What he suggested was that not everything Adolf Hitler did was bad, and using examples like Hitler was anti-smoking, loved dogs and was a vegetarian, we can't automatically think of those things as bad, just because they were associated with Hitler.

Of course Hitler was not a vegetarian, but loved wild game, sausages and caviar, (4) and in 1926, apparently in order to impress Mimi Reiter, a 16-year-old girl, he whipped his dog so savagely that it terrified her. (5)

This does speak to another aspect of neoconservatism. The power to deceive, in order to create a public persona that the masses can get behind.

Strauss is right however, to suggest that not everything Hitler did was bad and in fact the political strategies that the neoconservatives adopted, were like time delayed synchronized swimming.  They followed his path to power, almost to the letter.  I'll be getting into that in more detail, later.

However, Hayden was not off the mark.

Two Burning Images

Undampered by a chilly drizzle, some 40,000 Germans jammed the square between Berlin's Friedrich Wilhelm University and the Opera House looking at a black mass of criss-crossed logs, insulated from the pavement by sand. A thumping band blared out old military marches. Toward midnight a procession entered the square, headed by officers of the University's student dueling corps in their dress uniforms: blue tunics, white breeches, plush tam o'shanters and spurred patent leather jack boots.

Behind them came other students and a line of motor trucks piled high with books. More students clung to the trucks, waving flaring torches that they hurled through the air at the log pile. Blue flames of gasoline shot up, the pyre blazed. One squad of students formed a chain from the pyre to the trucks. Then came the books, passed from hand to hand while a leather-lunged student roared out the names of the authors:

"Erich Maria Remarque [wild cheering]—for degrading the German language and the highest patriotic ideal!" (Remarque wrote All Quiet on the Western Front, against WWI)

"Emil Ludwig—burned for literary rascality and high treason against Germany."

"Sigmund Freud—for falsifying our history and degrading its great figures. . . ."

On he went, calling out the names of practically every modern German author with whom the outside world is familiar: Karl Marx, Jakob Wassermann, Albert Einstein, Thomas and Heinrich Mann, Lion Feuchtwanger. Arnold and Stefan Zweig, Walther Rathenau.

... While the flames flared highest, up to a little flag-draped rostrum stumped clubfooted, wild-eyed little Dr. Paul Joseph Goebbels, Minister of Propaganda and Public Enlightenment in the Nazi Cabinet, organizer of the great midnight bibliocaust. "Jewish intellectualism is dead!" cried he. "National Socialism has hewn the way. The German folk soul can again express itself!

"These flames do not only illuminate the final end of the old etra, they also light up the new. Never before have the young men had so good a right to clean up the debris of the past. . . . The old goes up in flames, the new shall be fashioned from the flame in our hearts. ... As you had the right to destroy the books, you had the duty to support the government. The fire signals to the entire world that the November revolutionaries [German Revolution that overthrew the Kaiser] have sunk to earth and a new spirit has arisen!" All over Germany similar pyres blazed with similar books. (6)

The Nazi youth were driven by anti-communism and anti-liberalism.  The anti-Semitism came about because of the popular belief that the Jews were working with the Communists to take control of Germany.

The conservative youth in the early days, were also fuelled by anti-communism and and anti-liberalism, but while they didn't resort to book burning, an  Indiana chapter of YAF, did make a very public display of burning baskets, alleged to have been manufactured behind the Iron Curtain.

However, there is more than one way to burn a book, or even a basket.  An affiliate of YAF, the Intercollegiate Society Institute, formerly the Intercollegiate Society of Individualists, a paleonconservative think tank created by William Buckley Jr., publishes a list of the 50 worst and the 50 best books.

When describing the 50 worst, they use similar language to that of the young Nazis feeding the flames.

Alfred Kinsey, et al., Sexual Behavior in the Human Male -  "A pervert's attempt to demonstrate that perversion is "statistically" normal."

John Kenneth Galbraith, The Affluent Society (1958) - "Made Americans dissatisfied with the ineradicable fact of poverty. Led to foolish public policies that produced the hell that was the 1960s."

Walter Rauschenbusch, Christianity and the Social Crisis (1907) - "[The Church] should therefore strengthen the existing communistic institutions and aid the evolution of society from the present temporary stage of individualism to a higher form of communism." Eek!

John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (1971) - "The hollow soul of liberalism elaborated with a technical apparatus that would have made a medieval Schoolman blush." (7)

And the list goes on.  Can't you just picture them being thrown into the fire?

Even those they don't metaphorically burn, they still use to take jabs at liberal tradition. From their Best list:

C. S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man (1947) - "... reveals the true intent of liberalism"

Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951) - " ... her account of the peculiarly modern phenomenon of "totalitarianism" forced many liberals to consider the sins of communism in the same category as those of fascism, and that is no small achievement."

Herbert Butterfield, The Whig Interpretation of History (1931) - Every day, in every way, things are getting better and better? No, and Butterfield provides the intellectually mature antidote to that premise of liberal historiography." (8)

Book Burning Canadian Style

[Mark] Tushingham was just about to give a presentation on the science behind his novel Hotter Than Hell at the National Press Club. Released last November with little fanfare, it's about the Earth becoming so hot from climate change that America and Canada are at war over water. "I was entering the elevator 15 minutes before the event when I got a call on my cellphone," says Tushingham's publisher, Elizabeth Margaris at DreamCatcher Publishing. "[Tushingham] said, 'I've got bad news. I can't go.' He was told [by the Environment Minister's office] not to appear." While Tushingham himself was not available for comment, Margaris told Hour, "This is just outrageous. Mark can't talk but I can. They can't fire me. They can't gag me." (9)

Conservative MP Rona Ambrose forbid any promotion of the book by Tushingham, who worked for the Ministry of the Environment.  The book was fiction, though based on the results of inaction to address climate change, something the Harper government refused to admit was real.  Abrose was a former consultant for the Tarsands, so was protecting her clients.

In March of 2010, Senator Mike Duffy attacked the University of King’s College and other Canadian journalism schools for exposing students to Noam Chomsky and critical thinking. “When you put critical thinking together with Noam Chomsky, what you’ve got is a group of people who are taught from the ages of 18, 19 and 20 that what we stand for, private enterprise, a system that has generated more wealth for more people because people take risks and build businesses, is bad,” said Duffy (10)

King's College responded by saying that books like Manufacturing Consent were not  "part of the curriculum, though students do read some Chomsky."  What they should have said was that what journalism students read was none of his damn business.  How can we hope for future balance in the media, sorely lacking today, if students are only taught to think one way?

From their concerted attacks on Marci McDonald's The Armageddon Factor to Stephen Harper trying to stop the publication of Tom Flanagan's book Harper's Team (he was forced to edit out half of it), Canada's conservative movement is attempting to change the way we view ourselves and our place in the world, while creating a false public persona.

Critical thinking out.  American style conservative indoctrination in.

Sources:

1. MR. FRIEDRICH TELLS OF "YOUTH MOVEMENT" IN GERMANY, the Harvard Crimson, November 22, 1922

2. Enmity and Tyranny, By: Alan Gilbert, March 5, 2010

3. Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus, By Rick Perlstein, Nation Books, 2001, ISBN: 0-8090-2858-1, p. 154

4.  Hitler: Neither Vegetarian Nor Animal Lover, By: Ryn Barry, Pythagorean Books, 2004

5. The Psychopathic God: Adolf Hitler, By: Robert G.L. Waite, Basic Books, 1977, ISBN-10: 0306805146

6. Bibliocaust, Time Magazine, May 22, 1933

7. The Fifty WORST Books of the Century, Intercollegiate Society Institute

8. The Fifty BEST Books of the Century, Intercollegiate Society Institute

9. Tories muzzle environmental scientist: Catch a fire, by Julie Fortier, The Hour – April 20, 2006

10. Mike Duffy slams journalism schools for thinking critically, By Paul McLeod, Metro Halifax, March 16, 2010

Harper Government Abandons Responsibility Toward Food Safety

When the Listeriosis crisis that killed 22 Canadians, hit during the last election campaign; Harper's concern was not those deaths, but damage control. Not just damage control because he had all but abolished government inspections of the food industry, but because his minister, Gerry Ritz, thought the whole thing was a joke.

As Bob Fife continues to point out, the comments made by the minister responsible for food safety, should have got him fired. But in Harper's world it just raised his creds. Only the whistleblower lost his job.

We can also see that Duffy himself was trying to move the conversation away from the seriousness of Listeriosis, to the seriousness of political fallout. Mr. Fife was understandably shocked.

And the Harper government's handling of this horrible situation, should be just as shocking.

They went through all the motions. A public apology, promises to hire more meat inspectors; and the appointing of an independent inspector to examine the causes of the crisis and suggest ways to insure it wouldn't happen.

But the whole thing was smoke and mirrors. Ritz still has his job and the Ref-Cons are still completely insensitive to the suffering of others. And the worst of it is. We no longer care.

So to give you something else you won't care about, the report was completed, suggestions were made and Ritz passed the file to one of his staffers. He'd done his job and nothing will change until the next wave of deaths, because Harper now allows plants to inspect themselves; then the cycle will begin again.

Independence of food safety probe questioned
Sarah Schmidt,
Canwest News Service
November 12, 2009

OTTAWA — The federal government has appointed the top bureaucrat at Agriculture Canada to lead Ottawa's overhaul of food safety after an investigation into last year's deadly listeriosis outbreak called for an independent expert to direct the effort.

Sheila Weatherill zeroed in on a "vacuum in senior leadership" among government officials during her sweeping independent investigation earlier this year into the outbreak that cost 22 Canadians their lives.

And in her final report presented to Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz in July, Weatherill called on the clerk of the privy council, the bureaucratic wing of the Prime Minister's Office, to appoint an "independent expert" to lead a review involving top bureaucrats at Health Canada, the Public Health Agency of Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to sort out the roles of federal departments and agencies in food safety.

The clerk, Wayne Wouters, has tapped the bureaucratic right-hand of Ritz, John Knubley, to lead the special committee of deputy ministers, said a spokeswoman for the clerk, declining further comment.

Ritz, who is responsible for CFIA and whose president reports directly to him, took the government lead during last year's listeriosis outbreak and promised to implement every recommendation put forward by Weatherill.

In a statement, Ritz said his deputy minister of agriculture is an independent expert on the file, so the appointment means the "recommendation has been fulfilled."

"Privy Council's naming of Deputy Minister John Knubley ensures he is able to independently provide expert analysis that will be reported directly to the Clerk," Ritz said in a statement.

University of Manitoba microbiologist Rick Holley, a member of CFIA's academic advisory panel on food safety, said this is a stretch.

"The perception I think in most circles would be that appointment doesn't give the independence that was intended in the original recommendation by Sheila Weatherill. That's my suspicion here. My preference would be another choice be made."

Holley said the appointment "wouldn't have to be outside" government, but it shouldn't come from within the agriculture ministry, which is tasked with devising policies and programs to achieve security of the food system and whose minister held daily briefings about the government response during the outbreak.

"My preference would actually be to see an appointment from the Auditor General's office. They would not be a party to any of the baggage that currently exists and the difficulties associated between the public health and the food regulatory interface, which in and of itself is a singular problem that needs resolution."

Weatherill also recommended that CFIA, "supported by independent experts," initiate a comprehensive review of the agency's organizational structure and decision-making processes. The public health agency should do the same, Weatherill recommended.

Neither agency responded Thursday to clarify whether the independent experts appointed in these cases are external to government or external to the agency.

I think Mike Duffy Has Lost His Mind. What a Horrible Display

If we thought the worst thing about Harper's senate selections were an illiterate hockey coach, and a man who is allegedly linked to the Montreal mafia, Mike Duffy is in a league of his own. Duffy campaigns for the Reform Conservatives. That's not worthy of taxpayer money.

After railroading an election for Harper, and being charged with ethics violations (something else the mainstream media ignored), he seems to think he can get away with anything.

And what was with attacking the Canadian Press? They have been pretty kind to the Ref-Cons.

Even Don Martin had his say, which completely blew me away. If the Ref-Cons lose Martin they'll be stuck with Kelly McParland to write their attack ads for the National Post.

Don Martin: Mike Duffy jumps the shark
November 06, 2009, NP Editor

It takes considerable effort to become a complete embarrassment. Congratulations Senator Mike Duffy, you've finally done it.

With his wild rant on a CBC national politics show this week, the television icon has accomplished the difficult feat of offending all those in his parliamentary orbit -- his former journalistic occupation, the Conservative party, senators, MPs and even the prime minister who appointed him ....

...Now, Duffy calling someone a faker equals pot calling the kettle black. This is the same Duffy who, as host of his own politics show, presented himself for decades as journalistically neutral, then accepted Harper's $130,000 appointment ten months ago and now devotes his energies to shamelessly shilling for the Conservatives.

That's the definition of fakery for you, particularly given he was appointed after airing that infamous CTV interview with then-Liberal leader Stephane Dion, a bumbling performance credited by some as the turning point of the 2008 election campaign for Stephen Harper. (Finally, someone said it. I've been saying it for months. Dion was within 4 points in the polls. Here's the report. So who's the faker now?)

Harper's Senate Appointments Revisited

When Harper announced last December that he would be appointing 18 new senators, it was more than just another broken promise.

We were in the middle of an economic crisis, so it was not very prudent, especially given the mess his government had made of the economy so far.

He has always campaigned on an elected senate and swore he would never ever make senate appointments.

Of course he also said he would never ever allow patronage, nepotism, partisanship or cronyism to determine any government positions. So I guess what this really proves, once again, is that Harper lies.

Though I thought of a new name for his party (he's already changed it from Reform to Alliance to Conservative): The Conservative Family and Friends Network Party. Catchy, isn't it?

Harper blasted for Senate picks
PM's choices include 2 journalists, an athlete and a philanthropist
December 23, 2008
Tonda MacCharles
Bruce Campion-Smith
Ottawa Bureau

OTTAWA–Prime Minister Stephen Harper has tapped the ranks of card-carrying Conservatives and others sympathetic to his agenda to fill 18 Senate vacancies, a move critics blasted as an abuse of power at a time when opposition parties are threatening to topple the minority government.

Harper's patronage appointments include broadcasters Mike Duffy and Pamela Wallin, a former separatist politician in Quebec, several defeated Tory candidates and other prominent Conservatives, including the party's chief fundraiser.

The appointments mark a change of heart for Harper, who has derided the Senate and tried to bring in reforms that would cap Senate terms to eight years, as well as start down the path to an elected Senate. But facing possible defeat in just a few weeks, Harper instead moved quickly to fill the existing vacancies with Conservative appointees.

David Christopherson, NDP democratic reform critic, slammed Harper's appointments as "hypocritical and undemocratic." "The problem is that it's filled with so many identifiable Conservative hacks," he said in an interview.

Christopherson said Harper should have waited until after Parliament resumes on Jan. 26 and it becomes clear whether the Tory government will survive threats by the opposition to defeat it.

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff did not speak publicly yesterday. In a statement, he said, "in appointing 18 senators while Parliament is prorogued, Stephen Harper has shown once again that he cannot be trusted."

Christopherson (Hamilton Centre) called on Governor General Michaëlle Jean, who must ratify Harper's picks, to hold off until after that date.

He cited a letter by constitutional lawyers to the Montreal newspaper La Presse, saying that a "growing body of expert opinion suggests the Prime Minister may be violating the Constitution by making these appointments without the confidence of the House of Commons."

With another 11 spots due to come open because of retirements in the next 12 months, the Prime Minister will likely be making further appointments, an aide said, if he remains in power.

"Our objective is to get a majority of senators in the Senate who support reform. That is our objective. Once reform is passed, everyone will be standing for elections," he told reporters at a background briefing yesterday.

"Our government will continue to push for a more democratic, accountable and effective Senate," Harper said in a statement that accompanied the list of appointees.

"If Senate vacancies are to be filled, however, they should be filled by the government that Canadians elected rather than by a coalition that no one voted for," he said, referring to the Liberal-NDP coalition agreement that was signed before Harper sought prorogation of Parliament earlier this month to avoid a confidence vote.

Senators may sit until age 75, at an annual salary of $130,400.

There are 105 seats in the Senate. There are 58 Liberals, 38 Conservatives, three Progressive Conservatives, four independents, one independent New Democrat and one senator with no affiliation.

Duffy, 62, a long-time Parliament Hill journalist and host of a politics program on CTV, was named to the upper chamber as a representative for Prince Edward Island. He'll be joined by Wallin, 55, his former colleague, who more recently has served as Canadian consul general in New York City as well as on an independent panel that made recommendations about the future of Canada's Afghan mission. Wallin was a reporter for the Toronto Star from 1978 to 1980.

Nancy Greene Raine, 65, who won gold and silver medals in alpine skiing at the 1968 Grenoble Olympics and overall World Cup titles in 1967 and 1968, is also a new senator.

Also among those named are former federal candidates Fabian Manning, defeated in a Newfoundland riding in the recent election; John Wallace, former New Brunswick candidate in 2006; and Yonah Martin, a former B.C. candidate.

Irving Gerstein, credited with filling the party's war chest as head of the Conservative Fund, was named to an Ontario seat, as was Nicole Eaton, who chaired the past two party conventions.

The list includes Michel Rivard, a former Parti Québécois MNA who ran for the Canadian Alliance under Stockwell Day and is an organizer for the right-wing provincial Action démocratique du Québec.
Asked about the optics of appointing a former separatist to the Senate, a spokesperson for the Prime Minister's Office defended Rivard's appointment, saying "people are allowed to change their beliefs."

It also includes Leo Housakos, a prominent Greek Montrealer, long-time Tory supporter and party organizer who is a close friend of Harper press aide Dimitri Soudas. The federal ethics commissioner cleared Soudas and Housakos of allegations they intervened on behalf of a Montreal real estate developer involved in a legal dispute with the public works department.

The Senate appointments are a blow to Ontario Progressive Conservative Leader John Tory's political prospects at Queen's Park. Tory, who has been without a seat in the Legislature since losing the October 2007 election to Premier Dalton McGuinty's Liberals, had hoped one of his MPPs would be named to the Red Chamber. That would have opened up a seat for him to contest in a by-election.

Joyce Murray, Liberal critic on democratic reform issues, said the "key issue isn't who, it's what and the timing of this."

She said the Prime Minister's failure to honour his promise to only name elected senators, and to do so at a "time of historical lack of confidence in elected leaders," contributes to Canadians' cynicism about public life. The advocacy group Democracy Watch called the appointments a continuation of Harper's practice of "patronage politics as usual, in violation of his promises not to do so."

Tories filled 25 other jobs

OTTAWA–The Harper government approved 25 appointments to federal pension tribunals and employment insurance boards a day after it tabled an economic statement that nearly led to its defeat in the Commons.

Government records show the appointments, to agencies that are used as traditional patronage rewards for party faithful, went through cabinet on Nov. 28.

At least two of the appointments appear to have gone to known Conservatives – one to a party member who lost a Nova Scotia nomination for the October federal election and another to an Ottawa resident the NDP identifies as a well-known Conservative from New Brunswick.

A spokesperson for Prime Minister Stephen Harper denied the government rushed the postings through because it feared it would be toppled in a confidence vote the Liberals had threatened for the following Monday.

More Postings on Stephen Harper and His Senate:

1. Why Mike Duffy Must be Removed from Senate

2. Conservatives Use Dirty Tricks To Silence the Senate

3. I think Mike Duffy Has Lost His Mind. What a Horrible Display

4. Senator Pamela Wallin Says It's All About the Military Contracts

Why Martha Hall Findlay Will Be Here For the Long term

I must admit I'd never heard of Martha Hall Findlay until the Liberal leadership race that vaulted Stephane Dion to power.

Sadly, his victory meant another sacrifice on the altar of Karl Rove, as Harper started running attack ads as soon as Dion won the title of leader of the opposition.

Capitalizing on the fact that he was struggling with the English language, the Conservatives used what they deemed to be a weakness, to paint a picture of him as a snivelling coward. They even referred to him as 'Mr. Dithers' ... in the House of Commons.

Despite that, nearing the end of the 2008 election campaign, his party was starting to make some gains, especially when he handled himself so well during the debates; until Mike Duffy and Steve Murphy pulled a fast one, using a false start to suggest that the Liberal leader had no plans for the economy.

If they'd bothered to show the rest of the interview, viewers would have been assured that he did, but both men obviously were looking for something from Stephen Harper. Mike Duffy got a Senate seat and Murphy an interview, but both men were also charged with ethics violations. Too little too late.

But back to Martha.

Her speech was first at the convention, and I was immediately drawn to her confidence and intelligence. She had focus and determination, and though a long shot, garnered a lot of attention. I've liked her ever since.

I know from her resume (Wikipedia) that she studied in a French school until the eight grade, then skipped three grades (9, 10 and 11) graduating from high school at the age of 15.

She was a silver medallist in the 1976 Canadian Ski Championship, and was named to the national training squad before retiring from competition to concentrate on her education. She graduated in international relations from the University of Toronto, and in law from Osgoode Hall Law School at York University. She worked as a waitress, carpenter and ski race coach to help pay for her education; then while completing law school, she co-owned and operated two retail stores, living above the Yonge St. store.

In her current role as critic for Public Works and Government Services, she keeps Conservative Christian Paradis on his toes (it was under his watch that the Queen's silver was sold). But more importantly she questions why Jim Flaherty has the sale of 10 billions dollars of our assets listed in his budget, while Paradis was quoted as saying that this is not the time to sell. He also admitted that he had never received a list of just what Flaherty was auctioning off (was the silver on the list?)

She also once sent me a personal e-mail thanking me for supporting the Party, and I thought that was very nice. It was in response to my offer of an old mining helmet I have with a light on front, to help her find her way when the cold Ottawa air hit the Conservative hot air coming out of Parliament during the December crisis.

I hope she's around for a very long time.

Ring Around the Rosy, Harper's Full of Baloney

With much fanfare (smoke and mirrors), Harper came out yesterday to try and convince Canadians that everything was rosy.

What should have been seen as a sign, he used Mike Duffy to give the spectacle some credibility. The same Mike Duffy who was just charged by CRSC for ethics violations.

Yep, that's the one.

Harper tried to assure Canadians that the money was out the door and he had single handedly managed to turn the economy around. Don't worry, be happy.

And we should believe him, why? He told us last election campaign that Canada would not feel the effects of the global economic crisis, then we could be in recession, we were in a 'technical' recession and not long after heading for a depression!!!!

Now I hope against hope that he is right, because I don't want my country to fail. However, I can't feel optimistic when he gives us no idea how he plans to get us back in the black, even if the recession has hit it's peak.

He blustered again about the Liberals wanting to raise taxes, but offered no alternative plan to generate much needed revenue. I know he's trying to sell everything we own, but is that wise? A country with no assets is shaky at best.

He also claims that the money is out the door, but municipalities state otherwise.

Not to be fooled, the opposition saw through the pomp and ceremony, and are now demanding that for once in his life he comes clean, and provides Canadians with something we can take to the bank. What's been dubbed 'the Home Depot bailout home improvement tax credit' might make it easier for us to build a deck, but will our children and grandchildren still be paying for that deck in years to come?

This government has no vision. They fly by the seat of their pants, playing to their 1/3 base, instead of addressing issues in a way that benefits all Canadians.

As much as I don't relish another election, if this is the best Harper can do, there may be no other option.

If I want to see a dog and pony show, I'll go to the circus.

Slow spending, quick spinning
John Ivison,
National Post
June 12, 2009

Political parties live and die by spin. Threatened with its imminent demise prior to the January budget, the Conservative government raised expectations by giving the impression that it would spend more than $20-billion within four months, creating nearly 200,000 jobs.

The suggestion was that the government would come racing to the rescue of the ailing economy with the speed of a Lamborghini, even though the Tories knew that the system does not have the engine of a 640-horsepower Italian sports car. In fact, the bureaucracy has the engine of a lawn mower, which is why it is only now that government departments are looking at applications for infrastructure projects from municipalities and promising to reimburse costs.

Stephen Harper revealed the government's second report card on the progress of its action plan yesterday, as required by the Liberals in return for their support for the budget.

In a campaign-style address in Cambridge, he said that 80% of the plan is "already being implemented." Grammar watchdogs feel free to correct me, but the plan has "already been implemented" or it is "being implemented." This fuzzy use of language seems to be another attempt to mislead people into thinking that new overpasses are sprouting up all over the country.

In fact, while $20.6-billion of the $22.7-billion to be spent this year has been approved by Cabinet and the Treasury Board and is with government departments, by no stretch of the imagination could it be described as being "out of the door." (Many projects have not yet been given the green light, far fewer have seen cheques handed over -- something that only happens after the fact, when the feds have been invoiced and completed their due diligence.)

Take the largest pool of cash, the $4-billion infrastructure stimulus fund. The government aims to spend $2-billion this year and the Prime Minister talked at great length about the 3,000 individual projects "that are now getting underway."

Yet page 138 of the Report to Canadians document reveals that only $1.1-billion of the $2-billion fund has been committed and that money only began flowing to those projects last month. Progress has been extremely slow -- which should not be news to the government, or the Liberal party.

As for the unverifiable claim that the stimulus package would create or maintain 190,000 jobs, the only solid employment numbers we have come from Statistics Canada, which says 363,000 Canadians have lost their job since last October and the unemployment rate is at an 11-year high of 8.4%. The question now is whether Michael Ignatieff believes progress has been fast enough.

He said he will take a few days to review the mini-budget-like report card and decide whether it is in the interests of Canadian taxpayers to have another election. For some reason, this conjures up the image of Tweedledum and Tweedledee agreeing to have a battle, because Tweedledum said Tweedledee had spoiled his nice new rattle.

How long does it take anyone not living on the other side of the looking glass to reach the conclusion that another $300-million general election, only eight months after the last one, is not in the interests of anyone, with the possible (though not inevitable) exception of one M. Ignatieff Esq.?

Many of the deals between Ottawa and municipalities that are being negotiated would be put on ice during a federal campaign because the public service would down tools and the politicians would be preoccupied.

Mr. Ignatieff said yesterday that 1,600 mayors at the Federation of Canadian Municipalities conference last weekend told him they were unhappy at the lack of money coming out of Ottawa. This is strange since the president of the FCM, Jean Perrault, issued a release saying that he applauded the "commitment to co-operation and flexibility" shown by John Baird, the Transport Minister. One suspects that Mr. Perrault would say less kind things about Mr. Ignatieff if he were to provoke an election now and gum up the works.

Mr. Ignatieff has probably concluded already that an election that had the opposite effect of speeding up the dispersal of funds may not be a vote-winner. Mr. Harper offered a hint of the probable Conservative line of attack, if Mr. Ignatieff does decide to use next week's Liberal opposition day to bring forward a motion of no-confidence in the government. Canada should come out of the recession sooner and stronger than other countries, he said yesterday. "The only thing that can get us off course now is needless political instability."

The Liberal leader's bigger problem may be how to back away from an election gracefully.

The NDP didn't wait to read the new document before dismissing it. "The NDP is not going to be voting for these guys any time soon," said the party's finance critic, Thomas Mulcair. He's probably bluffing but the Dippers are capable of anything, even electoral suicide.
The Bloc Quebecois can never win an election but, since it doesn't cost them anything (the public purse covers their costs), they are happy to have them any time, just to relieve the boredom.

Which brings us back to Mr. Ignatieff. A significant chunk of the Liberal caucus wants to bring down the government too, exhilarated by polls like yesterday's from Ekos that suggest that they may be five points ahead of the Conservatives. But, if the Liberal leader decides to pull the plug on Parliament based on such flimsy evidence, it could set up the most delicious revenge for all those Canadians sick of political spin.

After all, how many of those who said they'll vote Liberal will interrupt their cottage vacation in August, in order to troop along to a polling booth in the city?

It would be richly ironic if this time it is the voters who are deke-ing the politicians.

The problem here is confidence. We had lost confidence in this government long ago, and it's a question of how much longer we can live with this kind of incompetence and corruption?

If this is our best chance at finally giving them the boot, I'm game.