A Couple of Campaign Questions. . . .

One question I have that no one seems to be asking in the media is: "How exactly are Conservative operatives getting access to the facebook pages of people who attend Conservative rallies??Very few people have totally open facebook pages so unless those individuals friended those operatives then the only way that they could have gained access to such pages is by hacking the accounts of those people. Maybe these young women did have totally open Facebook pages but this seems strange given how much talk there is of maintaining a modicum of privacy on Facebook. Why is no one asking this question??

Another thing that I find interesting is that yesterday the Liberals rightly fired a candidate named Andre Forbes for suggesting that Natives are lazy. Conservatives jumped all over this story obviously. However, at least the Liberals immediately fired him! The Conservatives are fine with their people saying that Natives are lazy as my own candidate Pierre Poilievre said on CFRA radio. By the way he also used the phrase "Tar Baby" in the House of Commons. No one fired Mr. Poilievre for these remarks! He didn't even receive a dressing-down by his party leader. I am no big supporter of Mr. Ignatieff, but if one is looking for the party of bigotry and hate, one need look no further than the party presently in power.

Hate, Violence, and Lessons of History. . . . .

Terrible events have a tendency of focusing people's attention. As I said yesterday, it is not always a matter of cause and effect, people see something that causes people to look at what has been going on and where they have been going. A health crisis, or a food crisis, or violent event, all of these kinds of events can cause people to reexamine how things have been going and why.

Now, personally I don't think we really need a terrible event to remind us that the right-wing has poisoned the political atmosphere in North America with vitriolic, hateful rhetoric that belittles democracy and belittles all of us. We should not forget our history lessons. Fascism in Europe (and we are not just talking about Germany here) gradually moved in against the back-drop of angry, hateful speech in which the right blamed the left for everything from moral decay to tooth decay. The vocal advocates of Fascism often tried to hide behind respectability and political legitimacy but when you look back you can see the gradual decay of genuine political discourse and the rise in scapegoating the vulnerable and systematic lying in the public sphere. And let us not forget that in many cases the vocal right-wing opponents of everything and everybody on the left, were not the ones who eventually took up arms and organized the worst events of fascism. Some people just set the tone that legitimized the more radical voices of hate and violence.

Make no mistake, people like John Baird, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Pierre Poilievre, and Glen Beck are the ones that are poisoning the political atmosphere and setting the stage for a shift in the paradigm. Today such hateful speech influenced one sad, unbalanced man. But history has demonstrated that such rhetoric can eventually pervert an entire generation to acts of terrible violence. No matter what these people say or do, we must continue to stand for a more compassionate, more cooperative, more humane society. Jean-Paul Sartre once said that we have two options for the future of our race, a form of Barbarism or a form of Socialism. The statement is more clear today than it was when the great existentialist first said it. The barbarians may be at the gate but the only method we have to struggle against them is a cooperative and compassionate society. In the 1930s, it took too long to realize where the anger and hate of the right-wing was leading. Let's not let it happen again.

Poilievre and Baird; Tweedle-de and Tweedle-dumber. . . .

I haven't been blogging about politics lately but I just couldn't let this go without a comment. Yesterday here in Ottawa the rather dodgey group which calls itself The Ottawa Taxpayer Advocacy Group held a meeting to further the their agenda of undermining real government and furthering the cause of purely managerial government which servers the demands of Capital. Nothing surprising really, just a bunch of whack jobs who have bought into an globalizing ideology of Capitalism, the long term objective of which is to convince people that we can't actually control the economy in the interests of people but that we are pawns in a system of reification.

But what is the nature of the disease? The nature is, of course, hypocrisy. And you will know it by this sign - John Baird and Pierre Poilievre showed up at the meeting to slam the Ottawa city council for their irresponsible spending habits! And in case you missed that or were too shocked to register the fact, I will repeat it. John Baird and Pierre Poilievre showed up to slam the Ottawa City council for their irresponsible spending!!!

WAKE UP BOYS! Your government, which you both defend like little mindless, party-hack, lapdogs, made the largest spending increases in the history of Canada and has administered the largest deficit that Canada has ever seen. You undermined the tax base and increased spending on the lead up to a global recession that a 12 year old child could have seen coming and then you increased the deficit beyond anyone's imagination. Furthermore, your government has increased taxes on many citizen through various marginal fees and your advocacy of the HST.

By showing up at a meeting and accusing other politicians of spending irresponsibly, John Baird and Pierre Poilievre have demonstrated simply that they are hypocrites on an epic scale; ignorant, self-interested, thoughtless hypocrites. 

Polievre and intellectual honesty. . . . .

My own dear MP Pierre Poilievre was on the radio today accusing the opposition of intellectual dishonesty!!!!!!!!!!! Yes, I know, that in itself could be a blogpost because the idea of Mr. Poilievre accusing anyone of intellectual dishonesty is so dripping with narrative irony that one hardly need say more to raise a good laugh and a good cry from one's readers. But then he quickly went on to refer to the opposition parties as the "coalition parties." That's right! Without even a hint or irony in his voice he just called them the "coalition parties." When Kathleen Petty called him on it, he just said "well, whatever you want to call them." 

This is Karl Rove politics in action! Some US, or American style advisor has obviously told the Con-men to throw that little tidbit in to the conversation whenever possible for that (not-s0-subtle) psychological effect of keeping the idea in the back of people's mind that there are secret deals happening in the background all the time with the opposition parties. Now, this won't work with me because I have no problem with coalition politics since they foster compromises and promote better understanding. And the only reason that this negative angle works on other is that some people are fool enough to be sucked into the idea that coalitions are somehow undemocratic. 

But since Mr. Poilievre has set the precedent here it would be quite amusing to see the other parties follow it. Since we all know that the Con-men were against gay marriage and we recently found out that they have taken equal rights for gay and lesbian people out of the Citizenship manual, from now on when ever an opposition politician is referring to Government they should call them "the prejudice party." They have to make sure to say this as though it is their actual name, not as though they are making a political statement. 

And since there is not actual coalition and Mr. Poilievre's statement therefore is actually a lie, we could just call the Conservative Party anything, couldn't we? In news conferences the opposition could refer to them as the "racist party" or the "or the anti-democratic party." Oh, wait, those are both actually true so it would still make the opposition more 'intellectually honest' than the Con-men. 

Another Open letter to my MP, Poillievre. . . .

Merriam-Webster defines Hypocrisy as: a feigning to what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially: the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion.

 

Tell me, Mr. Poillievre, have you ever actually looked at a dictionary? Excuse my disparaging tone, but I am beginning to find it difficult to understand how you can function in such a wildly hypocritical manner and, going on the assumption that one should never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by ignorance, I compelled to assume that you must simply be ignorant of the most basic facts and tenets of socially acceptable behavior. Thus I provide you with the above definition incase it has somehow missed your notice.

I mean, after all, your party was elected, albeit by a minority of Canadians, on a platform of more accountability and less power in the hands of the Prime Minister. And we must keep in mind that this issue of accountability was not simply a small side line of the Conservative stated agenda but was the cornerstone of the platform; something on which your leader and the entire Party constantly harped on as though the future of our political institutions depended upon increases in accountability.

Now, since I can’t assume that you are so blind or stupid that you cannot see that accountability under your government has decreased and the power of the Prime Minister has increased, I can only assume that you have entirely abandoned these principles or were never actually in favor of them in the first place.

And even if you and your Party were hypocritical in the assertion of these beliefs in the first place, this hypocrisy has reached epic proportions in your public statements regarding the prorogation of the House and the Afghan issue in general. You know, YOU KNOW, that if you were in opposition and the same things happened you would be condemning the prorogation and insisting that it is your responsibility to investigate the issue of Afghan detainees. YOU KNOW THIS TO BE TRUE! Thus you are in a constant state of hypocritical action by your statements. If you were in opposition you and your Party would be vitriolic in your condemnation of any action which undermines the power of the House and the issue of Ministerial accountability. But in government you do nothing but deny, divert, obfuscate, and sometimes downright lie about these issues. But not only do you do these things, you actually have the gall to use your energy to attack the opposition parties as being irresponsible and even soft on terrorists for upholding the very same principles that your party was supposedly elected to maintain.  This is the very definition of hypocrisy.

 Furthermore, you use every means at your disposal to manipulate the media and public opinion simply to retain and enhance the centralizing power of your government. You are at the very forefront of a movement to make politics not about actual issues but an exercise in public image and opinion. I have no doubt that past governments and parties have made movements in this direction but your government has pushed this further than ever before while at the same time claiming to stand for the opposite. Future generation of all political stripes will deeply regret these lamentable movements away from substance.

I am still an optimist Mr. Poillievre and imagine that people will see through the hypocrisy and crude political manipulation which you and your Party are constantly displaying. Because you simply cannot fool enough of the people all of the time. Many of those who supported you have already seen through the hypocrisy and more will in the future. Eventually you will lose the battle to centralize all power in the PMO and this country will deeply regret this period of profound hypocrisy the same way that Americans regretted their support of Nixon or Italians regretted their support of Mussolini. This is because efforts to centralize and maintain absolute power in contemporary society are inevitably undermined by the ubiquity of information and the tendency of tyrants to push too far.

I see that you can live with your hypocrisy but the Canadian public will not do so forever. Unfortunately, part of the Reform/Conservative hypocrisy was their abandonment of their stance on MPs pensions and since you have recently qualified for yours none of this really matters to you because you will be able to comfortably retire on the public system that you so hypocritically condemn. But life will eventually catch up with you and judgment will come to you as it does to all of us. Hypocrisy develops its own punishments.

 

Kirby

 

Harper's Gang. . .

Just a little fun with photoshop to remind us of the silliness of it all. 

Answering Poilievre's apologists

I have rejected a number of comments on my last blog posting by people claiming that Poilievre is not a racist and just has the best interests of the natives and other people of colour in mind. I rejected these comments for one simple reason; to wit; you can’t argue with racists. Anyone who doesn’t understand that Poilievre’s comments about Aboriginal people, or his use of the phrase ‘tar baby’ are rooted in bigotry, is so wrapped up in our society of racism that they simply are beneath discourse. When a public official implies that Aboriginal people are lazy and don’t embrace or understand the principles of hard work, this is racism. There is no way around it. And if you don’t understand this then no degree of rational discourse will save you from your own bigoted spirit. Similarly, if you are unable to understand that the use of the phrase ‘tar baby’ in connection with a piece of policy that is compared in metaphorical terms with an unwanted pregnancy is profoundly racists, then you are so beyond understanding the basic issues of racism in this country that you cannot be redeemed through simple discourse. Instead, I suggest that people in this position could only begin to understand the racial issues at stake here through experiences that significantly expand their ability to experience empathy.

It is very simple; Mr. Poilievre is either a racists or he is so wildly ignorant of and insensitive to racial issues that he has no business being in a position of public trust. 

Pierre Poilievre is a Racist

Once again I am embarrassed and appalled by the actions of my MP Pierre Poilievre. He has already had a long history of using racist remarks in public, now he has used the phrase "tar baby" in the House of Commons. And once again he will get away with it, demonstrating that his bosses in the PMO are completely tolerant of racism in their own ranks. 

And once again I am compelled to write a letter demonstrating my disgust with his blatantly racist behavior. I am sure it will do little or no good but Poilievre cannot be left with the impression that his constituents condone this kind of attitude. So here, once again, is my letter to my racist, petty, vindictive MP. 

Dear Mr. Poilievre –

 

Well once again your conduct in the House proves unprofessional and degrading. Your use of the term “tar baby’’ in the House of Commons is simply unbelievable. The long history of this phrase is well known to anyone with even a vague notion of our culture. And it is RACIST pure and simple! This phrase is, to many people, no less racist than the notorious “N” word and the fact that you would not know better than to use it in public leads observers to only two possible conclusion; either you are a racist or so astonishingly insensitive to issues of racial issues that you have no right to hold public office.

 

You already have a long history of such racially insensitive comments and I find it utterly remarkable that you continue to make such gaffs. Obviously, you are showing your constituents that you are incapable of learning from your own mistakes because you let your pettiness and vindictiveness get the better of you time after time, allowing yourself to fall into the bigotry that is obviously at the heart of your personality. You are continually demonstrating that you are a victim of Narcissistic Personality Disorder, a recognized condition of mental illness, and I highly recommend that you seek treatment for your pathology.

 

You simply cannot go on this way. Every time I turn on the television you are saying something bigoted, or just plain nasty, and teaching my children, and everyone else, that politics is about selfish vindictiveness rather than cooperation and hope. My own kids are smart enough to know what the implications are of a phrase like ‘tar baby’ and were just shattered that their own MP would use it in public. After seeing this remark my son asked me “why is our MP allowed to be a racist?” I demand that you write an apology to my children. And let them know that you are not advocating a racist position.

 

Please be a man and face up to your mistakes and demonstrate that you are capable of learning from your mistakes and free my kids from a terrible impression that you have left to the youth of your riding and this country.

 

Kirby Evans

Poilievre the Carpetbagger

Pierre Poilievre should resign. After all, he is from Calgary and he has the temerity to represent my riding here in Ottawa. He is a carpet-bagger, an interloper! Go back to Alberta Mr. Poilievre! No one who grew up in Calgary could have any commitment to Nepean-Carelton.

Unfair! I hear you say. Poor Pierre could have a commitment to Nepean-Carelton and still be a good Albertan. Not according to Poilievre himself who has defended the anti-Ignatieff attack ads suggesting that Mr. Ignatieff’s time in Britain and the US precludes him from being a devoted Canadian and the Prime Minister of the Country. But I bet Poilievre would say that if he were called back to live in Alberta he would still carry his principles(?) and commitments back with him and be a committed Albertan. Well, if this is so he should show a little respect to others. Furthermore, the Conservative ads verge on racism because they imply that any immigrant to this country is not fully Canadian unless they renounce any commitment that they may have to their nation of origin. Once again Poilievre’s actions, and those of the entire Conservative Party, do not represent serious political discourse, only petty, small-minded, partisan interest. The voters of Nepean-Carleton and Canada have had enough!

 

Poilievre replies and I laugh

For those of you who asked me to keep you posted on whether Pierre Poilievre replied to my letter which appears in this blog on April 28th, he did. But quite expectedly, the reply was less than useless. Instead of addressing my concerns Mr. Poilievre simply quotes himself at length from House of Commons records. And the pieces he quotes didn't even address the events that I had specifically talked about. So it goes. I here post my reply to his reply. 

Dear Mr. Poilievre 

In reply to my letter of April 28^th you failed utterly to address my concerns. Instead of making a serious reply to my various charges against you, you simply chose to give me a recitation of some of your words from the House of Commons. Now besides the sad and obvious fact that only an extreme egotist would compose a letter consisting almost entirely of self-quotation, you even failed to address the actual events that I had raised. 

Your reply demonstrated that you failed entirely to understand that what I was pointing to was an overall pattern of petty, abusive, childish, and ultra-partisan behavior on your part. Politics should always be about ‘building people up’ not tearing them down, and your behavior in and out of the House has consistently done the later. You quote yourself as saying that “it is very important that people in this chamber conduct themselves in a way that make their constituents proud.” Now, overlooking the obvious grammatical error in this statement, I must point out that you certainly do not appear to live by this adage in your professional conduct.  

The most astute thing you stated in your letter was the observation that you are “not right all of the time.” Indeed you are correct in this claim. And let me point out the most obvious mistake in your letter. Again quoting yourself, you write, “What is key in our democracy is that the people are sovereign.” Again, overlooking the rather awkward grammar, this statement demonstrates that you don’t even understand the very political system under which you serve. We live in a ‘constitutional monarchy,’ and in such a system sovereignty flows downward from the Queen (or King) through the Governor General and to the House of Commons. Sovereignty is a Middle-English word which means ‘pre-eminence’ or absolute authority. And in a constitutional monarchy this pre-eminence is in the hands of the Monarch. Thus, people often use the word monarch and sovereign interchangeably. In our political system the people are not, as you claim, sovereign. You are simply wrong and the fact that your Prime Minister had to go to the Queen’s representative and ask her to prorogue parliament demonstrates that you are wrong. If you were speaking, instead, about your desire that the people be considered sovereign then I recommend that you declare your opposition to our system of constitutional monarchy and tell your constituents that you are, in fact, a republican. Saving this, please learn how the system works. 

As one of your constituents I ask you once again to improve your behavior in and out of the House of Commons. Instead of taking the opportunities that you have of speaking in public to make petty criticisms of others, please use them to build up the spirits and confidence of the Canadian people in these troubled times. 

Kirby Evans