Some Attitudes Towards Senate Rather Irresponsible

I was shocked at Craig Oliver yesterday when, with a sweep of his hand, he dismissed the Senate, claiming it should be abolished. I am surprised too at the NDP who are quite emotional and categorical about their denunciation of the Senate. This is part of our government; it is in our constitution. You don't just play around with a total package, picking away at this and that.

If these people are serious, why don't they explain exactly what it is they dislike so intensely and - very importantly - how the expect to keep the balance currently provided by the Senate. And don't give me that b.s. that it costs $50 million a year - a drop in the bucket when you look at Harper's spending sprees.

Since Harper hasn't been successful so far at neutering the Senate, like he did with Environment Canada, maybe he could privatize it - how's that, a privatized Senate, just like the bozos now replacing the bureaucracy at HRDC?

I cannot escape the conclusion that Harper hates Canada and everything it stands for. He wants every branch and every person who "defies" him to be taken away in handcuffs. He won't be happy until Canada's destroyed or absorbed into the US. The question is are the likes of Craig Oliver and the NDP of the same mind?

And On And On And On .....

Does the man just never get it - is this the best he can do: fabrication, puffery, threats - it just never ends.

His latest from CTV news re the Senate: "They have not merely defied the government, they are defying elected members of parliament, public opinion and all common sense," Harper said Friday afternoon, speaking to reporters."

I guess it bears repeating for some:

1. the Senator is part of the government!!

2. "defy" implies an all-powerful authority, like a a dictatorship - is that where he wants to go or does he think he's there?

3. he has a low-in-the-polls minority government - is there some overwhelming consensus among "members of parliament, public opinion" we haven't heard about?

4. and "all common sense" - ah, one of our Mr. Harris' special terms, defined by some as " the knowledge and experience most people have, or are believed to have by the person using the term" - in this case it must be the latter. I suppose even a delusional person can assume they know what common sense is.

Is This Really Our Prime Minister Speaking?

It literally hurts to call this man our Prime Minister.

According to CTV news, this is how he speaks: "So I think there'd be a sure lot of anger if a bunch of unelected guys decided they could block what the elected people did and what their constituents want."

1. What national leader speaks like this? He sounds poorly educated and undignified.

2. Whatever one may think about the Senate, for the Prime Minister to talk about one of Canada's constitutionally created governing bodies in this way, is shocking.

3. The 'elected people' are the ones who appointed the Senators (who can forget Mr. Fortier for example?). The 'elected people' are elected to uphold the constitution, and therefore are bound to allow the Senate to do its job.

4. To say the constituents of the 'elected people' want this budget is incorrect; some consituents of some 'elected people' want this budget and the Senators are doing their best to be a voice for others.

I am ashamed that we as Canadians elected this man and that he is our face to the world.

How's This For a Theory to Explain Harper's Bizarre Behavior?

I've never been able to figure out what Bush and his gang really want, but, I have to say, it certainly looks like they want control over at least part of the world's oil resources. I've also never been able to figure out how a government can go on failing at soemthing, like Iraq, and not feel like they should do something differently.

So how's this for a theory: in order to control an oil-producing country, you create such chaos that there is no effective opposition. Given this approach, what is happening in Iraq is a success, so of course Bush et al. will continue to do what they are doing.

So how do you control Alberta's oil, well you could try Harper's Firewall approach, or you could destabilize and decentralize the Canadian federation. If this is your goal, then Harper's unprecedented actions of treating some premiers like s.... make sense. The chaos he is creating is then not a failure at leadership, but an initial success - at destabilizing Canada.

Not Even Bush is That Pathetic

No head of state that I can think of - ever - went to an international summit and trashed his opponents in his own country - not even Bush. Harper embarassed the whole country with his pathetic speech in Germany - he reduced our stature, he made us look as pathetic as he is.

And to top it off I think he lied. Can he truthfully say the Liberals did "nothing" and passed legislation that made the situation worse?

This man is beyond the pale, and to judge by some of the expressions and body language during his speech, some important world leaders think so also.

And that cutsey "Baird/Harper at the big table" photo op, too embarassing for words. These guys are just not cut out for the world stage.

What Am I Missing Here?

There's something that has been bugging me for some time now. As we hear so very frequently, the Conservatives have a huge war chest. So where did they get it? Apparently Mr. H. refuses to reveal his donors. Dion has referred to Harper receiving large donations from right wing groups in the US for his Alliance leadership campaign, donations I assume were not all spent and which are now available to the cons. Presumably there is oil money there as well.

Does this mean then that any Liberal who has money left over from pre-legislation times can continue to use it, throw it into the pot so to speak, and refuse to reveal its source?