It would have been interesting to see what would have happened if the government had fallen. Could the Conservatives have held it together and not mentioned abortion, same sex marriage, or their disdain for the Constitution and the Supreme Court? I doubt it, but you never know.

I was hoping we had an election to finally be rid of this bunch. They would have had to regroup and who knows how long that would take.

I completely agree that Mr Cadman saved them from themselves.

I sense and end to this movement which I haven't from the beginning of my awareness of it. I think it's finally hit critical mass. Of course that means it's the second longest day of the year, but the days are getting longer nevertheless.

I just heard that Fox News have been losing ratings steadily for the last five months.

Only the ultra-coy Chuck Cadman and his office staff know the true response from his constituents whom, he has insisted for some time now that, it was his priority to serve.
Reportedly, the majority felt that Cadman should support the Liberals in this critical vote. Yet he tells us that he reached his decision within 30 minutes of the vote despite that majority.

I have no doubt many of those constituents had been "got at" with the same tenacity as have certain M.P.s to contrive the result the Liberals desired. How else can one understand the seeming tolerance for the mountains of sleaze already revealed?

This is probably the least lucid piece of political writing I've ever read.

Rex Murphy is a very humble commentator. The "hysterical" right-winger's name is Andrew (with a 'w') Coyne. Paul Martin is not a "handmaiden" for Bay Street, or he wouldn't have been so eager to dress up the budget to please Jack Layton. And how is NAFTA at all relevant to the current situation?

I realize the writer is an NDP shill, but this is ridiculous.

I think the best 'political spin' the Liberals should take now is to emphasize and reemphasize the fact that Stephen Harper was set to support the previous buget. He then, for purely opportunistic reasons, decided to turn into the demogogical zealot who would "bring the government down". So Martin went to Layton. All Harper's BS about the "deal with the devil" had better come back in his face.
In fact, I believe the following can be said accurately. 1. Stephen Harper could have influenced the buget as much as Jack did but he chose not to. 2. Stephen Harper was trying to take advantage of two tremendously overrepresented parties (the Conservatives and the Bloc). 3. Therefore, in addition to the bare majority in the house, the Liberal/NDP combined have the support of FAR more Canadians than the Bloc Quebecois and the Bloc Alberta. 4. Even the Bloc do not support the Conservative political agenda (except for strategically, as it would drive Quebec to Independence.)
From all this, I can only conclude that Stephen Harper has NO respect for democracy. And I would go so far as to say that he is an enemy of Canada.
I secretly hoped that the government would fall; so we could show that dipsh*t that he is just as ignorant of BC as Ontario is of Alberta. I really believe the conservatives would have taken a pounding in BC. And THAT, couldn't come soon enough.

My only wish was that we would have had a spring election. Then we would finally be rid of Stephen Harper and his tired old policies stemming from the middle ages. The maxim, absolute power corrupts, should have been told to Harper again and again as he opens his mouth. Oh well, at least we'll have a year of him sticking his foot their instead and see a steady decline in the popular vote for the Conservatives, as Canadians come to see them as the Republican, ultra-right wing, party of the North.
One thing that we should mention is for the longest time in Canada, democracy has finally worked. One MP listened to his constituents, imagine if all of them did, and saved the government. Congratulations Mr. Cadman on showing that Democracy is alive and well in Canada, and not the desperate struggle that Stephen Harper has shown it to be.

Chuck Cadman has played pretty well as Everyman. But here is my recall of the story. Cadman talked about the feedback from his constituents as being "too close to call". At one point he indicated he was leaning toward voting No on the budget because he felt that was the slim margin of majority in his riding.

Then BCTV kindly offered to "help him out" by conducting their own poll. Suddenly too close to call became 75-25 against defeating the government. So what's up, at the end of the day?

Mr. Dobbins says Canadians want more activist and expensive government, but not government that involves "expensive" elections. Mr. Dobbins says that Canadians have spoken and said they don't want to be consulted. Help me, here, please....

So Cadman saved the day, or did he? Let's run the country by polling 60% want the death penalty....sure; 55% want to see all the Liberal parrty in jail........fine; 90% want public hanging back.....well fine; and on and on it goes.

The fact is Cadman voted to support one of the most corrupt politcal parties in Canadian history because his constituents didn't want a spring election. We are going to get one within the year as minortiy governments seldom last more than two years. I'd rather vote in the sun rather in the rain or snow.

What troubles me more is the Liberal biased media (Asper press - CanWest Global) pro-Liberal propaganda and that they are allowed to get away with it.

This Gomery Parliment is about endemic corruption in the Liberal party and parliment itself. The Liberals will now have all summer to bribe us with our own money on projects that will have little or no value (RAV is one example, costing $1 billion more than it should), the result is again higher taxes to fund the Liberals corrupt spending.

Jack Layton, the national windbag, supports this and so does our newest political whore, Stronach. [U]Sleep with dogs and you will get fleas.

Prime Minister Layton? was the headline on P.A6 Toronto Star 19 May.

Jack Layton is "the most trusted leader in English Canada" says the article. "He has really, really turned things around ... as, during the last few months, Layton has tried to put himself and his party above the angry politics that has consumed Parliament.

Bruce Campion-Smith, who wrote the story, credits Layton's success to the "big coup when he persuaded the Liberals to re-write the budget, adding $4.6 billion in new money for foreign aid, housing and education, while delaying tax breaks for corporations."

Paul Martin gets the last word. "Martin concedes he was skeptical of Layton's efforts to negotiate budget improvements with the Liberal government. 'I'm ready to concede I was wrong ... a graphic illustration of what more NDP MPs can do."

Makes a nice change, eh?

Dalyism,

You write:

"Then BCTV kindly offered to "help him out" by conducting their own poll. Suddenly too close to call became 75-25 against defeating the government. So what's up, at the end of the day?"

I didn't say it first but, "Poles(lls) are for dogs." I think says it best.

So many continue to be sucked in by one of the sleaziest tools of the mainstream media - polls.

Here are some polls you will not see:

Do you think the gambling industry owns the mainstream media?

Do you think the auto industry owns the mainstream media?

Do you think Paul Martin and Gordon Campbell own the mainstream media?

I've been ruminating on the process of the Gomery Commission and I've come to the rather discomfiting conclusion that this is what an open and accountable government would likely look like when the inevitable periodic scandals strike. Which they inevitably will in any human endeavour.

Think back.

Fraser tables her report that includes the information that there appear to be irregularities in the Sponsorship Program. She's immediately instructed to look deeper. She eventually submits a report to Cabinet with the damning information in it that several hundred millions of dollars are unaccounted for.

In a not so open and accountable government the report would have been held in Cabinet, or sent to an obscure committee for review.

Instead, the Martin government presents it in the House and then before anyone is really even ranting full steam ahead Martin arranges for a Commission of Inquiry to be set up with all the requisite powers and authority it needs to compel testimony.

Then when Gomery, a political opponent of many years standing who was once Mulroney's Chief of Staff, is chosen to head the Commission, Martin doesn't dispute the choice. Chretien and now Gagliano have challenged the choice but not Martin.

Martin testifies under oath as does Chretien, which has never before happened in our history.

Martin has also repeatedly and publicly stated on multiple occasions that an election will be called within 30 days of Gomery's final report.

Now reflect on the responses to recent scandalous happenings here at home where we have the most open and accountable government in the country, according to Campbell. Reflect on the responses to the scandals of the Mulroney years, the stonewalling, the denials, the refusals to investigate.

As unpleasant as the Gomery experience is proving to be it may well be an something we are going to have to get accustomed to if our desire for openness and accountability is sincere.

There has never been a system of government that was impermeable to fraud. It has always happened and will always happen.

The appropriate yardstick is not whether it happens but what is done in response when it is discovered.

So far I have no reason to believe that the Martin government's response is anything other than appropriate. The RCMP were immediately called in; charges are laid, more may yet follow and trial dates are set; the investigations continue. The slow wheels of justice are grinding.

As I said at the outset this conclusion discomfits me. Like many I want to blame and punish someone right now. But if what we really want is openness and accountability from our governments then we are going to have to learn to curb our mob responses. We are going to have to learn to accept that the process of investigation takes quite a lot of time and money. We are going to have to learn to accept that Commissions of Inquiry are not Courts of Law. We are going to have to learn to accept that guilt in court must be proven beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt and that those accused are innocent until proven otherwise.

We won't like to have to learn those things. They carry no visceral satisfaction. They leave us hanging for too long. They have no smell of blood.

Openness and accountability are inevitably going to mean that we learn much more about the doings and goings on in our political and governance structures than we do now. Much of it we will not like at all.

But unless we let it play out, unless we accept the process, slow and frustrating as it may be, fewer and fewer politicians are going to take us at our word that we actually want openness and accountability for their own sakes. It will appear that we only want those things so we can lash someone to a stake, not because they are valuable goals in and of themselves. And they will proceed to mouth the words with no intention of following them up with actions.

Gomery has to play out, right to the bitter, aggravating, judicial end, whatever it may be. The citizens of Canada accepting any foreshortening of the process, would put expressions of support for openness and accountability into a jaundiced, jaded light which may never again brighten to full sun.

Here's a poll result I would like to see. If Ipsos Reid or Mustel could just ask a sample of voters two questions, in alternating order to avoid any bias. First, if a federal election were held today, which party's candidate would they support? Then, if a provincial election were held today, which party's candidate would they support. This should be followed by a series of questions designed to identify likely voters, that is those who will most likely actually vote, as opposed to merely having a party preference, but not being willing to actually do anything about it.

Then these results should be reported in a table that would show the total provincial support down the columns and federal support across the rows (or the other way around, doesn't matter) and in each of the cells the number who support a given pair of fed/prov parties (eg Fed Lib and Prov Lib, Fed Con and Prov Lib, etc., etc.)

You can be god damned sure the party's have polling results like this. Isn't it time the public saw this data? Is there some reason why the media won't report this, even though they're happy to report on all kinds of other polling questions and results?

I've been amused lately at how Google News is utterly confused about the difference between BC Liberals and federal Liberals. And man, if Google's confused, what about the rest of us.

All this political twittering around here over the last few weeks leaves me even more convinced that politics really is just a sideshow conceived to divert the masses occassionally. If you ignore them all, they won't go away, but you'll feel a lot better about yourself.

Well, much as I wanted to see the Reformist-Conservatives inspire the wrath of all Canadians who had summer vacation plans, and end up ruling from Abbottsford to Rosetown with 23 MPs, I'm glad it won't happen yet. Once Harper loses, he'll be replaced, and they might find someone palatable for the next election. The longer we can push that off, the better.

Personally, I don't have much outrage that some money was stolen/diverted/mishandled. Personally, if I got into such a position I'd try to steal some myself. And so would most of the rest of us. And it's not like some NEW crime got invented here - people have been dipping into the communal pot ever since the first megaproject to build a goatpath to the next settlement over was announced.

The fact is, I trust someone who would steal loose, unmarked, cash more than I'd trust someone who claims they wouldn't do that, but instead will shut down the members of society who make religious lunatics uneasy.

I expect people to get their beaks wet when money flows down a trough. Ideally, we'd cut off the troughs and make them steal discount office supplies instead but, face it, where have you ever worked where someone's nephew or friend didn't get a job, or where a few extra hours ended up on your time card? We don't have to like it, and we can sure try to shut it down, but I'll take it over a mysterious party built on wanna-be Americanists in a marriage of convenience with people who think an ancient book contains all the solutions for a modern world.

This article reflects my thoughts exactly. Good work, Murray.

Wrong. After 4 years of right wing hell in BC, and a sentence of 4 more years, if it came to a choice between Paul Martin's Liberals and Steven Harper's Conservatives, I'd hold my nose and vote Liberal. Thank God there's an alternative: Jack Layton.

Regardless of what unfolds, all I can say is "phew" to the passing of the budget. A lot of us and the programs we rely upon actually need a bloody budget to happen.
I agree with Murray that minority governments are the most democratic and progressive (our health care system and EI came in under minority gov'ts). The only positive thing that would have resulted from a spring election would've been more seats for the NDP to have a stronger Liberal/NDP minority coalition.

I've been thinking all these same thoughts about our federal government, Mr. Dobbin. Thanks for some sanity. The big story is how WELL our system works under pressure. And yeah, you're also right about Harper not being able to lead the Conservs to victory--and your assessment that Cadman saved Harper and the Conserves as much as he did Martin and the Libs. The question to me is, "Why isn't all of this obvious"? I might also suggest that McKay should thank Stronach for saving his big new party from the wrath of the voters.

Just an aside.

Media star Chuck Cadman has gained such name recognition that he could run against a risen J.C. and leave J.C. in the dust.

It's not obvious, Truman, because the are blinded by ideology. This is why they should never govern.

Banquos ghost, your last post is the most reasonable reaction I've heard on this whole affair (and that includes the traditional press). Thanks for posting it.

Re Harpers support for the weaponization of space etc.

The Neo-Con's are calling the satelites, death stars.

The weapons aimed at earth, God's rays.

If they can make the technology work, which is in question, these nuclear weapons will pass over countries every ten minutes. If they can't it will bleed a trillion dollars from the taxpayer anyway. If we've signed on, it would cost us too.
The company who has the contract? Carlyle.

If they can, it is unlikely China and Russia would not attempt to militarily stop them.

Neo-Conservatism is a blight rivaling no others.
Lovely, isn't it?

Correction, they are called Rods of God.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/18/business/18space.html?pagewanted=2&8bl

You need to be registered to access this.

Anyway, not to take away from the topic. This is who Harper et all are. Anyone, who is a neo-conservative who thinks they won't get hurt by it, one way or another, is deluding themselves.

I don't think you can so easily deny the conservative sway of this country. As soon as Harper (or his replacement who is probably only a couple steps behind him) figures out the Liberal key to maintaining their hold on the country is campaining from the left and governing from the right, then we'll really see a democracy in action... politicians, lobby groups, and citizens alike will all raise some hell when they see a hillbilly in an expensive suit running the country.

People are not being fooled like they used to. The rightward drift of big media has had little effect on the voting patterns of the Canadian population. It was not always this way. The big money being thrown behind right wing political movements these days may actually be having a negative effect.

It is telling that many right wing outlets are not making money. The National Post and its kind have been drowning in red ink for years, and yet new right of center rags keep popping up. It has never really been about making money though, that is just a big lie, the business sect print their own cash or are propped up by a government who prints cash for them. Democracy is and always will be about the power of influence.

Ever since the first televised leaders debate between Nixon and Kennedy, the electorate has been assumed to be a malleable goo, easily enticed by flashing lights and colourful propaganda. That stuff worked on the boom generation who had no built up immunity to the new indoctrination devices such as television. The media is losing influence on the cynical generations that follow the boomers, and it is easy to see why, they have been bombarded with advertising every waking moment of their lives, it just doesn’t stick like it used to.

The neo-cons have hit their high water mark for now, they got Bush re-elected in the US. Up here in the provinces, they united the federal right. Everything seemed rosy. Except, the conservative movement, which has all the money in the world to keep throwing around, couldn’t buy opinions the way they used to. Back in the cultural research lab, heads rolled as the ability rid the population of that tiresome burden of thinking for themselves eroded?

Good to see people still can see, right through the BS. The pendulum swing to the right is artificial. It is costing a lot of money to keep it propped up. It must one day fall. That day gets closer.

Yes, it appears to have hit critical mass. Which is right about on any movement's 30ish year life-span. It's a dying ideology.

The Tories aren't the only ones who should thank Chuck Cadman.

I campaigned against Chuck Cadman last spring but I have to admit I admire him today. He said he would listen to the wishes of his constituencts and he has. Furthermore, he did what’s best for Surrey North.

Surrey North is an inner-city urban riding with increasing homelessness, poverty and other social ills. The NDP amendments to the budget will greatly assist this area. And now that north-west Surrey has four NDP MLAs, the area may just get some attention from Victoria as well.

Chuck, the people of Surrey North respect and value a politician who does what he says and votes with his conscience. Good luck in the future. It keeps getting harder and harder to campaign against you.

I am sure that the conservatives will have a pretty strong session going over the mistakes made and such. I don’t think they will turf Harper, he has done pretty well in pulling together a party from some very diverse and headstrong groups. The Conservative also did not self destruct over the Same sex marriage issue (remind me again how many people this effects?) I agree that the conservatives need more time to sort themselves out and build up their party.

What surprises me about people’s comments here is how fearful they are of one the primary principle of democracy: “Your party will eventual lose and be replaced by someone you don’t like”
It will happen, it has happened, life went on. If the conservatives formed the next government, it certainly would not be a with a large majority and could not make the sweeping end of the world changes that I see tossed about here. It won’t be the end of the world.

As a member of the Federal Service I am quite confident that no real work will be done by the Liberals, as they are only intent on staying in power. They will make their promises, start programs, but nothing will really happen. The house will be able to take care of most housekeeping bills. So at best we will get 10 months of game-playing. I have also noticed that the Liberals have been sneaking in lots of unannounced changes to the Firearms Act. Trying to screw more people before getting turfed.

Banquos ghost

A very good post, however, I will offer this up for thought. Martian I suspect whether involved or not likely knew or was advised what the Inquiry would find. He choose to have an election prior to the findings of the inquiry and also would benefit from have an opposition that was still not organized. I think it was purely an attempt to thwart the public ability to react to the information that would be made public. He did not however count on a minority government and can not cover up the findings as easily. He is now depending on buying as much support as our money allows and counts on the Canadian public to lose interest in the inquiry and the corruption it unearths. Unfortunately judging by the comments I have seen here, I think he is quite right in believing that Canadian’s will prefer a corrupt government they know over the devil they don’t.

Redrivergirl

Your quote about Neo-conservatism as a blight rivaling no others is a bit much. I suspect that most people in the world would prefer to suffer under Bush, then the present systems they live under. I am also sure that your opinion would change if you had to live under Hitler or Stalin regimes.

I would also say that I disagree that the right wing ideology is dying off, in fact I am seeing more of a back lash against the left, except in South America which is currently going through yet another series of political upheavals.

Regarding the weaponinzation of space
Nuclear weapons and missiles require a fair bit of maintenance to keep them operable, so unlikely to work with present technology as space is a very hard environment. Most of the work is focused on Hunter-killer satellites, which would likely use a recoilless rifle firing a large scale shotgun shell. In space ball bearings can be quite nasty. Space is now the key to winning a ground war, the US, China, India and Russia all know this and will work on ways to dominate space. Without a way to protect your own space assets and be able to go after other’s you are screwed. You can also bet that China would not hesitate to turn those screws if given a chance.

I think it might be a nice, and not unpopular, gesture for the other parties not to run a candidate against Chuch Cadman next time. After all, they would simply be saving themselves some cash and volunteer time which could be put to better use in other ridings.

Banquos Ghost

Well said. I was going to post, but you said what I wanted to say, and you said it better.

Your post would make an excellent published article or essay.

cadman should have gotten something out of the deal. if belinda got a cabinet post, then cadman should have got a blazer or pair of shoes.

when cadman first got elected he was all gung ho to fix up the young offenders act. this was his big chance.

God's Rods? Death stars? A satillite which passes over you every ten minutes? The patriot act? And, you fail to see Neo-Conservatism as the worst blight we have seen? It has the most capacity to destroy than any other threat to humanity we have seen. Any belief system that has at its root the 'noble lie', and perpetual war, is the greatest of evil.

I suppose while some forms of leftist ideology and Neo-Conservatism, both hold that the masses aren't able to think for themselves, Neo-Conservatism uses their observation as an excuse to grind them under their heels, rationalizing that it is their own destiny in an exaulted, elite positon, while it is everyone else's to live in abject purgatory, while the leftists who see the masses in this way, see their observation as reason the people need to be protected. Neo-Conservatism is a wicked ideology born of an of a traumaized man's idenitification his abusers.

Yes, Neo-Conservatism is dying, perhaps it will briefly shine its brightest, like a dying star, but its zenith has been attained and its decline begun.

I want to thank you for the opinions you expressed and the way you expressed them. I have some respect for those who, in spite of having fallen victim to this ideology, nevertheless do not dissemble, but rather, present their position.

Yes, Cadman got something out of the deal, the ability to maintain his self-respect. The admiration of loyal Canadians.
How difficult it must be to be ill and to have to withstand the ire of the reactionary right.

Chuck Cadman, is a real man.

Identification to his abusers. My keyboard seems to be sticking lately.

Strangely enough, most of the right wing people I know are extremely focused on individual rights and responsibility.

In forums that I consider right of centre, I have seen little criticism of Cadman stand and if someone did it was not a vicious attack. Without doubt they would prefer that he voted with them, but I suspect that most everyone in that house respected the fact that he made the effort to be there. You will be surprised at how many politicians have friendships that span ideological lines.

Yes, Colin, their rights and other people's responsibilities. :)

No I wouldn't, especially not in the current political arena in this country, where there is more fundamental agreement around the central thesis of capitalism, than there is disagreement.All, at one level, degree or another are commintted to it, and all being sucked into the great blackhole that is the "centre". (Though, the reality is, over time, centre's shift left and right as well.)

The essential characteristic of current capitalism and its politics is that there is a greater force pulling them together than driving them apart-, at the current time.

There are many other elements they have in common of course, across all extant political parties-, first and foremost that they all, more or less come from the same "professional strata" milieux, and are used, from that class strata position, to serving the ruling class as various kinds of "managers" for them. (And that includes any "trade union leaders" that may be amonst them-, who are essentially, by and large, with no exceptions I know of, the managers of labour for Capital.)

What is also similar, is the degree to which there is the virtually complete absence of the working class and poor, the majority class, from the hallowed halls of political "management power" for the ruling class.

The ruling class is there in such as Paul Martin, of courtse, but preferably, they are more inclined to let their money pull the strings from the background and back rooms.

So again, by and large, the current crop of "many" politicians and parties have friendships because, they share an underlying and fundamental "ideological interest" or "commonality", called "capitalism", to only modestly greater or lesser degrees.

and there's also room for the possibility that he too believes that Gomry should finish up, and present some attempt to sift through all the:
allegations,
counter allegations,
testamony from people on trial in the courts,
people with axes to grind,
and all the other highly dramatic smoke-and mirrors going on,

before deciding who is or isn't how corrupt,
and whether they did, should or could be expected to know, etc.

Stephen Harper: Bay St. Lap Dog:
True colours:Before becoming Conservative leader, he was head of the corporate funded National Citizens Coalition,and mouthpiece for the corporate lobby.

Belinda Stronach: Bay St. Lap Dog:
True colours: Before entering politics she was
Magna Int'l CEO, a public co. with some of the
most serious corporate governance issues in Canada. She may be a social conservative, but she represents corporate sleaze.

Paul Martin: Bay St. Lap Dog:
Forget the additional tax cuts to corporations. True Colours:I submit the sleaziest act by Martin concerned a shell game surrounding the flying of flags of convenience by shipping companies (like his own Canada Steamship Lines). As Finance Minister, he made a show of closing the popular Liberia as a flag of convenience loophole. But he left Bermuda open.Can you guess what flag CSL flies these days? You guessed it! By flying a flag of convenience, Martin's CSL can avoid Cdn. taxes, Cdn. safety standards, and Cdn. minimum wage laws, and pay his sailors from developing nations $2+ per hour!

Jack Layton: Not a Bay St. Lap Dog:
I hope his sway continues, keeping the Cdn. gov't more honest in making the interests of ordinary Canadians the priority.

typo...sorry...my previous post had a phrase which should read: "She may be a social LIBERAL"(referring to Belinda).

Awesome article Mr. Dobbin, The Neo Conservatives like Harper were sitting licking their lips and riding high while The NDP under Layton , the party with the fewest seats in the house steals power from the Bloc and Conservatives. Pure magic, what other leader can kiss off all that power in their blind ambition to rule. Lets stand back and have a look.

1) Harper ends up looking like he was willing to support separatists giving them a huge win
In Quebec just for pure ambition. (the conservative media is doing major damage control
Right now) The Canadian traitor, separatist pimp .

2) Harper loses all control over the budget due to self interest.

3) He also looks like a true conservative, he wanted tax handouts to huge corporations that were Not talked about and rages over social programs that help Canadians.

4) He truly defines conservatism in Canada.

Every pundit that vents on the media makes him look worse, Dammit , now the NDP budget is going forward, its outrageous that this budget is going forward, the one that Martin actually
Promised Canadians is going forward and not the budget that the conservatives forced on Canadians, And poor Peter McKay and his dog Jack, and his heart being banged up. Maybe he understands now what David Orchard went threw. Maybe Steven H can figure out a new strategy with The Bloc, maybe some good ideas for a separatist Alberta, I'm for it. LOL

Banquos Ghost: good analysis. But it doesn't go deep enough.

Paul Martin, in my mind, represents smooth, elite, ruthless corruption, as I cannot forget that his campaign workers -- whose goal was to put him into the Prime Minister's Office -- were Basi, Virk, Basi, and others. All nicely covered up. Not open ... covered up.

Lying through his teeth, Paul Martin stood up with Gordon Campbell after the RCMP raid on the BC Legislature, to say "I know nothing!" when an honourable leader should have said, "This is outrageous and I apologize to the people of British Columbia that my campaign workers stand accused of these wrongful and harmful activities."

Paul Martin, Bryan Mulroney, same sort of guys. I'm thankful that there's a Jack Layton team in Parliament and a Carole James team in Ottawa.

sorry ... a Carole James team in Victoria.

Colin says he's seen little criticism of Cadman in "right of centre" forums. Try Andrew Coyne's blog at http://www.andrewcoyne.com -- this afternoon there were almost a thousand comments about yesterday's vote, and the excoriation of Cadman is astounding. (Coyne's column about Belinda, a landmark in Canadian hysteria, is seen as Holy Writ by these folks.)

I'm accustomed to some wild and woollyminded comments from the left here, but the Harperists express something truly nasty. They seem bitterly frustrated and prepared to take it out on anyone and anything that gets in the way of a Conservative government. Harper himself is not above some pretty ugly rhetoric, so something runs in that ideological family.

It's a disturbing attitude that reminds me of the BC Liberals in 2001-02, when they clearly enjoyed putting the boots to their enemies...not just because they were building the New Neocon Jerusalem, but because they plain liked putting the boots to people.

Murray tends to overdramatize at times and is overly biased toward the NDP, but he is essentially correct about the Harper agenda. The book Murray wrote about Preston Manning and the Reform Party is as relevant now as it was 12 years ago. If you want to find out what a Conservative majority government would be like in Ottawa, just read Murray's book. It is an excellent source of information about the Reform movement that has morphed into the Conservative Party.

What more could conversatives ask for, they had a decade in Ontario, just go look how the economic engine of Canada smells these days. That one sure didn't end in a ball of economic prosperity like it was supposed to. But maybe Trump will build something in Vancouver now that Campbell is back at the helm.

We all know Paul Martin would love to rule from the right, he was the original cutback king. In the most recent budget, his thinly veiled tax cuts almost got through unnoticed until he had to hold his nose and join with those ridiciolous NDP. How dare they try to help the least fortunate at the expense of the subsidized corportations.

Porkorations provide jobs. Those with jobs vote Liberal. Or consernaive. Or whoever will let them keep more of their paycheque. The circle is unbroken. The sytem works, however crude., The quo is maintained.

So what do you guys want? More tax cuts.

Right, I forgot.

Maybe there should be two Canada's. There is really no middle ground to stand on as far as I can see.

Don't you just love coalitions which tip the balance of power over to a more reasonable style of government? I'm so proud of the NDP and of Chuck Cadman.

Great, Murray Dobbin! I was just thinking all that, too. I think in Harper's quietest moments he probably realizes that the electorate isn't all that crazy about him and his new Conservs if he can't bring down this scandal-plagued government. I think both Stronach and Cadman did him a huge favour by postponing an election in which the voters would have rejected him. Strange how life and politics goes, eh!

Factoid: Richard Gwyn's Toronto Star column today cites an Ekos opinion poll that shows that Canadians with an annual incomes of $100,000 or more are most likely to vote for Martin's Liberals (not Harper's Conservatives). Should anyone be overly surprised?

I have an action proposal.

From the moment the Canadian Alliance and Progressive Conservative parties merged the media has taken to referring to the resulting offspring as "the Tories".

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Ptories.htm identifies Tories as "...rural bandits in Ireland. In the 17th century (the word) had become a term applied to monarchists in the House of Commons. By the 18th century the Tories were politicians who favoured royal authority, the established church and who sought to preserve the traditional political structure and opposed parliamentary reform. After 1834 this political group in the House of Commons preferred to use the term Conservative."

In Canada the Tories have a long and rather storied history which is detailed fairly well here http://www.answers.com/topic/progressive-conservative-party-of-canada.

For all of the last 60 years and more in Canada the phrase "the Tories" has represented a fairly robust economic nationalism; close ties to the British Commonwealth; and above all else an unquestioned commitment to Canadian federalism.

Today the phrase "the Tories" is being applied to a political entity, The Conservative Party of Canada, that bears little resemblance to the political parties that came before it to which the name was applied.

Todays Conservative Party of Canada stands for deepening economic ties to the US, not economic nationalism. Looking at the party website yields no clues as to where they stand on ties to the Commonwealth but it's probably not innacurate to say that ties to the Commonwealth would be sacrificed in their quest to tie us more closely to the US. We also know that, notwithstanding the removal of all of his papers and speeches from the National Citizens Coalition website, Stephen Harper has expressed contempt for many of Canada's institutions and traditions over his professional life.

Here's my proposal.

National media ought to be hurricaned with letters, both snail and e, excoriating them for their laziness and disservice in dubbing this new political entity with an old and trusted Canadian brand.

Cite the historical records I linked above. Note the puzzling absence of Harper's political record from his National Coalition days. Direct their attention to the utter absence of anything that refers to the progressive history of the party's forebears in the current Conservative platform.

Do it early and often.

Let's see if citizens can shame the national media into living up to their supposed ideals.

What is threatening to get lost in all of this political wrangling is what the federal NDP under Jack Layton’s forward thinking wanted to do for all of us... (Some seem to imply selfishly? well in that case, I am proudly and equally selfish also).

Specifically, it looks to me like nearly all of the budgetary concessions that he negotiated with Paul Martin are geared to the benefit of the populous at large. Is that so bad? I think many of these expenditures are desperately needed.

Although I did not hold membership in any political party (until recently), the NDP, or more specifically Jack Layton, has endorsed and supported my work in pollution reduction since my correspondence with him during the last election in 2004. I expect it to have been included in the "$900 million CDN" that he has earmarked for environmental projects.

He knows investment into focused market trend innovation like this will pay dividends for many generations, which incidentally seems to escape the Liberals, and specifically Paul Martin, whom I have also approached for help with this, but to no avail.

For many of us, our individual "One ton challenge" could easily be met repetitively EVERY YEAR with it by reducing our private automobile fuel consumption by 25%, and for others it could do it many times over.

As a nation, our country could easily surpass our Kyoto commitments just by our transportation system managers deciding to reduce their fuel consumption by 25% in this way as well.

Check out The Envirocorp 2001 web page for more info.at, http://tawnybill.tripod.com/

Any comments/thoughts/questions?
You may post them here or send them to my e-mail address on the web page.

Thanks,
Tawny Bill.

What a great piece Murray Dobbins has written.
He has summmed it up brilliantly in his last paragraph.

I agree, dgb. Well done, Murray Dobbins.

The Reform party in all its various incarnations, from Reform to Alliance to Conservative, has just wasted so much of our time as a nation. Valuable time.

Everytime they come up with a new disguise, a new plan to seize the reins of power, you can feel our national will to keep this country Canadian, by keeping them at bay, come into force. Maybe there is hope in our sheer Canadian(ness). May the force continue to be with us.... had to say it.

Stephen Harper would ensure a Liberal re-election if he had been successful Thursday.

Didn't someone accuse Belinda S. of naked ambition? She's a wall flower compared to Harper in that departnment.

And you wonder why many see the right as dangerous. Oh, don't let me forget to mention the latest in the Ontario scandel over Duddley George's murder at Ipperwash back when Mikey Harris was ubber grunt in Ontario.

Seem that tapes of conversations between OPP officials trying to placate the savages in Queens Park suggested strongly that Armstrong police tactics were being demanded by Mikey.

The tapes show even the police thought this was beyond the pale and surely illegal.

Now back to our regular discussion.

Wow. So many morons convening on one place. Some of you have your heads stuck up your a$$ so far, your used to eating the crap the Liberals and NDP are feeding you.
Fact: The Liberal party of Canada is facing the biggest scandle in the history of Canada, wasted away HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS on themselves and Liberals supporters, which is clearly illegal. The only reason there is an inquiry is because Paul lost control of the majority government.
Fact: The if the day the NDP take control of Canada ever comes, Canada can say goodbye to foreign investment. We would be reverted back into the dark times of communism, and all the power would go straight to Jack Laytons head, and bingo, the next Stalin is born.
Fact: Stephen Harper is finished. The only way the Conservatives will ever take control of the country would be with a new leader. As much as I hate to say it, there are too many stereotypes and formed opinions for him to ever get elected.
Fact: The first province to seperate from Canada would be Alberta. This would probably only happen if the NDP took power, something I don't think will ever happen.
Fact: Unions should be extinct. They were for back when the industrial revolution were taking place, and have no place in this world anymore. A better labour board should be set up, one with out (as much...) bias.
Fact: Canadian morals and ethics are going downhill, FAST. First it will be the Gay marrige bill, then cloning humans, then someone will want to marry their dog. "oh but we can't intrude on their right to marry their dog, or their sister, or their computer..." Give me a freaking break. We have to draw the line somewhere.
Fact: Outer space war is the future. By not signing onto the outer space defence program, Canada did several things. First, if they were part of the program, we might have had some control onto the extent of missiles in space. But lets not kid ourselves here. North Korea, or China, or maybe a revolutionized Russia (judging by Putin's recent comments, it could be in the near future) who knows who is going to come along and try out one of their nukes. To me, this issue is like a seat belt. Nobody likes wearing one, and most of the time you don't even need it. But it is there JUST IN CASE. its time to quit looking at the ground and shuffling our feet.
Fact: This post has gone on way to long.

Quite graphicaly then, if your 'cuming' upon us as such a 'luchious' group of streatched spincters, has you that overwhelmed for you to declair;

Then I think indepth discussion of the 'here and now' are beyond your comprehension anyway and just wasted on you, so move on already!!

Not all of us are a waste of skin...

Heh heh he hee heeeee!

Hi libndp=idiots.

You might or might not be checking this to see if you have started a flame war. So, let's rebut in a friendly fashion and see if you can keep up.

"Wow. So many morons convening on one place."

Well, every site has a particular slant.

"Fact: The Liberal party of Canada is facing the biggest scandle in the history of Canada, wasted away HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS on themselves and Liberals supporters, which is clearly illegal."

We could quibble over whether this is the most expensive and divisive thing that federal government has done (like Mulroney's deal with separatists, which was essentially start-up funding for the Bloc Quebecois), or even the worst thing that the Liberals have done, morally (compared to, say, interning the Japanese-Canadians because of popular racism, and against the advice of the RCMP).

But it's sure up there with big scandals of the past, yup.

"The only reason there is an inquiry is because Paul lost control of the majority government."

I thought the main reason was that the Auditor General blew the whistle.

"Fact: The if the day the NDP take control of Canada ever comes, Canada can say goodbye to foreign investment. We would be reverted back into the dark times of communism, and all the power would go straight to Jack Laytons head, and bingo, the next Stalin is born."

The NDP is not a communist party. It supports certain socialist ideas, like universal medicare. But would it abolish salaries? Control the means of production? Would Jack Layton execute his enemies?

Come on. Make fun of his moustache or something! If you exaggerate, you weaken your argument.

"Fact: Stephen Harper is finished. The only way the Conservatives will ever take control of the country would be with a new leader. As much as I hate to say it, there are too many stereotypes and formed opinions for him to ever get elected."

Politicians re-invent themselves all the time. Harper's problem is not what he says, but that his party freaks too many people out. It no longer the Conservatives but the latest name-change of Reform. Personally, there were things I liked about Preston Manning, but too many people are uncomfortable with the pious repressiveness of the Christian Right to make it a viable party, at this time. That's not true in the States, obviously, and so I would not rule out Reform's ever getting to be a government here.

"Fact: The first province to seperate from Canada would be Alberta. This would probably only happen if the NDP took power, something I don't think will ever happen."

So the NDP would cause Alberta to separate? That's interesting, I haven't read that anywhere. Got a cite?

"Unions should be extinct. They were for back when the industrial revolution were taking place, and have no place in this world anymore. A better labour board should be set up, one with out (as much...) bias."

Protecting the rights of workers and cutting the best deal with the employer is a pretty important issue to people. I don't see collective bargaining going away. I'd agree that unions don't see the overall picture, don't have efficiency at heart, but it's like the adversarial trial system -- the fighting is supposed to produce a fair result at the end of the day.

"Fact: Canadian morals and ethics are going downhill, FAST. First it will be the Gay marrige bill, then cloning humans, then someone will want to marry their dog."

This is the really alarming part of your argument.

Basically, you argue that social change is bad. Whereas, I would say, that it is mostly for the good. The western world has developed democracy, instituted the rule of law, overcome slavery, and extended equal rights to women. More "traditional" societies have not.

The development of rights-based and humanist/secular thinking in western civilization does not mean a rush to immorality. For example, feminist pressure on society has resulted in fewer opportunities for men to sexually harass women. As a man with a wife and a daughter, I consider the increase in their protection to be an excellent moral improvement.

""oh but we can't intrude on their right to marry their dog, or their sister, or their computer..." Give me a freaking break. We have to draw the line somewhere."

Yes, we do! WE do. We discuss it. You have your point of view and are allowed and encouraged to say so in Canada! No noble or clergyman is going to pronounce on this issue on your behalf. That is a tangible benefit of the trend to social liberalization that you see.

"Fact: Outer space war is the future."

It's certainly a possible future. I think we all agree that we don't want to do anything to make it more likely.

"By not signing onto the outer space defence program, Canada did several things. First, if they were part of the program, we might have had some control onto the extent of missiles in space."

Why would we? I don't believe we have airspace sovereignty at orbital altitudes. Nor does Canada have the space weapons infrastructure to contribute to the orbital defense armada. Even assuming there was a good reason for us to be up there.

"But lets not kid ourselves here. North Korea, or China, or maybe a revolutionized Russia (judging by Putin's recent comments, it could be in the near future) who knows who is going to come along and try out one of their nukes. To me, this issue is like a seat belt. Nobody likes wearing one, and most of the time you don't even need it. But it is there JUST IN CASE. its time to quit looking at the ground and shuffling our feet."

Yeah -- I buy that. Also, maybe I've just seen "Deep Impact" or "Independence Day" too many times, but I'd kind of like to see some orbital particle weapons or railguns up there, for a rainy day type of thing.

But unless a global shield protects the globe, it is not a shield but a weapon. If the US has one, then Russia, in fairness, should have one too. And then you have eliminated Mutually Assured Destruction.

And for what? ICBMs are last-generation technology. Space lasers are not going to interdict turtle nukes or bio terrorism.

An excellent piece of writing and set of observations that are entirely correct. The founding "Tories" of this country, were they to come back from the grave, would indeed find little in common for these national betrayers,sychophants to Big Capital and Yankee bootlicks who have absconded with and perverted their name and tradition.

The early Tories were nationalists. This crew are a bunch of embedded quislings and collaborationists for the US Empire.

That's the "early tories" of my memory. They have, in fact, over the centuries of capitalism gone through a number of incarnations.

Hmmm. Tories, rural bandits in Ireland.
Actually Roman Catholic bandits, and later,
Tory was designated as a Loyalist to Britain during the American Revolution.
Harper, a Tory? Hmmm.
Lyan Brian, a Tory? Hmm. Yeah, sort of fits.

"libNDP=idiots" didn't intend his piece to be a comedy routine but it sure worked that way for me!
Thanks, dude, for helping start my Saturday off on the right foot : laughing my head off!
(Jack Layton, a new Uncle Joe - Yuk, Yuk!)

Below is the letter I sent this morning to the Editor in Chief of the G&M, to Don Newman of the CBC, The National at CBC, the news dept. of CTV and The Toronto Star public editor. (I didn't bother sending it to anyone at CanWestGlobal because I can barely acknowledge them as actually existing and will do almost anything to avoid deluding myself that they are a real news organization. YMMV.) Feel free to copy and paste and send it to whomever you wish if you feel so moved, just put your own name on it.

Mr. (or Ms. or Sirs and Mesdames, or To Whom It May Concern)

Canadian political history is rife with examples of true and honest service to the people of Canada by various incarnations of right-centre parties that proudly bore the name and had earned the right to be familiarly and fondly referred to as "the Tories".

The Conservative Party of Canada, as presently constituted and led, bears very little resemblance to those past generations of Tories.

The lackadaisical use of this facile linguistic shortcut by our media is a disservice to the present circumstance in which we find ourselves as a nation as well as a besmirching of the memories of generations of honourable Tories that have gone before.

I believe it behooves (fill in here) to cease this misleading useage and refer to The Conservative Party of Canada as Conservatives.

Thankyou for your attention,

(signed)

Yamauchi, thanks for that terrific comment. It is a pleasure reading something so coherant and sensible.

http://www.democraticunderground.co...06/10_line.html

I posted this short, but profound, article on another thread by mistake. I meant to post it here. I think it has an interesting perspective.

redrivergirl,

This link does not seem to work, (results in an error page), is it the right URL?

libndp=idiots writes and thinks very much like another right-wing flamer who has been lurking around and popping up like a sore tooth on various Tyee threads since just before the BC election campaign started.

He (or she) comes across, in this latest production, somewhat like the scary voiced character in Wizard of Oz, who finally gets outed only to be shown as the pathetic little man he is.

Hmm, could you re-post that link redrivergirl? Or type out the URL in shorter fragments. It keeps coming up as server not available when I click on it directly.

So far this is anecdotal, but a caller to CKNW yesterday claimed that the evangelical right is making a successful effort to orchestrate Conservative nominations of their spokesmen in B.C. He said a "Rev. somebody" had just been nominated in his riding, and that "Revs." and "Pastors" were picking up nominations elsewhere. He claims the nomination process in unfair and undemocratic.
This reminded me of a Ted Byfield (popular Christian right spokesman) article I stumbled upon a few months back. In it he was rallying the troops. This was in answer to Harper's betrayal/abandonment of some of their pet issues such as abortion. He urged the Christian right to not be discouraged or alienated from the party. Instead they should organize to make efforts to insert themselves into the party process more.They should increase their presence and influence to use the party as a vehicle to promote their moral issues. I assume they would want to get rid of a "soft" leader like Harper.
I wouldn't be surprised that Byfield's call is being answered by evangelical constituencies.
Their catch-22 is that the farther right they take the party, the less chance they'll have of forming a gov't, as the old Reform "cranks" image is unpalatable to most Canadians.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/04/06/10_line.html

Sorry, if this doesnt 'work, go into democraticunderground.com

Then find the article by Violet Lake.

Bobb, I heard that caller. And, I also heard Mary Polak. How long do you think it will be before Campbell will eject her from the party and she'll be sitting as an independent? After listening to her I bet it won't be very long.

That may well be Bobb999, but I think the lessons to the south of our border should be well-considered. Most of my American friends lament that pluralism and secularism were once values they held dear, and which they almost attained. One of them, when I asked if he felt like the planet was being looted, wrote:

"Oh, absolutely. And it pisses me off that the bad guys are probably going to succeed in dismantling whats left of the public infrastructure that the generation of my parents and grandparents built up from 1929 to 1979.

Te Aro Arahina,

I think they will be sucessful in the short term. I really do think the overall tide has turned. For sure there will be darker moments, but this movement is dead.

I believe we might see a real a depression. Free marketing the world is just another term for bleeding other people's assets and ignores any economic reality that isn't in their rule book.

Greenspan let the inflation out of the bag when he refused to raise interest rates for political reasons. It's out and there's a good argument to be made that it can't be put back under our Capitalistic system at this time.

A lot of the'free-marketers' are going to be howling at the financial blow and in not too long a time. GB has the lowest approval polling ever. (I guess he is itching to go into Iran, but I don't think the American public will rally around his flag during this invasion). Fox news has lost 60% of their ratings in the last five months. People are onto their administration now. Reality tv is coming to an end with the networks returning to dramas which take the focus away from 'my petty ambitions', to more complex issues that involve emotions more complex than envy
and competition.

I've heard that the new Starwars movie is an allegory of the Bush administration/neo-conservatism, with Darth Vader, or dark father. typifying GB. Those are strong archetypical motifs that many will see.

I can see one good thing that has come from this already and that is many people have had to really clarify their values and have been experiencing a major process of sorting and sifting. The world needed that because we can't go on treating the earth and its inhabitants in this way. So, this might ultimately be a self correcting phenomenon, which will have not the correction, that the Cons anticipate, but rather one more enegetically postitve.

It is interesting. Grief inducing, enraging, galvanizing, clarifying, and purifying. Good will come of this. I'm sorry so many are hurting so much right now especially the children and seniors dying of a deliberate and hostile neglect at the hands of these people.

bobb999+torys=idiots

ndp/ind/Liberals=power+good budget+progress

In a Black paper surreyleader.com click on "letters" to read a good letter from a writer who ran twice for the Conservative Psrty and supported the merger but now regrets it as he realizes they really are a party of narrowminded, radical opportunists, etc
He tells of how the Conservatives conducted a mass phone campaign to get thousands of people to phone Cadman on his direct line telling him to vote against the Liberals knowing he was struggling with health issues. He even received the message on his second phone which was not listed in the Conservative Party membership records. The headline for the letter ot 'TORIES CONSUMED WITH WILL TO ADVANCE". This guy sounds like another moral and ethical person who could win as an Independent. I really like the "INDEPENDENT" catagory.
But must be very costly for candidate.

"It is interesting. Grief inducing, enraging, galvanizing, clarifying, and purifying. Good will come of this. I'm sorry so many are hurting so much right now especially the children and seniors dying of a deliberate and hostile neglect at the hands of these people."

I share your optimism (if you can call it that) but we also have to fight for this vision, because:

a) The left has not fought brimstone with brimstone. You could make excellent points for progressive politics from the teachings of Jesus Christ. However, lots of us are atheists and/or uncomfortable with using private belief to determine public policy.

I'm not a believer, but I think believers could and should advance the cause on spiritual territory.

b) The level of public debate is pretty dim. I believe that people, overall, are quite bright. However, basic education in North America is wildly uneven in quality. The left has to reach out in ways that are comprehensible. I don't mean "dumbed down," not at all, but advanced ideas in clear language. We need our Will Rogers, if you will.

c) Stop demonizing the neo-cons. They have their reasons. Don't ignore the effects of their policies, but accept that they think themselves decent and smart for taking the positions that they do. Read their literature, attend their seminars, speak to their supporters. These are not monsters, but people of good will, with families, with love in their hearts. Quit fucking sneering at them. They are our neighbours.

This is not about winning victory of a tribe of us versus a tribe of them. That is old-school thinking and what gets the human race into shit.

It's about trying to show the benefit of developing policies of maximum fairness, maximum freedom, and maximum survivability of our species. Get behind that and let the policies fall where they may.

I realize that Cadman's up for beatification and everything, but I don't know why he had to be so coy. I'm also wondering if he really only made up his mind a half hour before voting, or why he had to vote precisely according to the poll of his riding. A cynical person might conclude that he was hanging on to the spotlight right up to the last second. Grumpy, you wise one, I think you got it right, and of course Stronach and Cadman, not to mention Parrish probably saved the Conserves from an election which they would have lost big time, I think. Great story, Murray Dobbin.

Wow! Rebel, thanks for posting that link. It's very heartening.

Fact: Ron Yamauchi said everything I was going to say.

Good article Murray - along with thanks to Chuck Cadman - thanks also to /Carolyn Parrish who doesn't even like Martin and was fired from the caucaus so had every reason to be vindictive but she put the interests of the country first and got out of a sickbed to vote in favor. Cudos to Ms. Parrish!

Ron,

You seem to have missed most of the points in my post.

I am not a Christian.

My post had nothing to do with setting policy based on a personal belief system.

I will continue to call them what it is clearer than day what they are. I don't care how they dress themselves up in pseudo-intellectualism. If that is interpreted as demonizing, then so be it. I do not share the idea that they have love in their hearts. That is ludicrous.

I have read more Neo-Conservative literature, than perhaps you.
I am aware of their heros, their gurus, their belief system. I am also aware that I use the word Neo-Con, not in it's strictest sense, but to describe our neo-con fascistic movement.

Stop fucking sneering at them...? Wake up.

This I can definitely get behind, Yamauchi:

As for the other comments .... well, take them under consideration. I freely admit to having my flashpoints and flare-ups. Sometimes being able to express it verbally in a forum of like-minded people is a release for outrage which might otherwise find a more violent course. But, no, it isn't the finest example of discourse, is it? And it does lend itself to the breakdown of civility. It's just that, a person just gets so mad, and frustrated, and exasperated with the propaganda, stupidity, bullheaded, lemming-like, selfishness, backward, destructive .... ooooh!

And sometimes that Victory Dance just feels so great! All that pent-up energy flowing out.
Oh yeah.

But yes, pluralism should be more than just an aspiration.

Good point bob999,

Belinda Stronachs' actions recently make it quite clear that the 'old’ standard "The beatings will continue until morale improves".. mentality just will not work with a free willed individual (or people). i.e. she apparently had sat through a tongue-lashing by Harper just prior to the vote, smart move, attempting to bully her into capitulation, yeah right.... anyway, that did not work so well, she quit!

In my view, Harper and the rest of the (likeminded) quasi-dictators from the old reform party would be best relegated to the last millennium, as the bad experience that they were, there is real work to be done!

We just don't have the luxury or time to appease their "Temper tantrums" in stalling government progress on the "NDP Peoples Budget" anymore...

RedRiver - I wasn't thinking particularly of your posting, but in us vs. them.

It's necessary to show that certain actions are wrong, hurtful, ill-considered, and so on.

I'm just of the belief that people are capable of change and that moral suasion is possible. Consequently you have to be civil. Regardless that they are conservatives/neo-cons/fascists/rednecks/label de jour -- ulimately you have to live with them.

Unless your plan is to kill them.

Therefore, treat them as they are -- your relatives and neighbours with whom you disagree, and where both you and they are willing to defend the positions, submit them to ratification, and abide by the consequences.

At this point, I'm getting off the high horse. Of course it is fun and exhilarating to mock those who are in power. It's putting the thumbtack on the chair. Good fun.

In other words, I was just thinking out loud and being sanctimonious.

I'm totally sharing the sense of satisfaction that the NDP has gotten some of its agenda into policy.

And I'm very familiar with, and partial to, the discomfiture with Bush 43, the Christian Right, the familiar rise of paramilitary organizations (the Minutemen), ominous nationalism, epidemic militarization, antagonism towards news media (Newsweek), appeals of the supreme leader to supernatural powers, the installation of the supreme leader's relatives and friends on other powerful state apparati, and so on.

I don't believe that every "neo con" supports every aspect of that. We've all seen Star Wars for Christ's sake. None of us would intentionally support the Empire.

It's also a matter of rejecting aspects of the left which are associated to our wacky socialist tenets. Such as, personal behavior: licentious, slack, apathetic, irreligious. An open contempt for the state and its symbols, suggesting disregard for the sacrifices made to build this system "that oppresses them, and pays their doles" (Trevanian).

I agree! an excelent example of the need for the STV electoral system though too! Yes?

Well, Ron,

Will Rogers onced remarked, "Liberty don't work near as good in practice as it does in speeches." His words are still so wise. Thank you of reminding me of his grounded wit. And, he too knew only too well the grief of being colonized.

I understand your postition.

However...in regards to these words,

"Therefore, treat them as they are -- your relatives and neighbours with whom you disagree, and where both you and they are willing to defend the positions, submit them to ratification, and abide by the consequences."

No, they are not willing to defend their positions. They lie about them. Nor, do they submit them to ratification, they run them through in a hidden back room processes, and they do not yet abide by the consequence, but rather force innocent people to do so instead.

I perceive what is happening as far less benign than you do. And, so, I agree to disagree.

For me, they are as threatening a menace, as a gang of burly men with baseball bats angrily approaching me on the street. And, I will not dilute my words and my revulsion about them. If they are to be averted it is only because the movement has begun its descent, not because they will restrain themselves.

And, my personal battle... What I really feel, is far more beautifully expressed in the link I posted. Yet, my righteous (not self-righteous) anger compels me to speak out against them with forcefullness and resolve. I am not good at balancing these two poles. I am working on it. Within myself, I must retain my values while standing up against this tide.

I'm sure the people of Iraq perceive them as a lot less benign than even I. Although, 'death star' satallites with 'Rods of God' passing over our heads every ten minutes, sure goes a long way.

But, as Will Rogers said, "Peoples mind are changed through observation and not through argument."

Have a good afternoon. :)

That was a smile, Ron. The icons are not working. (smile)

Redrivergirl: Unfortunately I missed Mary Polak's putting her foot in her mouth. Was she on the radio yesterday too? I know she's the school library book banner of Surrey who cost Surrey taxpayers $1Mill+ in legal fees over her issue.
I think you're right. Gordo may soon find her an embarrassment/liability if she can't restrain herself with her morals rants. I'm encouraged by the stats you cite: that Fox News ratings have dropped 60% (that's a crash), and that Bush's approval ratings are at a low point (too bad the low didn't come at election time. Unfortunate timing). Te Aro has reason for pessimism about the direction the US is taking,
but these stats are heartening! I don't think Canada will follow any US neocon lead, as most Canadians look at Bush's foreign policy with revulsion. And on social issues we seem to be on the same page as Europe, not the US. Beginning to treat drugs as more a medical/harm reduction problem than a criminal problem requiring a war on drugs, is my favourite example.And Christian fundamentalism hasn't taken root here strongly, and I doubt it ever will.
I want to agree with Yamauchi that we should not demonize folks that disagree with us, such as neocons, that we should treat everyone with a degree of respect...but then I think that a neocon agenda took The US to war in Iraq using falsehoods as justification, and look at the misery that resulted and continues to manifest.
Now civil war may be on the horizon... I can't help thinking, what's wrong with these (neocon) people?
I hadn't heard about the Harper tongue lashing of Belinda that Tawnybill mentioned. It makes me wonder, how much was her own ambition the motivator, and how much was it Harper pushing her (he may now be wishing he'd been stroking her ego just a little, at least until the vote was over!)

jack = lefty moron.

Good points Bobb,

Remember when Mary Polak was talking justifying why the NDP weren't awarded official opposition status? It i s not that she put her foot in it per se. I just saw her great potential.

I think they're all interested in power. That acting performance by McKay was something to behold wasnt' it? As if his heart is broken! lol
I don't think so. At least not by being left romantically. I wouldn't put anything past them as they think they are enormously clever. I would not put it past Belinda S and Peter Mc to have planned the whole thing to engineer Peter's takeover of the leadership of the party. Although, that is pushing the boundies of story. While I don't think that, I certainly wouldn't be surprised, would anyone?

I don't like the idea of someone with so few qualifications to be promoted to minister in an obvious exchange.

I feel like my country is now being run by undergrad frat boys at an out of control frat party. My province? More of the same only they are slightly more mature, but none the wiser.

You are right about demonizing in general. Nevertheless, I still feel I am accurately identifying them and that it is their behaviour that demonizes them as opposed to an incorrect slur, and for a specific purpose, as happened with to Russians for whom apparently, the term demonization was coined. I would like nothing more to not be making an enemy out of anyone, but rather be absorbed in my own persuits. You're probably kinder than I, Bobb.

You listen a lot to CKNW too! I am close to turning it off now that the election is over. I've listened to it for eons. It really needs a good entertaining progressive radio show. They'll never do it. But Pattison might. He seems to have more business sense. Can you imagine the ratings a good American style (fiesty - information providing) progressive show that took the right wing to task? They're enjoying great ratings in the US. I agree with you that Canadians are more like Europeans than our American cousins. We do think a lot differently. I wish people got the 10 weeks summer holiday that Europeans do though! Have a good long weekend.

ARE the Iraqi people worse off than under the Baath party?

A part of me wonders about that. I am uncomfortable with using fake evidence to rush to war. I am not that uncomfortable with regime change, frankly.

Regime change? Too soon to say. I wonder what the odds are that the current leader will turn out to be another one of those propped-up dictator types like Duarte or Pinochet.

From Juan Cole's article "The Lies that Lead to War" in Salon, (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/05/19/lies/index.html):

George Galloway claimed an even higher figure:
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1486025,00.html)

Not a terribly compelling argument for the benefits of regime change.

And it overlooks the other degenerations in civilization caused by the rogue superpower:

- the loss of an effective international tribunal,

- the disregard for international efforts to curb environmental degradation,

- the dissolution of a governing body geared towards international consensus,

- economic instability

... again, a list.

Well, I sure as hell am, when it involves an outside imperialist power with a long history of interference in other states, from Latin America to the Middle East, to serves its own ends, and with its own history of "human rights" violations, at home and especially abroad.

The problems of Iraq, even under Sadaam, posing no serious threat to the US, was first of all up to the Iraqi people to deal with, and if they are capable of fighting the mighty US to a standstill on their home national turf, they were certainly capable of dealing with Sadaam, in their own good time. (Remember, even the US keeps telling us, EVERYONE is armed in Iraq.) Outside of that, it was up to those nations in the region to deal with him.

The US is in the global predicament it is, including even 9-11 because of its own role and misdeeds in the world, especially in the Middle East, where it has propped up corrupt Arab regimes and frustrated the aspirations of its people, and stealing their oil resources to enrich themselves and local oligarchies since the end of the decline of the British Empire-, whose last act was to allow the creation of the State of Israel on Arab soil. And this latter act was done to foist Europe's post war "Jewish Problem", which if it should have fallen to anyone, a territorial homeland for the Jews should have been carved out of Germany, instead it was dropped like a genocidal bomb onto the Arab people of Palestine. All of which exchanged a Jewish diaspora for a Palestinian one, and the legacy of bitterness that has left, for the interference of the Imperialist Crusader West yet again in the Arab World.

Without the continuing military, financial and political/military interfence support of US Imperialism for the Zionist State of Israel, the Palestinian people would be already back in their homes, and they and the whole Arab world know that.

And as for Afghanistan, like Iraq, there are these many explanations for 9-11, outside of the "official" ones of the US Empire, none of them having to do with delivering "democracy" to the Arab peoples. Only this part of the world, and not even Europe or Russia buy that bullshit.

What is really at work in Afghanistan is a long held plan, since the collapse of the USSR, to build a pipeline from the 'stan countries of the North, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to carry northern oil to US tankers in the Arabian Sea, bound for where? You guessed it, the Imperial US home heartland-, again to enrich local oligarchies and warlords, but especially, the US Empire itself.

The US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, and yet perhaps Iran, save for their nuclear weapons development, have dick shit to do with concerns about any major threats emanating from these parts of the world, to the US itself, or democracy for the Arab people, but the good old Empire of Gold cash interests of the Greater USA itself. And for which, as part of that PNAC (Project for a New American Century) dream of the Neoconazis, Israel plays an assisting role by being a useful source of division in the Arab world, acting as a kind of local policeman for the USA, and an element that keeps the Pan Arabist and real democratic aspirations of the Arab street off balance and bogged down.

Think about it. The Arabs see the same USA that we do. That is the same threat to their natural resources, well being and sovereignty. Only there currently, the heel of the US Empire is bearing down the hardest. (Though they may get to us yet, if we can ever find the cajones/marracas ourselves, to actually stand up for our own national interests, against the plunder of our resources and territory by this same Empire enemy.)

The US brought 9-11 down on itself, is the fact of the matter. And lacking missles, vast air armada, nuclear weapons and huge resources of heavy armour, those Arabs with the desparation, and yes, more than the average courage and resourcefulness, struck back with only what was available to them, in what to us may seem an act of senseless terror, but to them was an act of war that has been going on for a very long time, only most often, raining down on them and their homes from the global reach of US forces.

Time to face up to the bullshit, and the myth of a US democracy that does not exist, expect in our propagandized and national chickenshit perceptions.

Look, as I said, I'm not oblivious to the rising tide of fascism. I'm just musing about the topic of swapping out Hussain for some other stooge. It's taken as an "of course" that the US should never depose/oppose foreign powers -- then we have to go through the list, Chile, Greece, Haiti, Iraq, Grenada, and so on.
The US is the swaggering bullyboy.

But! Rightly motivated or not, the US is the biggest kid in the playground. Should they always mind their own business? Would it never be right to intercede in cases of, say, famine or genocide?

Yes, yes, wait for the UN. (Crickets chirping.)

I'm not that happy about Pax Americana but there are some advantages. The scandals about prisoner treatment are at least getting play in the press and being greeted with outrage from some quarters (and indifference or even cheers from others, granted).

So, I dunno.

Yes, the people of Iraq are worse off today than they were under Iraq. Let's just 'fess up, fer fuck's sake. Which is not an argument in favour of Sadaam, but a simple recognition that what goes on day to day there now under US imperialist and their puppet regime control IS daily worse on the streets of Iraq.

Compared with what the foreign invader US Empire has brought down on them, they were living in a "relative" paradise before. At least Sadaam was one of their own, like Bush's lean and mean USA is at least their own, not imposed upon them by some foreign invader.

And I mean, for Chris'sake, what is so great about this Madison Ave./ Rich Man controlled democracy of the US anyway. Okay, so one gets to put an X on a ballot once every four years in a gerrymandered, dollar bought electoral system, and then live with the dictatorship that ensues, in daily political life and at work. And ehh, the "iron curtain" twixt themselves and Mexico, the poverty and disenfranchisement of vast numbers of its own citizens, Guantanamo, its poor man's, mostly black inmate penal system, a health care system that impoverishes vast numbers of them... Yeah, I'm really impressed with that democracy alright, as a model for the rest of the world to emulate.

Ehhh! It's morning. Wake up and smell the coffee.

And it is mostly the US, and to a moderately lesser degree the other major western powers, who keep the UN ineffectual-, unless it serves their interests and plays the role of "interference" it wants, refusing to sign on to its protocols that might actually help other parts of the world, like Africa, landmines, or even global fossil fuel gas emissions.

The state that has tied the hands of the UN more than ANY other, because it would interfere with its own bully boy and International Policeman role in the world, and raise questions perhaps about its global economic empire, is the good old USA, land of wealth controlled electoral outcomes and the home of the rain death down on helpless, impoverised countries. (It is mostly US global drug industry "patent interests" for example, that have largely left the UN and its agencies unable to respond effectively to AIDS in Africa. Which has left the world sit idling by while Africa withers and dies. It is a crime, along with others like Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, for which their leaders should be standing in the docket at the World Court. But they are mighty USA that no one dare raise a voice to demand or question.)

You are unimpressed and uncertain one way, where I am unimpressed quite another-, only a little more certain. :-)

And I don't dispute your good intentions, Ron. I know you are a good man. It's just that the road to Hell are paved with those same good intentions. :-)

Regards.

I have lost interest, beyond the morbidly curious interest generated by a high speed car wreck, in the doings in the good ole USofA.

The only thing that is entirely clear in the whole cocked up fiasco that the USA has become is that no meaningful intervention is possible.

Like a drunk on a 5 year bender, the US is going to have to hit bottom.

Broke, friends all gone, marriage dissolved, family won't communicate, house in ruins and so on and so on.

Soomer the better. Gonna hurt the neighbours too but it's the only way anything's going to change.

Coyote, I don't fail to see the terrorist aspect of the USA, not at all, or the benefit (and, I think, inevitability) of a world government that would hold even American leaders responsible for their actions.

However. I do a lot of reading about conditions in various countries. Have a look at the world democracy index put out by Transparency International.

The refugee-producing nations tend to fall onto the categories of failed dictatorship or Islamic theocracy. The western-model countries like the USA, the EU states, Mexico, etc. do have corruption and abuse-of-power problems, but overall are much better governed.

In the west, rule of law, separation of church and state, independent and effective judiciary, and free press work together to give meaning to the people's will, independent of every-four-years voting.

Clearly the USA needs to be monitored at all times and chastened as necessary. However, their institutions are not dire and bad for the world -- not at all. Their current leadership is scary and the internal opposition is somewhat pitiful. I'm just trying to put that in perspective.

Or, have been overly influenced by Christopher Hitchens.

" In the west, rule of law, separation of church and state, independent and effective judiciary, and free press work together to give meaning to the people's will, independent of every-four-years voting."

Ron, these traditions and institutions, which protect the citizenry, are being deliberately dismantled and eliminated. In the US as well as in British Columbia.

It is interesting that the senate vote over the filibuster, the only option for the democrats to prevent the unqualified, religious right judges, nominated by Bush, could come down to the courage of one man. Senator Spector (rep) in the US right now. Not unlike Chuck Cadman.

Even I would not dispute that life in this country or the US is not more highly evolved or preferable to the states you describe. We have been fortunate on many fronts, not the least that we secured a continent unabused to the degree we have, certainly, by its previous "native" occupiers, which has left us, by stealth, intrusion, deceit and force of arms in possession of a piece of real estate still rich in natural resources. And that this wealth base has allowed us to live within a more "secure" and "unchallenged regime", willing and able to tolerate at least the formal trappings of democracy, by and large, even in an iequitable distribution dominant "class" social system, that is still preferable to the more ancient parts of the world is indistputable.

That said, a significant aspect of the reason for the social backwardness, relatively, of many of these parts of the world you describe, is so for a long and complex history going back even before the Crusaders, of invasion, war, corruption and the propping up throughout the continuing long history of largely Western Colonialism, of puppet and dictatorial regimes, armed and enriched to maintain the interests of these foreign imperial states against uprisings and demands of their own people.

Indeed, even down to current events, Afghanistan under the Taliban, like Iraq under Sadamm, were long propped up, supplied militarily and otherwise assisted in maintaining their power, by US and western imperialism themselves. And they and their abuses of power against their own people were not viewed as a problem, until they began to act independantly of CIA directives and challenge US economic, political and hegemony interests, like earlier Noreiga in Panama, for further example.

And if you look behind the simple statistics you have demonstrated for me, for examle, many of those states and regimes, such as in current Pakistan, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, long in Indonesia, the Shah in Iran, much of the rest of the Middle East and Africa, even for a long time in South Africa, and even in dubious places like Turkey and current Georgia etc,, exist and maintain themselves with US arms, and US sponsored economic assistance, when necesary to maintain the strategic interests of the US's own global security network, and the enrichment of these dictatorial oligarchies for their services. Nor do they have a problem with that, however severe they are in the treatment of their own peoples, indeed they will be feted in Washington, so long as they allow, facilitate and help keep safe, the interests and exploitation of Global Corporate USA.

The main bulwark, in fact, against modern democratic development, social and economic modernization in these parts of the world is, much and overwhelmingly, the so called "Free" USA and that of the "democratic" West generally. Which is the real underlying "dynamic" element to 9-11 actually.

Western Colonialism continues to exist, if in a "modern" US dominant form, and while it advances and aggressively protects its own interests, is quite content to tolerate, even encourages these other dicratorial regimes, but only for so long as they remain THEIR dictators and serve THEIR interests. Otherwise, all of a sudden, they will develop this overwhelming concern and militarist preoccupation with DEMOCRACY and FREEDOM.

It is necessary to see behind the facades and smokescreens US Imperialism, and to a somewhat lesser degree, the rest of the "tag along" and Coat Holder West throws up to justify itself, and the real situations and explanations that exist behind the mere lifeless and self-serving statistical date and minutia.

Well, Ron, George Galloway did call Hitchens who belives mass murdering over 100,000 Iraqis will "prevent future assaults on civilization" as a "drink-soaked former Trotskyist popinjay". ( popinjay: a pretty boy parrot).

No doubt you have good intentions Ron, but the imperialist moves of the US are not in defense of freedom in any form but instead are a re-mapping of the world in its own interest eg. the pipeline through Afghanistan and Pakistan that Coyote alludes to. The railways of Canada now about to serve US interests, even rumour of them about to carry US cruise missiles along the rail line to and from Alaska.

You can see how we and the rest of the world are about to become arteries that will feed the parasitic greedy heart of America that demands more and more of the flow for itself.

With premiers like gordo who facilitate this process and a weak federal government that conveniently looks away, because it too, is smitten with the US, we are at real risk.

The real loss of freedom, the real loss of peace in this world, Galloway says brilliantly in a speech in 2003 on the so-called war on terrorism:

"Instead it seeks to impose authoritarian and deeply suspect laws to control dissent, freedom of movement and the right to free expression - the war is against the thinking political community, whether Muslim, socialist, libertarian, patriotic, radical or liberal.

These controls on liberty which have been put in place in a time of economic plenty can be used to disturbing effect in a time of economic scarcity.

But let me be clear about this, I condemn terrorism an instrument of policy.

But with this caveat that, for me, terrorism is the use of force, violence and subversion against civilians and political activists by whoever is wielding the weaponry. State terrorism, including illegal war, puts the terrorism of such organized ideological criminals as al-Qaida into context, as two sides of the same evil coin.

I will not condemn the just war of populations of occupied territories when they resist, in any way that they can, uninvited invaders on to their sovereign soil - the moral rights of the Sioux, the heroes of Warsaw and the Russian Partisan were and are inviolate in this respect. It is a right we have not had to invoke on our soil for some considerable time.

Arguments about bringing progress to benighted savages did not wash in the nineteenth century and they do not wash now."

I am fighting my own war with the wind today, trying to make a special birthday dinner and dessert for my son - yesterday the wind won, tree took down power lines, so the bonne fete was re-scheduled for today, power restored this morning, my oven is now humming and calling to me...a good long week-end to all...

Lynn:

Again, damned fine. I am always startled at the degree we share a view of the world.

And Redrivergirl: All absolutely good and relevant points.

Even our world is rapidly changing under the changing mandate the US has assumed for itself out of the events of 9-11. It is not only spinning increasingly fascist outward, but also inward. And we fail to see it and understand it, in my view, at our own peril.

Now, I too must get something real done today. Not that this is not without its reality, of course. :-) But tomorrow morning I must make more bread for the larder, so I really must do some other things today.

Always great chewing the fat with you folks. (Maybe I'll check in again this evening.)

I would like to think that NeoCon cabal of the current US administration has scared off our generation against conservativism forever, redrivergirl. I just don't see that reflected in the polls.

NEW MUST INVESTIGATE SITE:
\\
bloc-harper.com

I suspect that this is, in fact, what might be called a "Liberal front" site, but is interesting nonetheless, and not without its important element of truth.

Interesting. Thanks for this.

There is no doubt in my mind that Harper is all about the betrayal of this country to the US, and with The Bloc, encouraging the potential fracture lines that will facilitate that. The Bloc, of course, has its own distinct agenda here, but shares an "interest of convenience", along with these important " Quebec Sovereigntist" differences, with Harper. Yet each is useful to the other in the politics of the moment.

Which will pose a continuing threat to this Canadian State, until especially Anglo Canada faces up to the reality that we are a two nation State, a "confederation", not a singular "federal" state. (Look the difference up in an Oxford English Reference Dictionary, or some other really good dictionary.)

And until we get the significance of the difference, which WAS understood at our founding, we will continue to fall prey to the demagouges that would destroy "the union" that is the real Canada, if of two main parts.

Christopher Hitchens puzzles me. I have twice this year heard him say in TV interviews or panels that he believes Henry Kissinger should to be in jail over his and the Nixon administration's (with CIA help) support of Pinochet's coup over democratically elected Allende's gov't in Chile. Worse, the US continued to support Pinochet as he proceeded to torture and murder thousands of political opponents.
So how can Hitchens be so supportive of Bush's foreign policy, which I believe stems from a similar motivation as Kissinger's? It's likely that more innocent Iraqis have been killed due to the US invasion than were killed by Pinochet in Chile. As for torture and murder,new stories keep emerging of prisoner abuse by the US military in Afghanistan and Iraq, incidents that make Abu Graib pale in comparison.
Note to redrivergirl:
About CKNW: I actually hardly ever listen! But like you I did listen more during election time. They do have some worthwhile political coverage.
I'd like to hear Vaughn Palmer, if he's still on Fri. mornings, but usually I miss it (I do usually get to watch his Wed. Shaw TV show).
A few of the CKNW personalities I find obnoxious, particularly Peter Warren. I can't stomach his rude, abrupt style! But he's no extremist politically, and he's a cuddly pussycat compared to some of the bullying "hate jocks" in the States such as Bill O'Reilly. Now that's OBNOXIOUS! I was so glad to see that stat you posted that Fox News' ratings are down 60%. That is so encouraging!

Coyote

bloc-harper came from an interview with Sinclair Stevens on the Peter Warren show - I can't stand Warren but listen to him to see what the enemy is up to but he surprised me with this interview which was a strong message warning the public about the danger of a Harper message.
He usually tries to condition the minds of listeners to accept Harpers policies e.g. asking about elected senate and elected judge - the things that were warned about in the Walrus article called THE MAN BEHIND STEPHEN HARPER that was a list of stumbling blocks to get rid of such as rule of law and many other things that would enable a smooth transition into the U.S. Do away with Charter of Rights, Aboriginal land claims, the Monarchy which links us to our European history and on and on.

Got myself sidetracked - back to CKNW interview with
Sinclair Stevens he also had David Orchard on, of course these were both totally against Harper. I tracked David Orchard at david orchard.com

But I was thinking - what the heck is Warren up to having these guys on his show? He's always got a motive and spin to achieve some manipulation of the mind for his regular listeners as he calls them and sneering calls Canadians sheep and after reading some of the posts from the idiots who follow him I can see why he says that. His adoring fans are so dumb they don't even know he means THEM. Anyway I think maybe his little plot today to undermine Harper was probably because they realize they will never win with Harper so he'll work on getting rid of him maybe. McKay is a loser too - who would ever trust him after his blatant betrayal of Orchard on TV in front of the whole country. Not on only the back stabbing but the colossal lack of judgement to think the public would ever forget such an act by someone pursuing an ambitious career in politics and his stupid crack about "dogs are loyal" what a joke!

I heard Mckay actually say that on the radio yesterday, and was stunned with disbelief. After which I've been chuckling everytime I think of it.

I'm just surprised it took Belinda so long to see through the goof.

I think it is because, it is simply easier to be objective about the past than the present. Now, for example, Even McNamara, whose watch as US Sec. of Defence during the Vietnam War, is able to see that what the US did in Vietnam was "morally" wrong.

It is easier to step back from the past than the present, is my sense of it.

Loved Errol's doc "The Fog of War", Coyote. Thanks for reminding me about that great interview.

Read somewhere that Hitchens recanted, saying he miscalculated about Bush and the Iraqi Invasion. Not sure where or if it's true ...

The Conservatives are in trouble as there is no short list of people who could replace Harper as leader. All the people mentioned, Mike Harris, Peter McKay, Ralph Klein all have bagage which will make them un-electable. There is no depth in the party.

so incredible to see the lefties hailing the billionaire darling belinda stronach as the new heroine of socialism. what a bunch of bloody hypocrites! what do you suppose was in it for her besides a cabinet position and instant accolades? have you thought about the perks to be awarded by brother paul to magna internatonal? ah yes, playing judas will be well worth it for the little blonde dipstick, even if her political career fall down go boom.

Stronach's not fooling many people, sirj. If she had any real integrity she would have sat as an independent. Just because she's a woman doesn't mean I have to support her. She stands for nothing I believe in... no hero to me. Shirley Douglas I would vote for.

The whole lot of them, Liberals and Conservatives alike are like hockey players skating on thin ice... representing the two dirtiest teams in the league. Stronach effectively tripped Harper as he was about to go for the goal. Good for us. Let them have at it...the ice is cracking more and more beneath their feet.

Although I agree with the post above that the Gomery inquiry demonstrates that we have a relatively fair degree of openess and accountability in our political system, it's hard to be too happy about the state of politics in Canada (it's a little like arguing the murder was good because it gave us a chance to see our fine legal system in action). We have one major party whose sole purpose is the obstruction of federal government and the dissolution of confederation, another that's been running a mob-style kickback scheme in Quebec, and a third that's so inept and out of touch with Canadian political reality that it can't capitalize on the situation. It seems that the political ineptitude of the two leaders have cancelled each other out and as a result the country dodged a bullet. Imagine how the campaign would have been run and what it would have done to the country.

Conservatives: "the government is corrupt, see what all the appeasement of Quebec leads to...."

Liberals: "can you honestly vote for a traitor? Someone who would side with separatists to bring down the government of Canada?"

Bloc: "see how the rest of the country views us? Traitors, corruption, leaches? It's time to leave."

Given that Bush has been described as a bold, decisive, visionary; a true war president, maybe the recent experience of our two countries indicates that it's better to have bumblers at the controls.

Paul Abbott, I think you make an excellent point about ethical relativism. I think I'll back off a bit.