Good Politics

Occasionally we catch a whiff of good politics. Collaboration takes place amongst political parties, sound commitments to average Canadians are made, and the majority feel they are involved in the growth of their country. Today, a whiff of that is known as 'rare air.'

Good politicians seem in short supply and our collective confidence is shrinking, both in our leaders and country. PM Harper's story, which has nothing to do with productive collaboration or sound commitments on behalf of the majority, affects everyone who hears it, likely in a very negative fashion.

I read the headline 'Many Tories just don't believe Harper's version' (Oct. 31, London Free Press), mulled over recent events and began to yearn for good politics.

Will we ever see the day?

Photo by GH

***

Please click here to read It gets worse

It Strikes Me Funny: Penny wise, nickel foolish?

Like many Canadians, I follow a certain procedure when dealing with pennies I find in my pockets. It’s a long-standing tradition, 50 - 60 years old in my case, and it started after the price of penny candy jumped to two pennies and - after hearing a loud rip in my heart - I stopped buying them.

Here’s what I do. I place the copper coins into a wooden dish on my dresser at the end of a hard day’s work and throw a few back into my pocket at the beginning of the next day’s work in order to make change, so to speak.


When I end up with more in the bowl than I feel I need during a hectic day ‘back at the plant’, as I like to say, I put several into a plastic coin counter on a shelf near my dresser. And later, when the coin counter contains the grand total of fifty pennies, I say ‘huzzah’, reach for a penny wrapper behind the aforementioned coin counter, and within seconds I have a full roll of pennies ready to put inside a small box in my closet that contains several other rolls of pennies destined to go to the bank whenever I can find the time.

Sometimes I don’t turn in my rolls to the bank until the box is full. Other times I ‘turn them in early’, as I like to say, and as many of my friends and family members do.

Really, it’s surprising how often we bump into each other at the bank, pockets drooping down to our knees, filled with actual buckets full of pennies. If one of us ever made a video for U Tube it would get a million hits in the first hour. Every Canadian would identify with it.

I mean, how many times has the whole ‘bucket of pennies thingee’ happened to you? Many times, I’m sure. And if you’re not reading this, you’re likely waiting in line at a local bank right now, turning your pennies into a crisp and very useful ten-dollar bill.

Thank goodness then, that our Finance Minister has made plans to stop issuing the coin. Though well practiced when it comes to handling pennies, surely all Canadians from Penny’s Point, Newfoundland to Copper’s Cove, Vancouver Island will breath a deep sigh of relief, not only because of the nuisance factor (“That’s the last time I’ll be caught with my good pants dragging down around my knees because of eight rolls of pennies goin’ to the bank at one time,” will be heard in every province, eh), or because you can’t buy a darn thing with a penny (“When’s the last time you ever could get blackballs two or three for one blessed cent, or those lovely red jelly raspberries?” all the boys in Crooked Knee, Ontario will ask), but because all Canadians will feel the positive effects of saving upwards of $11 million a year in production costs.

Think of it. $11 million, or 33 pennies for every Tom, Dick or Sherry. Why, that’s huge savings, isn’t it?

Unless we run into problems with the nickel.

I mean, how much does it cost to make a nickel anyway? In all this talk about scrapping the penny did anyone bother to look at that?

What happens if we need more of them to make change with the penny gone? How much will it cost to ship more nickels across this very wide country of ours, from Penny’s Point to Copper’s Cove?

What if Finance Minister Jim Flaherty simply traded one small expense for an even greater one - just for the sake of ‘show’, just to make it look like he was actually doing something?

Worse yet. What if ten rolls of nickels is heavier than ten rolls of pennies when I go to cash them in at the bank? My good pants will be dragging right down to my ankles!

Yes sir. We could find ourselves in quite a mess.

[Photo by GHarrison]

***

Please click here for more It Strikes Me Funny

.

2,012 Challenges in Modern Times PT 4: "Have a senior's moment when you're 12!"

["Phasing in 70 as the new retirement age at the rate of one month per year for 60 years should give everyone plenty of time to adjust as well, especially if everybody agreed with Sonneberg's hasty editorializing. Do you?" G.Harrison, Feb. 15, 2,012 Challenges PT 3]

By now some readers are wondering, if Gord doesn't like M. Sonneberg's "hasty editorializing" in the London Free Press and ability to "grease his own rails" concerning the withholding of Old Age Security Benefits for Canadians until they're 67, what does he like?

I like clarity, for one thing.

When Finance Minister Jim Flaherty says the withholding of benefits isn't for now, "it's for 2020... maybe 2025", he doesn't seem to have much of a handle on his own plan. I mean, Jim, do you know when you're going to afflict some seniors with a longer work life or don't you?

'Flaherty's clarity' is lacking in other areas as well. He is quick to tell us that OAS will cost us a lot of money in 10 years (Oh, it will be millions.) and even more in 20 years (Oh, it will be gazillions.), but he has said nary a word about how much PM Harper's drop in the GST has lowered government revenues (Oh, it will be billions.) or how much PM Harper's corporate tax cuts have lowered revenues that could support pensions and OAS benefits (Oh, it will be gazillions.).

And if we could get a clear answer from the Conservative Government about the price of just one F - 35 stealth fighter jet it's planning to buy, we would learn two very valuable pieces of information.

One, we would learn how the cost of one jet compares to the increased cost of OAS benefits the government is railing about. Two, we would learn how much the cost of 65 jets (the government's current plan) will rip out of government coffers during the same years the Conservatives want to keep seniors at work longer.

Here's what I propose that is as clear as clear can be.

Raise corporate taxes by 2 per cent and put the additional income toward the OAS benefit program.

Raise the GST by 2 cents so that Canadians - even kids buying their first iPhone or whatever else they spend their allowance on - will be supporting their senior years when making many purchases.

I also recommend the money from these changes be put into designated accounts for pensions so that it doesn't get spent on prisons.

Thots?

***

Please click here to read 2,012 Challenges in Modern Times PT 3.

.

The Canadian Dream is dust: Pensions are a political footballs

[“... the ratio of taxpayers to pensioners is declining. Has the term ‘gray tsunami’ been taken? If not, I’m coining it here, and that’s what pension funds see over the horizon. G.Harrison, Fri., Feb. 3, The Canadian Dream is dust: Thots about my pension]

I have a pension. Many readers in all likelihood don’t. My monthly payment went up in January compared to 2011’s monthly payout. Many readers will shake their head and reach for the nearest projectile... to toss at my bean.

While I prepare to duck, it seems a good time to ask again, “what can be done to support Canadians in their post-working life, their golden years (the ‘days of denim and T-shirts’ as I like to say), so that all our dreams don’t turn to dust?” (GH, previous related post, Feb. 3)

And as I said then too, “let’s throw some ideas out, like wet spaghetti against a wall, and see what sticks...”

Ideas, in no particular order...

One. A good idea. Canadians in general, are quite wealthy by global standards, and though the gap between the rich and poor is growing, we have the means (a fairly reliable parliamentary system, various policies of taxation and income distribution) to collect and redistribute some of the combined wealth to people, in a relatively fair and judicious manner. So, when discussing the hot topic of pensions, let’s consider and use those means at our disposal as fully as possible, and get our money’s worth from organized levels of government and those taxation and funding systems already in place.


["Four sailors, 1944, on their way to Vancouver Island. No pensions were granted after their years of service. What do you expect in regards to a pension?": My dad is at far left - GH]

Two. That being said, our federal Conservative government is therefore jumping the gun - and this is a bad idea - by pushing onto Canadians a new privately administered pension system called Pooled Registered Pension Plans (PRPP), rather than trying to correct the course with the already established publicly administered plans, the Canadian Pension Plan (CPP) and Old Age Security (OAS) systems. Not just jumping the gun. Prime Minister Harper is also promoting the private plan in a most sly, sneaky and disrespectful fashion - another bad idea - by announcing proposed changes to the OAS while brunching with some of the wealthiest of the wealthy in Davos, Switzerland, and not within the sturdy, democratic hall known to Canadians as the House of Commons.

Three. A bad idea. When trying to educate Canadians about pension plans, reforms, etc., our federal Conservative government should not just rely on reports handed to them on a silver platter by the C.D. Howe Institute, a right-wing think tank made up of, and sponsored by, more of the wealthiest of the wealthy, whose chief philosophies relate to lowering corporate taxes and reducing public social programs, like pensions. Read, more for the wealthy, less for the other 99 per cent of Canadians. (Good grief, Mr. Harper. We sure know we’re in trouble when you put the foxes in charge of the hen house).

You thought pensions were not tied to politics? Oh, but they are. Always will be.

More to follow.

***

Please click here to read The Canadian Dream is dust: Thots about my pension

.

2012 in Review PT 7: “Short-sighted government policy affects jobs in Canada”

Good jobs will continue to erode across Canada in 2012 - the Electro-Motive Diesel lock-out in London, Ontario is the tip of the iceberg - and hard-working communities will suffer as result.

When healthy wages and benefits are gutted there will be those who say, for example, that “Electro-Motive employees need to realize they are (a) lucky to have a job” and be grateful they were left with something a bit better than Ontario’s paltry minimum wage.

Those are real words and sting in the face of rising profits for manufacturers who want ever-cheaper wage payouts.

Canada’s short-sighted Conservative federal and provincial governments offer stinging messages as well when hopes for job growth and security are considered.

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said his government will be assessing public sector pensions before the 2012 budget is reviewed. “Overall, sure, I think we have to. If one’s going to make any sort of intelligent assessment of government spending in Canada, one has to look at... benefits and pensions.”

Review all you want, I say, but any intelligent look at government spending must be twinned with an intelligent look at declining government revenues, and here our government is lacking. Not one word has been mentioned since the Conservatives came to power about the decrease in revenues as a result of their lower corporate tax rates in the near past or what will happen to revenues after future decreases in tax rates.

Not one intelligent word has been spoken about how the increase in spending related to fighter jets and prisons (no one knows the final cost of these two very expensive ventures) may be related to public sector pensions, even though most Canadians can see the two are related, and that someone’s pension may well pay for a concrete prison cell inside a country with declining crime rates.

In Ontario, provincial Progressive Conservative finance critic Peter Shurman says, “We can say that there are some things that are sacrosanct. One of them is you (Liberal leader) will continue with the reduction in corporate tax rates. (We) are unwavering about lowering business taxes.”

Some innovative and far-sighted business ventures do turn tax cuts into jobs and live up to the name ‘job creators’. However, many corporations pass most ‘low tax rate benefits’ along to only the owners and share holders and will move from one community or country to another in search of the cheapest labour, not to create good, secure jobs, but to create more profits. Many times the title ‘job creator’, which our Conservative Prime Minister throws out with abandon, should be replaced by ‘community destroyer’ - to be fair - but don’t hold your breath waiting to hear it. Some things are sacrosanct, but not good, secure jobs for willing workers.

When it comes to job creation, short-sighted government policies come up short.

[Photo by GHarrison]

***

Please click here to read 2012 in Review PT 6: “Harsh attitudes in the present will crush the less-fortunate”

.

2012 in Review PT 6: “Harsh attitudes in the present will crush the less-fortunate”

The following letter to the editor appeared in a local newspaper recently:

Not so fast, EMD workers

As much as I understand how such a wage change could affect the lives of employees used to making a higher wage for so long, Electro-Motive employees need to realize they are (a) lucky to have a job and (b) still going to be making $6 more an hour than a lot of people.

Samantha M.

January 16, London Free Press


As well as asking “Where will good jobs come from in London, jobs well-paying and secure enough to support committed workers and their families well into the future?” in this series of posts, I also must ask, “Where do people get the idea that salaries, just a few dollars more than Ontario’s paltry minimum wage, will pay for groceries and a mortgage for a couple, let alone a small family of three?”

No wonder there was a rally in Victoria Park on Saturday in support of locked-out Electro-Motive Diesel workers.

[Photos by G.Harrison]

***

Please click here to read 2012 in Review PT 5: “Harsh attitudes in the past crushed the less-fortunate”

.

2012 in Review PT 5: “Harsh attitudes crushed the less-fortunate in the past”

Do you have a library card? If so, I recommend you borrow a book by Bill Bryson entitled At Home: A Short History of Private Life.

As I’ve been writing and thinking about the demise of good jobs in this decade (particularly in 2012), I’ve noticed that Bryson’s book occasionally provides evidence of several harsh attitudes that crushed not only the spirits but the bodies of the poor and less-fortunate. (As mentioned in an earlier post, the poor made up the majority of citizens for many centuries).

For example, I recently wrote that the consideration of even the most basic human rights in the mid-1800s was hindered by cruel attitudes from unexpected quarters. Reverend T. R. Malthus (1766 - 1834), for some reason, blamed the poor for their own hardships and opposed the idea of relief for the masses on the grounds that it simply increased their tendency to idleness.

And regarding Ireland’s Great Famine in 1845 - 46, I came across the following lines in Bryson’s book:

From the moment of the potato’s introduction to Europe, failed harvests became regular... Three hundred thousand people died in a single failure in 1739. But that appalling total was made to seem insignificant by the scale of death and suffering in 1845 - 46... It wasn’t just in Ireland that the crop failed - in fact, it failed across Europe - but the Irish were especially dependent on the potato.

Relief was infamously slow to come. Months after the starving had started, Sir Robert Peel, the British prime minister, was still urging caution.

“There is such a tendency to exaggeration and inaccuracy in Irish reports that delay in acting on them is always desirable,” he wrote.


[Monument beside Lake Ontario near downtown Kingston, Ontario]

Lest we say that it was only misguided or uninformed public servants that opposed the idea of relief and delayed any meaningful action on behalf of the less-fortunate, we must hear the following about big business interests of the day:

In the worst year of the potato famine, London’s fish market, Billingsgate, sold 500 million oysters, 1 billion fresh herrings, almost 100 million soles, 498 million shrimps, 304 million periwinkles, 33 million plaice, 23 million mackerel, and other similarly massive amounts - and not one morsel of any of it made its way to Ireland to relieve the starving people there. (pg. 84, At Home)


[Enlargement of monument script: Photos by G. Harrison, 2006]

By now some readers are likely wondering, “What do these harsh attitudes of the past, whether demonstrated by public or business leaders, have to do with the decline of good, secure jobs in the modern era?”

To be sure, I think that’s a very good question as well.

More to follow.

FYI - periwinkles are any small marine snail belonging to the family Littorinidae (class Gastropoda, phylum Mollusca)

- plaice is the common name used for a group of flatfish. There are four species in the group, the European, American, Alaskan and scale-eye plaice.

So now you know!

***

Please click here to read 2012 in Review PT 4: “Grandparents will recall the worst of times”

.

2012 in Review PT 4: “Great - grandfathers will recall the worst of times”

The erosion of good jobs is one of the key issues that will dominate 2012, a year that has lurched into the room in soiled pants and pushed final thoughts about 2011 aside.

Discussion about why good jobs are disappearing will, I’m sure, provide many challenges this year. Hopefully, some positive answers will be addressed.

I will say here, honestly, I have never faced the hardships workers face today in the public and private sector. As far as good, secure, well-paid jobs are concerned, I lived in or went through the best of times (interesting, entertaining, meaningful part-time or full-time work seemed available wherever I looked in the 1950s and ‘60s). So, I’m not well-practiced in facing or overcoming low or no employment.

However, I do know we don’t have to look back too many centuries, even mere decades, before my time to see that good jobs were almost non-existent for the majority of workers and that even tiny improvements in wages, benefits and working conditions were only won through blood, sweat and tears.

Long before you and I were born the dominant consideration in life for both children and adults was inescapably economic. Daily bread was hard to come by in order to simply survive and every person, almost from birth, was considered a unit of production. When John Locke (1697) suggested to England’s Board of Trade that children of the poor - about everyone in the phone book - should be sent to work from the age of three, no one thought it unrealistic or unkind.

One hundred years later, hundreds of thousands of slaves toiled in the cotton fields in the southern states (of the U.S.) and child labour filled the floors of booming cotton mills in England.


“Children were malleable, worked cheap, and were generally quicker at darting about among machinery and dealing with snags, breakages, and the like. Even the most enlightened mill owners used children freely. They couldn’t afford not to,” writes Bill Bryson. (At Home: A short history of private life)

Thank goodness for the wise intervention of far-sighted politicians and their 1844 Factory Act. It reduced the workday for children, most of whom were working 12- to 14-hour days, six days per week. Some worked even longer, particularly during busy periods to meet large orders, likely at Christmas (with no time-and-a-half).

Improvements in conditions, at least in England, came very slowly. Many children were sent onto the streets to survive on their own at age seven or eight and by the 1860s London had 100,000 “street Arabs” who had no education, no skills, no purpose, and no future. The consideration of even the most basic human rights (a very modern term, it seems) was hindered by harsh attitudes from unexpected quarters. Reverend T. R. Malthus (1766 - 1834) blamed the poor for their own hardships and opposed the idea of relief for the masses on the grounds that it simply increased their tendency to idleness.

“And there can be few more telling facts about life in nineteenth century Britain than that the founding of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals preceded by sixty years the founding of a similar organization for the protection of children.” (pg. 415, At Home, B. Bryson)

To learn about the inexorably slow improvements to the poor wages, benefits and working conditions closer to our home and to the modern era in which we live, we need only ask our aged parents (who may recall the Dirty Thirties, Great Depression and longer work days), and grandparents and great-grandparents who worked the mines, mills, forests, farms and factories for very meager benefits in many cases - if they’re still alive.

Though many of these people and their stories are likely gone, I’m sure they would agree that boomers like myself lived during the best of times and the younger generations alive today are seeing the decline of our good, secure jobs.

More to follow.

***

Please click here to read 2012 in Review PT 3: “For jobs, I grew up in the best of times”

.

2012 in Review: "Yummy tomato... crummy weed"

From the series ‘2012 in Review’:

In small-town Ontario, 16 miles south of Woodstock and the 401 highway and 40 miles north of Long Point and Lake Erie, jobs grew on trees - or tomato vines - as far as I was concerned as a ten-year old. I had my pick of part-time jobs helping local growers bring in their harvest of tomatoes, asparagus, apples, strawberries, green and yellow beans, bales of hay and a variety of other crops.


["I had my pick of part-time jobs...": illustration by GH]

At such jobs I not only earned decent pocket-money but learned valuable life lessons as well.

***

Please click here to read 2012 in Review PT 1

Please click here to read 2012 in Review PT 2

.

Welcome to Harperville: “More smoke and fire up your pants”

[“Speculation was rampant Monday that Finance Minister Jim Flaherty is going to break his promise by his boss to erase the deficit in three years.” Today’s London Free Press]

PM Harper promised to erase the deficit in three years, come hell or high water.

(Read my lips. It won't ever happen).

Meanwhile, back at the Finance Dept., Jim Flaherty has been sending out the message, as often as he can, that these are challenging economic times as far as his beady little eyes can see.

To anyone who will listen Jim has also mentioned the following:

- Canada’s unemployment has grown, according to recent reports, from 7.1 to 7.3 %

- the Greek situation could send Europe into a recession

- the US economy is struggling

- because of turbulence (Can you feel it?) his own growth expectations for the near future have been lowered

However, and this strikes me as funny, he hasn’t mentioned his boss's proposed corporate tax reduction for 2011 and how much that will cost the national treasury annually or who is going to have to make up the difference, and how, in the short or long term.

It’s no coincidence then, as many average Canadians are facing tougher times than ever before, there is also the feeling that someone is blowing smoke and fire up their pants.

***

Which Canadian Prime Minister has had the most expensive PMO or Prime Minister’s Office?

Please click here for more smoke and fire up (even down) your pants.

.

Occupy Wall Street, occupy Bay: “Why?” PT 2

[“Why occupy Wall St. and Bay? For starters... fear of another economic collapse, harder on families and communities than the last one... the knowledge that the corporate and banking elite grow richer while an increasing number of families do not.” Oct. 25, G.Harrison, It Strikes me Funny]

I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that occupiers of Wall St., Bay St., and Victoria Park (London, Ontario), to name but a few places, are planning to hunker down where they are in tents and sleeping bags for the North American winter in order to show solidarity to one another and stand behind their message that some things important to them must change.

During the winter some media commentators will still be asking the question ‘why occupy’ for some of the following reasons, among others of course:

because they don’t know what many citizens are thinking

because they know what the occupiers are thinking but don’t support their ideas and believe they should get a job

According to a recent poll, 31 per cent of Sun Media readers believe occupiers should be looking for work, but based on the ongoing struggles in the North American economy and the resultant high unemployment numbers (London is the centre of high unemployment in SW Ontario), the lack of work and good long-term full-time jobs may very well be one of the major reasons why people are taking to the streets in significant numbers to say something to any who will listen.


Though many may know about London leading the province with rates of 9 per cent or more, they will not know by personal experience how no job or a low-paying job affects a single mother or father or family trying hard to keep a roof over their head or the heat on through a long winter.

I don’t know what 9 per cent unemployment means myself. I know numbers of visitors to local food banks will rise because of it, but does 9 per cent mean that 91% are employed with productive, well-paying, full-time, long-term jobs and have nothing to complain about? Does 9 per cent track those without jobs or does it include those who are chronically under-employed? If not, does anyone know the percentage of people, young and old, who only earn enough to scrape by and are unable to save up funds for an uncertain future?

In Death of the Liberal Class by Chris Hedges, Earnest Logan reportedly says the following:

The winters [in New York State] are really hard. There are less jobs and the heating costs are high. It is a struggle [for me]. But at least I have not had to devote forty hours a week to a minimum wage job that does not pay me a living wage. People here are really hurting. The real underemployment rate must be at least twenty per cent. A lot of people are working part-time jobs when they want full-time jobs. (pg. 5)

I would suspect Ontario’s underemployment rate is under 20 per cent but I don’t know for certain. I do know, however, if I was a young person with no decent prospects for a good job in the future, I might consider joining with others of like-mind and raise questions about, for starters, why the world works the way it does, why the gap between the rich and the poor is widening, and why steady work for adequate pay is so hard to find.

Why occupy?

More to follow.

***

Please click here to read Occupy Wall Street, occupy Bay: “Why?” PT 1

.

Occupy Wall Street, occupy Bay: “Why?” PT 1

[“(Ernest Logan) Bell, who lives in Lansing, New York, is the new face of resistance. He is young, at home in the culture of the military, deeply suspicious of the (US) Federal Government, dismissive of the liberal class, unable to find work, and angry.” pg. 2, Death of the Liberal Class]

Some members of local and national media will express surprise when considering the occupation of Wall St. in the US and Bay St. in Canada, to name but two streets where a collection of people from various walks of life are gathering or have gathered to ask or raise questions or make bold statements.

“Why?” some will ask, often rhetorically.

“What does this have to do with anything? What are they trying to say?” some will add.

I read in a recent poll offered by Sun Media in a local paper (Oct. 20, The London Free Press) that 31 per cent of respondents felt, dismissively, the occupiers should just ‘go find a job.’

As I’ve been reading an international bestseller entitled ‘Death of the Liberal Class’ by Chris Hedges, I’ve encountered comments and ideas that may help the media and other observers (some unenlightened, others enlightened but resistant to any change to the status quo) answer for themselves and others the question ‘why’.

The following is taken from Hedge’s conversation with Ernie Bell, NY:

(Bell says,) I believe all signs point to a real systemic economic collapse in the near future... I assure you it’s going to hurt everyone, except of course, the corporate and banking elite... the political system as it stands offers little hope for influencing real change or social justice... we must stand in the streets and refuse to be silenced. We must reject corporate-controlled politics and focus on rebuilding a localized political structure and society. A revolution is the only alternative to complete surrender and defeat. pg. 3


["South Africa's symbol of justice": link to photo]

Why occupy Wall St. and Bay?

For starters...

fear of another economic collapse, harder on families and communities than the last one

the knowledge that the corporate and banking elite grow richer while an increasing number of families do not

the political system offers little help for positive change or justice for many individuals and families

to shake a fist at selfish corporate policies and seemingly powerless corporate-controlled governments

to express support for the rebuilding of the political structure and society

to resist the attitude of surrender and defeat

Are there other identifiable, concrete reasons to occupy streets of significant address in countries across the globe?

***

Please click here to read more about resistance to change.

.

Series of Some Significance: Hudak’s ‘work gang’ election plank

[The following three posts were recently listed separately. I have arranged them together here for your convenience and ultimate satisfaction. Ultimate! gah]

Do you support Hudak’s ‘work gang’ election plank?

Part 1

“Put crooks to work.” That’s the spirit.

At least that’s the spirit in Progressive Conservative Leader Tim Hudak’s Ontario, if he is elected our next Premier.

What Hudak wants:

He wants 2,700 convicted prisoners (excluding young offenders and inmates awaiting trial) to perform up to 40 hours of mandatory manual labour a week, including “raking leaves, collecting garbage and cleaning graffiti.” (May 27, London Free Press)


[“We’re workin’ on a chain gang”: photo link]

He wants to “end the practice of letting convicted prisoners spend their time watching TV or playing cards.”

What Hudak thinks:

“I just think it’s the right thing to do.”

“It’s time for inmates to give back to society.”

He thinks ‘the value of the work the inmates perform would cover the added cost of security and travel involved in doing it, but would also set aside a $20 million contingency fund in case it doesn’t.’

What do I think? Stay tuned.

***

What do you think of Hudak’s plan?

.

PT 2 - Do you support Hudak’s ‘work gang’ election plank?

Ontario PC Leader Tim Hudak plans to put 2,700 (approx.) convicted criminals to work for up to 40 hours per week if elected Premier.

Though Hudak thinks it’s the right thing to do and “details on whether inmates would be manacled together to prevent escape have yet to be worked out” (May 27, London Free Press), not everyone agrees whole-heartedly with his work gang idea.

For example, Jim Bradley, Community Safety and Corrections Minister, feels Hudak “will be putting citizens at risk by bringing dangerous criminals into their midst... (i.e.) our parks and our neighbourhoods and our schoolyards and our business districts, where there are kids and families.”

Correctional workers “support the idea of inmates doing work but would prefer the tasks to be meaningful and productive.”

Alex Hoyos, a resident of my own city, says the following in a Letter to the Editor:

“Bad idea... punitive labour for criminals is a thing of the past.”

Among other things he adds, “Forced labour is immoral, guarding the criminals... costs more than the benefits, the risk of a criminal fleeing is many times higher...”

However, he notes he is not against paid or voluntary jobs within prison facilities that provide meaningful occupations, the possibility of earning some money, and opportunities to learn skills for a job outside of prison. And finally he notes, “this is just another crazy idea from Hudak.”

Then there’s an idea from Harrison.

***

Do you think this is another crazy idea from Hudak?

Would you want criminals raking leaves in a park next door to your property?

.

PT 3 - Do you support Hudak’s ‘work gang’ election plank?

Alex Hoyos of London thinks PC Leader Hudak’s plan to make 2,700 provincial inmates perform up to 40 hours of mandatory manual labour per week “is just another crazy idea from Hudak.”

And me? What do I think? Two things.

I think Hudak’s intentions might not be half-baked. I think his initiative, however, is.

Hudak’s intentions: No one can look inside the PC leader’s little round head to determine the full extent or purity of his intentions, but if he intends to make prisoners rake leaves or collect garbage instead of play cards in order to better prepare them to re-enter society with useful job skills and more education, then society as a whole will receive a benefit.

If Hudak intends to take any monetary savings connected to his work gangs and make some form of restitution to those who suffered losses as a result of certain crimes, then some citizens will receive a benefit.

But can we attribute such intentions to his initiative to send prisoners to do mandatory work such as “raking leaves, collecting garbage and cleaning graffiti?”

I don’t think so. Though Hudak attributes ‘value’ to the manual labour (“He expects the value of the work... would cover the added cost of security and travel... but would also set aside a $20 million contingency fund in case it doesn’t”) I don’t think the value is in sound education or meaningful job skills that will help anyone in the future.

$20 million spent, in my opinion, on meaningful education and job skills is a sound investment in Ontario’s future. And Hudak’s plan has less to do with investing and more to do with inventing. Or re-inventing, i.e., the chain gang.

I’ll let Michael Den Tandt have the last word:

“And of course there's the now obligatory crime wedge issue, whereby right-thinking, law-abiding folks are invited to get mad at the lousy, despicable felons and crooks.

“So the Conservatives would use public money to have convicts, presumably in striped jailhouse outfits or Guantanamo orange, paraded along the boulevards, picking up trash and cutting grass.

“As a campaign platform, it is truly pitiful. It throws the door open to Horwath and the NDP to do something interesting, if they can.” (May 31, London Free Press)

***

If you feel Hudak’s plan has some merit, please let me know.

Please click here to read deep thoughts from a conservative think-tank.

.

PT 3 - Do you support Hudak’s ‘work gang’ election plank?

Alex Hoyos of London thinks PC Leader Hudak’s plan to make 2,700 provincial inmates perform up to 40 hours of mandatory manual labour per week “is just another crazy idea from Hudak.”

And me? What do I think? Two things.

I think Hudak’s intentions might not be half-baked. I think his initiative, however, is.

Hudak’s intentions: No one can look inside the PC leader’s little round head to determine the full extent or purity of his intentions, but if he intends to make prisoners rake leaves or collect garbage instead of play cards in order to better prepare them to re-enter society with useful job skills and more education, then society as a whole will receive a benefit.

If Hudak intends to take any monetary savings connected to his work gangs and make some form of restitution to those who suffered losses as a result of certain crimes, then some citizens will receive a benefit.


["Yup. This outta learn ya."]

But can we attribute such intentions to his initiative to send prisoners to do mandatory work such as “raking leaves, collecting garbage and cleaning graffiti?”

I don’t think so. Though Hudak attributes ‘value’ to the manual labour (“He expects the value of the work... would cover the added cost of security and travel... but would also set aside a $20 million contingency fund in case it doesn’t”) I don’t think the value is in sound education or meaningful job skills that will help anyone in the future.

$20 million spent, in my opinion, on meaningful education and job skills is a sound investment in Ontario’s future. And Hudak’s plan has less to do with investing and more to do with inventing. Or, I should say, re-inventing, i.e., the chain gang.

I’ll let Michael Den Tandt have the last word:

“And of course there's the now obligatory crime wedge issue, whereby right-thinking, law-abiding folks are invited to get mad at the lousy, despicable felons and crooks.

“So the Conservatives would use public money to have convicts, presumably in striped jailhouse outfits or Guantanamo orange, paraded along the boulevards, picking up trash and cutting grass.

“As a campaign platform, it is truly pitiful. It throws the door open to Horwath and the NDP to do something interesting, if they can.” (May 31, London Free Press)

***

If you feel Hudak’s plan has some merit, please let me know.

Please click here to read PT 2 - Do you support Hudak’s ‘work gang’ election plank?

.

PT 2 - Do you support Hudak’s ‘work gang’ election plank?

Ontario PC Leader Tim Hudak plans to put 2,700 (approx.) convicted criminals to work for up to 40 hours per week if elected Premier.

Though Hudak thinks it’s the right thing to do and “details on whether inmates would be manacled together to prevent escape have yet to be worked out” (May 27, London Free Press), not everyone agrees whole-heartedly with his work gang idea.

For example, Jim Bradley, Community Safety and Corrections Minister, feels Hudak “will be putting citizens at risk by bringing dangerous criminals into their midst... (i.e.) our parks and our neighbourhoods and our schoolyards and our business districts, where there are kids and families.”


Correctional workers “support the idea of inmates doing work but would prefer the tasks to be meaningful and productive.”

Alex Hoyos, a resident of my own city, says the following in a Letter to the Editor:

“Bad idea... punitive labour for criminals is a thing of the past.”

Among other things he adds, “Forced labour is immoral, guarding the criminals... costs more than the benefits, the risk of a criminal fleeing is many times higher...”

However, he notes he is not against paid or voluntary jobs within prison facilities that provide meaningful occupations, the possibility of earning some money, and opportunities to learn skills for a job outside of prison. And finally he notes, “this is just another crazy idea from Hudak.”

Then there’s an idea from Harrison.

Stay tuned.

***

Do you think this is another crazy idea from Hudak?

Would you want criminals raking leaves in a park next door to your property?

Please click here for PT 1 Hudak’s ‘work gang’

http://itstrikesmefunny.blogspot.com/2011/05/do-you-support-hudaks-work-gang.html

.

Do you support Hudak’s ‘work gang’ election plank?

“Put crooks to work.” That’s the spirit.

At least that’s the spirit in Progressive Conservative Leader Tim Hudak’s Ontario, if he is elected our next Premier.

What Hudak wants:

He wants 2,700 convicted prisoners (excluding young offenders and inmates awaiting trial) to perform up to 40 hours of mandatory manual labour a week, including “raking leaves, collecting garbage and cleaning graffiti.” (May 27, London Free Press)


[“We’re workin’ on a chain gang”: photo link]

He wants to “end the practice of letting convicted prisoners spend their time watching TV or playing cards.”

What Hudak thinks:

“I just think it’s the right thing to do.”

“It’s time for inmates to give back to society.”

He thinks ‘the value of the work the inmates perform would cover the added cost of security and travel involved in doing it, but would also set aside a $20 million contingency fund in case it doesn’t.’

What do I think? Stay tuned.

***

What do you think of Hudak’s plan?

Please click here to read deep thoughts from a conservative think-tank.

.

Letters to the Editor: Smoke and fire down your pants

[I’m not alone. My recent series, ‘Welcome to Harperville: Smoke and Fire Down Your Pants’ obviously touched a nerve in many.]

Letters to the editor in last Saturday’s issue of The London Free Press reveal I have the pulse of 65% of the nation. (The other 35% live in Harperville).

Justin Z. writes (re coalition governments):

“... people need to realize they are legitimate... a constitutionally viable option.

“It saddens me to see our leaders using bad leadership and flat out lying to Canadians about how a parliamentary system works.”

In other words, Justin realizes PM Harper is just trying to blow smoke and fire down your pants.

Edward J. M. writes:


“I’m being told more and more often that Canadians do not want an election. Well, I am a Canadian and very proud of it. I do want an election.”

In other words, PM Harper’s first words to the press after Parliament had to be closed due to his contempt (“The vote today, which obviously disappoints me will, I suspect, disappoint most Canadians”) was just him blowing smoke and fire down your pants.

Jim R. writes:

“... one party in particular has gotten under my skin. The Conservative party has come out warning people a coalition... would be a bad thing. Stephen Harper has a short memory. The Conservative party is a coalition of the former Canadian Alliance and the Progressive-Conservative party”

More smoke and fire from the big man. Down your pants.

Virginia B. writes:

“Harper’s message of misinformation that the budget was the excuse of the opposition (i.e., reason for non-confidence vote) is being reported by most news services in such a way it appears to carry more weight than the truth (i.e., Harper’s contempt for Parliament).”

More smoke. More fire. Down your pants.

And... you heard it here first

Harperville - Smoke and Fire Down Your Pants

.

Series of Significance: Smoke and Fire Down Your Pants

[The following five posts were originally listed separately. They are resubmitted here in one package for your convenience. I’m all about convenience. No extra charge!]

Welcome to Harperville: Smoke and fire down your pants

[Ottawa - After more than five years as the leader of minority governments, Prime Minister Stephen Harper finally lost the confidence of the House of Commons on Friday...

“The vote today, which obviously disappoints me will, I suspect, disappoint most Canadians,” Harper said. - March 26, London Free Press]

Welcome, one and all, to Harperville... the wee little corner of the universe inhabited by a reformer, deformer and smoke and fire performer of some caliber, and all those who know and love him.

I present to you the Prime Minister of Canada.

Before I allow him to say a few words, however, let me just say that Friday’s vote should have disappointed the Prime Minister. It should have disappointed each member of the House of Commons and each law-abiding citizen of Canada, even those in Harperville.


[“Harper is not even half disappointed”: photo link]

But it should disappoint us for the right reasons.

The following comes from an insider’s view of the House:

“And now the House has found the government in contempt, for the first time in Canadian history, as well as the first time in the entire history of the Commonwealth. The PM dismissed it all this past weekend as procedure; the Speaker has concluded it is pivotal.” - The Parallel Parliament

Harper should be disappointed that he is the only Canadian Prime Minister in history to be found in contempt of Parliament.

Let’s hear what he has to say for himself. Shhh. He’s about to speak.

“I’ve come here today to blow smoke and fire down your pants!”

Crap. Business as usual, as one might expect.

.

Smoke and fire down your pants PT 2

[Headline - Harper 'lies' about coalition details: Broadbent

"I've never seen the leader of a Conservative party, certainly not Bob Stanfield, certainly not Joe Clark, lie — I choose the word deliberately — the way Mr. Harper has," Broadbent said.

The former NDP leader, who helped negotiate Monday's deal between the New Democrats and the Liberals with the support of the Bloc Québécois, said Harper also lied when he said the three opposition leaders refused to sign their agreement in front of a Canadian flag because Gilles Duceppe, a Quebec sovereigntist, objected.

In fact, there were at least two flags present at Monday's signing ceremony, as well as a painting of the Fathers of Confederation. Wed., Dec. 3, 2008, CBC News]

Coalition details:

Prime Minister Harper has a history of lying about coalitions. And the Canadian flag too, for Pete’s sake.


As well, Harper forgets to tell Canadians he signed up for a coalition when Leader of the Opposition. (Did he wrap himself in the Canadian flag at the time? Did the Fathers of Confederation smile upon him?)

My goodness. The man who likes to blow smoke and fire down your pants got burned himself.

Some readers might ask, why should anyone believe his word about a coalition today?

My only response: You’ve never been to Harperville, have you?

However, that’s the past. Surely Harper’s contemptuous behaviour concerning coalitions is behind him. Except for the baggage of the recent, nasty and singular contempt charge (nothing like it in the history of Canada) against him inside the House of Commons, surely it’s clear sailing for our Prime Minister during his future weeks on the election trail.

Recently, the PM landed in British Columbia and promised parents with kids under 18 that they will be able to split their incomes for tax purposes if he’s re-elected.

Whoops.

“But there’s a catch - the measure won’t take effect until after the country is out of budget deficit, likely in 2015.” (The London Free Press)

2015. That’s if all goes according to the Conservative plan and they can afford it then.


2015. That’s if the real world doesn’t throw any curve balls along the way. Like another recession, financial or economic wrinkle.

That’s if Harper is still leading the Conservatives.

In other words, Harper can afford to give wealthy corporations another tax cut next year but can’t afford to help families the way he would really, really like until 2015 - maybe.

That’s what I call blowing smoke and fire down your pants. The guy’s a whizz bang.

.

Smoke and fire down your pants PT 3

[Ottawa - Minutes after his government (i.e., the Harper Government) lost a confidence vote and was branded in contempt of Parliament, Prime Minister Stephen Harper came out swinging against the opposition “coalition.” Mar. 26, The London Free Press]

“What coalition?” one might ask.


Good question. Answer: Harper is just blowing smoke and fire down your pants.

Shortly thereafter Harper promised income sharing benefits to families. They can be collected in 2015 - maybe. Just more smoke and fire down your pants.

Though there is a slim chance some Canadians will benefit from Harper’s promise, there is an excellent chance all Canadians will one day suffer the consequences of providing Harper and Harperites (or residents of Harperville) the keys to high political office.

This from a well-respected, local Member of Parliament:

“I have stood and voted for bills I believed vital to the future and health of this country, only to have the success of such votes ignored by the present government. I looked on as the Harper government secretly passed along a 200-page handbook to its members about how to scuttle committees and blunt their usefulness.” The Parallel Parliament

Surely the writer jests. Harper wants to scuttle committees, blunt their usefulness, slow or hinder the democratic process?

Unfortunately, according to a fine book I’m reading, the MPs words are true.

This from Tar Sands Showdown by Tony Clarke:

“Canada’s vulnerability in terms of energy security (e.g., having enough to heat our homes) was underlined by the response University of Alberta professor and president of the Parkland Institute Gordon Laxer received in April 2007 from the National Energy Board (NEB) regarding a series of inquiries he had submitted in preparation for his report Freezing In The Dark: “Unfortunately, the NEB has not undertaken any studies on security of supply.”

Yet, says Laxer, the NEB was established back in 1959 with precisely the mandate of ensuring the long-term security of Canada’s energy supply.

A few weeks later Laxer appeared as a witness before the House of Commons committee on international trade to present the results of his research on energy security issues in Canada. But, almost as soon as he began, his testimony was shut down by the chair of the committee, a member of the Harper government, who promptly adjourned the proceedings.

In short, there are serious grounds for concern about increasing energy insecurity in Canada, particularly in relation to supplies of oil and natural gas.” pg. 206

Harper is in control? Yes.

Harper is doing what is right for Canada? Not a chance.

But... he is the Grand Wizard when it comes to blowing smoke and fire down your pants.

More to follow.

.

Smoke and fire down your pants: Random thoughts

The following are all original thoughts from inside my little round head:

Mr. Harper will steer the election campaign toward the evil coalition.

Stupid idea.

He will also offer income splitting to some families somewhere in the future.

Maybe.

He continues to hinder the democratic process as he has done in the past, as in the Tar Sands.

He relies on a negative ad campaign to do so.

***

There. Now I feel better.

.

Smoke and fire down your pants PT 4

[Ottawa - Harper insisted the economy is his “No. 1 priority,” since the global economy remains “fragile,” hinting he’ll try to steer the election campaign towards the economy. Mar. 26, The London Free Press]

[“Mr. Harper will steer the election campaign toward the evil coalition. Stupid idea. He will also offer income splitting to some families somewhere in the future, maybe. He continues to hinder the democratic process as he has done in the past, as in the Tar Sands. He relies on a negative ad campaign to do so.” Mar. 31, It Strikes Me Funny by G. Harrison]

Talk about smoke and fire down your pants.

Last night I was enjoying a program on TV and, during a break, one of Mr. Harper’s many negative ads appeared on the screen. Large white letters. Mr. Ignatieff linked to a coalition. Very small white letters. The date. 2008.

Old news it was. From an angry, insecure Prime Minister.

The ad helped me recall the time in 2004 when Harper wanted to lead a coalition himself to replace the Liberals. Was it a stupid, evil idea then?

The reason why Harper, Harperites and all residents of Harperville love their blunt and bland negative ads is because Conservative support across Canada comes in at around 37% during elections, the majority of Canadians are completely willing to support someone who is not Stephen Harper, and negative ads encourage people to stay at home on election night.

That’s right, Canada. Harper doesn’t want all people to vote. Talk about a defender of democracy.

He wants Conservatives to vote (They love his ads, by the way. They’ll vote until the cows come home) but he doesn’t want the other 63% (approx.) of Canadians to vote.

He would rather blow smoke and fire down your pants, lead you to believe that there isn’t an MP in the House of Commons you can trust (except his band of merry men) and make you think there’s no good reason to vote.

Harper’s negative ads don’t work on me.


["The Harper shopping cart is empty"]

They remind me of why Harper is the first PM in Canadian and Commonwealth history to be called into contempt.

The Grand Wizard of smoke and fire is such a tiny little fellow when you get to know him.

More to follow.

.

Smoke and fire down your pants PT 5

[“At no other time in my short and eventful life have I sensed there’s been a greater need for cooperation between Canadian political parties than now.” By Gord Harrison, posted 2 years ago, Cold Lake Sun, Alberta]


["I said it before, I'll say it again": photo by GH]

I said it two years ago (and in The Londoner on Dec. 10, 2008), I’ll say it again. Cooperation between political parties is essential. Challenges facing our country are immense.

But is PM Harper capable of cooperating with other political parties? In a word, no. He doesn’t build bridges. He seems only capable of slinging mud along with bridge-building materials.

This from Doug Finley, Harper’s national campaign director:

“I believe we’re ready for a majority. Certainly the seats are there. Will the tactics change? No, not considerably.” (Feb. 7, 2011, Maclean’s magazine)

In other words, get ready for more smoke and fire down your pants. Prepare for tactics and language that will lead to further divisions within Canada, and not unity.

How could it be any different with an Alberta-style separatist at Canada’s helm?

That said, I now provide a past column to illustrate my point.

Can an Alberta separatist cooperate with the other parties?

At no other time in my short and eventful life have I sensed there’s been a greater need for cooperation between Canadian political parties than now.

I believe that just as one garage cannot manage to put snow tires on all cars in the Deforest City, one school system cannot educate all children or one local church handle the needs of all church-goers, one political party – no matter how many seats it has won – cannot alone solve the many pressing social, environmental and economic problems facing our country.

But is cooperation possible between our federal political parties?

Though recent events in Ottawa suggest otherwise, two things I learned recently make me think, yes.
Gordon McBean, professor of geography and political science at the University of Western Ontario, in last Saturday’s London Free Press said: “Lester Pearson, one of our great prime ministers, gave Canada a legacy of bilingualism, the Canada Pension Plan, universal medicare, a flag and the first U.S. - Canada Autopact, while not having a majority government. He did it by working thoughtfully with the other parties.”

And during a conversation with local federal Liberal MP Glen Pearson two Saturdays ago I was told he is working with Mary Ann Hodge from the Green Party and Steve Holmes of the NDP to develop ideas for environmental projects.

“They were the candidates that squared off against me in the last election,” he said. “But now that it's over, I've asked them to continue working with me to help Londoners come up with clear ideas on the environment. They have graciously accepted and I'm thrilled at the non-partisan attitude that characterizes our meetings. This is the way politics is supposed to work.”

He finished by saying he’s writing a book on non-partisanship at the moment and is convinced the big problems we’re now facing will only find solutions through cooperative management.

Though in the past and present it appears political parties have managed to work together toward important common goals, I have to ask, does Stephen Harper possess an ounce of cooperative spirit in his skill set?

I think I have legitimate concerns after he revealed plans in the House of Commons several eventful days ago to reduce party funding and end the right of women to appeal to the Human Rights Commission when faced with pay equity issues.

He strikes me as a control taker, one who wants all the marbles all the time on his side of the table. Also, the louder he shouted about the coalition’s supposed deal with Quebec separatists the more he made me think he protested too much.

Especially after I discovered he actually supports his own form of separation.

In an online article by Monte Paulsen, investigative editor of The Tyee, entitled Separation, Alberta-style I read that Mr. Harper said the following eight years ago in an article he wrote for the National Post:

“Westerners, but especially Albertans, founded the Reform-Alliance to get ‘in’ to Canada. The rest of the country has responded by telling us in no uncertain terms that we do not share their ‘Canadian values’.
Fine. Let us build a society on Alberta values (i.e. as the province of Quebec has done to protect their values).”

So, can an un-cooperative and possible Alberta-style separatist change his spots, for Canada’s sake, by the time Parliament returns in late January?

I hope so. I’m holding my breath.

(By GH, posted 2 years ago, Cold Lake Sun, Alberta)

I’ve stopped holding my breath. I’m now preparing for more smoke and fire down my pants.

This concludes another exciting series of some significance. I will now go outside and hammer a political sign on my front lawn. The sign will not be in support of the Harper government.

On May 2nd, please vote for your favourite federal candidate or MP.

***

Please click here to read more at the Parallel Parliament.

Please click here to read more about PM Harper and Harperville.

.

Welcome to Harperville PT 5: “Smoke and fire down your pants”

[“At no other time in my short and eventful life have I sensed there’s been a greater need for cooperation between Canadian political parties than now.” By Gord Harrison, posted 2 years ago, Cold Lake Sun, Alberta]

I said it two years ago (and in The Londoner on Dec. 10, 2008), I’ll say it again. Cooperation between political parties is essential. Challenges facing our country are immense.


["I said it two years ago, I'll say it again": photo GH]

But is PM Harper capable of cooperating with other political parties? In a word, no. He doesn’t build bridges. He seems only capable of slinging mud along with bridge-building materials.

This from Doug Finley, Harper’s national campaign director:

“I believe we’re ready for a majority. Certainly the seats are there. Will the tactics change? No, not considerably.” (Feb. 7, 2011, Maclean’s magazine)

In other words, get ready for more smoke and fire down your pants. Prepare for tactics and language that will lead to further divisions within Canada, and not unity.


How could it be any different with an Alberta-style separatist at Canada’s helm?

That said, I now provide a past column to illustrate my point.

Can an Alberta separatist cooperate with the other parties?

At no other time in my short and eventful life have I sensed there’s been a greater need for cooperation between Canadian political parties than now.

I believe that just as one garage cannot manage to put snow tires on all cars in the Deforest City, one school system cannot educate all children or one local church handle the needs of all church-goers, one political party – no matter how many seats it has won – cannot alone solve the many pressing social, environmental and economic problems facing our country.

But is cooperation possible between our federal political parties?

Though recent events in Ottawa suggest otherwise, two things I learned recently make me think, yes.

Gordon McBean, professor of geography and political science at the University of Western Ontario, in last Saturday’s London Free Press said: “Lester Pearson, one of our great prime ministers, gave Canada a legacy of bilingualism, the Canada Pension Plan, universal medicare, a flag and the first U.S. - Canada Autopact, while not having a majority government. He did it by working thoughtfully with the other parties.”

And during a conversation with local federal Liberal MP Glen Pearson two Saturdays ago I was told he is working with Mary Ann Hodge from the Green Party and Steve Holmes of the NDP to develop ideas for environmental projects.

“They were the candidates that squared off against me in the last election,” he said. “But now that it's over, I've asked them to continue working with me to help Londoners come up with clear ideas on the environment. They have graciously accepted and I'm thrilled at the non-partisan attitude that characterizes our meetings. This is the way politics is supposed to work.”

He finished by saying he’s writing a book on non-partisanship at the moment and is convinced the big problems we’re now facing will only find solutions through cooperative management.

Though in the past and present it appears political parties have managed to work together toward important common goals, I have to ask, does Stephen Harper possess an ounce of cooperative spirit in his skill set?

I think I have legitimate concerns after he revealed plans in the House of Commons several eventful days ago to reduce party funding and end the right of women to appeal to the Human Rights Commission when faced with pay equity issues.

He strikes me as a control taker, one who wants all the marbles all the time on his side of the table. Also, the louder he shouted about the coalition’s supposed deal with Quebec separatists the more he made me think he protested too much.


Especially after I discovered he actually supports his own form of separation.

In an online article by Monte Paulsen, investigative editor of The Tyee, entitled Separation, Alberta-style I read that Mr. Harper said the following eight years ago in an article he wrote for the National Post:

“Westerners, but especially Albertans, founded the Reform-Alliance to get ‘in’ to Canada. The rest of the country has responded by telling us in no uncertain terms that we do not share their ‘Canadian values’.

Fine. Let us build a society on Alberta values (i.e. as the province of Quebec has done to protect their values).”

So, can an un-cooperative and possible Alberta-style separatist change his spots, for Canada’s sake, by the time Parliament returns in late January?

I hope so. I’m holding my breath.

(By GH, posted 2 years ago, Cold Lake Sun, Alberta)

I’ve stopped holding my breath. I’m now preparing for more smoke and fire down my pants.

This concludes another exciting series of some significance. I will now go outside and hammer a political sign on my front lawn. The sign will not be in support of the Harper government.

On May 2nd, please vote for your favourite federal candidate or MP.

***

Please click here to read Welcome to Harperville PT 4: “Smoke and fire down your pants”

.

Welcome to Harperville PT 4: “Smoke and fire down your pants”

[Ottawa - Harper insisted the economy is his “No. 1 priority,” since the global economy remains “fragile,” hinting he’ll try to steer the election campaign towards the economy. Mar. 26, The London Free Press]

[“Mr. Harper will steer the election campaign toward the evil coalition. Stupid idea. He will also offer income splitting to some families... in the future, maybe. He continues to hinder the democratic process as he has done in the past, as in the Tar Sands. He relies on a negative ad campaign to do so.” Mar. 31, It Strikes Me Funny by G. Harrison]

Talk about smoke and fire down your pants.

Last night I was enjoying a program on TV and, during a break, one of Mr. Harper’s many negative ads appeared on the screen. Large white letters. Mr. Ignatieff linked to a coalition. Very small white letters. The date. 2008.

Old news it was. From an angry, insecure Prime Minister.

The ad helped me recall the time in 2004 when Harper wanted to lead a coalition himself to replace the Liberals. Was it a stupid, evil idea then?


["Is this head the home of all that is negative?"]

The reason why Harper, Harperites and all residents of Harperville love their blunt and bland negative ads is because Conservative support across Canada comes in at around 37% during elections, the majority of Canadians are completely willing to support someone who is not Stephen Harper, and negative ads encourage people to stay at home on election night.

That’s right, Canada. Harper doesn’t want all people to vote. Talk about a defender of democracy.


He wants Conservatives to vote (They love his ads, by the way. They’ll vote until the cows come home) but he doesn’t want the other 63% (approx.) of Canadians to vote.

He would rather blow smoke and fire down your pants, lead you to believe that there isn’t an MP in the House of Commons you can trust (except his band of merry men) and make you think there’s no good reason to vote.

Harper’s negative ads don’t work on me. They remind me of why Harper is the first PM in Canadian and Commonwealth history to be called into contempt of Parliament.

The Grand Wizard of smoke and fire is such a tiny little fellow when you get to know him.

More to follow.

***

Please click here to read ‘Smoke and fire PT 3.'

.