Monday, January 31, 2011

Is Prime Minister Harpo Nothing More Than a Drug Pusher?

More Clean Energy Jobs Coming To Toronto

I wonder... Since Prime Minister Harpo and Minister's Kent and Baird are so committed to capitalizing on society's addiction to oil that they will support the production of Alberta's filthy, unethical oil at the expense of the environment and Canadian lives (not to mention the risk of economic Armageddon when the bottom finally falls out of the market), does that make them tantamount to drug dealers? Are they the equivalent of the Opium farmer's in Afghanistan? The drug lords of Columbia? Or is a comparison with the big tobacco companies more accurate (which is nothing more than legalized drug dealing anyway)?

The Hypocrisy of Harper's Democracy

It was quite interesting to watch Prime Minister Harper's reaction to the Egyptian crisis when he landed in Morocco. He dithered something in quite decisive tones about "Democracy". It was plain though that he had no pat answer to this topic, the boys at the PMO were snuggled as safely as little bugs in a rug back in Ottawa while Reverend Stephen appeared rather uncomfortable with how close he was physically to the chain reaction of unrest that is now spreading through Northern Africa.

Harper had business in Morocco and he seemed eager to get on with it an out. As a result of his hastily concluded business trip, we now have a free trade agreement with Morocco. Morocco will get all the usual stuff Canada has to offer, wheat, corn, barley, and probably a few Canadian specialities such as asbestos and a couple of barrels of filthy unethical Canadian oil. And Canada gets..... um..... well lets just say the price of Hash-pipes is about to go through the roof.

But once safely back in Canada, Harper had his flunky, Lawrence Canon, the Minister of Foreign Affairs (Or is that Minister of Foreign "Eclairs"? No, on second thought. Larry is probably a "do-nut and double-double" kind of guy, Eclairs being far too limp wristed for his liking.... "God damn it I bit into one of those faggoty pieces of crap and the son of a bitch spewed in my mouth...god damn faggoty French pastry"!) make a formal announcement on the Éclair...er affair.

In his statement Harper....er....Larry said “Canada calls on all parties to remain calm and to continue to respect freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. We call on the Government of Egypt to ensure that freedom of expression is respected..."

I wonder if Hosni Mubarak issued a similar statement to Canada during the G20 unrest when thousands of innocent Canadian Citizens were beaten, brutalized terrorized and arrested with out cause. The same G20 that saw journalists detained, police cars set on fire, civil liberties suspended including the right to peaceful protest and saw visitors to Toronto staying at a youth hostel awoken by the punishing toe in the gut from jack-booted, baton wielding special-forces types. 


It would have been sweet irony for sure. But in light of our own Governments "Iron-Fisted" approach to civil unrest, even when there really wasn't any to start with, it is indeed hypocritical of the Harper regime....er ...government to be pointing fingers and screaming for democracy and rule of law from another country. Talk about people living in Glass Houses throwing stones..... What hypocrisy!

Saturday, January 22, 2011

Peter Mansbridge interviews Stephen Harper

I've been ill so it's taken me a while to get around to viewing this two part interview between Mansbridge and Harper.So most of this will already be old news for most of you. But for those of you who missed the interview and "oh so wish" they had a link to it, just follow the yellow brick road above. I however, just couldn't "not" put in my two cents worth  on the subject. But I shall try not to be a "plot killer" here either.


Ok, for starters, the entire interview, beginning to end, roughly 35 minutes, Harper had his typical "smarmy" grin on his face. ("Note to PR people at PMO, fix the grin, he's scaring the children"). 


I've read a thing or two about the body language during the interview. Yes, Mansbridge is leaning forward the entire time, presenting his best "I'm really interested in what you have to say" news man posture. But for some strange reason, Harper though it would be good tactics to assume the same posture. As a result, for the entire length of the interview, Harper looked like he had to fart. I kept waiting for Mansbridge to say: "excuse me Mr. Prime Minister, but did you just "fluff" on my favourite chair"? But Mr. Mansbridge, being the consummate professional, never once batted an eye nor wrinkled his nose to indicate anything was amiss. 


So given Harper's grin and his constipated-like posture, this was visually a tough bit of TV to watch. But in terms of actual content, there was really very little that came out of the Prime Minister's mouth that anyone would find surprising. Yes he did drop a bit of a bomb saying that he personally felt that there were times when "Capitol Punishment" is warranted. And many have uttered a gasp of astonishment at this bit "electioneering" even though Harper said he had no intentions of bringing about legislation to bring back the death penalty should he gain a majority in the next election. 


It should be no surprise what-so-ever to anyone who has observed Harper in the least, that he would be in favour of the Death Penalty.  He's very much an "eye for an eye" kind of guy. So allowing state sanctioned murder would be very much in keeping with his personality. But as far as not introducing legislation to bring the death penalty back, don't count on it! Most politicians aren't particularly good at keeping their promises. They make grandiose claims about what they will do when they get into office, and once they get there, they find out that there is no way in Hector that they will be able to do what they've said. But Mr. Harper has taken this to an entirely new level. 

But I guess when you combine all the things that Harper hasn't done that he said he would do and all the things he's done that he said he wouldn't do, I guess his record for not doing what he says balances out in a rather bizarre way. I think the message here though folks is, that we should take everything Harper says with a grain of salt and be surprised by nothing. After the 2008 Parliamentary crisis, who'd have thought Harper would ever talk about killing tax subsidies for the opposition parties again, yet there he is, tossing it out as election bait.  


But I'm calling it here folks; if Harper wins the next election, look for the Death Penalty to become an issue. And he doesn't need a majority in the House of Commons to do it. He owns the Senate. So even if he has to build the scaffold with his bare hands and tie the noose himself, Harper will have himself a hanging.  


But fortunately for Mr. Harper, he already has a "point man" on this issue, Julie Fantino. So look for him to take the heat for Harper as the debate rages. And when it comes time to pull the leaver on the trap door, Fantino will be the one wearing the black hood. (another note to PR folks at PMO, please ensure Fantino does not do a "River Dance" on the scaffold or yank the trap-door leaver back and forth repeatedly under the feet of the prisoner while giggling maniacally and screaming "psych"! These gestures presents as bad optics and can easily be misinterpreted). 


One comment from the P.M. that did catch me a little off guard during the interview though, was that he considers his government to be "centre right". And Mansbridge didn't even flinch at it's utterance. Mind you, he was poking at Harper with a pointed stick here, asking him how he would respond to critics who said "his government wasn't even Conservative". Naturally, I assumed "not even Conservative" to have meant far and distant right wing. I had no Idea Mansbridge might actually have been accusing Harper of going Liberal. 

Centre right! I was aghast of course. Just to recap for a second here on Harpernomics: -Autocratic rule, does not talk to the press, has gained absolute control of the Senate thereby circumventing the entire democratic process, has killed any and all efforts to make the Tar Sands more environmentally responsible, has killed any and all efforts to effect any kind of change in greenhouse gas emissions in Canada, Has basically made Alberta Oil more important than the rest of the country, Has unabashedly taken the stance that Israel can do no wrong, has offended and alienated major trade partners, has refused to provide aid to impoverished countries who may use the money to fund abortions, is "getting tough" on immigrants as in new citizenship exam has 80% failure rate, hates gays and probably thinks AIDS is all their fault and deserve to die slow painful deaths, ...... Geeze Louise and this is only just a short list. 


So based on this short list, it's plain to see that Harper is in no danger what-so-ever of even coming within sight of the Centre line. In fact, The Right Reverend Harper's ideological agenda is so far off into right field as to require a category unto itself (The right wing extremists were complaining that Harper was giving them a bad name). Suitable names already exist of course, one simply has to take a look at 20th Century History to find an applicable moniker or two. 


But getting back to the interview, I felt that Mansbridge actually took it pretty easy on The P.M. The most challenging query put to his Holiness was how he would rate himself after five years in power. Might as well have asked him: "if you could be be any kind of vegetable, what what you be"? I was hoping that Mr. Mansbridge would ask for Harpers response to the allegation that he is in fact, the Anti-Christ?

Mind you, I'm probably the only one who makes that allegation........or AM I?






Sunday, January 16, 2011

Voter Beware

  North Shore News January 14, 2011
As part of his bid for re-election, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has vowed to dismantle what may be the most progressive, democratic campaign finance laws in the world.
Harper made the pledge Thursday, saying he would make the elimination of taxpayer subsidies to federal political parties a priority. On its surface, it doesn't sound like a bad plan. Who wants their tax dollars to help politicians advertise?
In reality, it's a terrible idea.
Canada's election finance rules exist to protect Canadians. Candidates and parties have strict limits on how much they can spend; individuals have low caps on what they can give (slightly more than $1,000) and unions and corporations can't donate at all.
The largest single source of funding for candidates is the subsidy, defined as $1.75 (or thereabouts) per year for each vote their party won in the previous election.
The effect is that candidates are served better by pleasing voters than by pleasing private interests. Taking $1.75 out of each voter's tax bill to ensure the balance is spent for our benefit is, on the whole, a pretty good deal.
Harper wants to undo this, and it's obvious why. Reverting to a reliance on private donors is clearly most helpful to parties who serve the interests of wealthy individuals and organizations. The Tories certainly fit that description.
Harper's plan has nothing to do with fairness to taxpayers and everything to do with giving his party an edge. It should be rejected.
© Copyright (c) North Shore News

Sunday, January 9, 2011

Kent shrugs off Science in Favour of Levent Rhetoric.


So as per the article by Ms. Payton above, the federal Government, in particular the new Environment Minister Peter Kent, is not only thumbing it's/his nose at the concept of the Oil Sands polluting the Athabasca River, They/he is claiming the research is wrong, even though the research was published in an accredited peer reviewed journal.

Previous Environment Minister Jim Prentice was convinced enough to form a panel of experts to look at the harm being caused to the Athabasca. In fact, he was so convinced, he informed the U.S. ambassador informally that he planned on implementing tougher environmental limits on the Oil Sands. But of course, Prentice suddenly announced his retirement from Federal Politics out of the blue, before anything was implemented. His only rationale for leaving public life being "it was time".

So not only is Mr. Kent saying the scientists are wrong (which in itself is mind boggling. I wonder where or when the Ex. Journalist obtained his doctorate in Environmental Sciences) but his predecessor and colleague was also wrong.

But leave us not forget that all New-Conservative Cabinet Ministers are nothing more than Stephen Harper's hand-puppets. Their words are his words and heaven help anyone who deviates from the script. And obviously, Mr. Kent has quite a bit of experience reading from a tele-prompter.

So "science be damned". The Harper Government has decided to form it's policies and talking points based on the very un-scientific ramblings of Ezra Levant, former aid to Stockwell Day, columnist and TV anchor of the fledgling Fox news No.... I mean Sun TV cable station. Mr. Levant also happens to be the author of the book "Ethical Oil" which has recently become Mr. Kent's motto when discussing the Oil Sands.

So as was predicted by many Ottawa observers, Kent is not a better steward of the Environment, he's just a better salesman for the Oil Sands. And we inch ever closer to Jim Flaherty's prediction that Canada will become an energy "super power". A dirty, filthy, world killing, unethical Super Power.

Friday, January 7, 2011

Harper’s embrace of ‘ethical’ oil sands ignites new arguments about our own "dirty oil"


“By hearing Minister Kent use that phrase (ehtical oil), and pound the pulpit around it, it does sound like Ezra Levant is writing media lines for the Minister.”

Mr. Whittingham (Of the Pembina Institute) accused the Harper government of embracing the ethical-oil argument to shift attention away from its own failings in the oil sands. A report by scientists at Canada’s Royal Society last month painted Ottawa as an absentee oil-sands overseer and lamented Alberta's weak regulatory system, adding both governments' efforts haven't “kept pace” with development.

Sierra Club of Canada executive director John Bennett said Canada should focus on improving its own record rather than attacking other countries. “The fact that the Saudis or Nigerians or others are worse in human rights and environment is not relevant. We can’t do anything about that; we can deal with our oil sands and we are not.”
Ed Whittingham of the Pembina Institute

What you don’t know about a deal you haven’t heard of - The Globe and Mail


One of the most horrendous examples yet of Harper promoting the Alberta Oil Sands at the expense of the environment. In fact, this deal will "punish" future governments for trying to protect the environment at the expense of this pact.

It also makes it increasingly difficult to place limits on the green house gas emissions from the Oil Sands and gives Europe unprecedented access to precious natural resources.

In addition, it also exposes delicate ecosystems to European mining in the north and once again, sticks it to First Nations people inhabiting those lands.

And the Harper Government refuses to talk about it!

Wednesday, January 5, 2011

Ten reasons to oppose the Harper candidate in your riding | rabble.ca


Holy cow! And I thought I had the goods on the Evangelical Reformist Harper. This woman is phenomenal. And she lists far more than 10 reasons too by the way. Please read her article.

Harper chooses fresh spokesman for environment portfolio


For a long time, the Harper Government has been justifying it's "do nothing" approach regarding the environment, claiming that they must "wait and see what the Americans will do".

Well the Americans, (President Obama and the EPA that is, heaven forbid a Republican should give a damn about what kind of planet our children will inherit) are now moving toward tougher new limits on green house gas emissions. So now it's time for The Reverend Harper, Protector of the Oil Sands to put his money where his mouth is, is it not?

Don't count on it. He's already making noises about "staying the course", thanks to his American cousins, the "publicans" claiming they will use their Senate majority to cut off funding to the EPA if it dares to impose strict new environmental regulations. So instead of following through with what he has claimed his policy will be, Harper is reneging on yet another promise. It appears that the Reverend's promises have about as much value as a Canadian Penny.

So with Tuesday's cabinet shuffle, it seems Harper's environmental strategy, at least in the short term, has become clear. With Peter Kent being selected as the new Conservative hand-puppet for that embattled ministry, it appears that the plan is not to have a better, more qualified Minister take the helm, just a better spokesperson.

The Financial Post trumpeted this move as a great day for the Conservative cause, claiming that as a previous newsman, Kent is calm under fire from the media and chooses his words carefully. All of which is likely true, but does this qualify him as a better steward of the environment, or just a better Tory Talking Head?  My vote is with the latter.

So don't look for any new break through on the environmental front. In fact look for a whole lot more of the same. But with a more savvy pitch-man handling the heat, look for a slicker and more empty justification for The Reverend's Criminal actions regarding the Environment.

Saturday, January 1, 2011