You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Conservative Tom-Foolery’ tag.
I remember when we were only talking a paltry 9 billion dollars on new fighter jets (powered by the tears of Canadian children with no access to nationalized day-care). I though wow, this is a real super hyped up plus sell hunk of bullshite being foisted on Canadians. Apparently, Harper and his braintrust of strategists have managed to come up with the cluster-bomb grade version of stupidity things to endorse. Brian Stewart from the CBC illustrates the madness of the CPC:
“The who-knew-what about the real costs of the F-35 fighter jet Canada wants to purchase is worrisome enough. But at the heart of the fiasco is a far more serious concern about what public honesty means to this government.
It’s a sad state that few Canadians appear surprised by the auditor general’s findings that Parliament was kept in the dark over the real costs of this program and what looks to be a $10-billion overrun.
Many seem to assume that misleading and denying whenever it suits is a government’s normal default position. After all, this government seems to have done it for years on Afghanistan and with its other problems in national defence.
In my own attempts to unravel the F-35’s real costs I never once met a single soul outside government and knowledgeable about defence purchases who believed the prime minister’s promise that the planes could be delivered for a bargain-rate $75 million each.
I never met anyone inside the Canadian military who thought so either.”
It’s like watching a child caught in a obvious lie slowly admit guilt –
“But the amount of money that is in the pot is still substantial. The 19 F-35As that the U.S. will acquire in fiscal year 2013 will cost $197 million each. In 2001, the projected cost for these jets was $69 million.
The cost per plane is expected to drop later in the production cycle, assuming the order numbers do not.
Over the course of the U.S. program, the “average” cost of acquiring each F-35 should be about $162 million each, according to Pentagon figures.
The Canadian government has estimated its 65 F-35s will cost just $75 million each to acquire. But the parliamentary budget officer pegs that number at $148 million.”
Err… Almost double of what was told to the Canadian people? Hmm. The ‘open and transparent’ Harper government once again proves its true colours. Oversights of this magnitude are like slapping the Canadian people in the face with a bag full of rotten fish, for about 2 years now and counting.
We need to wake up and demand a responsible government because it seems as of late a lot of crappy things are being done in my name without my knowledge, and I for one, do not like it one bit.
To comprehend any issue it is important to have a understanding of key terms base principles at work. Two very different narratives of how racism works are identified by John Stoehr in this excerpt from his article on Al-Jazeera.
“[…] Everyone agreed the shooting of Trayvon Martin, the Florida teenager killed by a neighbourhood watch volunteer, was tragic, but liberals and conservatives disagreed on what caused it. On the left, racism was ultimately to blame. Why else would the shooter, George Zimmerman (who was recently arrested), spot Martin walking around a gated community, call the police, follow him and then later shoot him? On the right, race had nothing to do with it. This was a case of horrible judgment, bad policy and a tragic wrong that should be righted.
These are two views of racism. In one, racism is a concrete social force that exerts power over individuals. In the other, racism is an abstract universal human failing like any other that can be overcome with the right attitude. While the liberal view is often exaggerated, the conservative view does not account for who is doing what to whom. In this case, a half-white man killing a black boy.
The conservative view of “racism” is ambivalent, unmoored from history and freed of its long association with white violence. This has given rise to laughable locutions like “reverse racism” of which conservatives regularly accuse blacks whenever they rage against the racist machine, as Al Sharpton and others did in the wake of Martin’s death and the fact that justice did not prevail.
Yet when conservatives say race doesn’t matter, what they are saying, hopefully without meaning to, is that white violence doesn’t matter – and obviously white violence matters. In US history, blacks did not lynch whites with the blessing of the establishment, but whites did lynch blacks in the name of white supremacy.
Conservatives rightly say blacks kill more blacks than whites kill blacks. But that’s another one of those false equivalencies that hides what’s really going on. Black violence, even on those very rare occasions when whites are its victims, is scary and unjust, but white violence, especially when the victims are black, echoes through the web of history and can terrorise African Americans into submission. That’s been the historical purpose of white violence. If explicit laws and pernicious social norms didn’t control you, then the threat of violence did. That’s why racism is not about race so much as power – who has it, who doesn’t, what’s done with it and why.
And power is often above the law. Zimmerman and the man who killed Jake England’s dad are equally protected under a similar law that allows you to “Stand Your Ground” when facing life-threatening situations. Neither man was changed, because both claimed they acted in self-defence. But that’s where the similarities end. Trayvon Martin’s family has appealed to public opinion for justice. Jake England appealed to his gun. The present is a product of the past. To take white supremacy out of racism is to willfully ignore that reality.”
I’ve seen some of the arguments that more conservative commentators put forth regarding racism, and it seems they miss the key point (as they often do)- as highlighted from Stoehr’s article – the imbalance of power in society and how power is used and misused by those in control. The discussion of racism needs to be framed around this idea of the misuse of power in society and how we can best redress the imbalance that is the cause of much racial violence.
There seems to be a lot of chatter in the blogosphere about abortion lately. I’m thinking it could possibly maybe be about CPC MP’s motion to discuss when life starts. This motion is, without a doubt, no matter what the detractors say, a backdoor attempt to try and take away Canadian women’s hard won human right to their own body. Attempts to paint this as anything but that are either disingenuous or misinformed. The only result of Woodworth managing to redefine when life begins at anything before birth is for him to carry on and propose a bill to then introduce limitations on abortion. Supporting this discussion is to support the attack on women’s reproductive freedom.
I bring this up because of what I’ve been seeing on other blogs I frequent, namely Dammit Janet and Unrepentant Old Hippie. They’ve both left progressive bloggers because it seems that suggesting that human rights, in particular a woman’s right to bodily autonomy, is not up for debate is worthy of calling said people idiots and shrill.
My response to said “progressives” is simple.
It’s regressive to think debating the merits of a particular group’s human rights is a good idea.
Stop playing Woodworth’s game.
It makes you a bad person.
Stop it.
Trust Women.
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation provides a great window into Canadian culture (as it is) and gives Canadians a platform to interact with each other to express and share their views. The CBC also provides news and commentary that is not vetted by commercial interests before going to air as it is a publicly funded broadcaster. Being publicly funded allows the CBC to promote a more diverse set of opinions that more accurately reflect the diverse nature of our country.
Dissident views and public oversight/scrutiny are two qualities Harper’s Conservatives despise. Hence, under the guise of “austerity” and “economic necessity” they are doing their insipid best to ruin the CBC for all Canadians.
“Lacroix said the Corporation expects to eliminate 650 jobs over three years, including 475 this fiscal year. He said 60 per cent of the budget goes toward salary and that it would be impossible to take a hit of this magnitude and not affect jobs. Nearly 10,000 people are currently employed full time at the CBC.
Kirstine Stewart, executive vice-president, English Services, said $43 million worth of programming will have to be cut out of the English Services budget, meaning that some current shows in prime time will have to be cancelled and that viewers can expect more repeats.”
You know how much the CBC costs each Canadian? $34 dollars. That friends, for the service provided is a fantastic deal. Carol Maszur beautifully articulates what this means to her and Canadians –
“The billion plus the Government spends on the CBC, on our behalf, is some of the best money ever spent. We get terrific value for that money, world-class journalism, world news coverage, unparallelled coverage of Canadian news national, regional and local, strong promotion of Canadian culture (Canada Reads, Canadian musicians, authors), thorough coverage of pressing issues in Canada and abroad, unbiased, non-commercially influenced material. CBC belongs to the Canadian people and has lasted for over three quarters of a century . It is as relevant now as it was when it was first established. We need the CBC more than ever, with the blurring of countries and cultures. This venerable institution is not to be tinkered with but supported and celebrated.”
Well said Carol. Let’s not destroy the CBC as it is one of Canada’s most important institutions.
The Long Gun Registry, More Prisons, and of course, lets not forget the long form census…
I’m with Rick on this one.
Voter turnout it at an all time low in Canada, let’s not increase that number anymore okay Steve?
Canada, at times, seems to have so much potential when it comes to protecting Canadian citizens from wrongful neglect and abuse, witness bill C-389:
“Bill C-389 would amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to protect the rights of transgender or transsexual citizens. It would prohibit discrimination on the basis of “gender identity” or “gender expression” in the workplace or elsewhere, and would amend the Criminal Code so that crimes committed against people because they are transgender or transsexual would be treated as hate crime.”
What a forward looking piece of legislation, treating more people like human beings. How outrageous. Something though has to done to derail this crazy human rights train before it really takes off. Thankfully, we have the Canadian Senate for that.
“Since Prime Minister Stephen Harper does not support the transgendered rights legislation, it may well face similar purgatory when it arrives in the Senate.
The Conservatives, who have a majority in the upper house, have adopted the tactic of using the Senate to block private members’ bills passed by the House of Commons that don’t accord with the government’s agenda.”
Ah, can you feel the all the reflection going on? All the deep thoughts and decidedly non-partisan sombre musings?
Me either. It is nice to see the unelected branch of our government quashing human rights legislation as the status-quo most definitely needs to be maintained.
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…