|
|
Thursday March 13,
2008
Is this a petard I see before me?
Is it just me, or are you also having trouble taking anything Dion says
seriously? Do you get the impression he may as well shoot himself
out
of his own cannon? Granted, the headline was Canwest's - Liberals
say they have Harper where they want him - but are the Liberals
really keeping Harper "on the ropes" or are they simply giving him
plenty of rope?
Despite
Conservative taunts, the Liberals won't force an election over the
government's attempt to kill an RESP education savings bill that has
given the Grits a jolt of confidence about their political fortunes as
they head into several expected byelection victories in a few days.
Dion says the
Senate are "professionals" and he can trust them to do the right thing
with this Bill. After watching the Senate
Committee public hearings on the Security Certificate, does anybody
seriously believe the Senate drops anything in a way that would cause
it to splat on the buttered side?
Liberal
Leader Stephane Dion said Wednesday he prefers to try to keep Prime
Minister Stephen Harper's minority Conservative government on the ropes
about the Cadman affair, the Obama leak, election spending violations,
greenhouse gas regulations and Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's fight
with Ontario over business taxation.
In whose face
will Dion's little bombs explode if he is too frightened to bring down
the government? And why is the
Mulroney public inquiry absent from his bag of tricks?
Can anyone doubt this is a coalition government, a marriage of Libcons
and Allcons? Canwest's quote of Harper rubbing Dion's nose in his
own
collaboration makes this insidiously clear:
I
was
wondering at the beginning of this session: (a) whether the official
opposition might support us on our budgetary and financial policies;
(b) whether it might support us on our crime policies; (c) whether it
might support us on our foreign policies; or (d) whether it might
support us on our environment policy. The answer is all of the above."
And now, by
default, on the RESP Bill as well.
Will they
seriously take the ball on the Mulroney public inquiry?
The Ethics Committee is recommending that the whole thing be opened up
to find out the true extent of the purchase of Mulroney by the weapons
industry, which after all is what Schreiber was all about:
GlobeandMail:
Panel to urge wide probe into 'grease money' MPs likely to make
recommendations that run counter to independent adviser's report ...
Airbus, MBB and Thyssen had dealings with former prime minister Brian
Mulroney's government in the 1980s, and paid millions of dollars in
commissions to businessman Karlheinz Schreiber for his lobbying
successes.
Mr. Schreiber redistributed portions of that money into Canadian hands
...
... "We're not talking about $225,000; we're talking about Schmiergeld
of some $10-million," Mr. Szabo said.
Naturally, Harper
is
going to want to avoid an indepth inquiry and that's the sole reason he
hired an "independent" advisor to set the parameters for a public
inquiry. If the Liberals allow him to ignore the recommendations
of
the Ethics Committee, then presumably they will have Harper even more
"where they want him".
And where Harper wants to be.
He certainly wants to die in Afghanistan (by proxy, of course) and the
Libcons are generous in their support of that:
CTV:
Afghan mission extension expected to pass today
Canada has repeatedly told its NATO allies that it will not extend its
mission in Kandahar, unless another nation antes up 1,000 more troops
for the dangerous region.
As if the addition of a mere 1000 NATO troops to fight millions of
anti-invasion resisters could possibly have been the deciding factor.
Other Important
Stuff:
Thanks
to John who posted this
link on the Reader Comments
page (Mar. 13):
PeacePalestine:
Rania Masri on the Israeli War against Lebanon: “Much depends on our
belief in our capabilities. Hezbollah believed they could win, and if
it wasn’t so, right now we’d be speaking as representatives of Occupied
Lebanon.”
John comments:
Did Harper call it a measured response. I wonder what his definition of
that term might be?
This next article
gives a clue as to where role models for callous and calculating
leadership may be found:
GatewayOnline:
Ryerson students threatened with expulsion over Facebook group
Claim that online study-group constitutes academic misconduct has
students questioning the university’s right to police the ’Net
When students wake up and realize they are adult paying
customers the universities will have to create a less patriarchal, less
stifling and counterproductive environment.
According to statistics taken at the beginning of this millennium, the
average age of a university faculty member is 49. How well are
they
able to relate to young adults? Shouldn't they at least be given
some
training in how to communicate with them, especially since they receive
no teacher training, as elementary and secondary teachers must?
On the contrary, given the level of vitriol heaped on this
Ottawa U. professor, one must assume that obsessive control is
job one for a university's administration - assisted by the tendency among
faculty members to compete with one another to the point of vicious
back stabbing.
Has anyone thought to ask if learning took place in this study
group? Is it any wonder the universities are turning out fascist
politicians?
yayacanada
|
|
