Mother’s Day...Mothers’ Day...

Oh, so now you’re going to pick on Mother’s day, 900. Nice. Bet you never even had a mother.

Actually, I had a terrific mother. You could have used her as a template for ideal motherhood, or what most people consider idealistic in a mother on this day we take ours out for the token dinner, give her the token flowers, and say, “Mother! Just relax! Let someone else wait on you for a change! This is your day!”

I am deeply ashamed to say I was old enough to know better the day I realized with a shock that my mother was a complete human being with dreams, hopes, and interests that extended beyond her own family. Being the good mother that she was (you know, back in the good old family values days), she would never even drop the slightest hint to her husband or kids that she was anything but fulfilled by her roles as mother and wife. You see, a good mother puts her husband and children first, and wouldn’t want them to feel guilty that she has so completely put her own dreams aside to do so.

My mother was extremely intelligent, up on current events, enjoyed and could hold her own in discussions on national and international politics. She had a wonderful imagination, was creative, adventurous, and in touch with nature. Yet you had to watch to catch glimpses of these things since she rarely did anything solely for her own pleasure. After most of us became adults, we still had to practically bully her into doing things that served no one’s happiness but her own. She felt too guilty, you see.

And yet, this intelligent woman, up on current events knew this was not how things should be. She didn’t complain about her own life, but she cautioned some of us not to cater to our spouses.

I’m going to apologize to my siblings because some of what I write may sting, and their memories may be different. But out of respect to my mother, and for women in general, I will continue.

Yes, my mother was largely viewed as a very good wife, a very good mother, and a very good Catholic. What’s that saying? The road to heaven is narrow?...

Despite trying and succeeding in the eyes of most at being the ideal mother/wife, if we watched closely, we could see she didn’t completely believe that women should, or could, deny their own sense of self and dedicate their lives to serving their family. If we watched carefully, we could walk into a room and see a wistful look on her face. If we listened carefully, we could catch the sudden, subtle drop in her tone as she broached certain subjects. If she was very tired, her frustration would occasionally surface, holding a liberation movement of its own.

She was, as I said, a good Catholic, and it nearly killed her. I have seven siblings and all of us love and value each other. But there is little doubt in my mind that the years of childbearing and rearing took their toll on her already poor health, and she died relatively young. The Church might say, but look! She brought eight people into the world! Yes, there’s that, four of which are female, and had we girls not payed attention to her gentle warnings, had not had her encouragement to read, study, get a good education, we may have fallen into the same self-obliterating roles that she did.

She was a good mother, and she wanted better for us.

So Mom, this is for you, for the vibrant, intelligent, loving, fun, adventurous person that you were. This is my tribute. That I recognize that you were more than a role, and I write this hoping that some day, all people everywhere will come to understand that a woman’s dreams, spirit, and individuality don’t leave her with the first afterbirth.

My kids know not to take me out to a restaurant on Mother’s Day. I hate those token outings, not for myself - my kids and I relate well, speak openly, and there is mutual respect for each other as individuals. They know I find it extremely depressing to sit in a restaurant, looking at some of the mothers there, their eyes glazed and a little confused, clearly out of their element being treated as someone deserving of special attention.

It’s heartbreaking to see a mother’s discomfort when someone says, relax, Mother! Let someone else serve you for once! Such words should never have to come out of the mouths of family. For once? Serve? What the hell happens the other 364 days of the year? You can pretty much guess by the way the mother seems to need permission to relax.

The faces of the adult children in such groups are also enlightening. Self-congratulatory, magnanimous, and the voices a little too loud. Unnatural, I’d say. Sue, because this putting mom first and acknowledging her is not the norm in their lives.

As the meal progresses, with people fussing over mother and addressing her like she’s a child, conversations begin to form between family members. Mother is not deliberately excluded, it’s just that she is not up on the topics, and no one really seems to consider she may have anything of value to say. Every once in awhile, someone remembers Mother’s presence and asks if she would like more coffee, or goes through the motions of including her in the talk. Mother, you remember how Harry always liked horses?

Not all families treat their mothers this way, but there are still many who do.

Someone left a comment with this post, asking if I would write something about taking back Mother’s Day. The comment offers this site, which covers the origins of the day, and how the founder, Ms. Jarvis, was an activist, and how Ms. Howe, a peace activist carried on Jarvis’ fight to de-commercialize the day and bring greater recognition to the person behind the mother role.

I think it’s lovely to have a day to recognize mothers. But when it’s directed by commercialism, a commercialism that does little to discourage antiquated roles for women (look at the gifts commercials suggest. See how women are portrayed in the ads. Check out the condescending tones), it’s just another way of using women and reinforces the old, smothering, spirit killing roles of women. A good mother is selfless. A good mother needs nothing more than to serve her family. A good mother never, ever thinks of herself or her needs and dreams, which is why we just have to, have to provide this one single day every year to be nice to her and treat her.

We still have a long, long way to go with women’s equality. Women are still too often considered by two roles: wife and brood mare. Harsh, yes, but I can’t say “mother” because I would like to see that label become something more than it is today. I would like to see recognition of the person behind the role, which far too often is still that of a brood mare.

My mother did die young, but she fortunately lived long enough to do some things solely for herself, and she lived each of those experiences with passion, inquisitiveness, and a hell of a lot of fun. I, and I am sure my siblings, are so grateful for that. We saw some of what my mother could have done with her life had she not been bound by those good old fashioned family values.

I cannot say my mother’s life was unhappy. She accepted her roles, but never killed that exuberant spirit that fought to get out. She understood the times, her family, and the demands of her Church, and she made a decision for herself to follow those assigned roles. But she wanted us to be free of them.

The photo that most exemplifies my mother is one in which she is standing with some of my siblings in our driveway. She is holding up some trophy one of us won at school. Her face is beautiful. Unrestrained joy as she holds up the trophy high above her head. Selfless love, joy for our accomplishments.

My mother wanted better for us. In honour to Fernande, I write this piece. Yes, we carry on the fight, Mom. Every damn day.

And I love you now as always.

And Palestine is still a battle zone. Sorry.

Lynch, Wouters, and red tape

There is little doubt that Kevin Lynch, Clerk of the Privy Council, is being replaced for political reasons. People of all party affiliations should be concerned.

The Clerk of the Privy Council is very powerful. As highest-ranking civil servant, that person is the link between the public service and the PMO. The PM looks to the Clerk for advice and insight concerning the federal public service, and independent and supposedly non-partisan body which serves not an elected government, but the public.

This distinction is important, because public concerns and goals rarely match those of a governing political party whose main concern is usually holding onto power and gaining more seats.

Ideally, democracy is set up so that no conflict exists between public and political interests, the idea being that if the public is unhappy with the actions of a government, they will not re-elect them.

Unfortunately, the public is often not aware until too late that it has been tricked and lied to. We have many recent examples of this: buried reports of what lead to the listerisosis outbreak, problem at the Chalk River nuclear power plant, studies on the deadly nature of asbestos being withheld.

How did our democratic system fail in these cases? Public servants were bullied into burying reports, public servants courageous enough to do their job despite pressure from politicians were fired, and the top civil servant himself failed - to a degree - in protecting the non-partisan nature so necessary to our public service.

What? Kevin Lynch, now being touted as the last of the great civil servants failed?

In part, yes. The guy is on the way out, almost certainly because he is trying to do his job and is too good at it, and hey, don’t speak ill when his replacement is considered by politically motivated people to be a huge improvement.

Of the many articles written about the Lynch/Wouters forced change of guard, the one by James Travers is, in my opinion, the most honest and insightful.

It's murmured here that Lynch differs from his predecessors in an important way. They kept their resignation letters ready to deliver if prime ministers crossed the line between cynical politics and national interests. Lynch would more happily deliver deputy ministers' resignation letters if they failed to jump high enough to please his political masters. Apocryphal or mean, the story crystallizes a fundamental change in how Ottawa functions. Once expected to find and hold the fine balance between advising cabinet and protecting the public service, Privy Council clerks are now primarily the prime minister's loyal deputy.

The successful attacks over the past three years against outspoken public servants as they have been guilty of nothing more than trying to do their jobs, serving the public in a non-partisan fashion, supports what Travers says.

He offers a couple of examples of his own and asks a disturbing question:

Last November, that realignment surfaced when bureaucrats helped the government deliver an essentially misleading economic update while mixing public policy and political provocation. Months earlier, Lynch tabled a report blaming largely innocent bureaucrats, instead of guilty Conservatives, for leaking a NAFTA memo that badly embarrassed Barack Obama during the Ohio presidential primary.

Those examples leave hanging a disturbing question: What does it take to hold this prime minister's support? Clerks rarely leave the job with a lot of friends. Yet Lynch's premature exit is badly rattling those who worked closely enough with him to know his defining strengths and weaknesses. Reasonably enough, they question if anyone could satisfy Harper - and Giorno - if not the cerebral, workaholic and yielding Lynch.

Wouters is expected to satisfy in a way Lynch was unable to. And what is it that Harper wants?

One government official says the prime minister wanted someone to deliver billions in stimulus spending for infrastructure projects at record speed, and by the rules.

The Conservatives want two guarantees if they're forced into an election this year, the official said: construction projects to point to, and no nasty headlines about how rules were broken to make them happen.

And Wouters, according to what’s being written over the past few days, is the man the Conservatives hope will make that happen.

He is a hockey-obsessed economist who in his career on Parliament Hill has developed little patience for red tape...When he's butted heads with someone over a project, he's been known to put in a call to Lynch _ and before too long an order from Harper would work its way down the system, ending the dispute in his favour.

Here’s an example of Wouters’ way of getting things done and cutting through that troublesome red tape:

He became the campaign chair of a fund-raising drive for Ottawa's United Way in 2007 and helped set a fund-raising record.

Wouters was...concerned that if he asked his employer for permission, he might be told it was a conflict of interest to solicit funds for a charitable organization. So Wouters figured out a novel way to avoid breaking the rules.

''He never asked for permission,'' said Michael Allen, president of the group's Ottawa chapter. ''He shared this with me _ that he knew this was the right thing to do. He knew the rules might trip him up if he asked for permission. ... But he made sure he did the right thing.''

Well, that’s fine if you are infallible, absolutely incorruptible, and have unfailing insight into what is best in every case for the public. Unfortunately, our species has so far failed to produce such a super being.

And that is partially why we need red tape. We need teams of specialist in many fields who can study the impacts of proposed actions and decisions, and these teams need to unfailingly place the needs and welfare of the public before all else. They must absolutely be non-partisan, or the public is at the mercy of whatever government is in power, and of that party’s political agenda.

With the Conservatives down in the polls and Ignatieff showing himself more than capable of standing up to previous petty tactics employed by the CPC to raise themselves by lowering their opponent, they know they need more than nanny scandals - real or not - to boost their popularity enough to win the next election. Canadians are facing the realities of an economy in trouble, and when such problems come directly into people’s homes, scandals on the Hill, poor English skills, or how much time a leader spent in a foreign country mean little. The CONs have placed the economy in the front because they have to, and they need to deliver concrete results - or at least convince Canadians that they are producing results.

The thinking appears to be that the Conservatives are stalled in the opinion polls and their best hope is the stimulus package that was unveiled in the January budget.

But the money isn’t flowing. In fact, the funds from last year’s budget are largely left unspent. Whose fault is this? According to Harper and Co., the guilty party is the public service - one public servant in particular -

The blame for this has been laid squarely at the door of Louis Ranger, the deputy minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities -- even, it is said, by the Prime Minister himself.

One senior Conservative said this is unfair and that Mr. Ranger is simply the quintessential public servant trying to ensure that projects applying for stimulus funding are given due diligence. “Louis is just trying to mitigate all possible risk to the government for the day when the Auditor-General starts looking at infrastructure spending," he said.

Regardless, the Prime Minister's Office under chief of staff Guy Giorno is said to have little patience for Mr. Ranger or Mr. Lynch's apparent inability to force the money out the door.

"That's the main focus for the next few months as we head toward a possible fall election," said one Conservative. "Results, results, results."

Enter Wayne Wouters, the man who has little patience with red tape and is willing to ignore circumvent rules by not asking for permission. He will be expected to produce "results, results, results" and do so quickly by cutting through the layers of public servant checks and studies built into our democratic system specifically to make sure our welfare, health, and safety is paramount.

This should deeply concern all Canadians. We have a government fighting for it’s life, wanting to put through projects as quickly as possible purely to get re-elected and damn the other consequences. That means by-passing studies and recommendations related to safety, to environmental impact, to accountability, to non-partisan selection of service, to quality of service, to value for dollar. As long as the short term results come fast and appear good, the rest is not to be taken into account.

The added danger of shifting the role and accountability of the Clerk of the Privy Council by what journalist Ian Macdonald describes as an act having “the air of a palace coup” is that the relationship between the PCO and PMO risks changing, long-term. So while some Canadians may cheer and say “good deal! Harper needs the public service under his thumb,” what happens when the Liberals get in? Or any other party? A partisan public service will serve whatever master is in power, regardless of who made the new rules.

I mentioned earlier that Lynch began that shift of placing the demands of the PMO above concerns for Deputy Ministers and those public servants who work under them. I stand by that, as there has been a notable change in how some departments report to the public, and that pressure has come directly from the PCO since Lynch took the top position.

Now that it seems that despite that, Lynch is still too non-partisan for Harper, what nightmares of secrecy, mis-information, lack of accountability, and by-passing of measures set in place for public safety and welfare will we face under the new guard chosen by a government specifically for his ability to fast-tract and dodge the accountability measures our public service is paid - by us - to protect us?

In fairness to Lynch, he worked very hard on badly needed public service renewal, trying to streamline the public service and find ways to created a bridge between that service and elected governments who often find themselves at odds due to conflicting priorities. A practical man, by all accounts, who recognizes the nature of the two beasts he has to deal with. If he were allowed to remain as Clerk, perhaps we would have seen some real benefits - reduction in redundancy in the public service, elimination of some unnecessary red tape, smoother relations between elected government and the public service. I do not believe it was his intent to remove the independence of the public service, but rather to address some of the divisions that exist between Parliament and departments.

I have been hard on Lynch, so I’ll give him next-to the last word. This, in part, is a Citizen Special written by him and published the very day his “retirement” was announced (emphasis mine):

In this age of instantaneous communications comes a demand for instantaneous responses. The 24/7 multi-channel communications universe now expects 24/7 responses from governments, from public services, from business, from whomever. This, in turn, has changed the complexity of public policy-making.

With much more "real-time" information access by the public through a wide variety of data sources, it raises the issue of whether the speed of policy-making processes can possibly match the expectations for the speed of communications responses. And, if it can't, what are the dynamic consequences?...

Deregulation, light-touch regulation and the scope for regulatory arbitrage will come under deep scrutiny, within and across the G20 countries, as will the role and scope of international financial and development agencies.

Public policy has provided a solid foundation for the Canadian financial system in the midst of this global upheaval. More generally, at no time has government needed a professional, non-partisan public service more than today as we face the most difficult international economic circumstances in recent history. A high-performing public service is crucial to Canada and Canadians as we work our way through these very uncertain times.

Lynch gives what seems a parting warning and some indication of why he was ousted. We must not trade off a non-partisan public service and careful scrutiny of policies shaped by an elected government in the name of expediency.

I add to that - especially if the rush to act is politically motivated.

Yeah, I know...

I was supposed to shut down until September, but how do you not write about 8 year olds sold in slavery under the guise of legal marriage to 50 year old fucks?

Damn leftist bleeding heart!

So, it'll be light posting, mostly weekends - still cross posting at A Creative Revolution.

(gee I missed youze guyzes!)

A headline that should never have to be written

8-year-old Saudi girl divorces 50-year-old husband

Our species can send people to walk on the moon, take organs from one body and successfully transplant them into another; manipulate genes, build nuclear bombs, instantly communicate with people pretty much anywhere in the world, create artificial intelligence to a degree, make black hole and atom crushers, hold world summits on the economy and the environment, create virtual worlds...

We think we are so advanced, but that same species has government and cultures in which a man can sell his 8 year old daughter into slavery - and that’s what it is since she becomes the property of whatever old fuck she is sold to - and this is sanctioned by law.

We focus so much on what we believe sets us into that world of a wise species, a mature species, those big things that make the big headlines, pat ourselves on the back, and gloss over such cruel, barbaric acts as allowing the enslavement of children.

We cry out, in our own Parliament against slavery and selling children into slavery, but we turn away from such sales because the government labels it under a euphemism - marriage. And why? Well, the Saudis are our friends! We trade with them. They control a lot of the world’s oil! So what’s a little girl or two?

Children, especially female children, still being sacrificed by our species because it’s just not economically feasible to save them.

An 8-year-old Saudi girl has divorced her middle-aged husband after her father forced her to marry him last year in exchange for about $13,000, her lawyer said Thursday. Saudi Arabia has come under increasing criticism at home and abroad for permitting child marriages. The United States, a close ally of the conservative Muslim kingdom, has called child marriage a "clear and unacceptable" violation of human rights.

Call it what is is, Obama. Slavery. And where’s Canada’s voice in this?

Before anyone goes around saying the girl at least had the right to divorce the pedophile, it was done in an out of court “settlement.” The way, I suppose, you settle between seller and purchaser on questionable goods. The mother’s request for the divorce was at first rejected as well, the courts saying the child had to reach puberty first.

Un-fucking-believable. An 8 year old isn’t mature enough to get a divorce, but she’s old enough to be sold into slavery under the guise of marriage?

Saudi Arabia's conservative Muslim clergy have opposed the drive to end child marriages. In January, the kingdom's most senior cleric said it was permissible for 10-year-old girls to marry and those who believe they are too young are doing the girls an injustice.

Really? Let me figure that one out...let e get into the frame of mind of a mysoginistic prick with a fundamentalist, stone-age religion who never, ever, ever wants to see woman as being equal to men...oh, yeah!

It would be a vast injustice to have such girls suffer through years of wondering what career they should chose; it prevents them from ever having to be subject to the agony of being in love; they don’t have to worry about getting an education; and just think of what they sve in outfits, keeping up with the other kids!

I suppose it’s much better to do them this service:

Saudi newspapers have highlighted several cases in which young girls were married off to much older men or young boys including a 15-year-old girl whose father, a death-row inmate, married her off to a cell mate.

Is Saudi Arabia entirely in agreement with the sale of female children under the guise of marriage? No.

But some in the government appear to support the movement to set a minimum age for marriage. The kingdom's new justice minister was quoted in mid-April as saying the government was doing a study on underage marriage that would include regulations.

Let’s help them with that, shall we? Let’s just imagine what such children suffer, and whether or not it might be better to actually let them grow up and choose their own partner.

Imagine an 8 year old girl being sold by her own father to an old fuck. I think that’s bound to cause her some psychological damage, don’t you? That whole parents as protectors thing? The issues of abandonment?

Next, the 8 year old goes into a strange household and suddenly has to stop being a child, but a...wife. She goes to her marriage bed and suffers repeated rapes by the old bastard. Let me repeat that. The 8 year old girl is repeatedly raped by on old man, and has no recourse under the law.

She cannot go to school, cannot play with other kids, cannot even slip on a pair of comfortable shoes and go for a walk if the mood strikes her. She cannot visit her own parents - even the sperm donor who sold her, without permission from her rapist.

She misses all of those years between 8 years old and full-adult that are so critical in becoming a well balanced, healthy person.

She begins producing offspring as soon as she hits puberty. A child herself, she’s too young to be a mother, but that scarcely is an issue since the children aren’t hers anyway, but the property of the old fuck who rapes her, and that same old fuck will likely sell her female offspring whenever he chooses.

More here on Saudi marriage law as it relates to children.

Oh yeah. We’re really advanced as a species, aren’t we? We embrace obscene religions that encourage the view that women and children are properties; we place economic relationships with other countries above fighting against the abuse of children everywhere; we continue to turn away from the very real fact that females all across the planet are still viewed as vessels for reproduction, male property under marital law, punching bags when the man has an off day, creatures strictly there to support a male world, men’s lives.

The photos here are all of 8 year old girls. It’s not just some Saudis who need to take a long hard look at them and recognize that they are kids with a full range of emotions, kids with dreams, kids who need to be nurtured, valued, and loved as kids. The rest of us need to take a look as well, understand the torture these children are legally being subject to and demand our own government do something to force nations that allow this to change their laws.

We also need to ask ourselves about our own cultural attitudes towards women and children that this, for us, is little more than a headline that captures our attention for a moment, makes us shake our head in disgusts, but allows us none-the-less to move on to what’s really important - you know, those wonderful distractions provided by an enlightened species.

The fastest thing in the universe...

..is time.

Or so a Buddhist told me. I get the point. It keeps rolling along, never taking a break and you can't cash in some chips to get more of it when you need it.

Regretfully, I have to stop blogging until September. I have too many projects right now and since they all involve writing, I can't have that many stories, essays, and such building themselves in my head, waiting to be written out every day. It's the process behind the writing I need to keep my head clear for.

Thank you, you fine readers who have kept visiting this quiet blog. Have a good summer. I'll most likely still put up the occasional post at A Creative Revolution (they are very kind over there and sometimes allow strays).

Not that kind of transparency, Harper

Harper’s party is struggling to survive against worsening odds but Steve’s efforts are akin to a person trying to stave off a killer migraine by screaming at everyone within earshot.

With his party down in the polls and his personal popularity dropping even within his base supporters, Harper has a two prong plan. It is a transparent plan.

Do whatever is needed to survive until after the 2010 Winter Olympic Games in Vancouver, and run attack ads against the Liberals and Ignatieff in particular.

Very transparent, exposing yet again a man and a party whose priority is to base policy decisions entirely on political survival. The problem with that is two-fold: we’ve seen this desperation before with Harper, and catering so exclusively to some voters not only alienates others, but does nothing to improve the state of our country or the lives of its citizens.

Furthermore, it clearly tells Canadians that Harper and his party are there for there for themselves, not us.

Freelance journalist Ian MacDonald put it well -

More broadly, there is no larger sense of public policy or public purpose coming from this government. It's all tactics and wedge politics. There are no big ideas, no compelling agenda. That's a leadership issue.

In stark contrast we have this article by Andrew Cohen explaining our need for something more compelling from our politicians, as well as our own responsibility in effecting change -

Dryden was memorable that December evening in Montreal. It wasn't his style or his rhetoric. It was his instinct and his idea -- his idea of Canada -- that was compelling...(H)ere he is again, three years later, talking up Canada. "We are more, so much more, than we are willing to see and know," he says. "That bothers me, because this understanding hammers into place a ceiling in our country's life that is so limiting, so beneath what we can do and be.

So that anything we as individuals or a government can imagine ourselves doing -- economically, socially, environmentally, internationally -- becomes so modest, so limited and certain to remain that way until we can think about ourselves differently."

Dryden doesn't have all the answers. But that isn't the point here. The point is to ask the question, which hasn't been asked in decades.

I had and still do have my qualms about Obama, and I certainly have many concerns about Ignatieff. However, both men accomplish one thing despite their shortcomings as leaders - they inspire people toward a larger vision, a progressive vision of the countries they work for.

Liberal insiders constantly tell me that the Liberal party is more than its leader. In Ignatieff’s case, I certainly hope so because he is picking up steam along with the party, and I would not trust him to exercise the same strangle hold on his members as Harper has done within the CPC. Too slick, can’t trust him. If, however, the Liberals encourage people like Dryden not only to speak publicly and inspire us to work for positive changes, but also allows then to be active in policy change through unfettered engagement in decision making, there is some hope we can pull out of the stasis we find ourselves in. Hope that a Canadian government can move away from politicking and into policy shaping.

There is little doubt that Harper is a zombie politician. Still walking around, refusing to acknowledge that he’s dead. Once the press starts writing article after article on how a politician is history, it’s a done deal. We saw it with Dion, and many other political leaders that came before him. It’s not a conspiracy by the press to burry the politician, it’s simply a culmination of bad moves, policies, and gaffs that came out as a result of the person’s actions.

And now, as Harper tries to keep breathing, he continues to do the very things that killed him in the first place - refusal to take advice from his own members, thus turning them against him; doing the very things he derided other leaders for doing, such as engaging in deals with the Bloc and NDP (oh my!!!! Separatists!!!!!); blatantly going for the photo ops, thinking in his deluded, narcissistic fashion that people cannot fail but to love him; ridiculously attempting to bask in the glory of people and events he has not contributed to in any fashion; and making it damn obvious that he places his own survival far ahead of the welfare of country and citizens.

His latest bid for keeping those few remaining cells alive is to bargain with the Bloc and NDP. This is not the same as a minority government working with the opposition to pass good legislation. This is a blatant bid to survive politically, and the reasonableness of the opposition demands are less than secondary to political party goals. Judging from the comment section in this ctv article - a media source that tends to lean far right in the comments section - people are not impressed and view this latest Harper master strategist move as hypocritical, desperate, even a betrayal to core supporters.

Not far back down memory lane -

Harper said that the NDP and Liberals have entered into an "unholy alliance" with the Bloc Quebecois - "a party that is here in Ottawa for no other reason than to destroy the country we all love." - December 2008

Harper’s words back then will surely conjure imagines such as this:


Harper does not inspire. He does not build from the good, he begins with a negative view of Canada, and dismantles. A Northern European welfare state, and happy to be that way.

Dryden - and hopefully he is representative of the Liberal party’s views, does the opposite -

Dryden... suggests the problem is more existential than political. He laments that somewhere, awhile ago, we lost our spirit and our way. We stopped doing things that mattered.

He goes on to tell us not only what we can be, but what we were, what we’ve done. Build from our strengths.

It is easier for many people to simple get caught up in a wave of enthusiasm for something new and energetic. This contributed largely to Obama’s win. Now, it’s up to Americans to put and maintain pressure on their new government to follow through on promised change.

In Canada, we need the same thing. Inspired leadership. A wave of enthusiasm for positive change. If we do not have a decent choice of leaders, then we need to look beyond that person’s rhetoric and remember that usually, a government is more than a single person and look to a party that believes in Canada and Canadians’ ability to effect positive change. A party where we see that individual members will be allowed to speak publicly, and act on behalf of those constituents who elected them.

Finally, it is also the responsibility of citizens to actively pressure whoever is finally chosen to run our country to keep promises, and place our welfare before their own.

Condolences to family and friends

Maj. Michelle Mendes

He’ll represent Harper mentality, anyway

Prime Minister Stephen Harper today announced that he is sending his Parliamentary Secretary, Pierre Poilievre, to represent Canada at the Conference Against Racism, Discrimination and Persecution in Geneva. This conference is organized by an international group of non-governmental organizations.

“Canada will always stand with those who are involved in the fight against all forms of racism, including anti-Semitism,” said the Prime Minister. “I know that Pierre will represent us well in Geneva.”

Uh-huh...

Maybe it’s actually a rehabilitation camp the little pompous prince of pathetic is going to -

Well that explains why Harper wasn’t invited

(Emphasis mine)
"It's basically to get a lot of smart people in the same room and try to hash out deeper questions about Afghanistan and Pakistan policy," Tyler Moselle of the Carr Centre told Foreign Policy Magazine. "It's off-the-record and limited to a certain group -- a mixture of Washington, international, and Afghan and Pakistani experts and humanitarians..."

No call for economists, I guess. Or master strategists who drop in the polls and alienate people more and more through their master strategies.

Michael Ignatieff will hold private meetings in Washington this week with President Barack Obama's inner circle in a move to showcase the Liberal leader's close bonds to the Democratic administration and a possible one-on-one meeting with the popular U.S. president before the next general election.

Ouch -

"Michael Ignatieff is not even prime minister and already the Obama team is reaching out to him for his expertise and because they believe he will be Canada's next prime minister," said one senior Liberal.

All the right moves, or most of them, anyway. The right moves to get elected, to forge bonds with the US without coming across as a lap dog and a sycophant.

Still, slick can get a guy elected, but it’s good policies that benefit citizens that make a good leader. Ignatieff, in my opinion, has been coming up short in putting human beings’ welfare first, in my opinion.

It’s likely we shall see how much of a democratic, decent leader Ignatieff can be since it’s looking more and more like he’s going to be moving to 66 Sussex.