Teneycke and the Sun Media, our very own Crusaders. . . . . . .

Anyone who has doubted that Harper's Conservatives are dangerous, trigger happy, militarists, with no interest in law and order or the constitution, and are infested with shades of frightening racism; then one need look no further than this Sun editorial which, most are assuming, is by Teneycke, one time spokesman for the big man himself. http://www.torontosun.com/comment/editorial/2010/08/16/15043236.html Has it really come to this? Have we become so Americanized by this administration that it has become expectable to talk about killing a boatload of 500 refugees in a nationally syndicated editorial for one the country's largest media outlets? I am disgusted and profoundly saddened that this seems to be the case. This is the language of some of the worst kinds of Republican voices in the US.

And let us say, for the sake of argument, that not all of these people are legitimate refugees. Let's even say that one or two are so-called 'terrorists' and the rest are just 'queue-jumpers" desperately looking for a better life. The Sun editorial staff is advocating killing them all instead of bothering with international (to say nothing of moral) law.

I recall another such position taken by a Cistercian monk in the 11th century. Arnuad Amalric, an inquisitor for Pope Innocent III, oversaw the siege of Beziers for the Church forces arrayed against the Albigensians. When asked by a soldier how the Crusaders would distinguish between legitimate Catholics and so-called 'heretics,' Amalric famously instructed the soldiers to "Kill them all. For the Lord knows them that are his."

The Sun group has essentially updated this quip. One can assume that were Teneycke and his cronies in charge of the a Canadian Destroyer sent out to intercept a ship full of refugees, he would instruct the soldiers to "lock and load" and blast the ship out of the sea. When the confused soldier would ask "but how do we know some of the passengers aren't legitimate refugees?" The reply would come; "Let them all drown. For the Lord will know the terrorists and queue-jumpers."

Silly Tasks and Missing Loved Ones. . . . . .

Groucho Marx once wrote a very amusing essay called, if my memory serves, "The Worst Times Make the Best Memories." Groucho tells of how he and one of his brothers got into all sorts of trouble during a Vaudeville tour of the Midwest in the nineteen-twenties. I can't remember the details but I recall that they ran out of money and various other mishaps occurred to the pair. Groucho reminiscences about how terrible the times seemed when they happened but how great they were in retrospect. Something about sharing the troubles with a loved one and making it through made the experiences something very enjoyable to reminisce about.

 I had a particularly fine illustration of this principle today. Yesterday I found that my kitchen faucet had finally 'given up the ghost,' as the saying goes. Due to rust and mineral build up from our rather poor quality well-water,  the faucet was leaking badly from underneath whenever you turned it on. I went out this morning and purchased a new one and brought it home dreading the rather grim job of replacing the faucet; a job I never look forward to. As always, it was a lot more work getting the old one off than getting the new one on. But after over an hour which consisted of a rather wet and comical mistake of turning off the wrong spigot and a long time using a hacksaw, the old one finally came off. The new faucet went on without a hitch and it is working well and looks much better than the former, rusted one.

The point of this story is that half-way through the job I realized how much I miss my dad who, as followers of this blog will know, died earlier this year. For twenty years or so, every time I found myself fixing or replacing a faucet (and I have done it a surprising number of times over the years for myself and as a favor to others), my dad was always there as my rather hapless help-mate. My dad had actually been a 'plumber's mate' for a few weeks in the late 1940s and often talked about how ill-suited he was to the work and  how disappointed he was when he realized that the plumber he was working for was actually fairly dishonest and took particular pride in ripping-off the Finsbury Council for whom he did a lot of work. Anyway, when my dad used to help me out in my various plumbing escapades it was always kind of nice because I really hated doing the dirty work and he was always an excellent companion, joking and telling me stories as I struggled with my frustrations under the sink. We would often joke that I could do the job in two hours unless my dad helped me, in which case it would take three hours.

Today, replacing my faucet I became indescribably sad as I realized the terrible vacuum left by my dad's absence. He would have laughed heartily when the water began to spray from the pipe like a garden hose as I struggled to turn it off. He would have consoled my frustrations as I hacked away at the old faucet in my rather pathetic efforts to remove it. And though I still wouldn't have enjoyed the job, the three hours spent would have made a great memory of my dad and I sharing time together and consoling each other through the rather silly and time-consuming tasks of everyday life.

Harper's legacy. . . . .

Like many people, I have been somewhat surprised that Stephen Harper has managed to stay in the job of PM for as long as he has. But as I, and many others, have said, it has not been his mastery of political strategy that has maintained him at Sussex drive for this long. It has been a strange confluence of events that has kept the Conservatives in office, which has included above all a divided and often incompetent opposition. In other words, it hasn't been what the Conservatives have done that have kept them in office so much as what the opposition hasn't done. And of course, one effective strategy that the Cons have employed is legislating by stealth. Hiding troubling pieces of legislation in other, larger, bills, as well as making as many changes as possible through non-legislative means - these have been the hallmarks of the Cons time in office and they have set very dangerous precedents for the future. If all the things that the Cons have done actually went before the House and received adequate public debate, I believe Harper and his gang would be long gone from government. The largest failures of the opposition have been not getting these issues adequately on the public's mind. So it goes. 

However, like many others, I have felt a mood change in recent months. Time is the greatest enemy of governments regardless of their political stripes. Even with overwhelming support, time can weigh very heavily on the shoulders of any government. Things add up as the months and years go by, and even the most competent and honest government will find skeletons coming out of its closet, scandals pilling up on its doorstep, and its inadequacies coming home to roost. And in a situation of overall instability and minority government, a governing party's time is truncated and lessoned. In such a situation, a governing party is, in a sense, fighting up stream, particularly if its basic goal are controversial. It must thus, govern by stealth and stay in constant election mode. Such a government could only survive with extreme degrees of control and secrecy. Thus Harper's political instincts of control have been timely, another politician with the same situation and the same agenda would simply not have lasted this long. 

But it seems that time is catching up with the party in power as it always does. A party that was elected with a message of transparency, openness, and honesty cannot function too long in the direct opposite manner. Time itself will break down the strategy. Furthermore, time is giving more and more ammunition to the opposition  that will inevitably weigh heavily on the government. Apparent fiscal irresponsibility by a government that prides itself on its fiscal image is bound to be a major issue for any voter. Nine Billion for prisons in a time of fiscal trouble when the crime rate is going down, billions spent on international meetings with dubious outcomes, partisan directed funding, all of these things add up over time. And this is to say nothing of other important issues such as the constant firing of government watchdogs, the apparent disrespect for the supremacy of the House, etc. Indeed time's winged chariot is now beating the Prime Minister about the face and neck and the mood is slowly changing. 

The question then becomes; how many dangerous precedents of mismanagement has this government set which future governments can now take advantage of? Is this just one more four year period which will have resulted in the erosion of governance and the concentration of power in the office of the Prime Minister? And in the end, will this ironically be the very legacy that Stephan Harper was aiming at, successfully achieved??

Treat people with respect. . . .

I am just amazed at the reaction to the so-called 'refuge' ship that arrived yesterday with numerous Sri Lankan asylum seekers on board. Every news source that we see keeps asking the question "what is the right thing to do?" It is pretty simple I think - treat them with compassion and care, and do whatever we can to make their situation better. That is what we should always do.

Of course many people in the government and out, love to use a situation like this to demonstrate how 'tough' they are and how they 'hold the line' on people who are out to take advantage of us. But this generally doesn't concern me. I don't believe we should you people as political pawns in a partisan process with which they have nothing to do. Furthermore, I think our ethics on such matters should be clear.

You know, nothing is more distasteful than people like Stephen Harper who consistently claim to live by 'Christian' principle but who wouldn't recognize the 'Prince of Peace' if he dropped on them out of the sky. As I understand the Christian ethic it means you must treat people with love and compassion regardless of who they are or what they do. And I have never seen a proviso in the Gospels that instructs Christians to treat people well unless you suspect that they might do something bad in the future, in which case treat them badly first.

There is something unseemly, and certainly unchristian, about the atmosphere of suspicion that this situation is being treated with. Of course, there is important work to be done concerning identity and possible human trafficking, but that should be done against a backdrop of compassion and care. There are, no doubt, good people out there doing good work and treating the people in appropriately compassionate ways. But this is being overshadowed by the poisonous air of suspicion, doubt, and the occasional disregard for the human aspect of what is happening.

I think the political atmosphere has itself become poison in this country and our government has entirely abandoned the principles of honor, Christian ethics, and respect.This would be considerable less jarring to the mind if they didn't harp on their Christian background and principles.

A last, short, glimpse at Helena Guergis. . . . .

The most disturbing part of the Helena Guergis story is not that she was kicked out of her caucus, but that after all that she has been through she actually wants back in! It appears that she was removed from her party by the PM mostly in the hope that her removal would change the political channel. She says she was treated badly and never given a meeting with the PM, never given a reason for her dismissal, and never even given any information concerning the charges leveled against her. She was a proverbial sacrificial lamb for a party that doesn't care about process or justice, or right and wrong. When it comes to their political power Harper's Tories will do just about anything. But apparently Ms Guergis doesn't really care about these things either - as long as she is not the victim of the Conservative's bullying and railroading, she is absolutely fine with it, because despite all her complaints about being abused she was ready and willing to step right back into the party and once again be part of the nasty treatment of others. So after being abused herself - Ms Guergis is chomping at the bit to get right back in there and abuse other people. This demonstrates that not only does Ms Guergis not learn from her mistakes but she has an almost pathological need to be part of a clique of vulgar bullies. It is all part of a dangerous pathology that has gripped the Conservative Party of Canada which threatens all of us.

The Big Picture. . . . .

In the grand sweep of history through which we live our startlingly short lives, were are, in a word, enveloped by a kind of material shroud which, through petty concerns of everyday vanities and struggles, makes it very difficult to see that which lies beyond our life. It is as though we are small actors in a large play, let us say Feste in Shakespeare's Twelfth Night, and the passion and rapture of our part enthralls us, but we cannot see the sweep and narrative of the play as a whole, nor the diminutive, yet essential, part that we play in the outcome of the story.

It is this myopia, a condition on which we dwell but which we simultaneously ignore, which holds us back, both as individuals and as a people. Unable to see the way in which history moves through us, the way (dare I say) it progresses, we get bogged down in petty squabbles and attempt to hold back change the way a child might resist the important yet inevitable changes in her life. Funny enough, as we age this condition often grows more acute as we look back on the way the world was in our youth and all too easily fall into a melancholia, a shadowy idealized memory of a past that never really existed in the way that we fondly remember it. Thus older people often resist social changes with the most vehemence, suggesting, for example, that some change in social outlook or policy will bring about the downfall of our entire civilization.In like manner, conservatives often idealize a past that didn't exist, a perfect suburban world in which social roles were well defined, crime was almost unknown, homosexuals didn't exist, people didn't complain about hardships, and everyone was more or less happy with the state of affairs.  Unable, of course, to actually turn back the clock on social progress, and forgetting that the very heart of conservatism resisted the changes that we now take for granted such as the need for equality for women and people of color, universalism in social policy, etc., conservatives aim their attacks on subtle, less visible, regions of society such as workers rights, employment equity, adult education, etc. In other words, a priori admitting that they have basically lost the battle on the social front, (and in some cases willfully forgetting that they ever opposed those things in the first place), they turn their attention to the legal and economic front to drive society back to this imaginary place of perfection and harmony. This leads, of course, as confused ideologies always do, to a deep-seated conflict in outlook and policy. Empower people socially and economically and they will exercise that empowerment in all sorts of ways that you never expected. That genie will not go back in the bottle. But the melancholy will, I am afraid, go merrily on as people fail to grasp their small part in the sweeping change of history. They will look back and laud the Revolutionary leaders in France for standing up for principles of democracy and freedom, they will cheer Thomas Jefferson and George Washington for pushing history forward, they will cry when they see the speeches of Martin Luther King. And yet, despite what they tell us, they don't really share the dream because when the very same spirit for right and justice that motivated these historical figures, moves through people today, they are once again (as they always have been) be condemned as fools, trouble-makers, and thugs.

The great spirit of utopianism moves on despite those who would thwart it. From the Brethren of the Free Spirit to the modern environmental movement, the dreamers watch history and move through it. Always struggling not to be dragged into the mire of melancholy and the petty concerns of vanity and power, they move into the future despite the forces of backwardness arrayed against them. These are the people that Bertold Brecht referred to as the 'indispensables,' those who see the big picture of history and struggle through toward the next Utopian shore, taking the rest of us with them sometimes kicking and screaming in resistance. I sing for the indispensables and for the movement of history; for the poets and the dreamers without which we would be nothing - less than nothing. And I condemn the petty, power-hungry, small-minded, vain, selfish little men in suits who would take us backward, and who attempt to enshrine power in a sacred veil of righteousness.

To suffer woes which Hope thinks infinite;
To forgive wrongs darker than death or night;
To defy Power, which seems omnipotent;
To love, and bear; to hope till Hope creates
From its own wreak the thing it contemplates;
Neither to change, nor falter, nor repent;
This, like thy glory, Titan, is to be
Good, great and joyous, beautiful and free;
This is alone Life, Joy, Empire, and Victory.


-Shelley

Keep your friends close, and your incompetents closer. . . . .

I have had a theory for a long time that Stephen Harper has intentionally surrounded himself with idiots and incompetents to avoid any chance that someone can significantly challenge his position. This theory has come to true fruition with the promotion of John Baird to the position of house leader. I have thought for a long time that Harper has used Baird's obnoxious and offensive style to turn people off politics in this country. If you can be loud enough and offensive enough, and sound just stupid enough, many people will simply give up on politics (particularly young people) and Harper wacko religious-right, pseudo-libertarian Capitalist base will be the only ones who want to keep voting. Voila - you have a better chance of ruling over a frustrated and increasingly apathetic population that feels as though there is nothing they can do and politics is just irretrievably corrupt and offensive.  But of course there is an added benefit here for Harper and his power hungry obsession. Unlike Thatcher who kept about her a number of very competent and intelligent ministers such as Michael Heseltine who ended up orchestrating her downfall, Harper keeps his most competent people at arms length and makes sure that those with the highest profile are the ones consistently before the public eye. Thus when you think of Harper's government you think first of John Baird, Pierre Poillievre, the unbelievably ignorant Van Loan, the slapstick Stockwell Day, the always offensive Jason Kenney, the sexy cancer-advocate Lisa Raitt and the ever incompetent  Jim Flaherty. But the people who have the best chance and being significant and competent replacements for the big man himself seldom have these kinds of visible rolls. Thus Harper seems to keep Chuck Strahl, Gary Lunn, Jim Prentice and others at arms length. (Don't get me wrong, I don't like any of them but the most salable and palatable potential replacements don't get anywhere near the air time that his incompetent bulldogs get.)

It is still a mystery to me how Harper maintains any real loyalty within the caucus. Here is a man who can't deliver a majority, runs roughshod over democracy, and discards anyone who is inconvenient without any due process. But these kinds of things are always a mystery to me. And I always think of Khrushchev's now famous speech to the Politburo in which he confessed being witness to the crimes of Stalin and when someone shouted the question from the ranks "where were you when all this was going on?" Khrushchev yelled out angrily "Who said that?!" When he was met with nothing but silence, he supposedly smiled and told the audience "Now you know where I was." In other words, thus far, like Stalin before him, no one has had the simple courage to stand up and challenge Harper's simple style of control and intimidate. And with point-men like Baird around it seems that no one will.  But Conservatives should be asking themselves an important question, to wit: If your leader can't deliver a minority and will inevitably retire, whether in the PM's chair or out of it, where does the party go next? Power vacuums are notoriously difficult to fill, and and if the rabble that is left behind are of the caliber of Baird and Poillievre, what kind of embarrassing carnage will ensure?