Canadian politics can leave you wanting a shower.


MikeyDB
#1
“You did it first!”

“Did not!”

“Did SO!”

We’d expect and perhaps even accept this quality of dialogue on a schoolyard playground…


Hon Ms Pupatello: “I find it galling that the last government dares to stand in the House today to talk to us about discriminatory policies in welfare.”

Hon Mr Watson: “It's a little rich to hear the NDP talking about protecting consumers, because it was that party in particular that was stalling and dragging its feet on Bill 70, a piece of consumer protection legislation.”

Hon Gerard Kennedy (Minister of Education): “…However, he was a member and part of a previous government that supported Bill 160, which reached into every collective bargaining agreement in this province after it had been arrived at, as did the social contract.”

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): “Order. Members who are not even in their seats at the front here are heckling.”

All quotes from Hansard as recorded: LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO Wednesday 15 December 2004

Every one of the buffoons slurping at the provincial trough take home in excess of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS PER YEAR!

Is it reasonable to expect these “Honourable Members” to comport themselves in an age-appropriate manner? Of course Ontarians have learned that we can ‘expect’ integrity, honesty and appropriateness, however politicians (based on the track-record provided by Hansard and other sources) feel free to ignore and dismiss anything and everything citizens “expect” of their elected representatives….

So be it.

The unfortunate reality is that Canadians seem to forget when election times roll around that the contempt held by their elected representatives for each other in our houses of government is second only to the contempt they all embrace for the citizens of Canada.

Word Games Lies of Omission, Broken Promises Scurrilous efforts at misdirection….

Raising taxes on tobacco: After scooping the lion’s share of the cost of cigarettes as taxes for year after year after year….

Hon George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care):
“A July 1995 study by federal health authorities estimated that the annual deaths attributable to smoking in Canada at more than 45,000. This is 11% higher than previous estimates, as a result of improved statistical methods.”

“Let me take a moment to tell you what it does not do. It doesn't deal with smoking in the home. I look forward to the day when nobody smokes anywhere in Ontario, but I'm someone who believes that the state has no place in the bedrooms or in the rec rooms of the nation.”
“In addition to the human toll, tobacco also takes a horrible economic toll. Ontario spends more than $1.7 billion a year treating tobacco-related illnesses.”

(end of direct quotes from this buffoon)

“Today, the CMPA sits on a defence fund now flush with a $2.3 billion reserve.” (CMPA-Canadian Medical Protective Association)

“While the overall cost of court awards climbs, so have legal costs. In 2004, for example, the CMPA paid lawyers $115 million to defend Canadian doctors in legal matters.”

“In an agreement stretching back 20 years, the provinces and territories have subsidized doctors' malpractice premiums by as much as 95 per cent. The arrangement between the Ontario government, the CMPA and the province's 24,000 doctors is an acknowledged cost of public health care, recognition that doctors would be crippled by malpractice insurance premiums in a system in which the government caps their fees for treating patients.
"This is a way of ensuring all physicians have coverage at a reasonable price," said OMA president Dr. Gregory Flynn. "If we were to eliminate the subsidy program there would be some groups of physicians whose insurance would rise so dramatically they would have to consider giving up their practice."
But the premiums, which are set by and paid to the CMPA, have risen sharply. In 1986, the province's taxpayers paid $12 million. This year the figure is $185 million and next year it will be $210 million — while each doctor's premium contribution remains fixed at the 1986 rate. The accumulated costs to Ontario taxpayers over the past 10 years is more than $1 billion, according to Ministry of Health figures, and the province accounts for almost half the CMPA's premiums from across the country.”
Toronto Star
Fri. Jun. 23, 2006

“25 PER CENT OF CANADIANS ARE AT ONE TIME THE VICTIM OF A MEDICAL ERROR. ERRORS THAT MAY CAUSE UP TO 24-THOUSAND DEATHS A YEAR IN THIS COUNTRY ALONE.”
Montreal Gazette

Does the Honourable Member’s citation (Smitherman) exclude the costs of malpractice insurance paid by taxpayers? Does the Honourable Member feel satisfied given the estimate that 24,000 people die in Canada as the result of “medical errors” that the greater portion of those 45,000 deaths he attributes to smoking have received quality diagnosis and care at the hands of Canadian medical practitioners?

Does the Honourable Member really think that Canadians are so gullible as to believe that the escalating costs of tobacco products isn’t directly interfering in the “bedrooms or in the rec rooms of the nation”?

We can add a new dimension to the old saw: “Lies Damned Lies and Statistics….” called Canadian Politik-Speak…

With this only cursory glance (malfeasance and corruption thrive at the very heart of Canadian politics) it’s not difficult at all to understand why Canada and its political “culture” provides comic-relief on the international stage.
 
tamarin
Conservative
#2
Canada abounds in such stories. We'd be happy if we never heard the term 'politician' again. For a democracy, the nation leaves a lot to be desired. Maybe if the various assemblies only met three times a year we could axe their salaries and put an end to the constant interference in daily affairs that these jackasses promote.
 
MikeyDB
#3
Greetings Tamarin

Diogenes never found an honest man despite his wandering the streets of Athens with a lantern...

It's just as likely that there isn't and never has been anything like an honest politician. The even more scurrilous behavior of "crossing the floor" and sucking up to get a cabinet appointment demonstrates that unlike a lady-of-the-evening...(Or gentleman-of-the-evening for that matter) can be depended upon to at least stay "bought"....something Canadian politicians seem reluctant to mimic...
 
MikeyDB
#4
Getting at the truth.

There’s an interesting article available at www.cpsa-acsp.ca/papers-2006/carson.pdf (external - login to view)

My thinking with respect to this piece focuses on the notion of ‘conventions’ as this concept is struck as some binding stricture on the employee, the public servant etc.

The question that begs asking is: “Since ‘conventions’ do not (as I understand from this monologue) enjoy the absolutism of black-letter law but are rather “understandings” with respect to conduct {in various contexts of course}, just how meaningful is this pursuit of “whistleblower legislation”?

If indeed jurisprudence can be and is seeded (or ‘salted’ one might contend) with these orts of “understandings” embraced as political and/or legal guidelines for behavior and duty, how prudent is it to put much faith in our legal system…or any system of laws that permits “conventions” as I understand the thrust of the contentions framed in this piece by Carson, to proscribe conduct and behaviour?

I was banned from participating on a Canadian political website due in large part to my insistence that shenanigans like the Sponsorship Scandal (also known as AdScam) must by the very instance of having occurred implicate senior officers of government vis-à-vis “responsibility” for managing Canadian taxpayer funds…i.e. Minister of Finance Budget creation/Treasury Board audit and rulings and so on. My position was that the then Prime Minister should be held just as accountable for the malfeasance and theft of taxpayer funds as those folk like Chuck Guite who has recently been handed a three-year plus vacation at the taxpayers expense.

The board was and I presume still is operated by a staunch Martin apologist who rolled out the “innocent until proven guilty” crutch in defense of the Prime Minister. This is I think one of those “conventions” that has been embrace by various judiciaries as appropriate for the wealthy and powerful but holding considerably less starch so to speak when it comes to Joe and Jane Average.

My question and what I’d like opinion on is whether it is appropriate given the history of corruption endemic in Canadian (and all political systems for that matter) to apply this ‘convention’ in situations where there is clear evidence indicating the preparedness of a politician to work to frustrate and thwart legal principles…..

This dynamic within judicial systems has been aptly characterized by a well known jurist:
"This is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice."
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

Do you think Canadian government and judiciary is bound by law to serve justice or is it in fact a series of circus performances by businessmen and politicians relying on ‘law’ specifically crafted to permit ease of avoidance of responsibility?
 
Simpleton
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by MikeyDB

Getting at the truth.


The board was and I presume still is operated by a staunch Martin apologist who rolled out the “innocent until proven guilty” crutch in defense of the Prime Minister. This is I think one of those “conventions” that has been embrace by various judiciaries as appropriate for the wealthy and powerful but holding considerably less starch so to speak when it comes to Joe and Jane Average.

The problem, you see, is those $100,000/annum salaries that these jokers receive. It is these salaries, other perks, and the "power trip" associated with membership in such an "elite" club, that drives a competitive spirit that all too often gets out of hand. These "chosen ones" do not take kindly to competition from any person in the public realm.

Indeed, what right do unelected persons have to be critical of those entrusted to drive the nations affairs? None, in the expert opinion of the mighty. Ah, but how the mighty do fall when left to their own devices.

That's just the way it is, baby.

Ha, you'd almost be forgiven for insinuating that Canada is not a democratic country.
 
tamarin
Conservative
#6
Canada is nominally democratic. Its prime minister is more powerful within the country than any other western leader is within his. This corrupts everything. As Trudeau was fond of noting, backbenchers are 'nobodies.' If you want to get ahead in Canadian politics you have to play the game. You have to bend to the will of your political leader. If you're part of a governing party it becomes all the more important as the PMO controls access to anything you might covet as a sitting member. The lack of free votes in the House and the insistence of not only cabinet solidarity but party solidarity on most issues makes it virtually impossible for a representative to do the job he was entrusted with- represent the views of his riding. Having a vote and offering elections does not make you democratic. Maybe nominally and that is exactly Canada's position. Canada needs huge change on this front and this has been a complaint for generations. We just do a very poor job at being a western-style country.
 
missile
Conservative
#7
I have always thought that politicians should go into another,more honest line of work..like prostitution or dealing drugs.
 
MikeyDB
#8
Good day to you Missile!

I echo your sentiments entirely and with a measure of interpretive cynicism on my part, so does the Ontario Ombudsman….

In the Ontario Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2005-2006, the consistent theme emerging from this document is the occurrence of what the Ombudsman calls “Rule Slavery”. If you have the opportunity to read this report, I think you’d agree that it is a damning exposé of not only the McGuinty government but the entire dynamic of provincial “politics”.

To be fair, the Ontario government and its execution of “law” is product of our times. ‘These times’ being a realization and wholehearted embrace of the ethos of a power structure based on wealth.

When we talk about social dynamics in the context of our current zeitgeist, regardless of which particular facet of these times constitutes the topical hub, we inevitably apply the metric of “value”. “Value” based not on humanitarian perspectives or “moral” responsibilities, but on dollars.

We have been well conditioned.

Decades of social conditioning spewing from media sources paid to “promote”, “sell”, “entice” and convince us that our “worth” as human beings is most appropriately and most accurately described and calibrated on the basis of our ability and facility to consume.

We have enjoyed a span of incomparable “well-being” and “prosperity” since the end of the Second World War. Without the need to manufacture the implements of war, industry in North America flush with automated assembly lines and taking advantage of break neck improvements of technological efficiency, entrepreneurs and industrialists embarked on a quest to reshape consumer thinking and habits into “markets”.

Because the machinery of industry relies and is based on the economic axiom of “buy low and sell high”, massive quantities of junk were and are produced and eagerly consumed by the fledgling North American “marketplace”. The dynamics of consumerism isn’t the focus in this thread however. Entire bulletin boards and forums concentrating solely on ‘consumerism’ per se would never want for narratives or anecdotes involving how corporations foist off junk, low-quality merchandise and plastic baubles to a populace enamored with the notion that individual “social status” is intimately bound to brand-name and the “duty” we’ve been instructed as parents to honor i.e. that our children will suffer for our intransigence to unbridled consumption.

North Americans standing at the gas pumps are now forced to confront the reality that the remainder of humanity has been living for decades. Similarly hooligans like Ernie Eaves, “buying” votes and “support” by artificially insulating consumers from the costs of electricity by placing “caps” has left us the legacy of “debt retirement” Ontarians will find itemized on their electricity bills. Across the panorama of “consumerism” clothed in the façade of ‘pleasure seeking’ and ‘prosperity’ defined through objectification of “respect” and “status”, associated with the ersatz “happiness” of buying what isn’t needed has evolved this new expression of the “value” of human beings.

Entrepreneurs don’t like to have limits imposed on their quest to accumulate wealth. The corollary to enormous wealth is the facility to control people. Your employer doesn’t feel any obligation to guarantee your safety, nor is it his (or her) concern that you’re quality of life is product of the pittance you receive as wages.

The only dam on this torrent of greed and self-interest at the expense of others in the workplace has been unions. Safety issues and intolerable conditions were the beginnings of the union however as time has progressed, today unions are little more than extortion mechanisms used to hold consumers hostage to wage demands.

The climate of business and inevitably the exercise of government has aligned itself with the business ethics of these times. Automated voice messaging systems have replaced people…..why? Because machines don’t get sick, demand increases or balk at practicing the de-humanization business regards as necessary to realize “profits”.

It shouldn’t surprise anyone that the same accounting firm that “cooked the books” for Enron was hired by the Mike Harris government to de-humanize provincial disability programs. Who would know better than liars and thieves how to eliminate humanitarianism from the business of politics?

Unfortunately this malaise has spread throughout the provincial government and has become firmly rooted at the federal level as well.
 
Simpleton
#9
Our former MP, Roger Galloway, is hosting a workshop locally for anyone that may be interested in entering the political world. The workshop is mostly geared toward those wishing to seek office in this fall's municipal election. However, the offering of such a workshop does beg the question: Who would want to be a politician?

Knowing what I think about politicians, it is most apparent, to me anyway, that I would not want others thinking and feeling the same way about me. I find it difficult to rationalize why anyone would voluntarily want to subject themselves to such abuse and belittlement. Of course, there are other factors too, which I personally find to be major drawbacks to pursuing a career as a politician.

In my mind, sucking up to people, generally strangers, is a most distasteful chore. I can't imagine that anyone would genuinely enjoy knocking on the doors of strangers and hideously pleading for support, all the while reasonably understanding that the person answering the door really has no interest in speaking with you, and is not enjoying the intrusion into their time. The thought of shaking hands with countless strangers and kissing babies, etcetera, also strikes me as being a feeble waste of energy and time.

I can't imagine that any intelligent person could preserve any semblance of self-respect while being lowered to the status of insignificant ***-kisser -- all under the false guise of wanting to represent the people.

The facade of self-importance is really an admonishment of public officials that I all too often levy. It is in this realization, that I would feel compelled that others should look upon myself in the same light, were I to choose to seek public office. I reckon that the mere act of smiling and waving to those who would much rather see you struck by an oncoming train, would require a level of arrogance and ego that so few possess and even fewer wish to display. No, I can't understand why anyone would willfully seek public office.

Perhaps being a politician requires a character trait all too similar to sadism. This would, perhaps, explain why so few politicians seem genuinely interested in pleasing or representing the people they spent weeks or months gravelling to. Perhaps it is for the enduring of these most displeasurable election chores, that the elected few seek to gouge and screw the public in any manner possible.

This is just an opinion...
 
MikeyDB
#10
Simpleton

Greetings and good wishes.

I honestly believe it’s a “cultural” thing. Product of a perverted sense of competition mixed with a heaping measure of narcissism.

A culture of men and women steeped in various and sometimes-dubious traditions. Lawyers who’ve voluntarily and many who’d argue “necessarily” embraced protocol and prescription over truth and justice in both defending the innocent (and guilty) and prosecuting the offender. Where for instance does the oath to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth fall out when an attorney bound by client attorney privilege is apprised of illegal and morally reprehensible behavior performed by their client?

To dutifully discharge as the judicial system demands, every effort at a robust and energetic defense of this client the attorney can (and has to) ignore and deny this knowledge.

Men and women who’ve watched prejudice and contempt exercised as “normalcy” since they were children. Confronted with multifaceted expressions of inequity and injustice over many years. People who’ve witnessed wholesale contempt and disdain predicated on ethnicity, gender, and ‘social hierarchy’ faced with acknowledging the minimizing effect on these ingrained prejudices that power and wealth provide…at least in their perceptions. Example: Only in extremely rare circumstances would a wealthy black industrialist be called a “******”…. or a successful female entrepreneur be treated with the disrespect that most women unfortunately experience on a daily basis.

Politics is the legitimizing of these charades.

I believe that one of the systemic flaws embedded within the model of democracy as practiced in “free societies” is our willingness to forego ethical and morally sound behavior when facing the inevitable frustrations and impediments confronted as we try to make our way in the world when we witness the cruel reality that in far too many instances it is who we “know” that eases our toil as opposed to reward realized for excellence and effort. It’s the “old-boys-club” mentality that we watch exercised on golf courses and up-scale entertainment and eating establishments that are frequented by people having attained notoriety and wealth. The tragedy is when these folk embrace the idea that the ends justify the means.

Power to influence and control the further accumulation of wealth and notoriety at the expense of those “others” who can be ignored and regarded as merely a necessary “evil” encountered on ones way “up the ladder of success”…

A prerequisite to political “success” is pandering to the elite and safeguarding a status quo that entrenches disparity and inequity in the name of preserving wealth and safeguarding exclusivity. Our political system demands skill at presenting a chameleon-like ‘identification’ with voting blocks which necessitates for instance, exuberance for the preservation of cultural tradition when addressing one sector, then disdain for that same group/culture when championing the cause or interests of a competing segment.

Many would argue that what I’m identifying is in fact simply “human nature”. That our experiences inform us and our cultures teach us that we say whatever we need to say and do whatever we need to do as expressions of what we recognize as “working” in the effort to achieve acceptance.

Insofar as the individual making his way as individual in the world is concerned there is a great deal of truth in that analysis. The damage occurs when our interests in personal advancement comes at the expense of others.

And that’s where the “competitiveness” found in the “marketplace” takes on a life of its own.

Growing up in a family that’s achieved “success” monetarily teaches us that there are only three kinds of people in the world. The rich the poor and everyone else.

And our perspectives on entitlement and appropriateness are absorbed along the way.

This “culture” eschews accountability through the device of “doing what’s necessary” to preserve wealth and the exercise of autonomy that proceeds from watching as corruption misdirection and misdeeds translates into family fortunes. This preparedness to “do whatever’s necessary” regardless of the impact decisions and actions might have on others accompanies the wealthy elite into the House of Commons. Witness for instance the decision to “re-flag ships” and move corporate offices “off-shore to avoid taxes then standing up in the House and chastising corporations and businessmen for not paying their fair share of taxes….
 
Simpleton
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by MikeyDB

Simpleton

Greetings and good wishes.

I honestly believe it’s a “cultural” thing. Product of a perverted sense of competition mixed with a heaping measure of narcissism.

A culture of men and women steeped in various and sometimes-dubious traditions. Lawyers who’ve voluntarily and many who’d argue “necessarily” embraced protocol and prescription over truth and justice in both defending the innocent (and guilty) and prosecuting the offender. Where for instance does the oath to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth fall out when an attorney bound by client attorney privilege is apprised of illegal and morally reprehensible behavior performed by their client?

To dutifully discharge as the judicial system demands, every effort at a robust and energetic defense of this client the attorney can (and has to) ignore and deny this knowledge.

Men and women who’ve watched prejudice and contempt exercised as “normalcy” since they were children. Confronted with multifaceted expressions of inequity and injustice over many years. People who’ve witnessed wholesale contempt and disdain predicated on ethnicity, gender, and ‘social hierarchy’ faced with acknowledging the minimizing effect on these ingrained prejudices that power and wealth provide…at least in their perceptions. Example: Only in extremely rare circumstances would a wealthy black industrialist be called a “******”…. or a successful female entrepreneur be treated with the disrespect that most women unfortunately experience on a daily basis.

Politics is the legitimizing of these charades.

I believe that one of the systemic flaws embedded within the model of democracy as practiced in “free societies” is our willingness to forego ethical and morally sound behavior when facing the inevitable frustrations and impediments confronted as we try to make our way in the world when we witness the cruel reality that in far too many instances it is who we “know” that eases our toil as opposed to reward realized for excellence and effort. It’s the “old-boys-club” mentality that we watch exercised on golf courses and up-scale entertainment and eating establishments that are frequented by people having attained notoriety and wealth. The tragedy is when these folk embrace the idea that the ends justify the means.

Power to influence and control the further accumulation of wealth and notoriety at the expense of those “others” who can be ignored and regarded as merely a necessary “evil” encountered on ones way “up the ladder of success”…

A prerequisite to political “success” is pandering to the elite and safeguarding a status quo that entrenches disparity and inequity in the name of preserving wealth and safeguarding exclusivity. Our political system demands skill at presenting a chameleon-like ‘identification’ with voting blocks which necessitates for instance, exuberance for the preservation of cultural tradition when addressing one sector, then disdain for that same group/culture when championing the cause or interests of a competing segment.

Many would argue that what I’m identifying is in fact simply “human nature”. That our experiences inform us and our cultures teach us that we say whatever we need to say and do whatever we need to do as expressions of what we recognize as “working” in the effort to achieve acceptance.

Insofar as the individual making his way as individual in the world is concerned there is a great deal of truth in that analysis. The damage occurs when our interests in personal advancement comes at the expense of others.

And that’s where the “competitiveness” found in the “marketplace” takes on a life of its own.

Growing up in a family that’s achieved “success” monetarily teaches us that there are only three kinds of people in the world. The rich the poor and everyone else.

And our perspectives on entitlement and appropriateness are absorbed along the way.

This “culture” eschews accountability through the device of “doing what’s necessary” to preserve wealth and the exercise of autonomy that proceeds from watching as corruption misdirection and misdeeds translates into family fortunes. This preparedness to “do whatever’s necessary” regardless of the impact decisions and actions might have on others accompanies the wealthy elite into the House of Commons. Witness for instance the decision to “re-flag ships” and move corporate offices “off-shore to avoid taxes then standing up in the House and chastising corporations and businessmen for not paying their fair share of taxes….

I wasn't too sure I understood what you were talking about until I read the last paragraph. You apparently do not have a fondness for the former prime minister and the Liberal party.

Well, that is your right. I certainly won't condemn you for having misgivings about the former Liberal government. Although, I would be inclined to believe that the admonishment you heap upon Paul Martin is certainly true of most, if not all politicians.

Do you have an opinion on the New Democratic Party? They allegedly represent the poor and under-privileged. Do you believe Jack Layton and his wife to be genuine, or more part and parcel of the charade?

I saw Jack Layton smoke a cigarette once...
 
MikeyDB
#12
Simpleton

I used Martin and CSL to clarify my perspective on the "culture" insofar as the nature of what the wealthy politician brings to government. The same idea applies to Belinda, Cretien Emerson , the whole bunch that enter politics with silver spoons stuck...

As far as Jack Layton... he's disappointed many and in my opinon doesn't have what it takes to represent himself with authority never mind the citizens of Canada.

This culture is so pervasive and entrenched there's no escaping the affect it will have on anyone entering the arena.

As long as this cultural malignancy escapes the focus of the electorate it will continue to thrive. We're screwed because the vast majority of Canadians are too busy or too dull to comprehend the real nature of Canadian politics.
 
MikeyDB
#13
Aside from the culture of corruption and malfeasance thriving at the heart of Canadian politics is a frightening propensity to rampant stupidity.

Rampant stupidity coupled to a willing ignorance.

“Oh gosh now…we can’t afford to offend our great trading partner to the south so let’s be careful what we say and do….”

Sure it’s a lot simpler if we ignore the fact that the US has and will throw out any “agreement” (NAFTA) (Geneva Conventions) etc. any time that agreement no longer serves their “interests”….

It’s a lot simpler to let them steal money from Canadians through an illegal tariff at the border and simpler to let them pump their drainage problems into Canada….

cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2...652507-cp.html (external - login to view)


Not only are Canadian politicians corrupt they’re stupid as well!
 
I think not
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by MikeyDB

We're screwed because the vast majority of Canadians are too busy or too dull to comprehend the real nature of Canadian politics.

I'm not Canadian and yet I find this comment of yours offensive. You lump every citizen of Canada into one category, and yet somehow you have managed to escape the dullness?

People all over the world have one thing in common, to better their lives, and it is their lives that take precedence because it is innate in the individual.
 
MikeyDB
#15
Read the post ITN what you'll see is "the vast majority" maybe I should post US statistics regarding illiteracy rates in the United States...
 
MikeyDB
#16
ITN illuminated us all with the observation: “People all over the world have one thing in common, to better their lives, and it is their lives that take precedence because it is innate in the individual.”

Aside from our friends creative interpretation i.e. “the vast majority” = “…every citizen of Canada”, he offers a proposition that’s if not simply incorrect, presumes an understanding of people’s motivation without acknowledging pertinent fact.

Keeping ones government and politicians accountable represents a fundamental avenue to improving ones life. Ignoring what’s going on ends up with exactly what’s going on in the United States of Paranoia.
 
Simpleton
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by MikeyDB

Simpleton

I used Martin and CSL to clarify my perspective on the "culture" insofar as the nature of what the wealthy politician brings to government. The same idea applies to Belinda, Cretien Emerson , the whole bunch that enter politics with silver spoons stuck...

I'm going to attempt to respond to two of your posts in this reply. So if it appears that I am responding out of context, I would like for you to consider that I am responding to both of the replies you offered at the time you posted the above quote.

Yes, I realize that I could have quoted from both of your posts, in an attempt to preserve continuity and context, but I'm lazy.

I wouldn't be so quick to suggest that Canadian politicians are eager to please their American neighbours. Certainly Jean Chretien had little respect for the wishes of the United States. Paul Martin, while conceding that Canada/USA relations needed improving following the reign of Chretien, displayed no inclination of willingness to bow to the whims of the USA in the past federal election. Indeed, Mr. Martin's antics in the last election drew a considerable number of raised eyebrows from our American neighbours, and even some stern warnings.

When you mention Emerson, I'm assuming that you're referring to the Liberal turncoat in British Columbia. David Emerson is a classic example of what is wrong with Canadian Politics. I'll even boldly suggest that he is such an example, whether you support his move or not.

If you do not support the move made by David Emerson, then you can hardly be scolded for thinking that he put his own interests and political aspirations ahead of the interests of his constituents. This goes without saying; Mr. Emerson ran on a Liberal platform, with Liberal party sponsorship and funding, and received votes from people wanting to see a Liberal government elected to power. That whole fiasco was a huge black eye to Canadian politics, as it undercut the very idea of democratic elections. Essentially, the Conservative party had two candidates running in that riding, and the Liberal party was basically unrepresented.

If you supported the move by David Emerson, you might offer that Mr. Emerson made the move in order to better represent his constituents from within the governing party. Although this remains a flimsy argument, as the fact remains that the Conservative party formed a minority government, and any of the three opposition parties are more than able to introduce and pass legislation without the support of the governing party.

Belinda Stronach is a total mystery to me. When she left the Conservative party to become a Liberal cabinet minister, I was certain that she was only interested in furthering her own personal agenda. It was my contention that Belinda Stronach was expecting a Liberal defeat in the next election, and that Paul Martin would tender his resignation as a result of the defeat. I fully believed that Mrs. Stronach was setting herself up for another run at party leadership, albeit with the Liberal party the second time around.

When Belinda Stronach announced that she would not be entering the Liberal leadership race, I was somewhat shocked and began to wonder why she even entered politics in the first place. Having been CEO of one of Canada's largest corporations, I fully expected that Ms. Stronach would have been privy to how things were done in Ottawa. I'm sure that if Ms. Stronach entered politics to effect any real change, she would have undoubtedly realized that change can only be initiated from a position of leadership.

I'm not entirely opposed to wealthy individuals having positions of power and influence in government, provided they use their power and influence in a fair and balanced manner. I see no problem with wealthy individuals championing the cause of prosperity for all Canadians, but I'm reluctant to bite my tongue when I see plainly obvious facades of betterment masking deeply self-serving and corrupt entitlements for Canada's established, while neglecting the needs and interests of Canada's vast majority.

I think I've pretty much covered everything that I wanted to say on this matter. That being said, I now pause for this commercial announcement... i.e. someone's opportunity to say that I'm wrong.
 
MikeyDB
#18
You don't think that "pleasing our American neighbors was exactly what NAFTA is all about?

You don't think that the situation in Manitoba that sees international boundaries laughed at wtihout so much as a single Canadian politician addressing that issue isn't being done to "please our American neighbors"...

You don't think our governments unwillingness to enact legislation to recover the billions taken illegally by the lumber cartels in the US doesn't send the signal that you can **** on Canada any time you like....

The list of effforts to please our American neighbors goes on and on, and of course the number of issues that remain unaddressed for fear of riling our corporate sponsors is large as well.

Nice post though I think it's a little heavy on the side of rose colored glasses.
 
MikeyDB
#19
It occurs to me as well that the decision by the "street fighter" (better known as 'thug' in popoular literature declining to get involved in the illegal invasion of Iraq was more akin to common sense than something to irk our "American neighbors".

Do you really think that the American and Canadain media wouldn't be flooded with moral outrage if say Russia had invaded some nation....

And if you don't think that has anything to do with America please research who owns operates and controls the largest media companies in the world. Guess...go ahead take a guess
 
I think not
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by MikeyDB

Read the post ITN what you'll see is "the vast majority" maybe I should post US statistics regarding illiteracy rates in the United States...

Do what your simpleton mind desires, if you are capable of lumping a "vast majority" of Canadians into one mould because most of them don't believe in your radical theories, then by all means, post some more about the US you seem to "know so well".

From your first post it was easy to follow where you were heading for one simple reason, you have nothing new to offer in terms of ideas and perhaps even worse, you bitch and give no resolution to the problems you bring up.

Ho Hum.
 
I think not
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by MikeyDB

ITN illuminated us all with the observation: “People all over the world have one thing in common, to better their lives, and it is their lives that take precedence because it is innate in the individual.”

Aside from our friends creative interpretation i.e. “the vast majority” = “…every citizen of Canada”, he offers a proposition that’s if not simply incorrect, presumes an understanding of people’s motivation without acknowledging pertinent fact.

Keeping ones government and politicians accountable represents a fundamental avenue to improving ones life. Ignoring what’s going on ends up with exactly what’s going on in the United States of Paranoia.

The pertinent fact MikeyDB is that individuality is innate in all living things. Fantastic social constructs exist only in the minds of the fringe left (*hint*hint*wink*).
 
Simpleton
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by I think not

Quote: Originally Posted by MikeyDB

Read the post ITN what you'll see is "the vast majority" maybe I should post US statistics regarding illiteracy rates in the United States...

Do what your simpleton mind desires, if you are capable of lumping a "vast majority" of Canadians into one mould because most of them don't believe in your radical theories, then by all means, post some more about the US you seem to "know so well".

From your first post it was easy to follow where you were heading for one simple reason, you have nothing new to offer in terms of ideas and perhaps even worse, you bitch and give no resolution to the problems you bring up.

Ho Hum.

I'm relatively new to these forums, so I haven't read the literally thousands of posts here, but I have read this particular thread. I haven't seen any radical theories offered by MikeyDB, and I certainly haven't offered any radical theories. I think MikeyDB may be correct in his assessment that you are somewhat illiterate.
 
I think not
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by Simpleton

I'm relatively new to these forums, so I haven't read the literally thousands of posts here, but I have read this particular thread. I haven't seen any radical theories offered by MikeyDB, and I certainly haven't offered any radical theories. I think MikeyDB may be correct in his assessment that you are somewhat illiterate.

If you don't feel MikeyDB has radical theories, then I can only assume you're of the same ilk as he is.

And I am quite literate, thank you.
 
MikeyDB
#24
Simpleton

Our good American "Friend" ITN has a good deal to say about everything and no he hasn't offered any solutions to anything that he's taken the time to pontificate, so his criticism of my contributions is as hollow as ever.
 
Simpleton
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by MikeyDB

You don't think that "pleasing our American neighbors was exactly what NAFTA is all about?

You don't think that the situation in Manitoba that sees international boundaries laughed at wtihout so much as a single Canadian politician addressing that issue isn't being done to "please our American neighbors"...

You don't think our governments unwillingness to enact legislation to recover the billions taken illegally by the lumber cartels in the US doesn't send the signal that you can **** on Canada any time you like....

The list of effforts to please our American neighbors goes on and on, and of course the number of issues that remain unaddressed for fear of riling our corporate sponsors is large as well.

Nice post though I think it's a little heavy on the side of rose colored glasses.

NAFTA was introduced by the Conservative government of Brian Mulroney. All of the examples you provided, were either former Liberal leaders, Liberal turncoats, or refugees to the Liberal party. Further demonstrating my earlier contention that you lacked any fondness for the federal Liberal party.

I don't believe that Canadian politicians have any real desire to please the Americans. I think that our Canadian representatives do a fair amount of grumbling, and I used Jean Chretien and Paul Martin as examples. We mustn't fail to recognize the reality of our relationship with the United States. Canada is the husband/boyfriend that never really gets any input in anything, and the United States is the overbearing wife/girlfriend that will always get what she wants, simply because she has the goods.

The late Pierre Trudeau described Canada's relationship with the United States as one of being in bed with an elephant; every little move it makes affects Canada in a big way. And I don't think anyone would accuse the Late Prime Minister of catering to the whims of the U.S.
 
I think not
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by MikeyDB

Simpleton

Our good American "Friend" ITN has a good deal to say about everything and no he hasn't offered any solutions to anything that he's taken the time to pontificate, so his criticism of my contributions is as hollow as ever.

It's rather simple MikeyDB, I don't need to offer any solutions because I don't share your view of the "problem". I do believe it is you bitching about everything, NAFTA, the US and now of course the "dull" Canadians. You haven't given me any indication you seek a solution or an understanding. Carry on.
 
Simpleton
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by MikeyDB

It occurs to me as well that the decision by the "street fighter" (better known as 'thug' in popoular literature declining to get involved in the illegal invasion of Iraq was more akin to common sense than something to irk our "American neighbors".

Do you really think that the American and Canadain media wouldn't be flooded with moral outrage if say Russia had invaded some nation....

And if you don't think that has anything to do with America please research who owns operates and controls the largest media companies in the world. Guess...go ahead take a guess

For $200, I'll go with "They own, operate, and control the largest media companies in the world" Alex.

Oh, and that's our daily double.

"This country, bordering Canada to the north, and Mexico to the south, is home to Time Warner, one of the largest media companies in the world."

Buzz...

What is the United States of America?

That is correct.

I'm not entirely certain that I'm following your line of thought here, MikeyDB? American media sort of has a moral obligation to their nations's troops, which are in harm's way. It is one thing to be critical of a government that invades another country, but to condemn the innocent middlemen who were just obeying orders, is a bitter pill to swallow.
 
MikeyDB
#28
Simpleton

I started this thread simply as an exercise in examining a political system that needs examining and where the absurdities of our elected officials might be brought into focus.

Through an accident of cosmic ambivalence I suppose we find ourselves neighbor to a once promising nation that's slipping down the tubes every second that ticks by.

And what's truly unfortunate about this situation is that it isn't as though the United States has suffered anything near the death destruction and chaos its administrations feel are appropriate in metting out to secure the "American Dream".

I'd rather not have American style "politics" practiced in Canada but I feel that the proximity in and of itself renders that an almost utopian idea.

I reiterate: It doesn't matter that NAFTA was a Mulroney appeasement to big business and it doesn't matter that he was a Conservative. Party politics really isn't a matter of philosophy with Canadian politicians it's a charade much like the Dems and Reps in the US. There's only the wealthy vs the poor and this "party" construct simply allows the charade to continue without the burden of being named for what it is.... rule by an oligarchy of the wealthy.
 
Said1
Free Thinker
#29
Quote:

I'd rather not have American style "politics" practiced in Canada but I feel that the proximity in and of itself renders that an almost utopian idea.

And what "style" appeals to you? And don't say none, just pick one to us as a comparison. Thanks.
 
MikeyDB
#30
Greetings Said1!

I don’t think it really has a name, or perhaps it’s just never been practiced so it’s a concept in fact not a ‘style’ one might pick from a list.

I’d like a government that (whether comprised of the wealthy or not) has a vision of what it is to live in the world. An acknowledgement that humanity isn’t just white-skinned and male, that every living creature on the face of this planet breathes the same air and drinks the same water. That contributing to the necessities of life (for all life everywhere) will have greater impact on achieving peace and stability than all the nuclear weapons and war machines combined.

A government that institutes changes for the betterment of the whole not just the few. A body of intelligent feeling individuals smart enough not to be led around by their pocket-books or “holy-books”, but guided by principles that places the well being of people of all races creeds and philosophies as its highest priority.

Flush all the crap like “We have a moral obligation…a “Destiny” to bring democracy to the world….” There hasn’t been a democracy survive any longer than a handful of other ideologies that have come and gone.

No nation or people of this planet have the “right” to dictate to all others and no nation or people of this planet are deserving of the contempt and hatred of all others.

A government that recognizes and is willing to engage in meeting needs before succumbing to the wants of an elite few. A government that addresses inequity with generosity and is prepared to forego petty empire building in the name of wealth or religious belief.

A government that isn’t up-for-sale. A government bound by laws and answerable to the citizens of the planet when it chooses to break those laws.

A government that seeks to unify and embrace, a government that acknowledges when it errs and works to redress those faulty judgments and errors.

Getting a sense of what I’m after…..?

I can hear the naysayers already….

“What utopian drivel!”

“How can one expect this kind of government from a species incapable of this kind of thinking and behaviour….what nonsense!”

What I seek may very well be utopian and it may demand that people take that next step in evolving toward something other than a reliance on some obviously failing notion like “survival of the fittest” or “winner take all”….

We’ve known for a very long time that when we build inequity into our systems of governance and law that our societies and nations will be unjust inequitable and fraught with discontent and rebellion.

We’ve known for a very long time that when we build massive machines of war that our civilizations will experience war.

We’ve known for a very long time that we don’t live in a bubble in space with unlimited resources and yet…..

The only way to begin movement toward this kind of government this “style” is identifying where we can improve and that necessarily means re-visiting our failures and analyzing our mistakes.

An unpleasant but necessary labor.
 

Similar Threads

32
0
Canadian Politics Diversification
by Jersay | Jul 1st, 2006
23
Canadian Politics
by lo2 | May 28th, 2006
no new posts