What conservative voters cannot explain

     I guess I can chalk this one up to entertainment purposes. I have questions I've been trying to ask conservative voters since the election writ was dropped, so far, not one of them can come up with any kind of suitable or sensible answer to any of my questions.

     I hope some of you will crawl from wherever you're hiding in shame and provide your explanations of my few questions below. But hope and a buck fourty will get me a medium coffee at Tims.

     Let begin my variety of things I want conservative voters to explain. I suppose conservatives don't have the nads to read this, so perhaps my usual readers will have a few more questions to throw out when they too are under attack by trolls.

     First, I'd love for you to explain your view that your party is good for the economy. I call it clueless to go from a 16 billion dollar budgetary surplus with a sustained pattern of making actual payments on the principal of the national debt to running the largest deficits in history. You call it good management. Explain that one, or perhaps this is how you handle your personal finances so it's normal for you.

     That's not the hardest question I have for you, my dear conservative voter friends. That's merely a test to see how one can wholeheartedly support lying to oneself. If I've learned anything, it's that conservatives have no time to be bothered with facts.They have too much on their plate studying rhetoric and foolish talking points. I also have to give honourable mention to their vocabulary when it comes to name calling and swearing when one attempts to introduce facts into the conversation. Bravo.

     So...tell me how you look in the mirror every day knowing your choice of Prime Minister is widely known to be a control freak who rarely opens his mouth to do anything but lie. You idolize a man who surrounds himself with criminals (Bruce Carson, Top Aide in the PMO and a 5 time convicted fraudster). That's not enough, the slime continues with his fundraising senators, 2 of whom have fraud charges pending. No suggestion they step down, not even so much as a suspension. You must be proud of that! Talk about the moral high ground! Since you think it's fine to blather about being tough on crime without a clue what that even means, even if we could pretend Harper didn't know Carson was more than a tiny bit crooked and engaged in dangerously looney behaviour with women of questionable character, someone had to have given him very high security clearance for his job. Even when the lurid details were publicly revealed, no call for an investigation how these serious crimes could be overlooked. No heads rolled for whoever cleared him, which also wasn't revealed no matter how many times the questions were asked. Plenty of staffers were thrown under the Harper bus during the election, but they were all low level functionaries. The obviously provided traction for the supporters of people of such high moral fibre.

     Let's discuss outright theft from taxpayers. Don't tell me you don't know or have never heard of the "In & Out" scheme. I suppose you're fine with a political party stealing money from taxpayers, or, your party stealing it (you're still indignant about Adscam but that was a different party). I guess that's acceptable to tough on crime conservatives. Now if you don't understand in and out, it's basically the same thing as going to an ATM, making a deposit with an empty envelope then withdrawing cash. I guess only good conservative citizens engage in this type behaviour, I know I'd never do something like that. They may not have defrauded banks, but they claimed illegal subsidies for local advertising to the tune of 1.2 million dollars, tax dollars, from your pocket too dummy. I guess that's the conservative "cost of doing business"

     Now if you're going to support a crew of thieves, you might as well shred all of your moral fiber and cheer on the misappropriation of 50 million tax dollars for one riding, Tony Clement's Muskoka riding. Aside from presenting parliament with a request for dedicated money to improve the speed of border crossings (which is actually very important for business) and taking a 50 million dollar chunk to spend on Gazebos and portable toilets and beautification ideas like signs and fancying up the areas where the G8 leaders never went, the spending itself was decided by politicians alone, with absolutely no paper trail or consultation with senior civil servants as has been the practice since confederation. I admit I don't understand how you could possibly be ok with this, but you are. I'm not, not with any party.

     It only makes sense that you support pesky little things like altered documents and tabling in the house of commons a document which contained two blatant lies, using the words of highly respected individuals (former Auditor-General Sheila Fraser, and Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page), taken from other documents or interviews about other subjects and using them to give the official impression these two watchdogs were praising them. That's more fraud. To be kind, it is encouraging plagarism which will earn you a quick exit from any university, and cost the Dean of the U of Alberta medical school his position just recently. I guess your kids will grow up with no values either, what with your wholehearted support of such activities.

     I have plenty of other things I'd like to know, as soon as you answer to these.

     You condone criminal behaviour, you're ok the theft of taxpayer money, you are 100% fine with people who lie, who are vindictive and try to destroy the lives of innocent people (Helena Guergis for one), you don't mind if they fritter away billions of dollars your grandchildren can't afford to pay. You are open and accepting of outright fraud. Hell you must be a swell group of people.

     Glad you aren't my people.

Why they call me socialist.

     I went most of my life without ever having been labelled a socialist. It's only been the last decade or so that partisan politics, which used to be fought over policy differences, has fallen to the level where people no longer have a point, they have an ideology. They don't want to hear your ideas because theirs are always right and you are stupid because you don't realize. So since you don't agree with idealogues, they resort to name calling.

     More than any other tag, I have now largely been labelled as a socialist. Don't feel bad for me, I can defend my positions very well. If I couldn't I would not have a firm position. I thought I'd run through some of the reasons I've been called a socialist and I'll allow you to decide what label you want to put on me, if any. I actually have a name, you're welcome to use it, or call me whatever you wish, that's out of my hands.

     The first time I was called a socialist, I remember well. I had been engaged in a discussion at a party, a group was discussing a fundraiser for local food banks. I join in, since I've seen this stuff first hand and if I can help I will. In the course of the discussion, I remarked it was too bad food banks exist and I wish we could use all our energies fighting to ensure no one needed a food bank. One of the participants looked at me and said: "You're a socialist. It's because of people like you we're in such a mess. The government can't take care of everyone.". I was taken aback. So I replied, "If government is not for the people, all the people, aren't we going against the exact thing government is supposed to do?" . The answer? "Government isn't for all the people, just the winners. You can't make everyone happy.".

     I immediately withdrew, in order to avoid what surely would have become a nasty disagreement. I'm passionate about what I believe to be right and I don't wither under any attack, intellectual or ideological. I am as comfortable in a fight for the moral high ground as I am in a knock-down drag-out gutter brawl. If you choose to lock horns with me, I have no problem with whatever tone you set. Bring it on, may the best person win.

     This was my first experience in Canada with what I prefer to call the "republican" attitude. I've watched it in the states for a long time, it's a very mature process there and was actually picked up on by Harper and his backers a decade or more before I was first called socialist.

     Here, for your own judgement, are some of my core beliefs. If you wish to label me that is your choice. If you identify with me, great, I'm sure we'll be great friends. I don't mind if people have different views than I do, that's how we are supposed to learn from one another. Happy reading. I really appreaciate those willing to comment below, it helps me improve this blog. Again, thanks for reading.

     These are things I believe in:

     I believe in justice for human beings. Not just criminal and civil justice, but social justice as well. Not because I need social programs for myself, but because I recognize there are people who are neither as lucky as I am, or those, for whatever reason, who are either unable or unwilling to care for themselves. I am not here to judge others, whether it is due to their success, or their failure. That is not my place.

     I believe in the equality of all people. I do not believe any person on this planet is any better or worse than myself. I bow to no one, nor do I ask anyone to put me on any kind of pedestal above any other human being on this planet. We all have our own merits and demerits, some similar, some different, but in the end, If you cut any human they will bleed. If a human loses their mother, almost universally they will feel pain, and they will cry. We all feel happiness, sadness, love, and the myriad of emotions that make up the human spirit. These are the unalienable ties that bind us all, regardless of skin colour, country of origin, choice of personal beliefs, sexual orientation, political views, Language, religion, none of that matters for one simple fact. One truth. There exists only one race, that is the Human Race.


     We live in an incredibly wealthy country. On an annual basis, in the 21st century, we still allow people to suffer on the margins and in poverty. We have continually watched our own lives go from liveable to the point where we need to obsess over our personal spending in order to maintain our standard of living, not luxurious by any extent. Meanwhile, we don't realize that just considering the staggering amount of annual profits for only the top 50 companies in Canada, a portion of those funds could be used to give every Canadian a better life, a better education, better health care, better infrastructure, and most of all, a better future.

     I am not anti business, I am not against wealthy people. I have no problem with those who are successful, however, very few business or wealthy people succeed alone. Business' depend on workers, on consumers, stars of stage, screen and sports depend on fans. I'm not asking anyone to give everything up, just to share enough so no one is in need and so we all have a better society.

     I believe if people weren't abjectly poor and uneducated or under-educated we would have less crime. That if all of society, people, business, and government, were kinder and more considerate of the feelings of the lesser among us we would be more peaceful. I believe if we wanted to we could easily have a better society, not utopian, never totally equal, but one in which everyone is secure in the knowledge they won't go hungry, that they will always have some place to live, that they don't have to worry they won't have heat or electricity or clean water, that they have a right to an equal education, and should they desire to improve themselves and our society by furthering their education they should not need enter working life saddled with debt. That no one person is more deserving of the opportunity to enrich all of us than any other, regardless of social standing.

     I believe proper health care is a basic human right, applicable to every man, woman, and child residing on Canadian soil. If we set our priorities for the betterment of society, for a better Canada, we will make the biggest contribution to mankind any country ever has in history. We could prove that people can still get rich without the misery of having people who are poor. The more we educate ourselves and our children, the higher standard of contribution we give to the future of our country. If we could change the mindset from whoever has the most, wins, to something more kind and rational such as I have more than I need so I can give up a portion so others don't need to suffer. It's still capitalism. There will still be the rich and very rich, successful and very successful, but by taking an edge off that to go toward building a better society with a brighter future, we become the capitalism we should strive for. I truly believe this is possible, and rather than hurt anyone, it will help everyone and society will actually advance. Others will see the sense of this approach, as happier people are more productive and cause less problems to society.

     I just want to leave with a bit of an example. You can check published sources for the profits of the top 50 or more Canadian corporations. I know the total was actually higher, but for my purposes, I'm going to use 100 Billion dollars as the profit number for last year. Knowing how economies work, let's say it's fair to assume some years in the last decade they made less, others they made more, so I'll say in the last decade, corporate profits in Canada have been one Trillion dollars. An impossible number to grasp in your head. I see nothing unreasonable in saying to corporations, as you have the right to do business in Canada, you too have a responsibility to share with citizens a portion of the profits for the betterment of society. In return, you will receive more educated, healthier, happier, more well adjusted people working for you. Threats to your person or business will be greatly reduced when people are not angry or hungry or unable to get the medical treatment they need. We, as a society, want just 25% of what you take from society after all the bills are paid. You still get 750 billion excess dollars, and society has 250 billion to invest into the health, education, and the well being of an entire nation. This year alone, corporations could have taken 75 billion dollars in profits, and what benefits to society could have been had with 25 billion dollars to take care of health and education and ensuring at least basic dignity for our fellow man. The rich still get rich. The only difference between rich and super rich is the numbers, there are a few on earth who could never possibly spend all the money they have in 1000 lifetimes. They accumulate wealth neither they nor their families nor all their friends will ever need yet people starve to death ever day. It's wrong. Rich people are people too. People run corporations. The shareholders who demand ever more profits are people. We need to appeal to the humanity that exists somewhere within all humanity. Only then will we truly move forward as a species.

     If those things make me a socialist, or any other label you want to put on me, so be it.

     I'm comfortable with who I am and will die with few regrets.

Sorry Harper, Conservative values are American values.

     The latest conservative slogan is cheesy, and for their believers, the sheeple as I lovingly refer to them, it works. I'm talking about the new "talking point" which will be continuously rammed down your throat by every partisan hack in sight. Canada will be flooded with the "Conservative values are Canadian values" which would be okay if there were an atom of truth to the statement. This catchy little slogan will be picked up and repeated to people so often they will come to believe they actually believe it.

     It's no different than phenomenons like urban myths, or using viral video hoaxes as a marketing tool. Anything perceived to be true, is true, until proven different, but only in the case of people who are open minded. There are many people out there who think it is some kind of shame to admit when they are wrong. People who will continue to cling to absolute proven lies because they see it as some kind of defeat to accept they've been mislead. It's because of the sheer numbers of these kind of people that society continually takes one step back for every one or two forward.

     Almost all Canadians I've come in contact with are generally glad to be Canadians rather than Americans. Traditionally, there have been similarities, but also marked differences. Americans tend to be relatively boastful and highly jingoistic. They're known world wide as being rude, boorish, and overbearing. They have more braggadocio than the rest of the world's population combined. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of wonderful Americans, but the image of those people is never projected. Like the voice of moderates in Canada today, they are marginalized, however they've had to endure it far longer. American is known as a global bully, whether it is militarily or economically. The majority of Americans I interact with are shockingly inward looking, they believe, because they have been indoctrinated to believe since birth, the America is the greatest country in the world, which naturally means everything should go the way America wants it to go and if it doesn't, you take the chance of being bombed into the 12th century.

     Americans are the first to criticize repressive countries who openly control their populations, you know, countries where the leader's name is preceded by the word "general" or places you see with gigantic murals of the leader for life and massive military parades which serve two great purposes: showing off your might to the world, and reminding your domestic population who's in charge.

     The sole reason America can be such a vocal and sometimes violent critic, is because they have found a way to do the exact same thing without the bad optics. From birth, everything in America is about indoctrination. Waving an American flag commands a lot of attention, because even little children are taught to pledge their homage to the flag of their country, which, not incidentally, get the "G" word in at the end. From the time they are babies they are repeatedly told America is the greatest country in the world. As for the military parades, not required when you have made the military a viable religion. If you think I'm fooling, just watch any number of live events, sporting events, etc. The US Military is keenly aware of the value of having their "colour guard" appear on camera. No problem at all in arranging a fly past by some impressive aviation killing machines, or a display of military vehicles and weapons at your even or festival. They don't just have a single memorial for veterans, they have memorials spread far and wide because they are immensely personal and touch many lives. They remember veterans on several national holidays. No matter what the public event, you'll see two things. The flag, and men/women in uniform. This folks, is deep integration at its best. To the point where you are vilified if you even attempt to criticize even the most heinous actions of the military.

     Unfortunately, in this country, many people are still deeply confused over the conservative party. They believe they know what conservative values are, after all, for many, their families have voted conservative for generations. This was the coup of all coups for Harper and his small circle of friends and advisors. Keeping the word conservative to identify their party, and a carefully thought out logo which is purpose built to make former progressive conservatives believe this is still their party.

     Make absolutely no mistake about it. Stephen Harper is nothing like a progressive conservative. He sees them as weak, and soft on his agenda, however, in order to set his agenda in place he needs those people, or perhaps, past tense, he needed those people to get his majority. Why do you think he convinced his minions they "needed" a majority in order to have "stability" and get rid of the "shenanigans" going on in parliament. Nice line, people figured that's plausible, there have been plenty of badly run conservative governments in the past and we've survived them, what's so different about Harper's conservatives? Truth is, plenty.

     Stephen Harper is a republican. He only began to somewhat hide that when the time was right to wrest control of a much-weakened progressive conservative party, not because he cared about the fate of that party, he needed the brand name. That's it. Prior to his initial run to become PM, Stephen Harper made no secret of what he thought of Canadian values, especially when his audience was full of American ears. This man was unabashedly apologetic for everything Canadians held (and I hope still do) dear. He called Canada a "Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the word". He attacked everything from medicare to bilingualism to being a nation more partial to peace than war. All his words, not mine. I've never believed Stephen Harper had or has a hidden agenda. Until he became an important figure in Canadian federal politics he never hid the fact he believed that not only should Canada be more like America, but Canada should reflect a far-right republican America. Canada should be a country where, if you can't or won't survive on your own, too bad, hopefully someone will help you out but it would probably be better if you were dead. We should ensure our good friends, the Americans, have access to all of our resources, on their terms, as long as his backers would benefit financially from it. Governments should not run the country, corporations should. He'd love nothing more than an injection of good old convenient Christianity into our society as well, ergo, the slashing of funding for women's groups, because women should be a lot more like women in other countries, at home, having kids, married and staying that way even if you need a beating to know your place once in a while. Of course he never would have dropped that one publicly, but their policies are geared toward encouraging women to be quiet and most certainly out of the boardrooms of the country. One only needs to examine the "income-splitting" proviso promised when they balance the budget by cutting funding and programs for anyone who openly opposes them. Who will benefit? Not the people who really need help. Not single parents, or anyone with a family income less than $42,500. How many people are immediately exempted by just those 2 conditions alone? Mostly, Stephen Harper is all about government for the few, by the few, and fuck you.

     Because of the lack of foresight of the over 20% of Canadians who offered up Harper's coveted majority, I am going to take great delight from your anguish at what you've done. With 4 years of absolute power a lot of things can change, and they will. Too bad for you sheeple, you see, I'm interested enough in people and politics I've been preparing myself for this for a decade. I'll be fine. On the other hand, your family and friends are going to be hurt in ways you never bothered to think of because you see politics as some kind of sporting event, whereas I see politics as the jerks who run my life. I don't fear the Harper agenda because I know the Harper agenda. I generally don't wish anyone ill will, but I will say to the ignoramus' out there who didn't bother to understand what you were voting for, I hope the policies implemented over the next four years really put the screws to you personally, or at least to someone you care deeply about. It's what you deserve for your intransigence. It's the price you pay for ignorance. In four years the Canada you've lived in all your life, or the Canada you came to for a better life will not be recognizable. Stephen Harper promised that, many years ago. I have no reason to suspect he will not follow through. At the end, he'll still be rich and getting richer, you'll be screwed, and frankly, people like me will smile and say, it looks good on you.

     Welcome to America Lite.

     To Stephen Harper I say, conservative values are your values. You've openly expressed you hate the things that made us uniquely Canadian, now, for a time, you will get your way. By the time you're exposed to the willingly blind, you'll be gone, the damage will be done to a great extent, but you'll never be remembered as a great Prime Minister by anyone but yourself and your friends. Congratulations. You've proven Canadians are embarrassingly naive.

     To my fellow 60%'ers: Stop thinking about today and start thinking of how we are going to restore a once great and respected country. We'll have a lot of work to do. There isn't a shred of doubt in my mind that the political party that will be tasked with bringing Canada back does not exist today. That's just my opinion.

     Canadian values are Canadian values. They're not conservative values or liberal values or NDP values. No single party represents Canada or Canadians. I know the Prime Minister doesn't care, but I do. A majority of others do too, chances are we aren't going away.

Foreign Policy or Moron Policy?

We have a new foreign minister, you are familiar with the partisan blowhard jerk. His name is John Baird, an inconsequential weiner if there ever was one. He's not foreign minister because he is capable and can articulate a global position for the government of Canada, he has his position because he is fiercely loyal to Kommandant Harper and spent years hollering loud talking points with no relation to any of the legitimate questions in the house. This is how the Harper Dictatorship works. People who are willing to blindly do whatever they're told, whether they actually have any principles they are compromising or not (although I suspect principles put you at the bottom of the food chain/back of the backest of backbenches), are the ones rewarded with important positions, without requiring the qualifications to do the job..

     Since Harper paid a visit to Afghanistan and unfortunately was not introduced to a close up IED, let us start there. This is a mission that pisses me off. Not because we are there, but because we are still there. When it comes to military things, I could be described as pretty conservative, I am a big supporter of the military unlike most of our Prime Ministers, including Harper who is a big pretender who tries to make it look like he gives a damn when all it is for him is patriotic PR.

     Let's have a bit of a critical look at this "mission". I will say, in the beginning, I was not opposed to this action.  After all, Afghanistan was the base of Al-Quada, where they trained their "soldiers" for the war against everyone they decided not to like. As hosts, the Taliban were terrorizing an entire population and thumbing their noses at the west. Add to that the 9/11 attacks and striking at Afghanistan had become an inevitiblity. Agree or disagree, the US and UK are our strongest allies, and while I agreed we had no place in Iraq, this was different. If ever a military action was justified, it was the routing of the Taliban from the seat of government in Afghanistan and the destruction of the infrastructure of Al-Quada, possibly even the elimination of Osama Bin Laden & his key people. I don't for a second regret the decision to participate in this mission.

     Beyond that, in the fine words of Clint Eastwood, they turned it from a specific mission to a "cluster-fuck". It went from a military action to a political action. It became yet another experiment in "exporting democracy" and when a military mission turns into that, we should have left and said, "great, wonderful, we'll be back to help with the rebuilding once you show us how you're going to turn a country that has operated for centuries under a feudal system into a western-style democracy". In a country where people can't read, without significant infrastructure, how the hell did you expect people to understand why all of a sudden their families were being bombed back from the 13th century to the 7th? Dropping leaflets they couldn't read to warn them of impending danger? You wonder why they're angry and want to kill your troops? You wonder why they fight back the only way they can, on the cheap? They're pissed because you've ruined their lives. All the good being done building roads and lining pockets has been undermind by years of military action in a fake hunt for Bin-Laden, who, if your intelligence services didn't know, had long since fled the country. In your lust to remake non-tradional countries into your likeness (nice God-complex there westerners), you took a backwards, uneducated population, slaughtered men, women, and children who had no idea why. Which led to them being easily convinced by the people you were after in the first place you were invading their country and would kill them all eventually. Now you're pissed off and killing even more of them for defending themselves agains a well armed bully. Congratulations.

     These misadventures of some pompous asses who think because we live the way we do, the world would be better off if everyone did, are always a failure. Colonialism in all its faces is nothing more than one powerful entity wanting to run the affairs of others, and in the end, the people will rise against it, peacefully or not. We're now in a position that probably within a hour of the last soldier leaving that country whatever puppet is president will be dead and they'll revert to what they were before. All those lives over more than a decade for what?

     Most Canadians would generally say, well I don't worry much about terrorist attacks, there's no real reason to attack Canada. Look up from your toenails folks. Afghanistan, and now Lybia, and Harper style middle east diplomacy (i.e. Israel can never be wrong I love you Bibi) are growing that target on a nation once-respected for being a nation of peace. Shame on You. Shame.

     Don't expect our reputation to soar under Harper/Baird. I will be long dead by the time we redeem ourselves if we ever can. Next Foreign policy rant? Lybia. Comin atcha boys.

Where did Canada Go?

     For quite some time now, I've been searching for my country. This is getting serious, I'm about at the point I think I should report to authorities it is missing. I put the blame squarely on myself, while I was distracted Canada must have wandered off and recently I've been in a panicked search for it.

     Of course that may seem like babble, but I have a particular affinity for babbling, eventually I get to the point.

     I'm sure we all have our own ideas of what Canada is. Sure there are differences, but it's the similarities in our hearts and minds that define us as something different that people who live in other nations. If it weren't for these kinds of definitions there would be no need for countries or borders, if we all felt the need to run our affairs exactly the same as others do.

     My Canada, the one I am searching for, had much sharper definitions from its neighbour to the south, and I liked that. My Canada was a country founded on cooperation of a small population spread over a massive geographic location, unlike the "every man for himself" attitude which turns my stomach in so many ways. My Canada was different because it cared about the disadvantaged, the disabled, to those whose voices would otherwise never be heard. My Canada welcomed immigrants and refugees and didn't expect them to become us, rather learn more about their cultures to enrich ourselves, a welcoming attitude that made them more determined to be good Canadians and adapt to our way of life without having to discard their own. My Canada had a stellar reputation globally, it was a honest broker, it wasn't a war monger or blind follower of the "great powers" in their military misadventures, it was often leading the charge for social and environmental change, friend to most, defender of the opressed, and it was a badge of honour to carry the Canadian Maple Leaf proudly displayed on one's attire.

     In short, I'd say we were "lovable Americans" (sic). Hear me out, if you've travelled outside the country you will often hear what people think of Americans, and it ain't pretty. Years ago, many Americans would go so far as to sew Canadian flags on their gear to escape the shame a bad country can bring to good people. Conversely if people knew you were Canadian, while they knew little about the country itself, they were always welcoming and held a special affinity for Canadians.

     That Canada has become mysteriously absent. I'm sure I am not the only one alarmed by this trend, and not the only one dedicated to rebuilding and repairing the mess we're faced with now. I'm not going to pick this apart in any great detail at the moment as I intend, over the next while to look at some of the politics and geopolitics on an issue by issue basis. We need to talk about these things, or we risk becoming a homogenous "American" society.

     What would lead me to think that way? Just look where we are today. Canada has absolutely no national interest, other than being a source of commodities and toadying up to the US/UK agenda. Not only has an economy that should have been poised to lead developed nations started on a steady downward slope, by electing a Harper majority, Canadians have guaranteed themselves 4 years of people who don't have a clue how to handle the economy of a country. They might be great at a business, but running a country comes with considerations no business has to take into account and these guys don't get it at all. Add to that our absolutely abysmal record on the environment which has had the effect of turning a once respected nation into an international pariah, and our blind following of other countries into military adventures that are not well thought out, where we don't know what our goal is or how to end these things and the spiral went from gradual to cliff-like in a few short years.

     If you want your Canada to be exactly like the train wreck south of us, you're probably over-the-moon happy right now. If you want your Canada to do a U-turn and try to redeem ourselves in the eyes of the world then join me in sharing this blog with your friends. Join me in speaking up about a better, kinder, Canada. There is a lot of work ahead, we're either up for it, or giving up.

     I want my Canada back.

Hoodwinked? I think not!

     I haven't said a lot post election, regarding the outcome of the 41st election, which has delivered to us a Harper majority. This was purposeful, as I wanted to take a bit of time to pay attention to what others were saying. The media, the various social media, and people I take time to talk to at the various place I go.

     I'd like to say it's laughable, but it isnt.

     My feeling that people aren't very bright most of the time has been heavily reinforced. Before you think I am some kind of big-feeling pompous ass, I want you to know I also include myself in the same category, since I find many times when I realize I should have put more thought or more research into something before coming to a conclusion. This often leads to me changing my mind, which, I believe, differentiates me from the majority, in that, when I find I am wrong, I am willing to admit I was wrong and alter my thinking and actions accordingly. For many, this is a step they just won't take. When they find they're wrong, rather than admit they may have been incorrect in their thought process, they entrench. They ignore facts and evidence and cling to their mistaken beliefs in order to not have to admit they were wrong. I see it every day, because I engage a lot of people in discussion. Usually it works like this: Person 1 makes a statement of "fact" (in quotations because they've only stated what they believe to be true). At this point, I will generally call them out on their statement, presenting what I know through research and experience to be the truth of the matter. This inevitably leads to my being called all kinds of names, right up to being threatened by "internet bullies" who somehow think acting like a 6 year old has suddenly reversed the truth and made their point magically become reality. Generally, I won't stoop to this level since it makes absolutely no sense to a grown up to behave that way, so I will either continue to try to engage them with fact (only if I see a glimmer of hope they may have a common sense bone somewhere) or I'll just stop responding (when I see it's absolutely hopeless to continue to try to talk sense to them).

     Which leads me to this, my latest diatribe on the Jerk referred to as Stephen Harper. I like most people. Even some who are relatively jerky, I will try to find good qualities rather than dwell on the bad. When it comes to Stephen Harper I harbour a great distate for this individual. I'd have no problem telling him to his face what I think of him, I would probably derive great pleasure in doing so.

     What really galls me is what I've been seeing since the day Harper appointed his bloated cabinet, then walked away before a release was issued that he had appointed to the senate three of his cronies who had lost on election day. I have to admit, I was taken by surprise, not that Harper had done what he did, but by the reaction from conservative supporters. The same morons who voted for this asshole, indeed many of the same "so-called" journalists who endorsed him and encouraged others to give this clown the ultimate power he so craved, expressing some kind of "moral outrage" at these indefensible senate appointments.

     I'm not new to Harper bashing. I took notice of this punk in an expensive suit long before he was ever leader of his party, let alone Prime Minister of what once was a great country. Many years ago I took note of the things he was saying publicly, I recognized him as a flat out US-style far right republican (however, I've revised this with the advent of the Tea Party because that is where he fits) and being the kind of person that actually cares about others and thinks government can play a constructive roll in the lives of citizens, I began to pay attention to him. I followed his rise to prominence, watched as his various power plays gained traction and how he destroyed the Progressive Conservative party and turned it into republican north. He's not a stupid man, just shallow, small minded, and the ultimate playground bully. He's managed to cloak himself in the "conservative" name, which is rather clever on his part, because many of his supporters somehow cling to the mistaken belief this is the same party as the progressive conservatives they voted for all their lives, that their parents and their parents before them voted for. Nothing could be further from the truth, which reinforces my belief that most people are just plain dumb or too lazy to look at the facts.

     What else could possibly explain Canadians handing absolute power to this fascist? In the face of all of the evidence of his dictatorial tendencies, in the face of him surrounding himself with criminals as his top advisors, in the face of fraud, faked reports, mad-whore spending that would put the most left wing socialist to shame, contempt for parliament, contempt for the media, contempt for Canadians, 2 prorogations of parliament to keep himself in power, and all of the other disgusting crap this power hungry freak has rained down upon us, morons flocked to the polls to give him more power than someone like him should ever have. Now they're whing. Publicly crying foul because he is doing what he has always done.

     I wonder if they think this forgives them for what is going to happen to this country over the next few years. I certainly don't forgive them. I don't feel the least sypathy for any of these people, who are bemoaning the first moves of our new dictator, they're directly responsible for giving him the power to do whatever he wants to do, and what he wants to do is make Canada into America North. Make no mistake about it, you will hear wailing and gnashing of teeth from the same blithering bastards who did everything they could to give this man what he wanted. Dictatorship of Canada.

     Laughingly, they pontificate as though this is some kind of surprise. That, somehow, by giving this small minded creep a majority, he would change his ways. Stephen Harper is going to change, just not in any way that is positive for this country. The most unfortunate thing about it? People are so stupid they ignored every bit of evidence the worst thing that could happen to Canada in the entire history of the country would be to put ultimate power into the hands of this freak.

     I don't find any of this funny. For years I have watched in horror as this piece of garbage consolidated his power, then gained power, then proved though a multitude of actions he is an irresponsible and dangerous man, and in return was given ultimate power in this country. If he wants to recall parliament and enact his radical right agenda, there is nothing short of revolution to stop him. If he wants to gut medicare, he can. If he wants to make abortion illegal, he will. If he wants to remove the rights of marginalized people who fought long and hard to gain a bit of understanding and acceptance, he is going to. Fact is, Stephen Harper is our dictator. Just like Franco, or Stalin, or Hitler, or any of those people I will be villified for comparing him to, Stephen Harper is your supreme ruler and he does not give a damn about your wants, needs, opinions or anything else for that matter. It's too late to whine, it's too late to moan, and far too late to pretend you had no idea what the Harper agenda was.

     No one should be surprised. Stephen Harper has not had a hidden agenda. He's been clear for 2 decades where he wanted to go, and where he wanted to take this country. Because plenty of the irresponsible media types chose to ignore this, we got what they wanted, only now, they are crying about it.

     To read their crap, listen to their crap, you whould think they'd been hoodwinked. If I've known and spoke out against this man and his agenda for over a decade, how is it these so-called journalists with all of the access and resources available to them, are now screaming as if they had no idea Harper would move immediately to show his contempt for all?? I submit they are either incredibly naive and stupid, or perhaps, seeing all the other losers who pretended they were journalists being appointed to the senate, they were angling for their own plum job for life.

     Hoodwinked? I think not.

The Canadian Foreign Policy Mirror

     At one point, at a time I was happier with our stance on world affairs, I think our particular, quirky, role on the world stage was a place most Canadians could agree on overall as our stance in the world once made us appealing and somewhat the envy of many other countries.

     Let's face it, the Americans can have a huge influence on most nations in the world, and our status as that geeky kid next door who wants to be accepted so will do almost anything to be part of the "inner circle" even though the closest he gets in to hang in the fringe make our relationship special. Special as in, lock step behind whatever the US says or we'll punish you with unrelated yet devastating tariffs. At least, that's how it works today. The US wants us to put troops in Afghanistan, getting them killed and maimed, ostensibly hunting down Osama Bin Laden, who of course was in Pakistan all or most of that time. Now we're right in there like a dirty shirt bombing Lybia with no clear idea of what the mission is, will be, or may be forced to become. This is toadyism at its worst.

     It also leaves the world with a huge void. For a long time Canada was respected across the globe as the pragmatic country that did not unessecarily get involved in armed conflicts, but readied ourselves for the opportunity to teach the world that, with a little help, a peaceful existence could be attained. Canada maintained (sic) its comittment to NATO and if NATO required a job from Canada it was done.

     Aside from these aspects, if you examine the Canadian record, we have basically stayed in lock step with America and the UK, with the unfortunate exception we have expressed eagerness to blow the USA and China out of the water as the world's most irresponsible stewards of our own environment, and the biggest impediment to moving forward on anything a step up from the clown show that is our government's climate change policy.

     Canadian foreign policy, once a source of pride for many Canadians, has deterioriated to a trick mirror image of America's, the trick mirror makes us look uglier.

What many don't understand

     I've taken a few days after the election to really pay attention to what Canadians are saying across a wide variety of media. Newspapers, radio, television, blogs, and social media can be a good source of the pulse of public opinion if you retain a vigilance when you follow public commentary. Not all public commentary is true public commentary, quite often political parties and interest groups will encourage like minded followers to dominate a topic to make it look like it has more support than it does. They're all guilty of it, so no one gets to feel superior here.

     I deal in reality. Ugly, horrific reality. Face it, we all hate having to look at reality but I thrive on it as it's the only way to move forward. As much as I would like things to be a different way, they aren't, and the sooner I see it for what it is, the sooner I can move forward to do my part to effect change.

     The world has changed. In our society, while we have the resources to be educated beyond what previous generations were, we use it for garbage, like tracking what celebrities do, or how our favorite "reality" show is doing, or some such drivel. I'm not dissing anyone's hobbies, but I encourage people to at least educate yourself about politics, our system, our history, and don't do what you've just done again. Even if you take a couple of hours a weekend to read a variety of news, to ask some questions, to use your search engine, library, reference library, any resources available to you to become involved in what is probably the next most important thing in your life next to your family.

     Yes. Politics is that important. These are the people who make the rules you have to live by, and with. They decide your level of taxation. They decide how your money will be spent and how much of it and where. Over the 41st parliament it is concievable the majority government of Stephen Harper will spend in the vicinity of a quarter-trillion dollars, plenty of it borrowed from your children, and their children.

     I will be very frank. I welcome comments. I welcome questions. I welcome discussion. This is my assessment. You can believe it or not, like it or not. This is my "reality show" for the very confused people I see making comments.

     A majority government in Canada means you live under a dictatorship for the next 4 years minimum. Opposition means nothing. Like dogs barking in the distance, they can neither change any proposed legislation nor stop it. Canada has handed Stephen Harper carte blanche to proceed with his (and that of his inner circle) agenda. I've seen many naive comments about how he'll have to take other people's concerns into account now that he has such awesome responsiblility. Rainbows and puppies covered in a thick layer of fantasy. The Harper governement fell because of their contempt of a minority parliament and people think rewarding him with a majority will correct bad behaviour? This argument is about as good as one that says if the kids won't eat the healthy meal you made at home, you can teach them a lesson by taking them to McDonalds or Boston Pizza or wherever.

     I've followed Stephen Harper since the early 90's. I recognized him as someone driven to remake the institutions of Canada in the image of the republic of the United States of America. I don't like the man, I don't like what he stands for, I believe most Canadians do not want a Canada that's America with oil. If you'd really like a glimpse of what the mindset of Stephen Harper et al is, and the agenda he has that some would argue is hidden, but I would argue has been very clear all along, read (and even bookmark to reread) the text of his Montreal speech, as President of the right-wing National Citizens Coalition lobby group. It's telling these are the right wing Americans he is addressing. It's full of disdain and vitriol for Canada, it's politics, it's parties and it's institutions. This is what Stephen Harper hates. Probably all of the things you've been proud of most of your life. All of the things that make us different than Americans. From this point forward, only ugly dirty politics will win elections in Canada. Everything will be played out to capture the lowest common denominator. Fear. Attack ads. Bogus media reports. Obfuscation of fact. Spin. In order to change it, we either have to engage in it or die, whether it goes against the grain of everything we may stand for or feel inside, the longer we try to be principled in a system skewed totally in the other direction we shall wander in the wilderness until it is virtually impossible to tell the difference between America and Canada. If this is what you want, feel free to remain blissfully ignorant of reality.

     Here is what Stephen Harper thinks of Canada many thanks to the Tyee.ca for the reprint of the text. Gravol may be required.

     For those of you unaware of what you've let yourself into. Stephen Harper, hated as he may be, seriously is your supreme ruler. What he says goes. Experienced Liberals have been left to 3rd party status leaving Jack Layton as opposition leader. He had more power prior to the election. He has nothing but a pulpit now, from which he can preach anything he wants knowing it doesn't make a lick of difference. He also is going to have serious internal problems to deal with. Much of his caucus is from Quebec, inexperience, idealisitic, and expected to carry the Quebec vs Canada message to Ottawa within a national party. This is a very unenviable position to be in and will consume much energy. Whether Jack Layton ran the same campaign across the country is debatable, but moot, as Quebeckers certainly are not, and I predict, will not be marching to the beat of the same drummer.

     It's not the time for those of us who make up the centre of the spectrum to sit crying in our beer. There is work to do on many fronts. We need to make use of a century of experience, and listen to how Canadians define themselves domestically and internationally. Whether the Liberals take advantage of this opportunity or someone else does, I am of the opinion most Canadians are of the kinder, gentler persuasion and prefer not to get radical on either direction. The fact the next 4 years everything will go the way of the right wing is reality. Our job is to expose the coming, leaner, meaner Canada and educate everyone you can that things need to change. Not in a small way. This will not be easy. My best advice is to remove emotion from the equation. Emotion will cloud your judgement and force you to take a narrower view, foiling your attemps to appeal to a broader base. I'm not saying you can't have emotions, just that they can't apply to anything but the selling of the solutions.

     I'm not happy. I'm disappointed in the lack of understanding of what just happend. I'm saddened by people who think it's a reason to give up when the exact opposite is true.

     I will continue to speak out for a just Canada, where public service means serving the public rather than your political masters, and for change in democracy so it reflects the realities of the 21st century. Tradition is cute and all that but it's not working. If it's broke, fix it.

     Let's git R dun.

My Election View 2011

     In a few days it will be over and Canadians will have elected the players who will provide the drama we will refer to as the 41st parliament of Canada. Congratulations, Canadians have their day.

     It's an honour really. Many Canadians, mostly the youth of the nation, gave their lives to give you the opportunity to choose who you want to run your country, rather than be told who should run your country. The one day in our country when a homeless person has the same voice as a party leader, a CEO, or  billionaire. Your day of power, so don't forsake it, don't allow friends and family to forsake it. Don't just vote but do all you can to encourage everyone to vote, no matter how they intend to mark their ballot, it's just that important.

     I make no secret I chose to vote for the Liberal candidate in this particular election. I think they have a platform I can live with, one that changes the priorities to more of what I like about Canada. The idea we can help each other. I also know the liberal party not only created the conditions that allowed Canada to ride out the worst of a bad situation, the same minds that made Canada the envy of the world are still Liberals. I've also been impressed to learn of the intelligence, passion and committment of Michael Ignatieff. As a man it would be difficult to equal the amount of dignity he has handled himself with in the face of years of personal attacks, attacks on his family, his wife, his integrity. I've listened to a man who speaks, not from a teleprompter, not from notes, but from a sense of disgust at what Canada has become, and a sense of amazement that Canadians don't seem to realize that very slowly, quietly, the society we have always been so proud of is changing and by the time we open our eyes we will not even recognize ourselves in the mirror.

     As for Stephen Harper, what more can I say about this man. I, being engaged, knew enough about this man in 1995 I realized his ideology was very different, that he is a very shrewd and tightly controlled man who has a plan to remake Canada into a very different country. If you look at his pre-government record, what he has done since he came to power (not to mention how he came to power), and the unbelievably questionable people who populate the highest positions within his inner circle I find it very difficult to imagine a sensible person could support this man. One can argue the local candidate is a superhero, but in this conservative party he's lower than a nothing unless Stephen Harper says so. What he says goes. Cross this man and you will feel wrath you never imagined. He doesn't care if he ruins your credibility, your reputation, your family or your life depending on his level of hate at the time. He is unmistakably a man driven by his hate of everyone who would dare to oppose his views. The most vitriolic of his hate is directed toward his opposition. I've dealt with people like Stephen Harper in my professional life. They don't intimidate me. I have no problem staring them down or telling them exactly how much value I place on their opinion. No matter how much they'd love to think they are better than me, sadly for them, they're not. The small-minded, small-hearted of the world instill no fear in my heart. Garbage is garbage no matter what title they hold or how big their bank account is. No human is better than any other and too bad for Stephen Harper, the emporer has no clothes. You might scare others, to me you're a playground bully, a glorified punk. I'd had more than enough of you, Mr. Gotti wannabe, the teflon is gone, and now we know you have a fondness for fraud it's high time we kicked your ass to High River.

     Jack. Love ya. Hope you do very well. Every policy you have will need to be blunted, if you don't realize that you're not yet smart enough to be PM, but congrats, the NDP is getting there. I'm sorry you haven't concentrated your efforts more on what kind of government Harper has given us, especially right now when more people are listening to you. The election really is more important than whether you can relace liberals, it's about ridding ourselves of a very bad government. By the way, the credit card thing is false hope and not well thought out. Reality is, as PM you can still help people without punishing the market which hurts people's retirement savings. It's only a free ride until the scrutiny hits.

     I sincerely hope Elizabeth May gets a seat to add that refreshing voice. Unfortunately the name Green Party associates them with a fringe that got a bad name early in their history elsewhere and you could provide policies that would create utopia in the country and good luck getting a seat. Sorry, I just try to speak the truth. Whether the truth seems right or wrong it's still the truth.

     No matter what the outcome of this election, I made a promise to my 23 year old daughter. That once the election ends I will start working to drag our 19th century system into the future. No matter how many elections we have, no matter who we elect, we have structural problems with the way our democracy works and many changes need to be made so democracy becomes relevant to every citizen. I will be seeking all kinds of Canadians to work with me and will be inviting those who want a vision for their children's future to dialogue with me to create a firm vision of the Canada we want. My promise is for concrete change by 2019.

     In the meantime. My endorsement is, vote for your Liberal candidate for change we can realistically afford. NDP policies are good, but currently unattainable and the credit card thing may be cute but will cause havoc in financial markets where the medicine could end up far worse than the cure.

     As always, try to examine the big picture. Make up your own mind and vote. Please comment on my blog I appreciate all comments for and against.

     If you're interested in engagement you can follow me on twitter @bigpicguy or email me bigpicguy@hotmail.ca thanks for sharing a piece of my mind.

Stephen Harper asks us to examine his record

     Well, Canada's 41st election is well underway, we've seen the ads, listened to the catch phrases, been inundated with polls, perhaps watched a debate or two, and you may even have tuned in to the CBC's series of Peter Mansbridge interviews one on one with each of the leaders, which inspired this particular blog post.

     In today's interview, Stephen Harper said we need to examine his record. I thought, ok, why not give it a shot. Now, being an ordinary guy, I don't have a team of researchers to do my bidding, so I have to rely on search engines, memory, newspapers, magazines and the sort. By no means is this the definitive chronological be-all end-all examination of the Harper record, just what one man could come up with.

     It's a fairly disjointed look at things, as I didn't attempt to get into details on dates, just some kind of look at what has been done, and I guess what we could expect a lot more of with a Stephen Harper majority government. I'm not going to add editorial comment, actions speak louder than words.

The Harper Record

Told Canadians in 2008 there was no threat of recession

Told Canadians Conservatives would never run a deficit

Racked up the biggest deficit in Canadian History, eclipsing the 38 Billion Mulroney Conservative deficit.

Claimed credit for Canada riding out a global economic mess even though the regulations that allowed for it were enacted by Paul Martin, a Liberal, who left Harper with a 14 billion dollar surplus in 2006

Guaranteed Canadians his government would never tax income trusts, then immediately placed a tax on income trusts.

Trumpets his party's support for our armed forces and veterans, but doesn't back it up with action. Canada's Veteran's Ombudsman went public with the shockingly poor treatment of Canada's veterans at the hand of the very organizations tasked with protecting and caring for them. The Harper Government does not believe in criticism, so they removed him from his post. Now veterans can be stripped of their dignity and no one has to know.

Probably very few people remember the story of Douglas Tipple. The Harper record is filled with plenty of questionable judgements, this is another example and this one cost us millions. I'd try to explain but it's easier to refer you to the link to one of many sordid stories.

We know Stephen Harper thinks the gun registry is some kind of evil Canada can't stand for. Unfortunately for the High Ranking RCMP official Chief Superintendent Marty Cheliak it didn't pay to endorse it. He was removed from his post because he wasn't french enough (or so was the excuse du jour).

Even though we've maintained a high quality census throughout our history, and that the manditory long form census had never resulted in anyone being charged or going to jail, Stephen Harper claimed there was a landslide of opposition to the "intrusive" form and against the advice of the world's top experts mounted an all out effort to rid us of this incredibly important tool. This resulted in the resignation of Munir Sheikh, head of Statistics Canada, widely regarded as among the world's top experts in the gathering and analysis of vital statistics. Maybe today this isn't a big deal to you, but 10 years from now, when a hospital is desperately needed in your riding, it will be built 40 miles away in the riding of a government member because the information that used to dictate how and where services were delivered depended crucially on the information that used to come from the long form census.

The list of firings, appointments not renewed, and positions phased out just goes on and on, with the central theme being, if you say anything critical of the government, you're gone. If you're lucky, you're gone, this government also has a particular penchant for trying to discredit anyone who disagrees. Either they do the worst job in history of hiring/appointing people to run our institutions, or they have a policy of stifiling dissent. Maybe both, but I don't think so.

Well, you say, perhaps it may all be a huge coincidence. At least we all have rights. The Harper government would prefer you keep your rights to yourself. Closure of Canadian Human Rights Commission offices will hurt Canadians. The three offices slated for closure; Vancouver, Toronto and Halifax received 70 per cent of all signed complaints to the CHRC in 2008.

Thank goodness we can trust them economically, right? Independent Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page had his budget slashed after revealing the true costs of the Afghan war and disputing the government's economic and fiscal projections. In September 2010 he announced he will not seek reappointment in 2013. An experiment in “transparency and accountability” that was doomed from the beginning. PBO Page most recently alerted Canadians the costs of F35 fighter jets as stated aren't even close to being right.

If you try to protect Canadians, and it ends up an embarrassment for the Harper government, you get what whistle-blower biologist/public employee, Luc Pomerleau got. Fired for leaking a government memo proposing to allow the meat industry to handle its own inspections. The head of the Food Inspection Agency, Carole Swan, fired Mr. Pomerleau, ignoring the fact that the proposed plan potentially threatened public safety. Shortly after food safety was hammered home when several Canadians died of listeriosis from tainted meat from a Canadian plant.

I couldn't possibly list all of the similar stories, all of which happened since Stephen Harper came to power. I'd invite you to use your search engine and spend some time looking into the myriad of incidents where someone has been critical and has been fired, muzzled, or worse.

I'm pretty sure if you read blogs you know a lot of the Harper record yourself.

When his government was about to fall on a confidence motion he convinced the Governer General to prorogue parliament, shutting down the house for nefarious purposes and killing all legislation in progress.

Harper's record shows he runs away at the slightest sign of trouble. When it became apparent the Afghan Detainee documents were going to be made public, they obviously were important enough for this man to, once again, avoid the scrutiny of the Canadian public by ordering up an unprecedented second proroguation of parliment.

Stephen Harper promised to reform the senate and put an end to partisan porkbarrelling in the upper chamber and at first opportuity he stacked it with ridiculous party fundraisers and hacks. He then used these appointed hacks to set a precident in Canadian history. Killing a bill passed in the elected house of commons.

When examining the record you have to ask exactly how it is Mr. Harper delivered on his solemn promise to clean up government. Did he do it by employing a 5 time convicted felon to work as his top advisor? Did he do it by make absolutely ridiculous allegations to RCMP about a cabinet minister in his own government, allowing her to be decimated until the truth came out it was all a lie and then refused to say her name let alone apoligize? Did he do it by employing, then appointing to the senate, men facing charges of fraud for a con game that resulted in over a million of your tax dollars being stolen in a scheme that, in day to day life, would be the same as you putting an empty envelope in the ATM and withdrawing a large sum of cash. The list just goes on and on and shockingly on.

I could add more, aside from the scandal-a-day we get now, but I'm sure you can find plenty, even if you just read the links in the blog you get the idea.

Whenever confronted, it is always a lie, someone else's fault, they refuse to talk about it, hide behind procedure, or turn it back to the same messages intended to somehow scare someone or everyone. One thing I will make very clear on the Harper record. The government did not fall because the majority of parliament rejected the conservative budget. The budget brought forward was never voted on. The reason we are having an election on May 2nd is due to a finding by speaker Peter Milliken that, for the first time in history, the Government of Canada was found to be in contempt of parliament, the most serious charge a government can face domestically. In light of the speaker's ruling, Opposition Leader Michael Ignatieff brought forward a motion of non-confidence in the Conservative Government of Stephen Harper, which was voted on by all members of the house, resulting in a loss for Mr. Harper and the opportunity to judge.

     As Mr. Harper said. Judge them on their record. While by no means is this all of their record, look into it and ask yourself if these people are the ones you want to run your affairs and over the course of a mandate, potentially spend a quarter trillion of your tax dollars.

     It's your choice. Get informed and get to the polls. Know the big picture.

Everything I don't want in a Prime Minister (long)

     I have never hidden my disdain for Stephen Harper and what I believe he stands for. As a serious political junkie I pay a great deal of attention to politics, policies and the people involved. I am unashamedly opinionated which is my right in a democratic nation. You have the right to disagree and I respect that, but only if you can argue your point logically. When people resort to rhetorical statements and name calling I tune them out but I am always willing to engage anyone in meaningful debate.

What best demonstrates why I am convinced Stephen Harper is completely the wrong man to lead Canada (or any other nation for that matter) is revealed in a speech he gave to a US audience, prior to his hijack of Canada's conservative movement, while he was still president of the right-wing "National Citizens Coalition" (you will note he apparently had no problem leading a coalition at that time). While this may be a lengthy rant, I intend it as a critique of the musings of the man who wants majority rule in my country, therefore it is only fair that nothing be taken out of context so the full unadulterated text of his speech is posted in italics with my own assessment after each paragraph. The text of the part of the speech I discuss in this blog is taken from a reprint which you can read in its entirety by clicking here. (Please note, the part of the speech I feel worst about is not discussed in this blog as I would prefer you read the speech in its entirety and come to your own conclusions, I just want to raise awareness)

***the speech Harper gave to a June 1997 Montreal meeting of the right-wing U.S. Council for National Policy, in which he spoke frankly about the aspirations and criticisms he holds for Canada

*Harper*
Ladies and gentlemen, let me begin by giving you a big welcome to Canada. Let's start up with a compliment. You're here from the second greatest nation on earth. But seriously, your country, and particularly your conservative movement, is a light and an inspiration to people in this country and across the world.

Considering the ugliness of US style conservative politics I wouldn't be caught dead calling something like that a light or inspiration unless your ultimate goal is to be lower than a snakebelly. It does, I will note, illustrate where the underpinnings of today's conservative strategy come from.

*Harper*
Now, having given you a compliment, let me also give you an insult. I was asked to speak about Canadian politics. It may not be true, but it's legendary that if you're like all Americans, you know almost nothing except for your own country. Which makes you probably knowledgeable about one more country than most Canadians.

I could leave you to make up your own mind about this one, however, it seems glaringly clear to me that while he claims he is insulting Americans, he quickly turns it to utter contempt for the intelligence of Canadians. Contempt seems to be a central theme with this man, after all, we are still in the intro to his speech here.

*Harper*
But in any case, my speech will make that assumption. I'll talk fairly basic stuff. If it seems pedestrian to some of you who do know a lot about Canada, I apologize.
I'm going to look at three things. First of all, just some basic facts about Canada that are relevant to my talk, facts about the country and its political system, its civics. Second, I want to take a look at the party system that's developed in Canada from a conventional left/right, or liberal/conservative perspective. The third thing I'm going to do is look at the political system again, because it can't be looked at in this country simply from the conventional perspective.

Just setup for a clear view of how much this man, who wants a majority government, hates Canadian things and holds the people of this nation in contempt. A level of contempt I still find shocking every single time I realize this man actually portrayed this view to an audience of foreign nationals.

*Harper*
First, facts about Canada. Canada is a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term, and very proud of it. Canadians make no connection between the fact that they are a Northern European welfare state and the fact that we have very low economic growth, a standard of living substantially lower than yours, a massive brain drain of young professionals to your country, and double the unemployment rate of the United States.

Apparently we are nothing more than the worst of socialists and puzzling to Mr. Harper, we are proud we have compassion for our fellow citizens. For a man who has been bragging about the fantastic performance of our economy against all others, and taking the credit for policies put in place by Paul Martin, he sure seems to indicate only the US knows what they are doing. The first paragraph is just the first of many insults and apologies, he seems genuinely embarrassed we could never measure up to the greatness of our neighbour to the south.

*Harper*
In terms of the unemployed, of which we have over a million-and-a-half, don't feel particularly bad for many of these people. They don't feel bad about it themselves, as long as they're receiving generous social assistance and unemployment insurance.
That is beginning to change. There have been some significant changes in our fiscal policies and our social welfare policies in the last three or four years. But nevertheless, they're still very generous compared to your country.

This is certainly a sign of the compassion this man has. In his eyes we are lazy bums who can't wait to get rich living off the extrordinarily generous unemployment and welfare benefits. Here I have been donating food and money to local food banks and I was never told they aren't needed. To think I believed there was actual poverty in this country.

*Harper*
Let me just make a comment on language, which is so important in this country. I want to disabuse you of mis-impressions you may have. If you've read any of the official propagandas, you've come over the border and entered a bilingual country. In this particular city, Montreal, you may well get that impression. But this city is extremely atypical of this country.
While it is a French-speaking city -- largely -- it has an enormous English-speaking minority and a large number of what are called ethnics: they who are largely immigrant communities, but who politically and culturally tend to identify with the English community.
This is unusual, because the rest of the province of Quebec is, by and large, almost entirely French-speaking. The English minority present here in Montreal is quite exceptional.
Furthermore, the fact that this province is largely French-speaking, except for Montreal, is quite exceptional with regard to the rest of the country. Outside of Quebec, the total population of francophones, depending on how you measure it, is only three to five per cent of the population. The rest of Canada is English speaking.
Even more important, the French-speaking people outside of Quebec live almost exclusively in the adjacent areas, in northern New Brunswick and in Eastern Ontario.
The rest of Canada is almost entirely English speaking. Where I come from, Western Canada, the population of francophones ranges around one to two per cent in some cases. So it's basically an English-speaking country, just as English-speaking as, I would guess, the northern part of the United States.
But the important point is that Canada is not a bilingual country. It is a country with two languages. And there is a big difference.

It makes me wonder what impression the audience left with. That French is unimportant to anyone outside the province of Quebec? I would like Mr. Harper to defend the comments to Franco-Canadians outside the borders of Quebec but that wouldn't happen as apparently they are so unimportant they don't count. I'm close to positive he couldn't defend it inside Quebec. I guess he thinks his beloved Americans are stupid as well since he felt it imperative to explain to the denizens of the "great melting pot" what "ethnics" are. I wonder how that differs from those "very ethnics" his government has been wooing. In any event he continues on his theme of proving Canada and Canadians are more than worthy of any scorn that could be heaped upon us. ~ Then he continues...

*Harper*
As you may know, historically and especially presently, there's been a lot of political tension between these two major language groups, and between Quebec and the rest of Canada.
Let me take a moment for a humorous story. Now, I tell this with some trepidation, knowing that this is a largely Christian organization.
The National Citizens Coalition, by the way, is not. We're on the sort of libertarian side of the conservative spectrum. So I tell this joke with a little bit of trepidation. But nevertheless, this joke works with Canadian audiences of any kind, anywhere in Canada, both official languages, any kind of audience.
It's about a constitutional lawyer who dies and goes to heaven. There, he meets God and gets his questions answered about life. One of his questions is, "God, will this problem between Quebec and the rest of Canada ever be resolved?'' And God thinks very deeply about this, as God is wont to do. God replies, "Yes, but not in my lifetime.''
I'm glad to see you weren't offended by that. I've had the odd religious person who's been offended. I always tell them, "Don't be offended. The joke can't be taken seriously theologically. It is, after all, about a lawyer who goes to heaven.''
In any case. My apologies to Eugene Meyer of the Federalist Society.

Now a man who aspires to lead a majority governement in Canada should also aspire to bring Quebec closer rather than just write the whole thing off. He feigns disgust at everything Gilles Duceppe stands for, yet in these words he shows he could care less about a massive part of our population, those who call French their mother tongue. I'm not French, although I do live in Canada's only "official"  bilingual province, and I would think if francophones in this province were to read this they would go through the roof. He apologizes for the possibility of offending a "largely Christian audience" but has no problem offending a massive segment of the Canadian population and many non-francos like myself.

*Harper*
Second, the civics, Canada's civics.
On the surface, you can make a comparison between our political system and yours. We have an executive, we have two legislative houses, and we have a Supreme Court.
However, our executive is the Queen, who doesn't live here. Her representative is the Governor General, who is an appointed buddy of the Prime Minister.
Of our two legislative houses, the Senate, our upper house, is appointed, also by the Prime Minister, where he puts buddies, fundraisers and the like. So the Senate also is not very important in our political system.
And we have a Supreme Court, like yours, which, since we put a charter of rights in our constitution in 1982, is becoming increasingly arbitrary and important. It is also appointed by the Prime Minister. Unlike your Supreme Court, we have no ratification process.
So if you sort of remove three of the four elements, what you see is a system of checks and balances which quickly becomes a system that's described as unpaid checks and political imbalances.
What we have is the House of Commons. The House of Commons, the bastion of the Prime Minister's power, the body that selects the Prime Minister, is an elected body. I really emphasize this to you as an American group: It's not like your House of Representatives. Don't make that comparison.
What the House of Commons is really like is the United States electoral college. Imagine if the electoral college which selects your president once every four years were to continue sitting in Washington for the next four years. And imagine its having the same vote on every issue. That is how our political system operates.

To summarize, at least in my mind, Stephen Harper seems to be trying to point out the political system that had served us well for over a century is nothing but a dismal failure that is also a huge sham because the main point of governing in this country is to give all of your buddies and fundraisers jobs. He certainly stayed true to his word on that one anyway. Amazing how you can be so critical of something until the moment you have the power to change it, whereupon you use all of the tactics you derided to your utmost advantage. By this point if the word "hypocrite" hasn't creeped into your mind you will probably vote for this man.

*More setup from Harper*
In our election last Monday, the Liberal party won a majority of seats. The four opposition parties divided up the rest, with some very, very rough parity.
But the important thing to know is that this is how it will be until the Prime Minister calls the next election. The same majority vote on every issue. So if you ask me, "What's the vote going to be on gun control?'' or on the budget, we know already.
If any member of these political parties votes differently from his party on a particular issue, well, that will be national headline news. It's really hard to believe. If any one member votes differently, it will be national headline news. I voted differently at least once from my party, and it was national headline news. It's a very different system.
Our party system consists today of five parties. There was a remark made yesterday at your youth conference about the fact that parties come and go in Canada every year. This is rather deceptive. I've written considerably on this subject.
We had a two-party system from the founding of our country, in 1867. That two-party system began to break up in the period from 1911 to 1935. Ever since then, five political elements have come and gone. We've always had at least three parties. But even when parties come back, they're not really new. They're just an older party re-appearing under a different name and different circumstances.
Let me take a conventional look at these five parties. I'll describe them in terms that fit your own party system, the left/right kind of terms.

More or less setup for some more good ol' fashion down-home vitriol, I'm sure the audience at this point was feeling quite at home, their perverse view of all the wrongs of socialist Canada being confirmed by a man who wants you to give him absolute power. The next section will be of particular interest to NDP supporters.

*Harper*
Let's take the New Democratic Party, the NDP, which won 21 seats. The NDP could be described as basically a party of liberal Democrats, but it's actually worse than that, I have to say. And forgive me jesting again, but the NDP is kind of proof that the Devil lives and interferes in the affairs of men.
This party believes not just in large government and in massive redistributive programs, it's explicitly socialist. On social value issues, it believes the opposite on just about everything that anybody in this room believes. I think that's a pretty safe bet on all social-value kinds of questions.
Some people point out that there is a small element of clergy in the NDP. Yes, this is true. But these are clergy who, while very committed to the church, believe that it made a historic error in adopting Christian theology.
The NDP is also explicitly a branch of the Canadian Labour Congress, which is by far our largest labour group, and explicitly radical.
There are some moderate and conservative labour organizations. They don't belong to that particular organization.

One doesn't need to make much comment on this. He thinks you are evil communists however he would welcome your vote today. He actually seems to hate the NDP worse than liberals, however I'm sure both liberals and Catholics will be greatly interested to read his view of the liberal party and its supporters as follows.

*Harper*
The second party, the Liberal party, is by far the largest party. It won the election. It's also the only party that's competitive in all parts of the country. The Liberal party is our dominant party today, and has been for 100 years. It's governed almost all of the last hundred years, probably about 75 per cent of the time.
It's not what you would call conservative Democrat; I think that's a disappearing kind of breed. But it's certainly moderate Democrat, a type of Clinton-pragmatic Democrat. It's moved in the last few years very much to the right on fiscal and economic concerns, but still believes in government intrusion in the economy where possible, and does, in its majority, believe in fairly liberal social values.
In the last Parliament, it enacted comprehensive gun control, well beyond, I think, anything you have. Now we'll have a national firearms registration system, including all shotguns and rifles. Many other kinds of weapons have been banned. It believes in gay rights, although it's fairly cautious. It's put sexual orientation in the Human Rights Act and will let the courts do the rest.
There is an important caveat to its liberal social values. For historic reasons that I won't get into, the Liberal party gets the votes of most Catholics in the country, including many practising Catholics. It does have a significant Catholic, social-conservative element which occasionally disagrees with these kinds of policy directions. Although I caution you that even this Catholic social conservative element in the Liberal party is often quite liberal on economic issues.

So some of the bad things about liberals appear to be they think the right to own an arsenal of AK-47's is an idea best left south of the border, it seems clear to me the idea of gay rights is also a sore spot, even more so because it is an issue protected by the courts. This is important because, should you need to re-read one of the paragraphs above, Mr. Harper does not respect the makeup of the supreme court which could lead one to think he does not truly believe the highest arbitors of justice in the land are impartial in their rulings. I wonder if he got his views on Catholics from the results of the long form census he abolished. I fail to understand how religious affiliation should come into play, although history would suggest Mr. Harper seriously courts the vote of the religious right, much as republicans do in the US. A left leaning Christian would be of no value to him so under the bus go the Catholics of the country. The man loves to hate, if you aren't 100% in line with his view, you are wrong. The journey from this speech to a Prime Minister who for 5 years has proven he just cannot cooperate with anyone is complete. Opposition parties, civil servants, staffers, the media, citizens, and yes, even the world community which, of late, has taken a dimmer view of Canada, they are all wrong, only Stephen Harper knows what we want, what we need, and most of all, what we should be allowed to know.

It brings me no joy to show Progressive Conservatives he hates you also. You give the man the limited power he has and he thinks you're a bunch of pinko weaklings. If you are responsible for giving him a majority government you are going to find out you're just garbage like the rest of us. None of us understand what a horrible society we have when all we have to do is look south, to the kind of utopian society Stephen Harper wants for you. Stephen Harper is very much a Bush Republican. Maybe his own words will open your eyes. Maybe not. You should know his thoughts on progressive conservatives, so here, in his own words, is his assessment of the ideals you've held dear your entire life.

*Harper*
Then there is the Progressive Conservative party, the PC party, which won only 20 seats. Now, the term Progressive Conservative will immediately raise suspicions in all of your minds. It should. It's obviously kind of an oxymoron. But actually, its origin is not progressive in the modern sense. The origin of the term "progressive'' in the name stems from the Progressive Movement in the 1920s, which was similar to that in your own country.
But the Progressive Conservative is very definitely liberal Republican. These are people who are moderately conservative on economic matters, and in the past have been moderately liberal, even sometimes quite liberal on social policy matters.
In fact, before the Reform Party really became a force in the late '80s, early '90s, the leadership of the Conservative party was running the largest deficits in Canadian history. They were in favour of gay rights officially, officially for abortion on demand. Officially -- what else can I say about them? Officially for the entrenchment of our universal, collectivized, health-care system and multicultural policies in the constitution of the country.
At the leadership level anyway, this was a pretty liberal group. This explains one of the reasons why the Reform party has become such a power.
The Reform party is much closer to what you would call conservative Republican, which I'll get to in a minute.

You can clearly see all of the horrible traits you progressive conservatives have. Spending more money than anyone but Stephen Harper, you also think gays are people, you are mostly against the idea of botched illegal abortions putting the lives of the women you know in danger, and worst of all you believe in medicare. Yes, medicare, greatest of all evils, responsible for insurance companies only making billions in profits when they could be raking in trillions and denying your claim if you get more than a routine illness. His admiration for a system that turns away a significant portion of the population for the crime of being poor, in my opinion, does not seem to align itself with the ideas of the people of a country that considers medicare its most sacred trust.

Next, he goes easy on the bloc, mainly by dismissing them. The people of Quebec should be interested to know if they can't learn to vote properly, they just don't count.

*Harper*
The Bloc Quebecois, which I won't spend much time on, is a strictly Quebec party, strictly among the French-speaking people of Quebec. It is an ethnic separatist party that seeks to make Quebec an independent, sovereign nation.
By and large, the Bloc Quebecois is centre-left in its approach. However, it is primarily an ethnic coalition. It's always had diverse elements. It does have an element that is more on the right of the political spectrum, but that's definitely a minority element.

I hadn't realized until now the liberal use of the word coalition by Stephen Harper over the years. He's like a kid who learned a word people are somewhat mystified at and he likes to use it as often as possible so as to appear impressively intelligent.

Next he espouses his opinion on the Reform Party. I wonder how many of their followers still vote for the conservative party thinking it represents what they stand for. Sorry reformers, you may get some lovin' here, moreso than the others, but you lily-livered wimps didn't have the guts to go far enough. You may call yourselves Christians but you failed to spread the message it is your values and yours only everyone should adhere to. For the record I defer to Stephen Harper for his own words.

*Harper*
Let me say a little bit about the Reform party because I want you to be very clear on what the Reform party is and is not.
The Reform party, although described by many of its members, and most of the media, as conservative, and conservative in the American sense, actually describes itself as populist. And that's the term its leader, Preston Manning, uses.
This term is not without significance. The Reform party does stand for direct democracy, which of course many American conservatives do, but also it sees itself as coming from a long tradition of populist parties of Western Canada, not all of which have been conservative.
It also is populist in the very real sense, if I can make American analogies to it -- populist in the sense that the term is sometimes used with Ross Perot.
The Reform party is very much a leader-driven party. It's much more a real party than Mr. Perot's party -- by the way, it existed before Mr. Perot's party. But it's very much leader-driven, very much organized as a personal political vehicle. Although it has much more of a real organization than Mr. Perot does.
But the Reform party only exists federally. It doesn't exist at the provincial level here in Canada. It really exists only because Mr. Manning is pursuing the position of prime minister. It doesn't have a broader political mandate than that yet. Most of its members feel it should, and, in their minds, actually it does.
It also has some Buchananist tendencies. I know there are probably many admirers of Mr. Buchanan here, but I mean that in the sense that there are some anti-market elements in the Reform Party. So far, they haven't been that important, because Mr. Manning is, himself, a fairly orthodox economic conservative.
The predecessor of the Reform party, the Social Credit party, was very much like this. Believing in funny money and control of banking, and a whole bunch of fairly non-conservative economic things.
So there are some non-conservative tendencies in the Reform party, but, that said, the party is clearly the most economically conservative party in the country. It's the closest thing we have to a neo-conservative party in that sense.
It's also the most conservative socially, but it's not a theo-con party, to use the term. The Reform party does favour the use of referendums and free votes in Parliament on moral issues and social issues.
The party is led by Preston Manning, who is a committed, evangelical Christian. And the party in recent years has made some reference to family values and to family priorities. It has some policies that are definitely social-conservative, but it's not explicitly so.
Many members are not, the party officially is not, and, frankly, the party has had a great deal of trouble when it's tried to tackle those issues.
Last year, when we had the Liberal government putting the protection of sexual orientation in our Human Rights Act, the Reform Party was opposed to that, but made a terrible mess of the debate. In fact, discredited itself on that issue, not just with the conventional liberal media, but even with many social conservatives by the manner in which it mishandled that.
So the social conservative element exists. Mr. Manning is a Christian, as are most of the party's senior people. But it's not officially part of the party. The party hasn't quite come to terms with how that fits into it.
That's the conventional analysis of the party system.

I'm unsure what others may read into Mr. Harper's "conventional analysis", I can only tell you what I got out of it and leave you to make your own conclusions. What I got from all of the above is the impression the real Stephen Harper, if given the all consuming power a majority government would proffer, would institute policies somewhere to the far right of the tea party. He doesn't care what your previous version of Canada was, he doesn't like it and has every intention of moulding this country in the image of the deterioriating society we see to the south of us.

Since it wasn't my intention to write a book, I won't continue with more of what he said, although I will say in my opinion it gets worse, much worse and I will provide the link once again so you can read the text of the entire speech for yourself. Then ask yourself if you believe this is the man who should run our country.

Your vote is up to you. Please use it.

For the complete speech, including the last half which completely turned me against this man and his narrow ideals, please visit this link.

Many thanks to thetyee.ca for reprinting this eye opening speech. A must read for any Canadians who haven't been insulted yet.
Follow me on Twitter @bigpicguy