The Harper government is all about politics, all the time. Policy is not about improvement. And it's certainly not about seeking out expert advice. It's about exploiting personal advantage. Consider the proposed prostitution legislation, Bill C-36. Michael den Tandt writes:
At a stroke, the Harper government has won itself and the country an emotional, divisive debate over values and social policy, one that breaks down along classic social conservative/progressive lines, and one the Tories must know they will ultimately lose. And perhaps that’s the whole point: another big bust-up with professors, lawyers, journalists and other pointy-headed, latte-sipping flibbertigibbets.
There is a method to this madness:
It is, in sum, the Conservative party’s first big foray back towards the social conservatism of its Reform party roots, and away from the libertarian-leaning model that has worked for it for a decade. Further, it is evidence the Tories realize they need more than just their old mantra of thrift and tax cuts to motivate their base and hold off a Liberal resurgence. The hue and cry from civil libertarians may also cause social conservatives, so long ignored, to open their wallets.
No, the proposed legislation is not about making lives better. It is a weapon to use against their opponents. It's always been about their opponents -- those who oppose the government's corporatist agenda and Bible Bill Aberhart's morality. The Harperites only interest is their self interest.
25 comments:
Yes Owen divide and conquer the romans used it well to their advantage but ultimately were spread to thin. Everything is much faster in this day/age so therefor ol'steve is probably stretched to break point.
And, despite the bravado, Mogs, I suspect that he's running scared.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-fourteen-defining-characteristics-of-fascism/5386112
I've seen this before, Mogs. The parallels are pretty stark.
That list is little better than a hoax. Supposedly it was written by one Dr. Lawrence Britt, purportedly a political scientist and scholar. Google that name. You will find nothing other than references to this list.
From about.com..."During the 2004 election cycle, an email chain letter began circulating, attributed to one "Dr. Lawrence Britt, a political scientist," who had apparently written a 14-point article listing the defining characteristics of fascist regimes. There was something to the email, and we'll get to it in a minute, but first let's address a few misconceptions. First of all, there is no "Dr. Lawrence Britt." The author of the 14-point fascism inventory, Laurence Britt, is a former corporate executive who wrote and published a dystopian novel about right-wing extremism, titled June 2004, during the height of the Lewinsky scandal. That is, to the best of my knowledge, his only published volume.
In the real June 2004, he achieved some level of fame with an op-ed published in the humanist magazine Free Inquiry. This op-ed was forwarded around from inbox to inbox, and readers eventually began putting a "Dr." in front of his name and referring to him as a political scientist who had compiled the fascism inventory independently of the Bush administration. He had not done so, and had never claimed to do so. The article was, and had always been intended to be, an argument against the Bush administration."
http://civilliberty.about.com/b/2007/09/10/one-nation-underrated.htm
"It's the internet, Jake."
I appreciate the background, Dana. As appealing as it looks, it is not an unimpeachable source.
It's not a source at all, Owen. It's a misattributed diatribe devoid of factuality or scholarly concision.
Balderdash in other words.
Point well taken, Dana. Ironically, it's an example of contemptible self interest.
The point I was trying to make "Dana" is that the harper Imperium seems to be following that flow chart. If you look at point 14 that is where the government of any fascist state takes control of the highest court in the land. And due to 'personal' observations it seems to me like an all points bulletin to be used to take excessive control of the populace. Plus their is no doubt in my mind Stephen has followed the flow chart to a TEE.
And it matters not who wrote it or why? No quibble here.
Cheers,
Mogs
I think it's clear that Harper shares characteristics with someone like Benito Mussolini, Mogs.
But this is an example of where everything you come across on the internet is not of equal value.
If only William L. Shirer had been the author.
"Mogs", it's not a flow chart. It's not a chart of any kind. It's not a scholarly work. It's nothing other than some guys fictional list. Maybe it has some meaning and maybe it doesn't but giving it credence just because you like it is more of a characteristic of the delusional Tea Party.
Charles got it all wrong. Putin isn't Hitler, Harper is.
If Harper can grab control of the Supreme Courts? Harper will be supreme dictator of Canada.
Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini were all dictators and control freaks, with very similar characteristics.
To me, Harper fits the profile of a dictator, to a T.
The point is, I think, that there are spin machines. The Harper government is good at spin and self promotion. But there are people on the other side of the argument who are equally good at spin.
Distinguishing between good information and spin is a critical skill.
I agree that Harper is dangerous, Anon. The important point is not to elect dictators in the first place.
OK Owen I am not the expert on so called rampant fascism but the truth lives on Google in spite of Dana claims, vis a vis:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fascism/Archive_2
So Owen I myself believe Dana is a paid con to try to bust your site through divine then divide and conquer.
With this link shows how the that are paid do it:
http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/yes-there-are-paid-government-trolls-on-social-media-blogs-forums-and-websites
Also since Dana may not know there are laws in place: If I ask you which I am doing now Dana are you working for the Conservative Party of Canada?
http://mediaspin.ca/2011/06/right-wing-trolls-plague-internet/
I'll let Dana answer for himself, Mogs. But, because he's been a long time commenter here, I suspect that his answer will be a definite NO.
OK Owen it is obvious that Dana is mettleing with words : concision, he has none.
You guys are not going to agree, Mogs. But his point about carefully examining sources of information is well taken.
I have made that mistake myself.
mogs:
Dana is *NOT* a CPC troll, take my word on that. What he is is a very embittered and at this point very bleak minded person who saw the horrors coming, tried to stop it, and burnt out and these days is rather bleak about things.
And he was correct to point out the importance of sourcing, something far too few people on all sides of the political spectrum do in the internet age IMHO. That list I have seen used as a "A-ha! See" against both Bush 43 and Harper, yet it is something that is not actually a scholarly work, nor a research paper, but it is as Dana has pointed out, and therefore despite appearing to hit the nail on the head is not actually a good reference piece to use to make the point regarding the fascist resemblance Harper has, especially when there are so many actually well sourced places to go to for that purpose, so why risk using something that can be used against you in a credibility conflict? To then brand Dana as a paid shill/troll was rude and without sufficient basis to do so, and comes off a bit of a mirror image to what I have seen from Cons in NA when they disliked what someone was telling them. One of the worst dangers of the modern NA conservative political movement is how it tends to cause those who oppose it to become more and more like them in the process, a danger that we all need to constantly be wary of in ourselves.
All I can add, Scotian, is that when you deal with people like Harper, it's easy to lose your balance.
And I suspect Mr. Harper is counting on that. Keeping your opponents off balance is the way to stay in power.
Sorry Owen.
Thanks Scotian. When did we first encounter one another? I remember it was at the old Washington Monthly blog during the Kevin Drum years. 2002 I think when the drive was on to try and convince the Cheney/Bush administration that the UN inspectors should be listened to about Iraq's WMD and that it was a really bad idea to send troops to A'stan.
Early days of the blog multi-verse...just as futile then as it appears to be now.
But there didn't seem to be so many people around like mogs then. The only really obnoxious, ignorant people were the Rethuglican assholes. None of them were leftists or even centrists...but asshole leftists and centrists seem to be everywhere since '06 or so.
The sheer volume of blunt and aggressive stupidity so proudly displayed in so many places is so disorienting and is utterly disheartening. The fact that so many of the stupid, of all stripes, vehemently defend their right to stupidity when it is pointed out to them is just about more than I can stand to countenance and accept.
After the experiences at The Galloping Beaver in 2006 when I was attacked by the NDP I stopped blogging. I continued to use my own name and I continued to read and comment but over time my capacity to deal with wilful,prideful ignorance has limited my reading and commenting to very few blogs.
If mogs moglio, whatever, whoever, why-ever it is, and his ignorant compatriots continue to procreate and spread further among the intertubes I do believe I will finally surrender and withdraw and let the stupid have the paradise they so vehemently seek.
And mogs - fuck you and the horse you rode in on. I promise you I will never read another word you write you ignorant shite.
And I'll stay away from here for a while Owen.
I see Americans are infiltrating your blog:
"old Washington Monthly blog"
quoted from the attack post on myself below and then he had the Gaul to use the f word to describe somebody he does not even know.
Mogs
It's time to let this thread go, Mogs.
No, no, pray let Dogberry speak.
I'm declaring this thread closed.
Post a Comment