Disproportionate response

Politics these days is such a laugh riot, that I've decided to write about something of a more serious nature:

The NHL suspended that idiot Sean Avery -- indefinitely -- for the sin of slagging his ex-girlfriends, who are now dating other NHLers:

(t)he Dallas Stars forward made inappropriate comments toward Calgary defenceman Dion Phaneuf and his girlfriend, Canadian actress Elisha Cuthbert.

The remarks got Avery suspended indefinitely, and he must now travel to New York for a hearing with NHL commissioner Gary Bettman at 10:30 a.m. ET Thursday, where he could face further discipline.

Oh-oh. Inappropriate comments. That's really bad. Someone's gotta stop him!

Compare that with Montreal's Tom Kostopoulos, who back in mid-November, was suspended for a whopping three games for a vicious hit from behind on Mike Van Ryn. Van Ryn suffered a concussion, several broken teeth, a broken nose and a broken hand and is out until early January at the earliest.

So boys, remember -- sticks and blind hits can break the other guy's bones and might get you sat for a couple of games -- but name-calling some chick who's dating a guy on the other team? That's gonna cost you big time.

canadianna

30 days of post -election consultations and Dion found his way to power

Does anybody have their Dion to English dictionary handy?

I thought I heard him say:

"Mr. Speaker Every member of this house has received a mandate from the people to deliver a government that will face the economic crisis. The PM has failed, he does not have the support of this house anymore."

Does that mean if he -- as newly self-appointed Prime Minister -- can't produce a budget and positive fiscal results before January 27th, that he will have failed -- because if he can't do that before January 27th -- he will have had as much time as Prime Minister as Harper has had in this session of Parliament and decidedly less of a mandate.

Creating political instability and economic uncertainty in order to attain power is cynical at best. While the rules of our parliamentary democracy allow for such an undertaking, the flaccid reasoning behind this attempted coup are not nearly urgent enough to overturn the results of an election not yet seven weeks past, where Parliament has been in session for less than a month.

I guess this is what Dion meant when he said he would consult for 30 days after the election -- only -- most of us thought if would be IF he became Prime Minister, not IN ORDER TO BECOME Prime Minister.

Silly Stephane, tricks are for kids. You're screwing with our country. Grow up. You lost. Get over it.

canadianna

Who's the Boss?

I don't give a damn where they sit -- with a veto on government business until 2011 - who's calling the shots?

Comfort yourself by listening to the BS if you like -- the Bloc is not part of the coalition -- they will not sit in government -- they ARE the bloody government when they have the numbers to assert control -- and they do. Jack Layton has sold his soul on the pretense that a few Cabinet seats will give him 'power'. Nice guy Dion, gets the title and the Rt. Hon. attached to his name and of course, the Liberals will not risk political uncertainty come the Spring and they'll reaffirm the puppet as PM in order to maintain their dubious claim to 'government.'

The Bloc is the only winner in this. They serve the interests of Quebec only and thanks to the Liberals and the NDP - those are the interests your taxes will be serving for the next three years.

Welcome to Canada, Prime Minister Duceppe. Monsieur Dion? I think you'd better put on some clothes.

canadianna

All you can do is shake your head

The Bloc as part of a governing coalition.

The Bloc Quebecois, as part of government?

A separatist party, taking a significant and powerful role in forming policy for all of Canada?

And no Liberals or NDPers see a problem with this?

Even if you hate Stephen Harper -- even if you are still amongst the few ignorant people who 'fear' Stephen Harper -- you have to see how very wrong this is.

It is one thing for opposition parties, including the Bloc to work to bring down the government -- it is entirely another for the the opposition, including the Bloc to sit AS government. For those who don't see the difference -- I suggest you are letting your partisan slip show.

Please, don't remind me that most of the people who voted, didn't vote for Harper -- I am aware of that already -- but I remind you, most of the people who voted in previous elections didn't vote for most of the PMs we've had in recent history -- that never mattered until now.

This is your country and a group of mercenary, power hungry, myopic despots are hijacking it in the name of -- in the name of -- what?

canadianna

Too bad

It's almost sad that the Tories didn't have the guts to stick it out and allow the pig-three to form a coalition government. Would have been mighty interesting having Ignatieff and Rae and Layton explain how they could, in good conscience, allow the Bloc to actually be part of forming government.

Besides, there is so much in-fighting in the Liberal Party, they can barely function themselves, let alone hold it together with two other power hungry, divisive parties.

Too bad Harper blinked.

canadianna

Life, or nothing like it

She'll be dead forever but he's getting parole.

We need a prison system where life in prison means exactly that.
How dare the National Parole Board take a risk with our children?

There is no cure for what this guy is and yet apparently, remorse is enough. The guy wants to 'do everything in his power make sure he never hurts anyone again.'

Fine, Smeltzer. Stay in jail. That's in your power and that will make sure you never hurt anyone again. There. Don't you feel better now?

canadianna

Never again

Never again. When you hear those words, it evokes an image doesn't it?

For me, the image is of holocaust survivors or soldiers. I've heard survivors say it defiantly and I've heard veterans utter it wistfully. It's meant as a call for humanity after a period of genocide, violent social upheaval, war. It's a stark, simple phrase that manages to conjure images of the brutality that mankind perpetrates on itself -- it is a reminder of carnage, it is a plea for change, it is a call for hope and a solemn promise to those who hear, that if enough of us believe those words, peace and freedom from oppression are possible.

Look who's co-opted the phrase and to whom they're referring.























Talk about classless. I thought Garth Turner was petulant and self-righteous. Boy, Stephane Dion makes Garth look positively humble and rational.

Character assassination? What did the Conservatives say about Stephane Dion but that his ideas were bad and that he wasn't a leader? Neither of these statements is subjective opinion-- Dion managed to prove that both were facts. And neither assertion attacks the man's character -- nope, but charges of 'liar' 'incompetent' 'cold' 'heartless' 'evil' 'quitter' 'mean' -- those are comments about character -- those charges and worse were made about Stephen Harper and either uttered or approved by Stephane Dion during the course of the campaign.

Poor Stephane -- not only is he a whining crybaby loser, he's also a myopic navel-gazing, hostile little bit of a man.

Oops. That was unkind. Maybe you should reach into your wallets and pull out some cash for the Liberals so that never again, will any Liberal leader ever have to face that kind of brutal, violent, shattering, soul destroying name-calling on a blog or anywhere else in this cruel world.

canadianna

Nice Guy? Please!

In the print edition of the National Post, the headline of Don Martin's column states:

He didn't get it: Politics is nasty

The online edition says -- Nice guys don't last in politics

Both are referring to Stephane Dion.

Gimme a break!

Martin goes on to say:

Like it or not, and I still think it was beneath him, but Prime Minister Stephen Harper's instant attack on the do-overs of Mr. Dion's bumbled CTV interview was blood sport politics at its finest and is credited for an overnight downturn in Liberal fortunes. By the time Mr. Dion got around to going dirty by repeatedly shouting "liar" at the Prime Minister, it sounded pathetically desperate.

Go back Mr. Martin -- read your paper from the first day of the election race. From the get-go, Dion called Harper a liar. Let's not pretend his animus was in response to anything. Dion broke from the gate calling the PM a liar. Throughout the campaign, he and his party equated Harper to the most hated man in the world, George Bush. Liar, quitter, classless, malevolent -- the name-calling was all one sided and all from the direction of the Liberal campaign. The Conservatives stuck with one issue -- Stephane Dion -- Not a leader, not worth the risk. It was right. Boo hoo.

All the pejorative adjectives thrown out in this campaign were tossed by either Stephane Dion or his attack dog, Elizabeth May. Is Martin so clueless that he doesn't 'get' that Dion and the Liberals planned that she'd do most of the rude and hostile, English mouthing off? But still, it isn't like Dion held back--he showed hostility, arrogance and he spewed vitriol every time he mentioned Harper's name. And yet he gets labelled a 'decent guy' and a 'nice guy' by the press.
What were they watching during those six weeks?

Harper never once name-called. During the debate, he was the only leader to display manners and courtesy, despite the attacks being levelled on him. He sat and listened as Ms May called him incompetent, accused him of not being able to read, suggested that his only good quality is that she's fairly certain he loves his kids -- despite being a bad enough PM to possibly be intentionally destroying the future of their country, and berating him for not making chit-chat with her at some dinner.

Stephane Dion is whining. Throughout the campaign, he whined. He's a whining, crybaby loser who hasn't learned to take responsibility for himself.

Who's the nice guy?

canadianna

Election shocker: Harper not campaigning for the Liberals

In the latest of many shocking developments on the campaign trail, it has come to light that Stephen Harper is not championing the Liberal cause as things come down to the wire:

"Today, he (Harper) will tour the country and he will not say a word about the Liberal tax cuts for families," Mr. Dion told an early morning rally at the headquarters of Fredericton candidate David Innes.

Can you believe it? The audacity of the Conservative Party leader -- not mentioning a Liberal promise. You'd almost think Harper supports the Conservative platform rather than the Liberal one. Unthinkable.

Not only that. Stephane Dion has it on good authority that Stephen Harper is either a clever ventriloquist or has the ability to speak to reporters with his mind:

"He will be mute today and he will continue to lie about the Liberal climate-change plan," Mr. Dion said. For the past couple of days, Mr. Harper has stopped scrumming with the reporters travelling with him.

Neat party trick, that -- lying while mute.

It's astounding that the press treats Dion's every utterance as though it is both credible and news.

canadianna

One more reason not to vote Liberal

Ooops. They got him! Stephen Harper is offically human.

Um, Liberal war room? The differences between Mr. Harper's flub and Mr. Dion's meltdown are astronomical.

First, Harper didn't ask for a do-over. He misspoke and moved on.

Second, you were able to figure out what Harper meant to say. Even the Liberal war room has no clue what Dion was trying to say in that interview.

Third, even you concede that the average family has benefitted by $3,000 thanks to the Harper government. That's not chump change to the average household. Do you think we like the idea of that cash being clawed back through an onerous carbon tax imposed by the new Red-Green regime?

Thank you Liberal war room, for pointing out yet another reason not to vote for Stephane Dion and his band of merry taxers.

Liberals -- always there for you -- with their hands out.

canadianna

Pardon moi?

A man who was able to keep up and listen to four other debaters and a moderator during the debates is now using a disability as an excuse for not being able to answer questions intelligibly one on one?

Score points by getting the sympathy vote. The Liberal way. Win by any means. The disability excuse is just an example of deflection -- make the Conservatives look bad for pointing out how bad Dion looked.

You blew it Stephane. Face it and move on and stop trying to blame other people.

canadianna

"Not Conservative"

It amazes me how many people are willing to jump onto the ABC bandwagon or buy into the 'Stop Harper' campaigns. With little thought to what the 'Anybody' in ABC might be putting forward in their own campaign, it seems many people are ready to define themselves as 'not Conservative'.

Congratulations. That's so clever. Well, if being 'not Conservative' is your main reason for voting for 'Anybody' else, then there are a few things you might want to think about before marking that ballot.

Stephen Harper is the only leader not panicking over the economy.

Who do you want at the helm-- a harried, worried scaremonger who sees icebergs and storms in every direction and who will run us aground or scurry for the nearest port? Or a calm, rational leader whose nerves are steady enough that he can steer through the crisis, not into it?

Personally, I'd go for the level-headed guy. Fear is self-fulfilling and panic-begets-panic-begets-crisis. Harper has been navigating choppy waters without getting into a tizzy like Dion, Layton and May. If he doesn't seem empathetic enough, thank God. There's someone who's keeping his head while those around him are losing theirs. If it seems cold or unkind -- I'll take it. It means he's not being governed by fear or emotion and guess what -- that's a good thing.

If you're simply anti-Conservative because you're stuck in the 'don't scare me' frame of mind -- then you are scary because the Conservatives are the only ones looking forward on the economy instead of trying to reach back.

Call me crazy, but I'm not surprised that Canada is losing jobs in the manufacturing sector -- are you?

In global economy, first world manufacturers with their nifty benefit packages, pension plans and high hourly wages are not competitive. Thanks Buzz, Sid, Jack and your ilk for years of amazing labour negotiations that have brought us to this point. The truth hurts -- you had it great when the economy was good and now that things are going down -- you're being hit hard. It's sad and I feel for all the people who are victims of it -- but the Conservatives aren't lamenting manufacturing job losses as much as they're committed to creating jobs in other sectors. Doesn't that make sense -- to open ourselves up to fields where we can be leaders and competitive?

We're never going to go back to the days where GM and Ford and their feeder companies make up a huge portion of the labour force of Ontario -- we need innovation. We don't need leaders who are looking wistfully to yesterday -- we need people who can focus on the future. Yes, manufacturing jobs have been lost -- but more and different jobs are being created and there are new strategies for job retraining. Maybe you won't have all the union perqs but it's a far brighter future than trying to reach back for something that's long gone to another country that can do it much, much cheaper.

The Liberals and NDP have to start living in today's world. The corporate 'tax cuts' or the NDP derides? What about all the corporate welfare that's been happening in the auto sector and for Bombardier -- that's okay? Yes, yes it is. Just like it's okay to get abortions in private clinics but not MRIs -- because one is politically correct and the other not. One pleases a particular interest group, the other not -- but corporate tax cuts are not gifts to the devil as Jack would have you believe.

What Jack fails to grasp -- or grasps but hopes the ABCers don't, is that it's the corporations who create and maintain jobs. If they don't like the tax laws, they ain't staying. It's a buyers market. They can shop around for the best tax deals and if those deals happen to be in Mexico or China or Wisconsin -- those corporations aren't going to give a damn about your family, your mortgage, your car payments. Business is business -- a favourable tax climate for business is a good thing -- which is why Jim Flaherty said that Ontario is the last place companies would want to invest -- the tax burden on the business doesn't make it profitable -- WHY SHOULD THEY COME and WHY SHOULD THEY STAY?
If we want companies to invest here, we have to make it worth their while. Dalton, Dion and Layton don't get that.

If you're voting 'not Conservative' because you think that's going to help the arts -- then think again. Did any of you read the National Post editorial that detailed some of the benefactors of 'arts funding'? According to the Post, advertising companies receive the largest portion of 'arts funding'. So, you get to give money to the government, who hands it to the ad company, who creates and ad to get you to buy their product with what little money you have left after you've given so generously to the taxman. And this is what you believe in?

I never used to believe that very many people defined themselves as 'not American' rather than putting any real thought into what it meant to be a Canadian. Why would anyone define themselves as 'not something'. Most of us know that to be Canadian holds special significance -- it means respect for authority, listening politely to the other guy but thinking independently. It means being ready to stand up for what's right and having the muscle to back it. Being Canadian means quiet strength, it means honesty and integrity, it means seeing the whole picture -- not just the few pixels we ourselves inhabit. In my opinion, the Conservatives -- even with their decidedly unconservative tilt since forming government -- best represent Canadian values and they are prepared to define themselves, rather than rant that at least they're not the other guy.

Stephen Harper isn't perfect and the Conservative Party platform falls far short of what most conservatives would prefer. Far from being ultra-right wing, the Conservatives have pulled the party left because they are seeing the whole picture, and are calmly leading into future. Harper showed quiet strength at the debates and he's showing it each day throughout this campaign. I'm surprised at his patience in the face of some of the vile comments and insults that have been hurled at him.

What does Anybody else have to offer? Oh yeah. 'Vote for me because I'm not him and I'm also not American or George Bush.' They are defining themselves by what they are not -- 'not Conservative'. All that really means is they are not prepared to move forward -- they are still looking back to a global economy that no longer exists and to three elections ago when Canadians didn't know who Stephen Harper was. They think we'll be swayed by dark, shadowy images flashing across our television screens. The Liberal team is banking on us not figuring it out -- if the Liberals are the fall-back guy, then they really don't have anything to offer and they hope that if they scare us enough, we won't notice.

The Liberals think we're stupid. I hope we don't prove them right on election day.

canadianna

Local candidate has bangs and glasses!!!

Breaking news -- The woman on the right is running for the Liberals in the GTA -- and it isn't Sarah Palin. Would you have realized that if I hadn't told you? And guess what? She has bangs and glasses and a smile and apparently -- that's enough to get her free publicity from CityTV.

In the news item titled: Local Candidate Bears Uncanny Resemblance To Sarah Palin we're told of the remarkable similarities (and of course the stark hair colour and political differences) between the two women.

"It's absolutely uncanny," says a member of the CityTv news staff who has too much time and too little to think about. "She has ears, nose and a chin too. They could be twins. Even their first names start with the same letter. It's enough to just give you chills."

Apparently, someone got paid to think this up and write about it.

canadianna

A tale of two speeches

Advice to Stephen Harper: Stand behind your Iraq speech.

Everyone should know that speechwriters DO NOT shape foreign policy. They reflect the ideas and ideals of the person to be delivering the speech. For Bob Rae to suggest that Harper can't be trusted with Canada's foreign policy issues because he couldn't express his position on Iraq "in his own words" is insulting -- not to Harper, but to Canadians. He expects we are stupid enough not to understand the role of speechwriters. Plagiarism is wrong -- the message was correct.

Having read the speeches side-by-side , I see that the similarities are in the history leading to the amassing of troops on Iraq's border but in the areas where Harper outlines his vision for Canada, they diverge completely. There is no text in Howard's version where Harper stresses Canadian history and values and their role in determining our attitude towards the war.

There is nothing in Harper's speech that suggests we should send military support -- in fact he says:

The coalition assembled by the United States and the United Kingdom is now ready to act. It is now acting. It will bring this long run conflict to an end once and for all. It will bring to an end the regime of Saddam Hussein and the militarism, brutality and aggression that are the foundations of his rule. (...) We will not be neutral. We will be with our allies and our friends, not militarily, but in spirit we will be with them in America and in Britain for a short and successful conflict and for the liberation of the people of Iraq.

Throughout the text you find no suggestion that Canada send troops -- simply, that we support the rightness of the coalition position -- that Saddam Hussein had failed to comply with UN resolutions and that military intervention was therefore mandated by the UN.

Let's remember too, that those countries opposed to military intervention have been found to have been involved in the Oil-for-food scandal. France, Russia, China -- are we still proud to be on their side?

The war in Iraq has taken far longer than anticipated. It has taken a toll on Americans and Iraqis both financially and militarily -- but the fact remains -- Canada was never going to send troops -- we had no troops. All the Canadian Alliance Party was offering to the US was moral support. It was offering an acknowledgement that their position --- that Saddam had failed to comply with the conditions for ceasefire and still posed a threat to the world, was a valid one. It could be argued that he didn't pose a threat because he had no WMD -- but given his ties to China and Russia and what we now know about their roles in the 'peace' between the two Gulf Wars, it's a good thing those relationships were nipped when they were.

Harper should not back down. Go through the speech. He doesn't offer Canadian soldiers -- he offers Canadian moral support. It could be argued that if Canada had supported the coalition position that war might have been prevented. We see ourselves as the righteous brokers of peace -- had we said YES, the the US and its allies have the right and responsibility to move in and fulfill the obligations under the UN resolution -- then maybe Saddam might have seen it wasn't just the countries who were dirty-dealing with him who were on his side. If a 'moral' nation like Canada had said 'we insist you comply or be invaded.' maybe he would have listened. He knew that Russia, France and China had too much to lose to align themselves with the US. He knew he could count on their support because if they sided with the coalition, it would expose their corruption and duplicity.

We can still debate the Iraq war, whether it was a success etc. But there is still no question -- I'd still rather be aligned with those who fought against Saddam, than those who tried to hide their corruption by supporting Saddam.

canadianna

Stop picking on Stephane Dion!

Or he'll stamp his feet and cry!!!

Poor, poor, Stephane Dion. Stephen Harper is picking on him.

The Prime Minister suggested that Dion's attitude about the economy is tantamount to cheering for a recession. Here are a few quotes from Dion after the stock market crisis and some follow up from experts, sometimes in the same article:

But Dion said as badly as the U.S. has performed economically, Canada has done worse and lays the blame for that at the feet of the Prime Minister.

Dion, while in St. John's, Nfld., said that Harper's economic formula is one that will land Canada in a deep recession.

"Their (the U.S.) first six months have been better than ours in terms of economic growth," Dion said.

"(Harper) made bad choices in the way he spends. He spent more than any other government before him," he said. "We've got to stop going in the direction that Mr. Harper is sending us and that is deficit and recession."

Harper urged "a more sober analysis" of the global economic woes.

People should not "turn to complete doom and gloom" scenarios, Harper said at a Monday news conference.

The Toronto Star, September 15

Seems to me that Dion is happy to interprets Harper's policies as 'sending us into a recession.'

And then:

"The Canadian market fundamentals are still solid . . . ," (Industry association president Calvin Lindberg) said, echoing the reassurance about the health of the overall economy issued earlier in the day by Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

"The Canadian economy's fundamentals are solid," Harper said, stressing that Canada is in better shape that the U.S. to withstand the current financial turmoil and suggesting that the worst of the crisis has already passed. "Our household sector, our government sector, and our financial institutions have solid economic fundamentals."

However, Liberal opposition leader Stephane Dion charged that were it not for the policies of the minority Conservative government, the economy would have been in better shape to withstand the U.S. slump.

"The difficulties in the United States are something we worry about," Dion said, adding "bad choices" by the government have resulted in economic growth being weaker in Canada this year than in the United States.

While most indicators - especially job growth and housing market sales, prices and construction - have been much stronger in Canada than in the U.S., overall levels of economic growth have been stronger there than here - with Canada's economy barely skirting a technical recession of back-to-back quarterly contractions in total output of goods and services and an actual decline in the first half of the year.

The Vancouver Sun, September 15

Note that two men who know a little bit about economics say that our economy is holding steady. The voice of dissent comes from Stephane Dion. It could even be argued that the man is almost hopeful of a recession, just to prove his point.

As the U.S. economy slipped deeper into financial turmoil Monday, Dion cast the Conservative economic plan as an anchor that has dragged Canadians to the brink of recession.

Dion blamed Harper for doing little to protect Canada from the looming economic downturn.

"Stephen Harper has allowed what was a booming economy to hit a brick wall," Dion said.

"Stephen Harper governs for the next day, the next poll. He wants to buy your vote with gimmicks for the next election."

The Liberals have also targeted the Conservative government's economic record in a new TV ad they dubbed "Harpernomics."

The Toronto Star, September 16

There's Dion, suggesting that Canada's headed for recession and it sounds like it would suit him fine. After all, it fits right into the clever and witty "Harpernomics" line. Is Harper really wrong for suggesting that he's practically drooling, hoping for a downturn on Harper's watch?

"He spent a lot, he has no direction and we are close to a deficit and close to
a recession," Dion said.
(...)

"The federal government has entered the 2008-2009 fiscal year with pretty solid momentum at least in the early stages of the year that momentum has continued," said Derek Burelton, an economist with TD Bank Financial Group.

"I think the numbers coming in so far this year suggest that the surplus is declining but we're not looking into an immediate return into deficit."

The GST cut has robbed the government coffers of around $12 billion a year, a move that has subtracted significantly from excess surpluses, Burelton said.

"We're still in surplus territory. No doubt the GST cut has eaten into that," Burelton said.

However, he said, the federal government is benefiting greatly from greater revenue from taxes in the resource sector despite the fact that commodity prices have fallen.

The Tories are projecting a $2.3-billion surplus this fiscal year and $1.3 billion for the next, down from the $10.2-billion surplus for the 2007-08 fiscal year.

Dale Orr, managing director of Global Insight Canada, believes those are conservative estimates and has predicted a $4 billion to $5 billion surplus for this fiscal year.

"There's not much chance of a deficit this year," Orr said.

Orr said the tax base continues to grow more rapidly than was forecast in the budget, offsetting the softening economy. Also, interest rates are lower than predicted, which provides some relief on debt charges.

As well, the government has not included in its forecast the $44 billion collected in Ottawa's auction of wireless airwaves. Orr said many believe the Conservatives will budget 10 per cent of that revenue to be used for over the next 10 years, meaning an extra $400 million of revenue will be coming for the current fiscal year.

Mark Gollom, CBC Reality Check, September 15

Again, Dion says recession, deficit and two experts say not. Is Harper wrong to think Dion almost seems hopeful that the economy will plunge in order to prove his own hypothesis?

One could almost forgive M. Dion for his fallacious belief that all one had to do to become Prime Minister of Canada was to don the red banner, point at the people in blue and scoff, but his reaction to criticism is to whine. Not very becoming of a man who hopes to lead the nation.

It seems inconceivable to Stephane Dion that anyone would question his policies, his demeanour, his strategy of predicting economic decline in order to boost his own fortunes. Instead of trying to justify any of those things, he becomes shrill and childish and blames those who would challenge his narrow world vision.

"Never has a government spent so much to destroy a person and his policies as Harper has towards me," Dion said during a campaign event in Stoney Creek, Ont., just outside Hamilton.

The man has a persecution complex. Politics is a blood sport and Dion seems to bruise easily. Maybe he should stick to what he's good at -- maybe fishing or saving the universe.

canadianna

I don't wanna subsidize your 'art' -- I'd rather pay my mortgage -- thanks anyway

If the left-wing parties think the arts are underfunded, then they should be encouraging wealthy Canadians to create endowments and foundations to help foster both artists and young patrons.

Only established writers/singers/dancers/filmmakers/artists/musicians are eligible to receive arts grants of the type the whiners are griping about. It isn't galleries going without, or starving artists unable to keep a roof over their heads because they lack the cash for basics while they paint their masterpiece or write the great Canadian novel. Galleries are still being funded, and those poor first-timers are like the rest of us, slogging their guts out to make ends meet while trying to fit their creative passion into what little spare time they have. Instead, it's the Canadian Arts elite -- the kind of folk who don't live on my street --- they're getting Arts cash, much of which comes with very few strings and no accountability.

It's far easier to fill out an arts grant application than it is to go to the private sector looking for backing for your play or your movie idea -- or God forbid, a bank. Normal people who want to start a business have to go to the local TD or BMO. These celebrity sorts come to us. They write their books and create their music video with taxpayer money -- with what return for the taxpayer? The privilege of viewing their creations? Thanks anyway -- I've seen some government funded 'art'. I'll pass.

Who funded Lucy Maud Montgomery? Mary Pickford? Emily Carr? Peter Appleyard? Stompin' Tom? For generations, in every country, great artists/musicians/writers etc have managed to keep their hands on their crafts and out of taxpayers pockets. Talent and merit should determine success, not government subsidies.

Maybe the whiners should face facts -- if their art were more worthy, people would actually pay for it and they wouldn't need government handouts.

I don't think you'll see riots in the street over this one.

canadianna

Meet the Candidate

A Canadian Press article had a link that led me to the writings of R.K. Finch, Liberal candidate for Dufferin-Caledon. Over the years I've read some shrill, over-the-top assessments of Stephen Harper. There are comparisons to Bush, allusions to some malevolent right-wing cabal, accusations of snobbery and critiques of his parenting style. Never have I come across a one-stop hate-fest like this. Keep in mind, this piece was written in March of this year -- long after most Canadians began to shed the 'fear' of a 'hidden agenda' and see Harper in a more positive light.

Originally it was based on the same basic intuition all Canadians feel when staring at those glassy, watery eyes; eyes that only show a glint of real emotion when they're blazing in delight over the taunting or jeering or destruction of someone else, or accidentally revealing an astoundingly low self-esteem and less surprisingly high sense of paranoia. It was in reaction to the early indications that his right-wing, ultra-conservative agenda is not good for all Canadians yet is slowly but surely going to be forced upon us anyway if he has anything to do with it, which unfortunately at this moment in history, he does. It was due also to the sense of that hidden agenda that almost all Canadians know with every ounce of intuition is there, though they just can't put their finger on it.

This is how it begins. Never mind that much of her opinion is based on his looks and her 'intuition' -- it's also based on innuendo and allusions to gossip that circulated ages ago. Apparently Rebecca Finch has had her head in the sand for the past couple of years -- but that was just the warm up:

Let's start with the really nasty stuff, though, the stuff that conjures up comparisons to Hitler or Stalin; let's talk about a damaged psychology, a malevolent personality disorder, and lessons that we, the discerning public who are ultimately affected by these characters, should have already learned.

When I recently re-read the definition of the term, "malignant narcissism", I felt like I was sitting in the gallery of the House of Commons, watching Harper . . .

Harper mightn't be your cup of tea, but Stalin-like? A bit much.
A megalomaniac? Malignant narcissist? Wonder if it's a pot/kettle thing.
And taking "delight over the taunting or jeering or destruction of someone else." Maybe poor Becky's projecting a little. And she's not finished:

What we have here is an immature and conscienceless man who is using this country as an experiment to prove a theory posited in a university paper (which got him great attention) he can't get over, and for the ongoing attention he discovered after writing that paper which led to meeting the people who secured his success in politics, allowing him to simultaneously indulge his megalomania while holding fast to his grudges and punishing those who treated him badly in his erased history. This is a story about a radical Christian who denies his beliefs in order to win over what he shows with disdain is the moderate majority, who has bought into a story of a political parousia that includes Canada as the landing strip for Jesus' triumphant return to Earth.

This woman has put a lot of time and energy into hating Stephen Harper, yet most of what she says is completely unsubstantiated. It just flows from a visceral, blinding hatred that seems to seep into the very fibre of her being. Look at those adjectives -- so certain and so hostile -- immature, conscienceless. Look at the tone, mocking and sneering. It's creepy and weird how very much she hates a complete stranger, based solely on the biographies she's read, some snippets on CPAC and some pseudo-pychological conjecture about his motivations. This obnoxious, toxic screed says a lot about its author. If she manages to win her riding, let's hope she tones down her rhetoric and learns to judge people based on more substantial criteria than their eye colour, or the province they choose to live in, or their religious beliefs -- no matter how ugly or ridiculous she finds them.

For those who are interested, here is a post I wrote a while back responding to someone who shared a similar distaste for Stephen Harper. Defending Stephen Harper from January, 2006.

canadianna

Getting the word out

The Green Shift slid down the slope into the dung pile and it's all the Conservative's fault. Apparently, according to reliable sources -- get this: the Conservatives disagreed and therefore spoke out about it before the Liberals really got a chance to explain. From the Globe:

The Liberals still have to fight to explain their Green Shift plan because the Conservatives bombarded the airwaves with “propaganda” in an effort to kill it, Stéphane Dion says.

If the Conservatives had just kept their mouths shut . . . those poor Liberals have only had two months since they announced this plan to get the word out. During that whole time the Conservatives actually gave their opinion of it. How fair is that? Their rival actually commenting on their policies? Typical Conservatives. They've got opinions on EVERYTHING and most of the time, you can count on those opinions to be different from the Liberals and you know what? They actually feel free to talk about it in public.

He (Dion) added later: “We are starting to explain it after months, months of propaganda by the Conservatives. I'm sure you and many people thought it was a carbon tax. You didn't know it was a green shift. That we will tax less what we want more of, our income, and we'll shift it to pollution, something we don't want.”

So, there you have it. Now, don't blame Stéphane Dion if you don't get it. The Conservatives probably twisted his words or something because quite frankly, it just doesn't make much sense.

canadianna

Who would make a good citizen?

I have a friend who is a refugee from Iran. His family ran a book store and quietly spoke against the Ayatollah. This friend became an activist, working underground against the government. There came a point when his friends began to be rounded up and he and a couple of others managed to get out. Unfortunately, he arrived in Canada in the wake of 9/11. His claim has been rejected although he's made a last ditch appeal.

This man, my friend, is university educated in some sort of geology thing that lends itself to working in the oil & gas industry. He has learned English and speaks it fluently. He works at menial and low paying jobs -- all he's able to get considering his status, and he has worked consistently since coming to Canada. He has never received social assistance. He has no debt, has refused legal aid (although as a refugee, he was entitled). He refused to use being a Christian as a part of his refugee claim. In short, he's a good man.

Now, read Rosie DiManno about the American hiding out here to avoid facing a trial for desertion.
This toy soldier signed on for an education and a paycheque and bailed when he found out that he might actually have to live up to the job description. Bob Rae is reaching out to help him, speaking out for him? I wonder how our soldiers would feel about this?

canadianna

While we're at it . . .

Jack Layton wants inspectors in every meat plant.

While we're at it, why don't we put a driving coach in every car -- just in case? How about a doctor in every schoolyard -- or better yet, tear down the playground equipment -- that way no one can fall off. What about making a helmet law -- everyone who has to cross a street must wear government approved CAS helmets. And maybe all new babies could be put in a nice plastic bubble so they wouldn't have to breathe in polluted air or ever get a cut or bruise -- maybe we could grandfather it and everyone could be protected!!!

Life is full of risks. Avoiding them by adding more bureaucracy is just paying an extra person who will be able to say "sorry" when something goes wrong, and it will because . . . humans make mistakes. What a shock, eh?

canadianna

Paranoid

There is no "I" in team. But you'll find D-I-O-N in paranoid.

Apparently, as he single-handedly 'did the Clarity Act' and 'saved the Kyoto Protocol', mild mannered, bookish, Stephane Dion, donned a cape and tights and became -- SUPER-DION -- a mild-mannered, bookish superhero who managed to thwart nefarious adversaries, repel all sorts of furtive enemies and some really mean anonymous guys-- all of whom were intent on destroying Canada and the world.

"When I did the Clarity Act, I had a lot of anonymous sources against me," Dion said. "When I saved the Kyoto protocol I had a lot of anonymous sources against me. A lot."

Dion's vocabulary is peppered with references to Harper and the pronoun "I". That's all he has. That, and an ego the size of France and enough paranoia to further deflate a flagging campaign.

M. Dion seems to be taking lessons from a certain Liberal-come-lately MP from just outside of T.O. and who shall remain nameless on this blog. Paranoia is not appealing in a leader and neither is overstating one's participation in events or self-aggrandizement. Maybe someone should tell Stephane. Better yet, maybe they should just let him keep talking-- after all, he knows everything.

canadianna