It's a great visual representation as to why this guy would make a terrible Prime Minister.
H/T Kady
Monday, July 13, 2009
Retro-Harper
"You know, there's two schools in economics on this, one is that there are some good taxes and the other is that no taxes are good taxes. I'm in the latter category. I don't believe any taxes are good taxes." -- Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
Now that's the Stephen Harper I once knew!
It's making me all nostalgic.
Now that's the Stephen Harper I once knew!
It's making me all nostalgic.
Order of What?
The following people have been awarded the Order of Merit:
Albert Schweitzer, Mother Teresa, Nelson Mandela and Jean Chretien.
It reminds me of that old Sesame Street game: Which one of these things just doesn't belong.
Albert Schweitzer, Mother Teresa, Nelson Mandela and Jean Chretien.
It reminds me of that old Sesame Street game: Which one of these things just doesn't belong.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Harper channels Layton
Here's Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper at a G 8 news conference denouncing "unregulated capitalism."
Unregulated capitalism?
What country in the world has unregulated capitalism? Let me know and I'll move there.
Oh and besides demonizing capitalism, Harper also endorses the idea of "global governance."
So I guess he wants bureaucrats in Europe setting Canada's fiscal policies.
Isn't that just the kind of lefty internationalist stance you would expect from "cosmopolitan", "just visiting", non-true Canadian Michael Ignatieff?
I bet the guy who advised Harper to give that answer is the same guy who advised him on Catholic protocol.
H/T Kalim
Saturday, July 11, 2009
How to deal with the media
Every time the Canadian media catches the Conservative Party in some embarrassing situation, Tory loyalists immediately lament the biased nature of political journalism
It’s a familiar chorus: “The media hates us”; “They want to make us look bad”; “Why can’t reporters focus on important issues such as does Michael Ignatieff know all the words to O Canada.”
But what’s the point of complaining? The media is what it is. Reporters will always want to take shots at politicians (especially conservative politicians).
So deal with it.
And one strategy for dealing with a hostile media is really, really simple-- Stop giving reporters free ammunition.
In other words, the Conservatives should stop making it so easy for the media to cast the party in a bad light.
That means when the Prime Minister is taking part in an unfamiliar religious ritual, brief him beforehand on the proper protocol; that means when dealing with a controversial issue such as funding the Gay Pride Parade, have a consistent clear message; that means when you are to appear at a G-8 photo op, show up on time; that means doing simple things like checking your facts before attacking a political opponent.
It's called “professionalism.”
It’s a familiar chorus: “The media hates us”; “They want to make us look bad”; “Why can’t reporters focus on important issues such as does Michael Ignatieff know all the words to O Canada.”
But what’s the point of complaining? The media is what it is. Reporters will always want to take shots at politicians (especially conservative politicians).
So deal with it.
And one strategy for dealing with a hostile media is really, really simple-- Stop giving reporters free ammunition.
In other words, the Conservatives should stop making it so easy for the media to cast the party in a bad light.
That means when the Prime Minister is taking part in an unfamiliar religious ritual, brief him beforehand on the proper protocol; that means when dealing with a controversial issue such as funding the Gay Pride Parade, have a consistent clear message; that means when you are to appear at a G-8 photo op, show up on time; that means doing simple things like checking your facts before attacking a political opponent.
It's called “professionalism.”
Friday, July 10, 2009
Communication follies
Besides lacking a consistent ideological vision, the biggest problem with the Harper government is the general amateurishness of its communication efforts.
I have written about the PMO's communication mistakes in the past.
But this one is unbelievable.
I have written about the PMO's communication mistakes in the past.
But this one is unbelievable.
Thursday, July 09, 2009
Ablonczy sacrificed on altar of political expediency
Yesterday I mused about the puzzling nature of the scandal involving Conservative MP Diane Ablonczy and the funding for the Gay Pride Parade.
Well, after reading stuff like Monte Solberg’s blog and this report, the picture as to what really happened has become clearer – and it is not pretty.
It seems that for some inexplicable reason, the PMO was caught off guard when the Conservative Party’s social conservative base reacted angrily to news that the Pride Parade was receiving $400,000 in funding.
Such a reaction should have been expected.
At any rate, when faced with this negative reaction the Prime Minister should have taken one of two courses.
He should have either a) publicly defended doling out the money and explained to so-cons why he did so, or b) publicly apologized for making a mistake and promising so-cons it would not happen again.
But, of course, he did neither.
Instead, the PMO, in a back door sneaky kind of way, implied the grant was all Ablonczy’s fault. (This by the way seems incredible given the iron-fisted control the PMO exercies over messaging.)
This may have saved the Prime Minister's skin, but in the process Ablonczy, one of Parliament’s hardest working, most loyal MPs and one of the original Reformers to boot, was callously thrown to the wolves.
That just stinks.
Well, after reading stuff like Monte Solberg’s blog and this report, the picture as to what really happened has become clearer – and it is not pretty.
It seems that for some inexplicable reason, the PMO was caught off guard when the Conservative Party’s social conservative base reacted angrily to news that the Pride Parade was receiving $400,000 in funding.
Such a reaction should have been expected.
At any rate, when faced with this negative reaction the Prime Minister should have taken one of two courses.
He should have either a) publicly defended doling out the money and explained to so-cons why he did so, or b) publicly apologized for making a mistake and promising so-cons it would not happen again.
But, of course, he did neither.
Instead, the PMO, in a back door sneaky kind of way, implied the grant was all Ablonczy’s fault. (This by the way seems incredible given the iron-fisted control the PMO exercies over messaging.)
This may have saved the Prime Minister's skin, but in the process Ablonczy, one of Parliament’s hardest working, most loyal MPs and one of the original Reformers to boot, was callously thrown to the wolves.
That just stinks.
Catholic Controversy
If nothing else the mini-scandal on whether or not Prime Minister Harper consumed the Eucharist is giving the Catholic Church and its rituals lots of publicity.
Anyway, my friend Paul Tuns, who is a far better Catholic than I will ever be, weighs in on this issue.
Writes Tuns: "The real scandal ... is the Catholic Church's. My problem is not so much what Harper did or may have done once he was given the Eucharist but rather that he was given the Eucharist. While I am not happy that the Prime Minister or his staff was unaware of the rules of the Catholic Church, I am critical of the fact the bishop provided him the Host in the first place."
Read the rest here.
Anyway, my friend Paul Tuns, who is a far better Catholic than I will ever be, weighs in on this issue.
Writes Tuns: "The real scandal ... is the Catholic Church's. My problem is not so much what Harper did or may have done once he was given the Eucharist but rather that he was given the Eucharist. While I am not happy that the Prime Minister or his staff was unaware of the rules of the Catholic Church, I am critical of the fact the bishop provided him the Host in the first place."
Read the rest here.
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
An even curiouser little scandal
Lots of people are making a big deal out of the fact that Prime Minister Stephen Harper didn't consume a host while attending a Catholic mass. (The PMO insists he did eat the host.)
As a Roman Catholic (at least nominally) I take absolutely no offence at Harper's action. I mean, who cares?
This isn't the Middle Ages, the Pope isn't going to excommunicate anybody over this.
But still, what nags at me is this: Why the heck didn't the Prime Minister eat the bloody host!? Yes, I know, he's not a Catholic, but as far as I know the host is not poisonous to non-Catholics.
Did he want to save it for later, so he could add a touch of mustard to it?
Curious.
As a Roman Catholic (at least nominally) I take absolutely no offence at Harper's action. I mean, who cares?
This isn't the Middle Ages, the Pope isn't going to excommunicate anybody over this.
But still, what nags at me is this: Why the heck didn't the Prime Minister eat the bloody host!? Yes, I know, he's not a Catholic, but as far as I know the host is not poisonous to non-Catholics.
Did he want to save it for later, so he could add a touch of mustard to it?
Curious.
Curious little scandal
This whole business of the PMO supposedly punishing Diane Ablonczy for dishing out a $400,000 grant to help fund Toronto’s Gay Pride parade is really puzzling.
Conservative MP Brad Trost recently implied that Ablonczy offered the grant without clearing it with higher ups in the party.
That doesn’t ring true.
Given that Ablonczy is one of party’s smartest and most capable MPs, it just doesn’t seem likely she would “go rogue.”
Nor does it seem logical that Ablonczy, as Trost suggests, is being “punished” to appease angry social conservatives.
If that was the case why keep it secret?
I mean if your going to make an example out of somebody don’t you have make sure everybody knows what you are doing and why you are doing it?
Plus why was it so hard for the media to get a straight answer from the party as to whether or not Alboncy had lost responsibility for overseeing a government file?
Like I said, it’s puzzling.
The only thing for certain is that this whole thing is a PR disaster for the Tories.
Seems to me, they offered this grant as a way of pandering to gay voters, a move which they should have realized would have set off their so-con base.
But now they have not only alienated the so-cons, but whatever goodwill the grant generated with the gay community (which admittedly was probably not a lot) has vanished.
In fact, the media is spinning the story to make the Tories look more homophobic than ever – which will make it difficult for the party to make inroads in urban Ontario.
Better for the party (and for taxpayers) had they not given the grant in the first place.
Just as they should not have given a grant to an Ottawa Jazz festival, or to a Quebec balloon festival or to a potato research centre.
Conservative MP Brad Trost recently implied that Ablonczy offered the grant without clearing it with higher ups in the party.
That doesn’t ring true.
Given that Ablonczy is one of party’s smartest and most capable MPs, it just doesn’t seem likely she would “go rogue.”
Nor does it seem logical that Ablonczy, as Trost suggests, is being “punished” to appease angry social conservatives.
If that was the case why keep it secret?
I mean if your going to make an example out of somebody don’t you have make sure everybody knows what you are doing and why you are doing it?
Plus why was it so hard for the media to get a straight answer from the party as to whether or not Alboncy had lost responsibility for overseeing a government file?
Like I said, it’s puzzling.
The only thing for certain is that this whole thing is a PR disaster for the Tories.
Seems to me, they offered this grant as a way of pandering to gay voters, a move which they should have realized would have set off their so-con base.
But now they have not only alienated the so-cons, but whatever goodwill the grant generated with the gay community (which admittedly was probably not a lot) has vanished.
In fact, the media is spinning the story to make the Tories look more homophobic than ever – which will make it difficult for the party to make inroads in urban Ontario.
Better for the party (and for taxpayers) had they not given the grant in the first place.
Just as they should not have given a grant to an Ottawa Jazz festival, or to a Quebec balloon festival or to a potato research centre.
Free market propaganda machine
My column in yesterday's Toronto Sun condemning big government led a certain Rich Murri to write the following letter to the editor:
Re "Bailout bozos" (Gerry Nicholls, July 7): Isn't the writer a close adviser to Stephen Harper? Is he not from the far right wing of the National Citizen's Coalition, a right-wing, anti-union, anti-regulation, free-market propaganda machine? Shouldn't these so-called columns be called by their real name: right-wing political advertising?
It's been a long time since a left-winger attacked me like that -- feels good.
Re "Bailout bozos" (Gerry Nicholls, July 7): Isn't the writer a close adviser to Stephen Harper? Is he not from the far right wing of the National Citizen's Coalition, a right-wing, anti-union, anti-regulation, free-market propaganda machine? Shouldn't these so-called columns be called by their real name: right-wing political advertising?
It's been a long time since a left-winger attacked me like that -- feels good.
Beware the intellectuals
After reading National Post columnist Robert Fulford's obituary on "wiz kid" Robert McNamara, I starting thinking about intellectuals and politics.
This pondering led to the following letter to the editor which appears in today's Post:
Re: The Smartest Guy In The Room, Robert Fulford, July 7.
This column is a timely reminder that a university diploma isn't everything.
As Robert Fulford notes, Robert McNamara may have been a highly educated intellect, but his policies gave us the disaster that was the Vietnam War.
The lesson: Sometimes great intellectuals just don't make great leaders.
That's something Canadians might want to remember when judging the merits of a certain ex-Harvard professor now leading the federal Liberals.
This pondering led to the following letter to the editor which appears in today's Post:
Re: The Smartest Guy In The Room, Robert Fulford, July 7.
This column is a timely reminder that a university diploma isn't everything.
As Robert Fulford notes, Robert McNamara may have been a highly educated intellect, but his policies gave us the disaster that was the Vietnam War.
The lesson: Sometimes great intellectuals just don't make great leaders.
That's something Canadians might want to remember when judging the merits of a certain ex-Harvard professor now leading the federal Liberals.
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
Liberty Summer Fun
Just a reminder -- time is running out to register for the Liberty Summer Seminar.
Trust me, for freedom lovers this is the must-attend event of the summer.
Just check out this aerial view of where the Seminar takes place.
Trust me, for freedom lovers this is the must-attend event of the summer.
Just check out this aerial view of where the Seminar takes place.
Big government not the answer
Check out my latest column which appears in today's Sun media chain.
It examines the government-spending mania that's taking place on both sides of the border.
It examines the government-spending mania that's taking place on both sides of the border.
Monday, July 06, 2009
Setting Kinsella straight
In a recent Ottawa Hill Times column Liberal strategist Warren Kinsella implied Prime Minister Stephen Harper was a "lobbyist" during his time at the National Citizens Coalition.
I wrote this letter to the editor to set the record straight, which appears in this week's edition.
I wrote this letter to the editor to set the record straight, which appears in this week's edition.
Saturday, July 04, 2009
Star gets it wrong
A couple of days ago, James Travers of the Toronto Star wrote a column suggesting the Ontario Progressive Conservatives had erred in selecting a conservative like Tim Hudak to lead them.
The Tories were looking backward said Travers.
I wrote a letter to the editor to set the record straight. It was published today:
"Star columnist Jim Travers has got it all wrong.
Leftists, not conservatives, are the ones nostalgic for the past.
It's leftists who are eagerly embracing and promoting the failed socialist policies of the 1960s and '70s – bigger government, massive deficits and industrial planning.
Clearly, they have forgotten how such policies led to only thing: economic stagnation.
That's why we need conservative leaders who will stick by their principles.
Somebody has to be there to pick up the pieces."
The Tories were looking backward said Travers.
I wrote a letter to the editor to set the record straight. It was published today:
"Star columnist Jim Travers has got it all wrong.
Leftists, not conservatives, are the ones nostalgic for the past.
It's leftists who are eagerly embracing and promoting the failed socialist policies of the 1960s and '70s – bigger government, massive deficits and industrial planning.
Clearly, they have forgotten how such policies led to only thing: economic stagnation.
That's why we need conservative leaders who will stick by their principles.
Somebody has to be there to pick up the pieces."
Friday, July 03, 2009
Gag law hypocrisy
There are two things I really despise: election gag laws and hypocrisy.
It would be the fair thing to do.
And the two usually go together.
For those not familiar with the term "gag law", that's what I call federal election legislation which imposes severe restrictions how much money citizens or groups can spend on "political advertising" during elections.
During my time at the National Citizens Coalition, I battled these laws in both the court of law and in the court of public opinion.
I believed then, and still believe now, that gag laws infringe on every Canadian's right to free expression.
Yet one of the pro-gag law arguments I kept coming up against was the following: "It's only fair to deny Canadian citizens the right to free political speech. After all, political parties face expenditure limits. Gag laws level the playing field."
In other words, gag law defenders -- usually politicians -- see spending money as an evil influence on our democratic process. That's why both citizens and politicians need limits as to how much they can spend to express opinions.
And this is where the hypocrisy comes in. 
The fact is politicians routinely spend money without any limit to buy votes. What's worse is they don't even spend their own money. They spend our money.
Case in point, is the flagrant way in which the Conservative Party is making political hay out of all that stimulus spending from their recent budget.
As a story in the Toronto Star notes, the Tories are handing out "huge blue cheques emblazoned with the maple leaf logo of the Canadian government, the signature of a benevolent MP and, in some cases, Conservative sloganeering."
If that's not buying votes, I don't know what is. And believe me, the amount of money the Tories will spend this summer on this stuff will dwarf anything citizens or groups would ever spend on election advertising.
So maybe our politicians should either repeal the gag law or refrain from using our taxes for their political propaganda ploys.
It would be the fair thing to do.
Thursday, July 02, 2009
Friedman Defending Capitalism
This clip from the Phil Donahue may be ancient but it's still relevant.
H/T Rolph
H/T Rolph
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
Founding debates
This being Canada Day and all I thought it would be appropriate to mention that I am currently reading Canada's Founding Debates, a book edited by my friend William Gairdner.
This book provides a fascinating glimpse at some of the debates over the pros and cons of Confederation which took place in the parliaments and assemblies of British North America from 1864 to 1873.
It's a wonderful intellectual history of the ideas which were to shape Canada in its early days.
What struck me immediately was how our elected representatives at that time employed sophisticated rhetoric and reasoning to support their cases. It's a sad contrast to the juvenile sound bites and taunts which pass for "debate" these days in our legislatures.
And leftists might be surprised to learn that nobody in the founding debates mentioned anything about socialized medicine, peace keeping or the CBC.
Rather the legislators talked about concepts such as "liberty". Liberty, now there's a word you don't hear much mentioned in the House of Commons anymore.
Here's what Richard Cartwright, a legislator from what was later called Ontario, declared in 1865:
"I think that every true reformer, every real friend of liberty, will agree with me in saying that if we must erect safeguards, they should be rather for the security of the individual than of the mass, and that our chiefest care must be to train the majority to respect the rights of the minority, to prevent claims of the few from being trampled under foot by the caprice or passion of the many. For myself, sir, I own frankly I prefer British liberty to American equality."
Bet this isn't reproduced in many Canadian history textbooks.
This book provides a fascinating glimpse at some of the debates over the pros and cons of Confederation which took place in the parliaments and assemblies of British North America from 1864 to 1873.
It's a wonderful intellectual history of the ideas which were to shape Canada in its early days.
What struck me immediately was how our elected representatives at that time employed sophisticated rhetoric and reasoning to support their cases. It's a sad contrast to the juvenile sound bites and taunts which pass for "debate" these days in our legislatures.
And leftists might be surprised to learn that nobody in the founding debates mentioned anything about socialized medicine, peace keeping or the CBC.
Rather the legislators talked about concepts such as "liberty". Liberty, now there's a word you don't hear much mentioned in the House of Commons anymore.
Here's what Richard Cartwright, a legislator from what was later called Ontario, declared in 1865:
"I think that every true reformer, every real friend of liberty, will agree with me in saying that if we must erect safeguards, they should be rather for the security of the individual than of the mass, and that our chiefest care must be to train the majority to respect the rights of the minority, to prevent claims of the few from being trampled under foot by the caprice or passion of the many. For myself, sir, I own frankly I prefer British liberty to American equality."
Bet this isn't reproduced in many Canadian history textbooks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
