It must be silly season

Well for we citizens of the GWN (Great White North) looking at American politics is always an interesting and rather humorous exercise as well as being somewhat frightening.

First of all you have Michele Bachmann who said during the Republican debates that the countries that the US "liberated" should pay for their "liberation". I'm sure that the Iraqis really appreciated being liberated (read invaded) after 100000 civilians dead and four million displaced, as well as having their infrastructure destroyed and their standard of living crushed. First of all they never asked to be invaded and then occupied for the next nine years and I'm sure a lot of them that lost family and friends would love to payback the US although I'm not sure the US would like the payback. Now Ms. Bachman has a right to her opinion but there really should be an intelligence test to become President of t he United States.

The next person that caught my attention was Rick Perry who believes that it is the United Sates' god given right to rule the world. He also believes that the economic recession was god's punishment for not being good christians. He also doesn't believe in evolution and really believes that god talks to him. Here in the GWN we have special places for people who hear voices telling them to do weird things. What really boggles the mind is that he was elected governor, but then again Texas also elected George W. Bush. (Who, by the way, seems a real genius beside this yahoo)

Here in the GWN, we are also not exempt from political weirdness. We have the Honourable Lisa Raitt, Minister of Labour, who wants to change the labour code so that the economy becomes an essential service, which would in effect take away pretty much everyone's right to strike, letting companies pretty much do what they want…. Somehow coming from the conservatives this doesn't surprise me, but what does surprise me is that the same workers elected them in the first place.

 

Short sightedness

The end of the school year approaches and has not been made easier by the fact that our road infrastructure in Montreal is literally falling to pieces. Last week they had to close one of the four bridges to the south shore because the gussets which hold the steel beams together had rusted out. The next closest bridge is also under inspection/repair pretty much on a permanent basis since as they so euphemistically say it "has reached the end of its lifespan" (read it’s falling to pieces also). Add to that the Turcotte interchange where three highways congregate also has really big problems. They have closed some exits and reduced lanes on others because of safety concerns. They originally didn’t put in enough steel bar to solidify them so they are now falling apart. So to say the least, our island roads look pretty much 3rd world. Now add to that, that all traffic must cross onto the island to head westward because there is no ring road around Montreal to avoid the city (it’ll be finished late in 2012 maybe) and you have a recipe for chaos.

Now why is that? Well it’s pretty easy to understand. There has been massive underfunding of the upkeep and inspection of the roads and bridges for the last 50 years or more because the politicians don’t see those as being very sexy and politically advantageous. In the last 50 years we’ve spent money for the Olympics (we’re still paying for t he Olympic stadium), spent money on two referendums and all the feasibility studies that went with them, we are even now, as the roads and bridges are falling apart, spending 400 million on a new arena in Québec City so they can get a NHL hockey team. These are all nice to have, but they should be paid for, if and only if, there is money left over after having taken care of the essentials, such as roads, bridges, health care, education and all the other essential services.

Out society today needs lessons in pragmatism and in looking longterm. Our politicians can’t see farther than one or two years and the next popularity poll. I suppose that throughout human history it has been pretty much the same thing... « bread and circuses » as things fall apart around us.

Can you spell democracy Mr. Harper

We’ve always known that the Prime Minister liked being in control and that he and his party were found in contempt of parliament (stonewalling the elected representatives of the people about information they needed to do their jobs) but this week Mr. Harper and his party has proved it without a doubt.
Usually when there is a public meeting or rally, it is supposed to be public not just opened to the party faithful. The Conservatives have been making the Canadian voters register if they want to attend a Conservative rally where the Mr. Harper will be speaking. They then do a background check and if you do not pass their loyalty criteria, you are out of there, escorted by the local bouncers.
Can this be real, oh yes. Last week Awish Aslam, a 19-year-old University of Western Ontario student and her friend, went to a Conservative rally where they were told that they were not welcome. Why might you ask?  It was because they had been to a Liberal rally the week before and had posted a picture of themselves with Michael Ignatieff (see previous post)  on Facebook. Miss Aslam has been going to all the different parties' rallies to get a better idea for who to vote for, which is what voters should do. Was it just a slip up of overzealous political organizers? Nope, it seems that this is not the first time that this has happened. Did the Mr. Harper apologize to the people? Again no, he feels that it is OK to do this kind of screening, but what can you expect from a politician that limits the number of questions the press may ask to only five un-embarrassing questions per photo op.
Now kicking out the « undesirables » seems to be standard practice with the Conservatives. Gentlemen, can you spell D-E-M-O-C-R-A-C-Y, where the people are allowed access to the politicians to ask questions and get answers before making an enlightened decision??? What is really ironic is that they closely screen the voters and yet in the PMO (prime minister’s office) one of his top advisors is Bruce Carson, a man who has five fraud convictions. Hmmm,  makes one think doesn’t it?

Read The Montreal Gazette article here

It's that time again.

If you haven't heard yet, we are in the middle of electing our beloved leaders. BS is flying fast and furious everywhere and promises to make our lives a veritable paradise abound.
Who are the protagonists in the epic clash, well for those of you who do not live in our beautiful land here is a rapid who's who.



Stephen Harper: leader of the Conservative party. Comes from the Reform/Alliance (radical right) party before they took over the conservatives after having united their fortunes. He is known to be autocratic and doesn't really feel that he needs Parliament except to rubber stamp his decisions from the PMO (prime minister's office, a kind of unelected executive). He is a kind of "Bush lite". His platform is mainly law and order (even if the statistics prove that crime has gone down), more military, tax cuts to the large corporations (which probably means that I will be paying more taxes to make up the difference), Republican style attack ads and scare mongering. Has ties to the oil industry and the religious right.




Michael Ignatieff: Liberal leader, liberals being analogous to the Democrats in the US, is an unknown quantity since this is his first election as leader. He is an academic and was at Harvard before becoming the Liberal leader after coup-d'état against the last leader who had even less charisma. His popularity is not the highest at the moment and his chances of forming a government are pretty slim. His platform is left of center and contains promises for families and the middle class. If he does not have a good showing or Harper gets elected with a majority, his days will probably be numbered.




Jack Layton: the leader of the New Democrats. This is a socialist party a bit like the Labour party used to be in the UK. Jack is probably the best liked of the leaders. He seems to be a genuinely nice guy. His party advocates for higher taxes for corporations and the rich, more social programs and more environmentally friendly actions. He is a nice guy but nice guys usually finish last.





Gilles Duceppe: leader of the Bloc Québécois is a big bad separatist, according to Harper he has horns and a forked tail. He is a charismatic and pragmatic leader and is probably the best statesman of the bunch. He is wildly popular in Québec and his party stands to win about 50% of the popular vote here. He usually wins most of the seats for the province. His platform is socialist with the added bonus of wanting to take the province out of the Canadian Federation. His party runs no candidates outside of Québec but that doesn't stop him garnering popularity outside the province.





Elizabeth May: leader of the Green party. This party garnered about 10% of the vote but has elected nobody to parliament. As the name says their platform is principally about the environment and socially they a also a socialist party (kind of goes together). Doesn't have a chance in hell of forming the government but that isn't stopping them from trying.
So there are the choices. If you haven't yet figured it out I'm not a great Harper/Conservative fan and I can only hope he doesn't win enough seats to get a majority because, with apologies to my American friends, I really don't want to live under an American style Republican Right government. There is also my feeling that Harper's style of social policy will play into the hands of the separatist Parti Québécois (provincial separatist party with ties to the Bloc) who will use the fact that Canada has values that we in Québec (we usually have more socialist values here) can't live with. They will then have a referendum and might just win it.
So on May 2nd it's off to the polls we go. I only wish sometimes that there was always a final choice on the ballot, "None of the above". I'm willing to bet that this option would get the most votes.

- Posted from my iPhone