The Rintrarian Archive

The Conservatives released their platform on Friday the 13th. And it is as scary as the 13th is often thought to be. At the very least it is disconcerting.

Related:
• Conservative Platform

The Cons pledge to limit fiscal spending in all areas. All areas, except, Aboriginal affairs and, to no ones surprise, defence. In order to fully militarize Canada Harper needs as much money as possible. In order to establish a ballistic missile defence shield he will need coin. In order to arm the polar bears he will need greenbacks. In order to make a noticeable military presence in Canadian cities he will need financial backers. And those backers are the tax-payers. Private businesses are only supposed to make money by preying on the sick and by selling weapons to governments.

Without a cap on defence there is no top end. (Kind of self-explanatory.) But with a cap on health-care and other necessities of life there will definitely be a time when the government will say something to the effect of:

“We want to spend more on doctors and nurse training but our hands are tied. We don’t have the money. We need to make sure the Arctic beaches are safe for tourists to swim in without being attacked by foreign submarines. Oh, and sorry about the asthma that the poor air-quality has caused. But you will need to provide a credit-card number in order to get that looked at.”

The Cons will also:

• Replace the Indian Act with a modern legislative framework.
• Ensure that the CBC and Radio-Canada continue to perform their “vital role.”
• Enshrine property rights in the Constitution.
• Reform the Senate.
• Come up with a made-in-Canada plan to reduce greenhouse gases.

First, the Indian Act may not be easily scrapped. Trudeau’s goal was complete equality among people. And for Trudeau equality meant that there is absolutely no distinction among people. This included Quebec and Aboriginals. This appears to be the goal of the Conservatives and Liberals. Full integration into the Canadian system (whatever ‘system’ actually means). Integration often means to assimilation. Personally I find that differences between groups makes cooperation more difficult but more worth-while. And there is no single answer. What I am actually wondering is what is a “modern legislative framework”?

Second, I know how many big-C and small-c conservatives feel about the big-C big-B big-C (ahem, the CBC). Considering how many of them feel that the CBC is part of the Liberal MSM (ahem, a dumb abbreviation used by whiners for the so-called Main Stream Media) even though they claim few people watch it but they still call it “main-stream.” And calling it main-stream but saying that few people agree with it would more likely make it more fringe than main-stream. But that is a red herring. I need to know what Harper feels the CBC’s “vital role” is. If it is providing quality radio programming such as DNTO (Definitely Not The Opera) or Wire Tap, or if it is to create icons such as Mary-Lou Finley then “Yes” I agree with Harper. But I still don’t know what he is talking about.

Third, enshrining property rights? Why are we supposed to be entitled to anything? Seems to me that I bust my butt everyday at work, doing a job that I truly hate, so I can pay bills. I get screwed on both ends. I get paid less than what I actually produce and I pay more than what was actually produced. Sure I signed on to the job and I select and choose the items I consume but the fact is that this is how the system works and is encapsulated legally. Enshrining property rights simply ensures that I will continue to be the property of someone else.

Property rights are a sham. My job proves it. I work in a system and by working in that system everything I do for my job and everything I purchase or consume contributes to society and keeps it running. Therefore all property in society is part of the same system and are owned by the system. By removing elements from the system an imbalance is created and the whole thing begins to crumble. Everything and everyone is in the system and belongs to everyone in the system. We all constribute to the continued perpetuation of the system thereby we are all elements within it.Property rights simply remove the ownership from those lower down in the chain of society and make them property as well. This already occurs now, but with property rights Constitutionalized the disparity increases. Capitalism is supposed to somehow make everything nice for everyone. But what happens is that I end up getting punched in both my balls at once and yet I still need to work my ass off in order to get paid minimally and to purchase overpriced shit.

Related:
• Harper and Martin argue over property rights.

Forth is the reformation of the senate. Right now I have nothing to really say here. I will leave it be, at least for now.

Lastly, the Conservatives want a “Made in Canada” solution to greenhouse gases. This is, in a round-about-way, an admission that greenhouse gases are an issue. Either it is purely an election issue used to get votes or it is something about which they are actually concerned. Assuming they are actually concerned, it would appear that they are not really concerned at all. They want to come up with a plan. They do not have a plan and yet they do not like anyone else’s plans. But they have nothing themselves. But it is worth saying, for some reason or another, that they need a plan. A made in Canada plan. And Transit tax breaks will not be a very good solution considering that there are only few people who would switch to transit because of the tax break. And to make a real difference everyone would have to take the bus.

Whatever the outcome on Jan 23, the future is unknown. And it is the unknown that freaks the fucking shit out of me. This is partially because the future depends on votes and such. Partially because I don’t know what my own personal future holds. But mostly because I don’t know what the Cons will do or what they are capable of doing. My ignorance on this matter is because they appear too centrist right now during the election and I know they will not be that way post election.

Harper made a speech and then justifies it. That is pretty normal. Sometimes people say and do things that either (a) they are sorry for, (b) require clarification due to misinterpretation or (c) are proud of but want to brace the blow. (There may be other things a person may want to do too.) I do not think Harper is sorry for the speech he gave or the things he said. There is, however, some clarification that needed to be made. And he needed to make for his speech to be more palatable for Canadians. Before I, like so many others have done, look into his speech to an American conservative group I would like to make a distinction.

Like all politicians, Harper has said and done some things which raised some eyebrows. So has Jack Layton. Jack Layton visited a private health clinic and some people are pretty peeved that he would do so. However these people are forgetting one thing. Layton visited a NOT-for-profit clinic. The real issue is the existence of FOR-profit clinics. There is a difference. For-profit clinics aim to make money by healing sick people. In order to make money they must charge enough to make a buck and to save money to grow, maintain, and prepare for the unexpected. Not-for-profit does not need to charge as much because they do not have to line the pockets of share-holders. Enough about this. I simply wanted to bring it up because it is something in Layton’s past and I will be dealing with Harper’s past.

Harper’s speech was made by a conservative to conservatives. That is his justification for telling his audience that they are a “light and inspiration” to the world. OK, butter up the audience but then “insult” them by really, truly and, with what I would deem, fully intentionally insulting all Canadians by saying that Americans know about one country (their own) which makes it “about one more country than most Canadians.” The fact that he is making a joke while insulting Canadians makes it sting all the more. To appease his audience while debasing Canadians.

Harper says now that “obviously we admire values of freedom and democracy and the promotion of our traditional values . . .” But that is not all that he was speaking about. He was also talking about the religious right in the US. He may deny it now, but he closes his speech by saying that as “long as there are exams, there will always be prayer in schools.” If he was only talking about freedom and democracy and traditional values then why did he include this stealth plug for the religious right? He had something more in mind.

His comment about Canada being a “Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term, and very proud of it” may have been tongue-in-cheek, as he claims, but then he goes on to give reasons for his comment. The fact that he uses “facts” to justify his “joke” gives credence to the joke itself. Thereby making it less a joke and more an indictment, a pronouncement and an agreement that two legs bad, four legs good.

Then he insults the unemployed. If this is tongue-in-cheek then we have a problem. NO. Strike that. We have a problem nonetheless. Harper was speaking to a group that would have agreed with him even though he was “jesting.” What he is doing, at least so he tells us now, is making a joke but delivering a message. The problem is not with the joke but with the message. (And that is the common thread throughout the speech, but I will continue nevertheless.)

Harper also says that our social-assistance is “generous” compared to the American system. Is that a bad thing? Helping people is bad? Providing “generous” assistance is bad? Harper states that this generosity is changing and suggests that this may be a good thing. Is giving to the Salvation Army Santa Clause a bad thing?

Harper then speaks of Canadian politics. Understandably he speaks of the parties he opposes in unfavourable terms. While not fair in the least, he is doing what any dogmatic person would do when speaking of opposing ideologies. And I will leave this section at that, for now, even though he goes into a “Reform was a populist party” diatribe. (If it was populist then would it not go after what the population wants rather than becoming extinct?)

The last part of the speech discusses the political divide in Canada. He discusses the referendum held five years prior to his 1997 speech. He describes it as being supported by politicians, CEOs, trade unions, and academics but was defeated by the voters. I will not go into the details of what went on then to cause its defeat but I do have questions for Harper.

If politicians are so out of touch with the voters what makes you any different? Is it possible that Harper and the Conservatives are tugging at the heart strings of voters now because the voters may not know what they want and only what they don’t want? Isn’t that what the entire Conservative campaign has been about? Isn’t that why the Conservatives are depicting Paul Martin as a hypocrite? (Then again that is what happens during elections.)

If Harper’s speech was tongue-in-cheek or purely for conservative ears we have a problem. Or both. But still he is making jokes at the expense of Canadians. Implying that we are ignorant, shiftless, and lazy (ie. we don’t know about Canada or the US, we love government handouts, and we don’t want to work). Even though these comments were made about nine years ago, Harper does not appear to feel that he has said anything that could be construed as insulting or derisive.

The Liberals ad libbing? They make things up as they go along? How shocking. And not putting everything onto an official election platform? Is that new?

So here is the scoop: the Liberals don’t make mention on their platform of any illegalization of the use of Notwithstanding clause in the Charter by the federal government. It is likely that Martin ad libbed this into the debate. But now he said it. Now he is going to stick to it. He made a commitment. And is too prideful to say that it was something he was thinking about rather than making it a promise.

But to say that the Liberals are in disarray because they do not have everything nailed down into a platform is a little premature. You see, I perceive a different problem. The Conservatives are too hard-line. Too dogmatic. They have the answer to a question unspoken. They have the answers to questions never spoken. Stick to your guns (literally and figuratively) no matter what the situation or outcome.

For example, the shootings in Toronto. The Liberals proposed a hand-gun ban. The Conservatives said “We’s already got that.” And then the Cons rather suggested to militarize our cities. Rather than looking into how the guns that, as the Cons admit, are banned are getting into Canada the Cons don’t really suggest anything. Except getting rid of the registry.

Rather than looking into why the guns are being used in the first place, the Cons say “Let’s get tough on crime” with minimum sentences and stricter laws. This is possible because the Cons believe in punishment as a deterrent. The only problem with that theory is that basically everyone who commits a crime thinks that s/he will get away with it. I mean, who plans the imperfect crime?

The Liberals may be making some things up as they go alone, but that is not as bad a thing as what the Conservatives do. The Cons merely look back into they Book of Rhetoric and the Book of Dogma and repeat the same answers that have not worked. Or, at worst, go against common-sense.

The Conservative answer to a leaking roof is to put a bucket to catch the water rather than repairing the roof.

In the past year I have heard Peter MacKay say certain things. And Harper say other things. And then the statement is “cleared” up later on. Often the messages were different. Other times they were diametrically opposed. But it seems that this sort of thing is not unique to these two figure-heads. It seems that this sort of thing filters down and infects those below. And, in the case I mention here, I have not heard any real clarification yet. That likely will come. And when it does come it will be a very centrist stance. Centrist because it is election time.

But here is the goods. Before the election there was a meeting between the government and the First Nations. The First Nations were concerned that an election call would disrupt that meeting and make it never happen. But it did happen, with positive results – moving Canada and the First Nations in the right direction, together.

But now Conservatives are talking about this agreement. Monte Solberg (Conservative MP) has said the Conservatives will not honour the Kelowna Agreement.

“(The) Kelowna agreement is something that (the Liberals) crafted at the last moment on the back of a napkin on the eve of an election,” Solberg told radio station CJWW on Monday.

“We’re not going to honour that. We will have our own plan that will help natives a lot more than the Liberals’ .”

This agreement was written on “the back of a napkin”? If it is so very hasty and if the Cons can help more then why do the First Nations groups not speak out about it?

Instead, the Chief of the Assembly of First Nations says the Liberals would be their best selection. And “an increasing number of B.C. First Nations heavyweights are openly backing the Liberal party.” Curious and curiouser.

It seems that not only is Solberg saying these things, but that Thomas Flannigan is still within an elite “inner circle” in the Conservative party. (As an aside, the Liberals mention this on their site too.)

Some First Nations groups are viewing this as a sort of war against Aboriginal peoples. (I tend to agree and I would add that the Cons are declaring war on the poor, sick, elderly and those with common sense, intelligence, compassion, empathy . . .)

But here is what I am actually getting at. While Solberg’s comments are an issue, it seems that not the whole Conservative party is in line here. At least, as far as I know, the latest statement on this issue is that the Conservatives would live up to expectations set in Kelowna. This is according to Jim Prentice. No word yet from the higher ups.

The question still remains. Solberg vows to not honour the agreement. Prentice says they will. But who has the “moral authority” to answer. The Liberals supposedly do not. So maybe it is one of these guys. It occurs to me that the Conservatives are not a unified bunch. But they expect to keep Canada unified. (Or say they will.) Kinda odd. (Reminds me of a Bible verse, something about not being able to run a house means you can’t run a church. Seems like it would translate somewhat.)

In the end, who is Harper going to listen to? Prentice, the Indian Affairs critic? Or Solberg and Flannigan – the two who want the agreement gone? What do you do, flip a coin?

The Face of Conservatism in Canada.

[H/T to Rick Barnes]

[Oh, and once the election is over and everything tallied, I don't think it much matters who wins. It will likely be a minority and there will be much screaming and gnashing of teeth. And then not only will the Conservatives be divided (getting ready for another split?) but the entire HoC will be. Not much hope for the future. Baby steps to the edge of the building . . . then jump. But more on that in the next couple of days.]