Read these two quotes, keeping in mind that although Paul Martin is still Prime Minister, the government has been dissolved and we are in the midst of a hotly contested election campaign.
Audio Link: "That's why I'm here today on behalf of the people of Toronto, to thank the Prime Minister for his announcement and to thank the Attorney General for his announcement, because today's announcement will start getting those guns off the streets of Toronto (...) Mr. Prime Minister I could not think of a more important announcement for the people of Toronto than the banning of handguns, and I want to thank you for your leadership."
-- David Miller, Mayor of Toronto
Audio link: "Prime Minister, a handgun ban, you can count Ontario in! (...) Ontario supports a handgun ban and will work with the federal government to implement a handgun ban. . . and now with this information we will have the opportunity to have additional RCMP Officers to boost our law enforcement arsenal" --Michael Bryant, Attorney General of Ontario
The Prime Minister's promise to ban handguns is nothing compared the audacity of our Mayor and the Ontario Attorney General. They flanked Martin yesterday during his 'announcement' and did not simply endorse any old election promise, but rather, they welcomed the information -- and in the case of Miller -- did so on my behalf!!
The statements of Miller and Bryant are irresponsible. Given the staging of yesterday's event, an observer might be forgiven for believing that Paul Martin had the power to enact a handgun ban effective immediately by proclamation.
David Miller and Michael Bryant have overstepped their positions, not simply by endorsing a party and a candidate for Prime Minister -- but by attending a campaign speech in their respective roles of Mayor and Attorney General, and pretending a campaign promise is a major announcement of actual legislation.
canadianna
Friday, December 09, 2005
Thursday, December 08, 2005
Where have you been, lo these many years?
The way Paul Martin talks, you'd think that gun violence was a new phenomenon and that he was moving quickly to quell it before it got out of hand.
Newsflash, Mr. Prime Minister -- gun violence in Toronto is entrenched in the culture -- why? Because for years, the Liberal governments who might have done something to prevent its escalation, ignored it.
There is more to gun violence than guns. It's that simple. People who don't value human life, or who believe their needs trump the rights of another person to live -- these people will continue to exist and kill regardless of whether they can get a hand gun to do it. Does Mr. Martin think the criminals are going to come in and hand over their guns any faster than they 'registered' them?
The breakdown of families and core family values are far more important detering violence than banning a gun will ever be. Lynda Hurst wrote about this in the Toronto Star on the weekend and it's worth the read.
Today Martin announced tougher sentencing, great, but where have they been the past twelve years? If they were really serious, this would have been a preventive measure, rather than an attempt to stem the flow of blood on Toronto's streets. Besides, the Tories have already promised tougher sentences and given the track record of the Liberals, it's the Conservatives I would trust to follow through.
The Liberal Party is the party of the 'Faint Hope Clause', and the ineffective Young Offenders Act (since replaced by the Youth Criminal Justice Act -- also ineffective.) Their stance on crime seems to have been 'if we ignore it, maybe it will go away' and now suddenly, after playing ignorant for all this time -- they come riding into town, platitudes ablazin' and they're going to get tough on crime --as though it's someone else's fault that things have become this bad.
Maybe it's because so few Liberals live in the real world. They are beyond street crime, because their lives never meet the street. Their experience with our daily reality, ends when they close the newspaper. They don't fear drive by shootings or stray bullets in school yards. They don't fear letting their kids walk places, or travel alone because of perverts. They don't fear walking home from a bus stop after dark -- they will never be in circumstances where these kinds of things are issues.
Take away all the handguns. Drop them in the ocean. Is Toronto going to be any safer?
Gun violence is only one of the many life-destroying crimes that plague this country. What makes a society safe is the knowledge that our governing members refuse to accept certain behaviours. As a society, we have to show our intolerance for child molesters, murderers and other villains by locking them up and throwing away the key. A Liberal government will never do that.
Successive Liberal governments have shown their empathy lies with criminals, rather than victims. Whatever solutions they propose to combat crime are irrelevant -- because they are part of the problem.
canadianna
Newsflash, Mr. Prime Minister -- gun violence in Toronto is entrenched in the culture -- why? Because for years, the Liberal governments who might have done something to prevent its escalation, ignored it.
There is more to gun violence than guns. It's that simple. People who don't value human life, or who believe their needs trump the rights of another person to live -- these people will continue to exist and kill regardless of whether they can get a hand gun to do it. Does Mr. Martin think the criminals are going to come in and hand over their guns any faster than they 'registered' them?
The breakdown of families and core family values are far more important detering violence than banning a gun will ever be. Lynda Hurst wrote about this in the Toronto Star on the weekend and it's worth the read.
Today Martin announced tougher sentencing, great, but where have they been the past twelve years? If they were really serious, this would have been a preventive measure, rather than an attempt to stem the flow of blood on Toronto's streets. Besides, the Tories have already promised tougher sentences and given the track record of the Liberals, it's the Conservatives I would trust to follow through.
The Liberal Party is the party of the 'Faint Hope Clause', and the ineffective Young Offenders Act (since replaced by the Youth Criminal Justice Act -- also ineffective.) Their stance on crime seems to have been 'if we ignore it, maybe it will go away' and now suddenly, after playing ignorant for all this time -- they come riding into town, platitudes ablazin' and they're going to get tough on crime --as though it's someone else's fault that things have become this bad.
Maybe it's because so few Liberals live in the real world. They are beyond street crime, because their lives never meet the street. Their experience with our daily reality, ends when they close the newspaper. They don't fear drive by shootings or stray bullets in school yards. They don't fear letting their kids walk places, or travel alone because of perverts. They don't fear walking home from a bus stop after dark -- they will never be in circumstances where these kinds of things are issues.
Take away all the handguns. Drop them in the ocean. Is Toronto going to be any safer?
Gun violence is only one of the many life-destroying crimes that plague this country. What makes a society safe is the knowledge that our governing members refuse to accept certain behaviours. As a society, we have to show our intolerance for child molesters, murderers and other villains by locking them up and throwing away the key. A Liberal government will never do that.
Successive Liberal governments have shown their empathy lies with criminals, rather than victims. Whatever solutions they propose to combat crime are irrelevant -- because they are part of the problem.
canadianna
Wednesday, December 07, 2005
Daycare -- Univeral access and shifting expectations
In short, this program (universal child care) is here to stay – because it’s right for Canadian families, and it’s right for our children. (. . .) Government supported child care means that your children will go to regulated facilities that are safe, secure and inspected. It means that your children will be cared for by people who are properly trained. -- Paul Martin
At the inception of our universal health care system, the idea was that the government would be obligated to pay for the health services of citizens. It has evolved to the point where citizens are obligated to accept the health care services of the state.
We live in a country where most people believe it is 'unfair' for an individual to pay for his own medical treatment.
Under the Liberal plan, how long will it be before the obligation is no longer on the government to provide state run daycare -- but on a parent to accept it?
It means that your children will be cared for by people who are properly trained.
Read those words carefully and remember that just this summer, Ken Dryden said that parents and family members:
(could be trained) "so long as the end result is something that meets the standards of regulation and meets the standards of the QUAD [quality, universality, accessibility, developmental] principles."
Who's scary?
canadianna
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
The subtlety of media bias
There are columnists who blatently bare their political souls, but many people reject the idea that media in general is inherently biased in favour of the Liberals.
In their Decision Canada pages in the National Post, an article by Mark Kennedy displays the back-handed derision displayed by many in the media when writing on Martin and Harper. The article itself seems neutral -- it's simply pointing out that Harper is making his agenda clear, quickly --in order to avoid a repeat of the last election when he allowed Martin to define him. The following quote is a betrayer of the underlying sentiments of the author, and in my opinion, makes characterizations that are unsupported and unsupportable:
This is written as though the statements are facts that everyone takes for granted -- and maybe that's why so many people do.
canadianna
In their Decision Canada pages in the National Post, an article by Mark Kennedy displays the back-handed derision displayed by many in the media when writing on Martin and Harper. The article itself seems neutral -- it's simply pointing out that Harper is making his agenda clear, quickly --in order to avoid a repeat of the last election when he allowed Martin to define him. The following quote is a betrayer of the underlying sentiments of the author, and in my opinion, makes characterizations that are unsupported and unsupportable:
Plagued with how the sponsership scandal has tarnished the Liberal brand, it appears Mr. Martin hopes to run on his own leadership traits of honesty and good intentions. All the while, he's praying for Mr. Harper's hubris to be his undoing.
This is written as though the statements are facts that everyone takes for granted -- and maybe that's why so many people do.
canadianna
Why doesn't Paul trust us?
Paul Martin has done nothing to earn my trust, and yet he wants me to trust him to create a childcare program that is so all encompassing that it will be on a par with medicare in terms of scope and breadth. Part of our 'social fabric' he calls it.
He says that like medicare -- childcare is a 'public right'.
Excuse me?
What about the right to raise your own children?
Not possible in many cases, you say? Families can't afford it?
Well, instead of making 'daycare' a universal 'right' -- why not create the circumstances where families can decide for themselves whether they want to be the primary caregivers to their own children?
We all know what a mess health care is in, right across the country -- costs are high, services are insufficient and delays are the norm . . . and yet Mr. Martin wants us to have faith that he and his government will serve our children adequately in early child care and early childhood education.
The GST lie, the free trade lie, the Sea King debacle, HRDC billion dollar foul up, the Gun Registry, the 1995 referendum (precursor of the sponsorship scandal), and the Radwanski, and the Dingwall affairs -- to name a few -- are all examples of the way Liberals do business -- and we're supposed to trust them with our kids?
Why doesn't Mr. Martin trust us to raise our own children? His urgency to commit more (but still insufficient) money to his universal daycare scheme in the wake of Harper's announcement -- says that Martin and the liberal elites in this country are trying to create an environment where there is no choice --- where daycare is not the norm -- but the ideal.
Why is it so hard for him to understand, that if money were no object (as is the case in his world) that many families who rely on daycare would prefer to have one parent stay at home?
Daycare is not a right. It should be choice. In Paul Martin's Canada -- it's a choice the government wants to make for us.
canadianna
He says that like medicare -- childcare is a 'public right'.
Excuse me?
What about the right to raise your own children?
Not possible in many cases, you say? Families can't afford it?
Well, instead of making 'daycare' a universal 'right' -- why not create the circumstances where families can decide for themselves whether they want to be the primary caregivers to their own children?
We all know what a mess health care is in, right across the country -- costs are high, services are insufficient and delays are the norm . . . and yet Mr. Martin wants us to have faith that he and his government will serve our children adequately in early child care and early childhood education.
The GST lie, the free trade lie, the Sea King debacle, HRDC billion dollar foul up, the Gun Registry, the 1995 referendum (precursor of the sponsorship scandal), and the Radwanski, and the Dingwall affairs -- to name a few -- are all examples of the way Liberals do business -- and we're supposed to trust them with our kids?
Why doesn't Mr. Martin trust us to raise our own children? His urgency to commit more (but still insufficient) money to his universal daycare scheme in the wake of Harper's announcement -- says that Martin and the liberal elites in this country are trying to create an environment where there is no choice --- where daycare is not the norm -- but the ideal.
Why is it so hard for him to understand, that if money were no object (as is the case in his world) that many families who rely on daycare would prefer to have one parent stay at home?
Daycare is not a right. It should be choice. In Paul Martin's Canada -- it's a choice the government wants to make for us.
canadianna
Saturday, December 03, 2005
The problem with conservatives
Conservative commentators are never happy.
They don't like the governing party -- not what they've done, not what they plan to do -- but they seem to like the Conservative Party even less.
Greg Weston of the SUN and Don Martin of the National Post, write twin columns today, suggesting that Harper's health care plan was ripped from the pages from the Liberal policy book. Their columns drip with contempt for Harper and his un-Conservative vision. They dismiss any positive reaction to Harper's announcement, and overlook the fact that even Harper-haters like Adam Vaughn of CITY TV (Toronto) are beginning to see the Conservatives as legitimate contenders in this election race.
Also in the National Post today, Andrew Coyne takes aim at Harper's plan to reduce the GST. He chastises Harper for committing to cut a consumption tax, because income tax reductions promote investment, blah, blah, blah.
It might be news to these fellows, but Harper had no choice with health care. He didn't remove the concept of private delivery -- he simply said that either the public system puts up, or people can go elsewhere and have it paid for by the public system. This works as both a safe-guard for those who need timely care, and an incentive to the public system to work to reduce wait times. In a country like Canada, where public health care is sacrosanct -- what else can he do? If it is similar to the current Liberal plan, so what? I believe that the Conservatives will work to get things moving. Shooting him down is the typical conservative media reaction to any positive step Harper makes. It's like they put their hate for the man ahead of their hopes for the future of the country. Disagree with the policy if you like -- but right now, in this country, Harper has chosen a compromise that is bound to please voters -- and isn't that the point?
As for Coyne and the GST -- First -- Harper didn't reject income tax cuts. It isn't a case of 'either this or that'. A cut in the GST in conjunction with income tax reductions is unlikely to break the bank -- not when we have massive surplusses that end up enabling the government to behave as though public money is their personal piggy-bank.
Coyne, like many of those who come from comfortable backgrounds, forgets that many of us will never be able to 'save' let alone invest. Our 'disposable income' is not disposable at all. It goes to pay our bills and to buy our kids Christmas presents and put them to lessons, or sports.
For the vast majority of us, there is nothing left to save at the end of the month, let alone to invest. Our investments, if we are fortunate enough, come in the form of buying a home for our family -- and 2% off the price of a big-ticket item like a home, or the furnishing to put in the home, or a new(er) car that won't fail emissions tests (on which we pay GST) -- that 2% is a big difference.
When you have money, it's difficult to envision being one of the lowly masses who lives paycheque to paycheque. But people like Coyne would do well to remember that there are many of us for whom a reduction of income tax really doesn't mean anything -- but a drop in the price of gas, or in the cost of a new hockey stick, or in any of the number of things that aren't exactly 'necessities' but which make life liveable -- that 2% makes a big difference to us.
When conservative commentators start to realise that it isn't just about them and their class of people -- the investor class -- the professional class -- the governing class -- then maybe they'll see that Harper seems to realise that if he wants to be the Prime Minister -- he will be the PM to all of us -- the working class, the working poor, people on welfare -- all of these people are citizens and voters too; for us, these two announcements are good news. These conservative commentators seem to be trying to take the wind out of the sails of a positive start to this campaign for Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party and it's beyond me why they'd want to do that.
canadianna
They don't like the governing party -- not what they've done, not what they plan to do -- but they seem to like the Conservative Party even less.
Greg Weston of the SUN and Don Martin of the National Post, write twin columns today, suggesting that Harper's health care plan was ripped from the pages from the Liberal policy book. Their columns drip with contempt for Harper and his un-Conservative vision. They dismiss any positive reaction to Harper's announcement, and overlook the fact that even Harper-haters like Adam Vaughn of CITY TV (Toronto) are beginning to see the Conservatives as legitimate contenders in this election race.
Also in the National Post today, Andrew Coyne takes aim at Harper's plan to reduce the GST. He chastises Harper for committing to cut a consumption tax, because income tax reductions promote investment, blah, blah, blah.
It might be news to these fellows, but Harper had no choice with health care. He didn't remove the concept of private delivery -- he simply said that either the public system puts up, or people can go elsewhere and have it paid for by the public system. This works as both a safe-guard for those who need timely care, and an incentive to the public system to work to reduce wait times. In a country like Canada, where public health care is sacrosanct -- what else can he do? If it is similar to the current Liberal plan, so what? I believe that the Conservatives will work to get things moving. Shooting him down is the typical conservative media reaction to any positive step Harper makes. It's like they put their hate for the man ahead of their hopes for the future of the country. Disagree with the policy if you like -- but right now, in this country, Harper has chosen a compromise that is bound to please voters -- and isn't that the point?
As for Coyne and the GST -- First -- Harper didn't reject income tax cuts. It isn't a case of 'either this or that'. A cut in the GST in conjunction with income tax reductions is unlikely to break the bank -- not when we have massive surplusses that end up enabling the government to behave as though public money is their personal piggy-bank.
Coyne, like many of those who come from comfortable backgrounds, forgets that many of us will never be able to 'save' let alone invest. Our 'disposable income' is not disposable at all. It goes to pay our bills and to buy our kids Christmas presents and put them to lessons, or sports.
For the vast majority of us, there is nothing left to save at the end of the month, let alone to invest. Our investments, if we are fortunate enough, come in the form of buying a home for our family -- and 2% off the price of a big-ticket item like a home, or the furnishing to put in the home, or a new(er) car that won't fail emissions tests (on which we pay GST) -- that 2% is a big difference.
When you have money, it's difficult to envision being one of the lowly masses who lives paycheque to paycheque. But people like Coyne would do well to remember that there are many of us for whom a reduction of income tax really doesn't mean anything -- but a drop in the price of gas, or in the cost of a new hockey stick, or in any of the number of things that aren't exactly 'necessities' but which make life liveable -- that 2% makes a big difference to us.
When conservative commentators start to realise that it isn't just about them and their class of people -- the investor class -- the professional class -- the governing class -- then maybe they'll see that Harper seems to realise that if he wants to be the Prime Minister -- he will be the PM to all of us -- the working class, the working poor, people on welfare -- all of these people are citizens and voters too; for us, these two announcements are good news. These conservative commentators seem to be trying to take the wind out of the sails of a positive start to this campaign for Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party and it's beyond me why they'd want to do that.
canadianna
Friday, December 02, 2005
Hey, Paul! I can't hear you!
Martin says Harper is silent on the the issues.
Okay -- truth is, I've been too busy to be following much election news. I've scarcely read a paper, barely scanned a few blogs, and I've hardly been around a television.
But -- since the election call, I have heard:
Paul Martin seems more interested in talking about Stephen Harper than about any vision he has for Canada (of course, I realise the implications of that). His newest plan, rather than talking substance and policy, is to help NDPers to vote strategically to keep the Conservatives out of government.
I hope Martin continues his slams against Harper. The more Martin talks, the more obvious it becomes that this is all about power for him. He's in politics for one reason -- to be and stay PM. He has no plans, no ideas -- all he can talk about is not having a Conservative government and ways to prevent it.
In my neighbourhood (Scarborough-Guildwood) I've seen a ton of Conservative signs, but not one Liberal or NDP. I know it's early days, but it is a far different sight than 2004.
The other night, I was in a Mr. Sub and another customer was talking with the proprietor and both were counting the days till we get rid of the Liberals. These two men were vastly different ages, two different races, and very different walks of life -- but both were emphatic that they will be voting for Harper.
Martin is convinced that if he keeps saying that Harper is silent on the issues, people will believe him in the same way they chanted his 'let Gomery do his work' and 'Canadians don't want an election' mantras last spring.
Martin didn't count on Harper giving people reasons to vote for him.
No wonder Paul is pretending he can't hear.
canadianna
Okay -- truth is, I've been too busy to be following much election news. I've scarcely read a paper, barely scanned a few blogs, and I've hardly been around a television.
But -- since the election call, I have heard:
Harper re-stated his intention to call a free-vote on SSM
(in my opinion to prevent the 'hidden agenda' nonsense had
someone had to ask the question -- and let's be realistic here -- he's
always said he'd do this)
Harper is lowering the GST to 5% over two years. (Economically sound or not, lowering a consumer tax near Christmas is very appealing to consumers).
Harper would allow publically funded, private delivery of health services if timely treatment wasn't available. (Thank God he's finally said it.)From Paul Martin I've heard:
That Stephen Harper is silent on the issues.Oh, there was some other stuff about giving money to people in Cornwall to train for jobs that don't exist. Same old, same old.
Paul Martin seems more interested in talking about Stephen Harper than about any vision he has for Canada (of course, I realise the implications of that). His newest plan, rather than talking substance and policy, is to help NDPers to vote strategically to keep the Conservatives out of government.
I hope Martin continues his slams against Harper. The more Martin talks, the more obvious it becomes that this is all about power for him. He's in politics for one reason -- to be and stay PM. He has no plans, no ideas -- all he can talk about is not having a Conservative government and ways to prevent it.
In my neighbourhood (Scarborough-Guildwood) I've seen a ton of Conservative signs, but not one Liberal or NDP. I know it's early days, but it is a far different sight than 2004.
The other night, I was in a Mr. Sub and another customer was talking with the proprietor and both were counting the days till we get rid of the Liberals. These two men were vastly different ages, two different races, and very different walks of life -- but both were emphatic that they will be voting for Harper.
Martin is convinced that if he keeps saying that Harper is silent on the issues, people will believe him in the same way they chanted his 'let Gomery do his work' and 'Canadians don't want an election' mantras last spring.
Martin didn't count on Harper giving people reasons to vote for him.
No wonder Paul is pretending he can't hear.
canadianna
Thursday, December 01, 2005
The 2% solution?
Funny, I thought everyone hated the GST. They hated it when the Progressive Conservatives proposed it under Mulroney. They hated it when Chretien promised not to implement it. They hated it when Martin proved the Liberals liars and imposed it.
It was accepted, grudgingly -- but everyone hated it.
I'm amazed at how many people say reducing the GST by 2% is sound politics, but bad policy. I've read where people are disputing the $400/year savings Harper says would benefit the average family and suggesting that it's a negligible, so why care.
To me, $400 is definitely not a pittance, but I'm wondering if it wouldn't be higher that $400/ family.
For example:
Every raw material that goes into building a product is GST-able. If a builder buys $100 worth of wood, it costs $107. Won't he recover the 7% he's paid in GST (on each product and service used to build the house) by incorporating it into the price of the house?
Wouldn't this 2% reduction also decrease costs for hospitals and schools--- or are they already GST exempt?
Who could find fault with an idea that would give Ottawa less of our money?
canadianna
It was accepted, grudgingly -- but everyone hated it.
I'm amazed at how many people say reducing the GST by 2% is sound politics, but bad policy. I've read where people are disputing the $400/year savings Harper says would benefit the average family and suggesting that it's a negligible, so why care.
To me, $400 is definitely not a pittance, but I'm wondering if it wouldn't be higher that $400/ family.
For example:
Every raw material that goes into building a product is GST-able. If a builder buys $100 worth of wood, it costs $107. Won't he recover the 7% he's paid in GST (on each product and service used to build the house) by incorporating it into the price of the house?
Wouldn't this 2% reduction also decrease costs for hospitals and schools--- or are they already GST exempt?
Who could find fault with an idea that would give Ottawa less of our money?
canadianna
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
To Clarify -- I DO want an election
I think I should clarify something --- I do want an election -- NOW.
As much as I have been following this (and I admit, it hasn't been with the rapt attention I had during the last session of the House) I have gathered that the opposition doesn't plan to call a confidence vote -- rather they plan to suggest the government commit suicide in January.
I have to say I'm with Martin on this one -- have the guts to call a non-confidence vote and live with a Christmas election or leave it go with Martin making the call in February and live with an election date of March/April.
Yesterday's post (I want an election, but . . . )was written with the understanding that the united opposition still has no plan to call a confidence vote. They are still banking on this wishy-washy un-binding motion. I wrote my post on Thursday -- Why is a corrupt government suddenly a bad thing because I believe that closing parliament with a whimper is the weak plan of an opposition that has less confidence in its own convictions than it does in this sham of a Liberal government -- and that is pathetic.
I DO want an election -- but I want it now.
I don't understand why a Christmas date would upset so many in a secular country like ours. For those of varied religions who celebrate 'Santa Claus day' how can a Christmas election interfere with something that isn't sacred? It's like saying you don't want an election near the time of your family reunion or your wedding anniversary or your great-aunt's birthday bash -- what possible difference could it make?
I'm a practicing Christian, and I'm fine with a date around Christmas because I can walk and chew gum at the same time. I will still go to church every Sunday like always (which leaves me to wonder -- how many of the Liberal politicians complaining about it will attend a church unless there is an election on and people are watching.) I will still teach Sunday School and plan for the Christmas pageant. I will still go to my kids' schools for their 'Winter Concerts' and I will still watch Christmas specials and go shopping. If I happen to run into a politician campaigning -- I'll give him the time of day unless s/he's being obtrusive.
An election can't interfere with a religious holiday simply by existing in the same time-frame.
Those of us who are committed Christians and who are celebrating a sacred holy day will do so, and will not be bothered by an election campaign. Politicians who are committed Christians will continue with their familial and church obligations as they would any other time, and would campaign outside of church or family related celebrations.
I'm sorry I wasn't clear on this earlier. People seem to have inferred that I want to wait until Spring and I can see how it could be read that way by anyone who doesn't have unfettered access to my brain.
I DO want an election -- I want a Christmas election -- which means I want a binding non-confidence vote in which the government is unquestionable toppled.
The opposition must go big, or go home -- any attempts to circumvent a confidence vote to prevent a Christmas election are dangerous.
People want leaders that are prepared to take action -- even unpopular action.
That's my point and that's what I should have been saying all along.
canadianna
As much as I have been following this (and I admit, it hasn't been with the rapt attention I had during the last session of the House) I have gathered that the opposition doesn't plan to call a confidence vote -- rather they plan to suggest the government commit suicide in January.
I have to say I'm with Martin on this one -- have the guts to call a non-confidence vote and live with a Christmas election or leave it go with Martin making the call in February and live with an election date of March/April.
Yesterday's post (I want an election, but . . . )was written with the understanding that the united opposition still has no plan to call a confidence vote. They are still banking on this wishy-washy un-binding motion. I wrote my post on Thursday -- Why is a corrupt government suddenly a bad thing because I believe that closing parliament with a whimper is the weak plan of an opposition that has less confidence in its own convictions than it does in this sham of a Liberal government -- and that is pathetic.
I DO want an election -- but I want it now.
I don't understand why a Christmas date would upset so many in a secular country like ours. For those of varied religions who celebrate 'Santa Claus day' how can a Christmas election interfere with something that isn't sacred? It's like saying you don't want an election near the time of your family reunion or your wedding anniversary or your great-aunt's birthday bash -- what possible difference could it make?
I'm a practicing Christian, and I'm fine with a date around Christmas because I can walk and chew gum at the same time. I will still go to church every Sunday like always (which leaves me to wonder -- how many of the Liberal politicians complaining about it will attend a church unless there is an election on and people are watching.) I will still teach Sunday School and plan for the Christmas pageant. I will still go to my kids' schools for their 'Winter Concerts' and I will still watch Christmas specials and go shopping. If I happen to run into a politician campaigning -- I'll give him the time of day unless s/he's being obtrusive.
An election can't interfere with a religious holiday simply by existing in the same time-frame.
Those of us who are committed Christians and who are celebrating a sacred holy day will do so, and will not be bothered by an election campaign. Politicians who are committed Christians will continue with their familial and church obligations as they would any other time, and would campaign outside of church or family related celebrations.
I'm sorry I wasn't clear on this earlier. People seem to have inferred that I want to wait until Spring and I can see how it could be read that way by anyone who doesn't have unfettered access to my brain.
I DO want an election -- I want a Christmas election -- which means I want a binding non-confidence vote in which the government is unquestionable toppled.
The opposition must go big, or go home -- any attempts to circumvent a confidence vote to prevent a Christmas election are dangerous.
People want leaders that are prepared to take action -- even unpopular action.
That's my point and that's what I should have been saying all along.
canadianna
Monday, November 14, 2005
I want an election, but . . .
Like many people, I'm sick of Liberal lies, excuses, utter incompetence, patronage, secrecy, scandalous indifference (to among other things-- veterans who didn't fill out the proper forms and have been unable to collect any benefits for sixty years because they are deemed 'never to have served'), and bribes (with our own money).
An election might rectify things, but I think not. I think they'll get a majority, but that's beside the point.
The 'united opposition' is trying to back Martin against a wall. They are trying to push him into making a mistake, but it's they who have blundered.
Last Spring, I wanted an election. I wanted the Liberals to be wiped off the electoral map.
I still want an election, but there is no momentum for one. The three opposition parties are trying to push a button that disappeared when the summer came.
It's mid-November. The Gomery recommendations are due out in a couple of months. An election will (likely) be called as per Martins grovel/promise.
Greg from Political Staples points to a post from Sinister Thoughts where the timeline Paul Martin has determined for an election is questioned. Should the PM follow through with his plans, it would appear an election would be held during Holy Week, and campaigning would be right through Lent.
These posts are correct when they say that to Christians, this time period is much more important than the Christmas season. Like them, I really wouldn't want an election then, but . . .
This is Paul Martin's call to make -- let him deal with the political fallout. Let him postpone an election until June in order to prevent the fallout from a Holy Week election. Let him break his promises -- but don't make it easy for him to accuse the Conservatives of impatience for power.
There is no compelling reason for the combined opposition parties to push for an election. Much as I want rid of the Liberals, all this posturing benefits them -- not the opposition parties. The Liberals are the government -- in contrast, the Conservatives, NDP and Bloc appear ineffectual and desperate. It's unbecoming.
This is another case of the Conservatives listening to bad advice. The public is not going to perceive them as heros for bringing down the government -- they are going to be seen as petty, vindictive and chomping at the bit to plant themselves on the other side of the House.
I'd like to be wrong about this, but if someone like me, who despises the current government, is frustrated by this inane attempt to force an election call -- think of those people who are not particularly warmed by any of the oppostion parties.
As I wrote in the comments at Greg's place -- The Gomery recommendations come down February 1st. Martin promised an election call within 30 days. He doesn't have to wait thirty days -- he could call it right away and an election could be held the first week of March. Ash Wednesday is February 28th so Lent would have started, but it would be the first week, and not so close to Holy Week.
When an election is so close at hand anyway, the opposition parties actions are unwarrented.
I'm disappointed that the Conservatives haven't taken a leadership role and said, as they should have, that we should wait for Mr. Martin to do the right thing and keep his promise.
If the time-frame within Martin's promise were here and past, I could see the opposition going after him like this -- but now -- it just seems stupid.
canadianna
An election might rectify things, but I think not. I think they'll get a majority, but that's beside the point.
The 'united opposition' is trying to back Martin against a wall. They are trying to push him into making a mistake, but it's they who have blundered.
Last Spring, I wanted an election. I wanted the Liberals to be wiped off the electoral map.
I still want an election, but there is no momentum for one. The three opposition parties are trying to push a button that disappeared when the summer came.
It's mid-November. The Gomery recommendations are due out in a couple of months. An election will (likely) be called as per Martins grovel/promise.
Greg from Political Staples points to a post from Sinister Thoughts where the timeline Paul Martin has determined for an election is questioned. Should the PM follow through with his plans, it would appear an election would be held during Holy Week, and campaigning would be right through Lent.
These posts are correct when they say that to Christians, this time period is much more important than the Christmas season. Like them, I really wouldn't want an election then, but . . .
This is Paul Martin's call to make -- let him deal with the political fallout. Let him postpone an election until June in order to prevent the fallout from a Holy Week election. Let him break his promises -- but don't make it easy for him to accuse the Conservatives of impatience for power.
There is no compelling reason for the combined opposition parties to push for an election. Much as I want rid of the Liberals, all this posturing benefits them -- not the opposition parties. The Liberals are the government -- in contrast, the Conservatives, NDP and Bloc appear ineffectual and desperate. It's unbecoming.
This is another case of the Conservatives listening to bad advice. The public is not going to perceive them as heros for bringing down the government -- they are going to be seen as petty, vindictive and chomping at the bit to plant themselves on the other side of the House.
I'd like to be wrong about this, but if someone like me, who despises the current government, is frustrated by this inane attempt to force an election call -- think of those people who are not particularly warmed by any of the oppostion parties.
As I wrote in the comments at Greg's place -- The Gomery recommendations come down February 1st. Martin promised an election call within 30 days. He doesn't have to wait thirty days -- he could call it right away and an election could be held the first week of March. Ash Wednesday is February 28th so Lent would have started, but it would be the first week, and not so close to Holy Week.
When an election is so close at hand anyway, the opposition parties actions are unwarrented.
I'm disappointed that the Conservatives haven't taken a leadership role and said, as they should have, that we should wait for Mr. Martin to do the right thing and keep his promise.
If the time-frame within Martin's promise were here and past, I could see the opposition going after him like this -- but now -- it just seems stupid.
canadianna
Friday, November 11, 2005
About the poppy: to the 'no disrespect intended crowd'
Via Kate at SDA: Clay McLeod writes at thetyee why he won't wear a poppy.
Clay suggests that had "the Nazis had taken over the world, we would be encouraged to celebrate that conquest on some day of observation, perhaps "honouring" the soldiers of the Fatherland and the sacrifices that they made as the Third Reich spread its "benevolent influence" over the world."
Encouraged? What a mild and innocuous word.
Does Clay really believe that we would simply be 'encouraged' to mark the victory of the Reich?
Not only is Clay applying modern sensibilities to an era that by its existence, taught us the injustice of these policies, he is confusing politics with principle and judging soldiers and veterans in place of their governments.
I don't refuse to wear a poppy to criticize the efforts of individual soldiers . . . who fought - and died - . . . believing that they defended and fought for noble goals. I respect their spirit of duty, sacrifice and dedication to causes that they saw as greater than themselves. I refrain from wearing a poppy to criticize the use of military force, at the expense of soldiers, civilians and their families, by the state - any state - in order to achieve political goals, no matter how noble. Remembrance Day usurps the sacrifices made by individuals and conscripts those sacrifices in the name of nationalism - a divisive cause that fragments the human race into pockets of "us" and "them."
It isn't the government or the military that have made the poppy the emblem of significance that it is in Canada -- it is the individual soldier. It is the Veteran. So, although Clay claims his protestations are not meant to disrespect the individual soldier, they in fact do. No one knows the horrors of war like our Vets do. You won't find a Vet who tries to glorify war -- it's the Vets who say 'never again'. Clay's insistence that the poppy is a call-to-arms for the war-monger crowd is a distortion of the message of the War Amps and the Legionnaires who are the main sources of public information for Remembrance Day.
When we remember those who were called to serve, I will wear a poppy. I won't wear it as a symbol of nationalism or in the name of some political goal -- I just want my kids to know that I remember and they should remember, those who '. . . lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow, loved and were loved' -- not because their cause was noble, but because they served and sacrificed. The rightness/wrongness of the politics of their wars is not at issue on November 11. Why don't people like Clay see the distinction?
By the way Clay, despite being on the 'wrong' side of the War(s), the Germans and Japanese honour their war dead -- not to justify their national aims during the war, not to glorify their ill-treatment of enemy soldiers and civilians alike, not to revive bygone grudges -- but to remember those young men, who through no fault of their own, were caught up in their era and died on behalf of their countries.
What people like Clay don't get, is that if we turn our backs on Remembrance Day and the poppy, we allow our governments to forget the role they play in instigating and perpetrating war.
The poppy doesn't glorify war -- it is the perfect symbol of war's indifference to right and wrong / good or bad. The poppy grew over the graves of Allies and enemy alike.
canadianna
Clay suggests that had "the Nazis had taken over the world, we would be encouraged to celebrate that conquest on some day of observation, perhaps "honouring" the soldiers of the Fatherland and the sacrifices that they made as the Third Reich spread its "benevolent influence" over the world."
Encouraged? What a mild and innocuous word.
Does Clay really believe that we would simply be 'encouraged' to mark the victory of the Reich?
Like many other unconditional pacifists, Clay quotes a proverb to support his moral equivalency:
"Until lions have their historians, tales of the hunt shall always glorify the hunters."
Where this arguement falls down is that it is not just the 'hunters' (read Allies) who write history -- the lion's prey (holocaust survivors, victims of Nazi occupation, and Germans of that generation such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer) also share their stories as do the civilian internees in Japanese concentration camps. Then there are newsreels, and the meticulous records kept by the Nazis -- to suggest that history is written by the victor is ignore evidence and the eyewitness testimonials of those who suffered at the hands of the lion before he was tamed. One would expect that Clay, being a teacher, would want to explore those voices which were almost silenced by the Nazis. The people of Holland and France still commemorate and honour our soldiers' sacrifices -- but the civilians of those countries lived through war, not in the movies, not in history books -- but in the mouth of the lion. Clay can pronounce his holier-than-thou attitude from the safe and comfortable distance of thousands of miles and 60 years.
Clay says:
Let me clarify that if the purpose of Remembrance Day was to remember the suffering of almost 11 million Jewish people, Gypsy people, gays and lesbians, Jehovah's Witnesses, Polish people, Serbian people, disabled people and others who were murdered during the holocaust, I would gladly acknowledge their suffering by wearing a yellow star of David, a pink triangle, or whatever symbol was chosen to say "never again" to such atrocities.
Remembrance Day is a day set aside to honour the courageous men and women who risked their lives and died -- and who by design or by happenstance, liberated nations and races in causes that HAD NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THEM PERSONALLY. The sacrifice of the 'warrior' in the eyes of smug and self-righteous pacifists, is unworthy of commemoration because they had no way of knowing that the outcome of the war would mean the cessation of the slaughter in the concentration camps -- to Clay, these were simply soldiers acting for 'nationalistic' and 'political' reasons. In fact they were people taking action, at considerable risk to themselves, for no personal gain -- and as noble as the sentiments of a Ghandi are, thank God some people weren't courageous enough to march into the gas chambers alongside the Jews and disabled etc.
And it's remarkable that anyone could believe this:
(T)he poppy acts more as a rallying cry to support military solutions to the world's problems, instead of a heart-felt and genuine plea for an end to the suffering of war.
In fact Canada, a country that prides itself on peacekeeping and pacifism has been the only country to use the poppy as a symbol of remembrance until the past eight to ten years. Britain has recently adopted the symbol, but they don't have the tradition, and therefore there hasn't been the same success in introducing the poppy and establishing it as a symbol of remembrance.
To suggest that the poppy acts as a 'rallying cry' does a great disservice to all the Veterans who have worked tirelessly to ingrain the motto: "never again" into the minds of schoolchildren.
Clay summarizes WWI and determines that because that war had no noble cause, the veterans are not worthy of our honour. This day was set aside by the King and Prime Minister to remember those who fought and died for King and Country -- but it was observed by ordinary Canadians -- not because the cause had been noble and pure, but because the soldiers had endured such privation, such carnage, such violence at the hands of their politicians. This day was meant to remember the evil imposed on people by their governments and it has endured precisely because that is the sentiment evoked each year when the they play The Last Post and we pause for a moment of silence. Ordinary folk didn't glorify that war. They called it 'the war to end all wars' because they sincerely hoped it was. Through their intellectual posturing, it is people like Clay who MAKE the poppy a symbol of war - it never was that - -it is simply a token of remembrance for those poor sods who didn't really know why they were 'over there', but who never made it home. How sad that people like Clay need to twist it to suit their political agenda.
Clay then goes on to view WWII through the prism of WWI -- the Allies were to blame because of the strict sanctions placed on Germany after the Armistice. He doesn't see that the truth of this is irrelevant. Politicians and soldiers are different entities. We don't solemnly remember the politics of war, we remember the cost of war in the lives our our soldiers.
Not only is Clay applying modern sensibilities to an era that by its existence, taught us the injustice of these policies, he is confusing politics with principle and judging soldiers and veterans in place of their governments.
I don't refuse to wear a poppy to criticize the efforts of individual soldiers . . . who fought - and died - . . . believing that they defended and fought for noble goals. I respect their spirit of duty, sacrifice and dedication to causes that they saw as greater than themselves. I refrain from wearing a poppy to criticize the use of military force, at the expense of soldiers, civilians and their families, by the state - any state - in order to achieve political goals, no matter how noble. Remembrance Day usurps the sacrifices made by individuals and conscripts those sacrifices in the name of nationalism - a divisive cause that fragments the human race into pockets of "us" and "them."
It isn't the government or the military that have made the poppy the emblem of significance that it is in Canada -- it is the individual soldier. It is the Veteran. So, although Clay claims his protestations are not meant to disrespect the individual soldier, they in fact do. No one knows the horrors of war like our Vets do. You won't find a Vet who tries to glorify war -- it's the Vets who say 'never again'. Clay's insistence that the poppy is a call-to-arms for the war-monger crowd is a distortion of the message of the War Amps and the Legionnaires who are the main sources of public information for Remembrance Day.
When we remember those who were called to serve, I will wear a poppy. I won't wear it as a symbol of nationalism or in the name of some political goal -- I just want my kids to know that I remember and they should remember, those who '. . . lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow, loved and were loved' -- not because their cause was noble, but because they served and sacrificed. The rightness/wrongness of the politics of their wars is not at issue on November 11. Why don't people like Clay see the distinction?
By the way Clay, despite being on the 'wrong' side of the War(s), the Germans and Japanese honour their war dead -- not to justify their national aims during the war, not to glorify their ill-treatment of enemy soldiers and civilians alike, not to revive bygone grudges -- but to remember those young men, who through no fault of their own, were caught up in their era and died on behalf of their countries.
What people like Clay don't get, is that if we turn our backs on Remembrance Day and the poppy, we allow our governments to forget the role they play in instigating and perpetrating war.
The poppy doesn't glorify war -- it is the perfect symbol of war's indifference to right and wrong / good or bad. The poppy grew over the graves of Allies and enemy alike.
canadianna
Thursday, November 10, 2005
Why is a corrupt government suddenly a bad thing?
The 'united opposition' may well succeed in passing a motion, slated to be tabled on the NDP's Opposition Day, which would politely request that the government impale itself on its own dagger.
So what?
Please Mr. Martin, admit to the country that your government is ineffective and unable to sustain itself. In the meantime, some of us will continue to vote in favour of various bills, which will of course render that admission inaccurate -- because when some of us are willing to vote in favour of your initiatives, you are in fact a workable government -- corrupt, unaccountable, contemptible, inefficient, inept and scandal-ridden, but workable nonetheless.
What is all this posturing for? It makes all of the Opposition parties look just plain stupid.
We have stumbled along with this sad-excuse for a government for this long -- why on earth is it suddenly so important for Jack Layton to take the soap-box and claim moral superiority? If the Liberals aren't worth propping up now, it stands to reason they weren't six months ago. The Gomery report changed nothing. It is politically neutral. No one cares.
Six months ago the governing party had withdrawn opposition days to prevent what it perceived to be a threat to its existence --- that was the time to go and that was the issue the election could have and should have been fought on --- the high-handed actions of the government aimed at thwarting the workings of democracy --- now that would have been an election that meant something.
But no. Jack Layton decided to be king-maker. He played the wise and patient conciliator -- while Buzz Hargrove bargained for the booty that would make Jack look like a hot shot. He sold out truth and democracy in exchange for fool's gold. Oh, I know it sounds melodramatic -- but that's what this parliament has been -- high drama and farce.
So here we are, the united opposition making itself look foolish and redundant by trying to push an election call in February -- when one was already promised for . . . well . . . February.
Why not just leave things be? Why not wait and see if Martin fulfills his promised to 'call an election within 30 days of the release of the Gomery Report and its recommendations'? Said recommendations are due out February 1st. A bit of patience on the part of the 'united opposition' might just prove Martin to be a liar yet again. And even if he's true to his word and does call an election within that time-frame -- what difference does a few weeks make when you've been sustaining corruption since last spring?
The 'united opposition' has been making 'this parliament work' much longer than was ever justifiable. The only thing worse than pulling the plug now, when we expect an election call at some point in February, is the charade of pulling the plug with a spineless, unbinding motion.
canadianna
So what?
Please Mr. Martin, admit to the country that your government is ineffective and unable to sustain itself. In the meantime, some of us will continue to vote in favour of various bills, which will of course render that admission inaccurate -- because when some of us are willing to vote in favour of your initiatives, you are in fact a workable government -- corrupt, unaccountable, contemptible, inefficient, inept and scandal-ridden, but workable nonetheless.
What is all this posturing for? It makes all of the Opposition parties look just plain stupid.
We have stumbled along with this sad-excuse for a government for this long -- why on earth is it suddenly so important for Jack Layton to take the soap-box and claim moral superiority? If the Liberals aren't worth propping up now, it stands to reason they weren't six months ago. The Gomery report changed nothing. It is politically neutral. No one cares.
Six months ago the governing party had withdrawn opposition days to prevent what it perceived to be a threat to its existence --- that was the time to go and that was the issue the election could have and should have been fought on --- the high-handed actions of the government aimed at thwarting the workings of democracy --- now that would have been an election that meant something.
But no. Jack Layton decided to be king-maker. He played the wise and patient conciliator -- while Buzz Hargrove bargained for the booty that would make Jack look like a hot shot. He sold out truth and democracy in exchange for fool's gold. Oh, I know it sounds melodramatic -- but that's what this parliament has been -- high drama and farce.
So here we are, the united opposition making itself look foolish and redundant by trying to push an election call in February -- when one was already promised for . . . well . . . February.
Why not just leave things be? Why not wait and see if Martin fulfills his promised to 'call an election within 30 days of the release of the Gomery Report and its recommendations'? Said recommendations are due out February 1st. A bit of patience on the part of the 'united opposition' might just prove Martin to be a liar yet again. And even if he's true to his word and does call an election within that time-frame -- what difference does a few weeks make when you've been sustaining corruption since last spring?
The 'united opposition' has been making 'this parliament work' much longer than was ever justifiable. The only thing worse than pulling the plug now, when we expect an election call at some point in February, is the charade of pulling the plug with a spineless, unbinding motion.
canadianna
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
Martin trying to play hero again
Mandatory minimum sentences for gun-related crimes, funding for community groups that try to reduce gun violence, and more money for youth projects (whatever that means).
That's how Paul Martin plans to make our cities safer.
I'm all for tougher sentences -- for any violent crime. Our revolving door criminal justice system is a joke and anything that would put the bad guys behind bars for longer can only be a good thing.
But the other two initiatives? These touchy-feely, vague ideas on how to reach out to youth to prevent crime are like throwing money down the drain.
I don't know that I have any solutions, but I think the mayor and the PM are looking at the wrong problem.
Bored kids, poor kids, disenfranchised kids -- what else do all these troubled youth have in common? (And no, race isn't the common factor) Most of the kids who live the gangster lifestyle lack a strong positive male role-model. Bluntly, they have no father.
How many times have you read about a young man being shot dead and his mother is lamenting his loss. Where's the father? And further on you read how this same young man is the father of three, four, five kids (all young, all to different women) and now these children will also grow up fatherless.
Go into a Rec Centre and see one of these after school programmes where kids play basketball etc. A bunch of kids (some of them great kids) a couple of leaders -- but not a parent in sight. Then go to an arena on hockey practice night or Saturday morning. Even for practices, none of these kids show up without a parent, even the teens. And if the parent doesn't stay for the practice, he or she has dropped them off. Some of this has to do with means, but much more has to do with lack of male parental involvement in the lives of many impoverished youth.
Attitudes have to change. So long as the government is seen to support a culture where young men have babies to multiple partners, and take no responsibility for their care and upbringing, nothing will ever be better. And people in the community have to take a stand and make greater demands of fathers and sons.
I don't pretend to know what should be done, but I think that violence is the symptom of a bigger social problem that can't be fixed by giving kids something to do and somewhere to hang out. This is a people issue, and most likely it can't be fixed by government. It's annoying that Paul Martin and David Miller pretend throwing money at it will make a difference.
Stricter sentencing -- that's great, but I've no time for Paul Martin playing hero as he tosses nickels and dimes to train or entertain at-risk youth --- not when these same kids watch in awe as the drug dealers in their buildings drive around in Jaguars and there's no dad around to say 'It's just a car son. You don't want to make your money that way.'
canadianna
That's how Paul Martin plans to make our cities safer.
I'm all for tougher sentences -- for any violent crime. Our revolving door criminal justice system is a joke and anything that would put the bad guys behind bars for longer can only be a good thing.
But the other two initiatives? These touchy-feely, vague ideas on how to reach out to youth to prevent crime are like throwing money down the drain.
I don't know that I have any solutions, but I think the mayor and the PM are looking at the wrong problem.
Bored kids, poor kids, disenfranchised kids -- what else do all these troubled youth have in common? (And no, race isn't the common factor) Most of the kids who live the gangster lifestyle lack a strong positive male role-model. Bluntly, they have no father.
How many times have you read about a young man being shot dead and his mother is lamenting his loss. Where's the father? And further on you read how this same young man is the father of three, four, five kids (all young, all to different women) and now these children will also grow up fatherless.
Go into a Rec Centre and see one of these after school programmes where kids play basketball etc. A bunch of kids (some of them great kids) a couple of leaders -- but not a parent in sight. Then go to an arena on hockey practice night or Saturday morning. Even for practices, none of these kids show up without a parent, even the teens. And if the parent doesn't stay for the practice, he or she has dropped them off. Some of this has to do with means, but much more has to do with lack of male parental involvement in the lives of many impoverished youth.
Attitudes have to change. So long as the government is seen to support a culture where young men have babies to multiple partners, and take no responsibility for their care and upbringing, nothing will ever be better. And people in the community have to take a stand and make greater demands of fathers and sons.
I don't pretend to know what should be done, but I think that violence is the symptom of a bigger social problem that can't be fixed by giving kids something to do and somewhere to hang out. This is a people issue, and most likely it can't be fixed by government. It's annoying that Paul Martin and David Miller pretend throwing money at it will make a difference.
Stricter sentencing -- that's great, but I've no time for Paul Martin playing hero as he tosses nickels and dimes to train or entertain at-risk youth --- not when these same kids watch in awe as the drug dealers in their buildings drive around in Jaguars and there's no dad around to say 'It's just a car son. You don't want to make your money that way.'
canadianna
Tuesday, November 08, 2005
Layton's final push
If we're to go to the polls anytime soon, I hope it's Layton that sets the wheels in motion -- but I don't trust Layton to say what he means, or mean what he says.
All of this yap could simply be another attempt to extort an agenda from a precarious governing party. His talk is intentionally wishy-washy and vague, so whichever way he decides to go, he'll appear as though he was following through.
Jack's time in the driver's seat is growing short, and he strikes me as the sort of guy who wants to appear to be in control. The Liberals are arrogant enough to think they could win if we go to polls soon. They don't figure they need Jack anymore, and I doubt they're going to flatter his ego yet again by twisting their plans into knots to please the NDP. They figure -- why bother? -- the Conservatives aren't soaring in the polls, and although they (the Liberals) are flat-lining, when push comes to shove 'the devil you know' will undoubtedly be the safe bet with an electorate almost in hibernation for the winter.
This being the case, it makes sense that Jack would want to shake things up. He'd look like a hero:
He made 'this parliament work' last spring.
He got promises out of the government to suit his party's agenda.
He managed to distance himself from the 'separatists'.
And, he will end up appearing more competent a leader than Harper because when Jack decides to trigger a non-confidence vote, all of the opposition parties will be onside.
He will appear to be savvy, sensitive to the public mood and conciliatory when necessary. By setting an election in motion, he will end this session with the illusion of power, and he'll give a boost of morale to his base.
That said, when we do go to the polls, I think Jack will lose big-time.
All of this could be good for the Conservatives, but it won't be necessarily be bad for the Liberals. When all is said and done we might just end up in the same spot as last time . . . and, despite what pundits say about people liking a minority parliament -- I don't think so. Most people would just rather vote in a majority and let them get on with it and govern so they can ignore politics.
canadianna
All of this yap could simply be another attempt to extort an agenda from a precarious governing party. His talk is intentionally wishy-washy and vague, so whichever way he decides to go, he'll appear as though he was following through.
Jack's time in the driver's seat is growing short, and he strikes me as the sort of guy who wants to appear to be in control. The Liberals are arrogant enough to think they could win if we go to polls soon. They don't figure they need Jack anymore, and I doubt they're going to flatter his ego yet again by twisting their plans into knots to please the NDP. They figure -- why bother? -- the Conservatives aren't soaring in the polls, and although they (the Liberals) are flat-lining, when push comes to shove 'the devil you know' will undoubtedly be the safe bet with an electorate almost in hibernation for the winter.
This being the case, it makes sense that Jack would want to shake things up. He'd look like a hero:
He made 'this parliament work' last spring.
He got promises out of the government to suit his party's agenda.
He managed to distance himself from the 'separatists'.
And, he will end up appearing more competent a leader than Harper because when Jack decides to trigger a non-confidence vote, all of the opposition parties will be onside.
He will appear to be savvy, sensitive to the public mood and conciliatory when necessary. By setting an election in motion, he will end this session with the illusion of power, and he'll give a boost of morale to his base.
That said, when we do go to the polls, I think Jack will lose big-time.
All of this could be good for the Conservatives, but it won't be necessarily be bad for the Liberals. When all is said and done we might just end up in the same spot as last time . . . and, despite what pundits say about people liking a minority parliament -- I don't think so. Most people would just rather vote in a majority and let them get on with it and govern so they can ignore politics.
canadianna
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
Do you feel safe?
Several years ago, I moved back to the area where I grew up. More by necessity, than by choice, this is where I am raising my kids -- but this is not the same community I knew.
When my kids first came home and told me about 'lockdown drills', I thought they were joking. The parents were not given any warning or information about it -- the school board just implemented them -- not that I would object, of course. In the past week and a half, all three of the schools my kids go to have had genuine 'lockdowns'. There have been drills in the past, but this time they were for real.
The lockdown begins with an announcement. All doors are locked -- outside and inside. Nobody gets in, and nobody gets out. The kids all move to a part of the classroom away from the window, and whenever possible are to sit on the floor so they are below the windows and stray bullets can't hit them.
The first real lockdown occurred when there was a shooting just along the street from my younger kids' school. The suspect fled the scene and their school was locked down along with two others in the area. My son, who is nine, thought it was 'cool', but my twelve year old daughter didn't. She was disturbed when she realised that some of her classmates live in the building where the shooting took place, and that it was right across from the grocery store we go to regularly.
The next incident involved a knife at the convenience store behind my eldest daughter's high school. Her school and my thirteen year old son's school are within close proximity, and both were locked down until past dismissal time.
These incidents happen to have occurred during school hours, but they are not all that is going on around here. The TTC shooting this week -- that was just a mile or two away. I'm less than a mile from where the notorious 'Galloway Gang' (used to?) call home. Mostly, I don't think about those things. It might be close geographically, but in a way it feels like that's a different world -- but when they start holding lockdown drills in the local schools, and then those lockdown drills stop being drills . . . Don't get me wrong, I'm glad the school board has these procedures in place without someone having to die first -- what I'm lamenting is that such a procedure has to exist at all.
I wonder if Irwin Cotler's, Dalton McGuinty's, David Miller's, kids/grandkids practice lockdowns at their schools.
canadianna
When my kids first came home and told me about 'lockdown drills', I thought they were joking. The parents were not given any warning or information about it -- the school board just implemented them -- not that I would object, of course. In the past week and a half, all three of the schools my kids go to have had genuine 'lockdowns'. There have been drills in the past, but this time they were for real.
The lockdown begins with an announcement. All doors are locked -- outside and inside. Nobody gets in, and nobody gets out. The kids all move to a part of the classroom away from the window, and whenever possible are to sit on the floor so they are below the windows and stray bullets can't hit them.
The first real lockdown occurred when there was a shooting just along the street from my younger kids' school. The suspect fled the scene and their school was locked down along with two others in the area. My son, who is nine, thought it was 'cool', but my twelve year old daughter didn't. She was disturbed when she realised that some of her classmates live in the building where the shooting took place, and that it was right across from the grocery store we go to regularly.
The next incident involved a knife at the convenience store behind my eldest daughter's high school. Her school and my thirteen year old son's school are within close proximity, and both were locked down until past dismissal time.
These incidents happen to have occurred during school hours, but they are not all that is going on around here. The TTC shooting this week -- that was just a mile or two away. I'm less than a mile from where the notorious 'Galloway Gang' (used to?) call home. Mostly, I don't think about those things. It might be close geographically, but in a way it feels like that's a different world -- but when they start holding lockdown drills in the local schools, and then those lockdown drills stop being drills . . . Don't get me wrong, I'm glad the school board has these procedures in place without someone having to die first -- what I'm lamenting is that such a procedure has to exist at all.
I wonder if Irwin Cotler's, Dalton McGuinty's, David Miller's, kids/grandkids practice lockdowns at their schools.
canadianna
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)