Saturday, August 27, 2016

Regressive Politics Part I - The Present-Day Conservative Party & the CBC

re·gres·sive
rəˈɡresiv/
adjective
  1. 1.
    becoming less advanced; returning to a former or less developed state.
    "the regressive, infantile wish for the perfect parent of early childhood"
  2. 2.
    (of a tax) taking a proportionally greater amount from those on lower incomes.


I'm thinking this will be a series of posts dealing with the regressive policies of government, whatever political stripe.  Of course, my predilection will be to focus on policies of the Conservative Party of Canada because I feel they exemplify this behaviour best, but I'm open to any possibilities

First, though, relates to a story that appeared just yesterday.  In it, a Party leadership hopeful, Tony Clement, takes aim at bridge tolls, Canada Post and the CBC.

His stance on the CBC, unsurprisingly, is that funding should be cut with the expectation that the National Broadcaster would "go the way of the Dodo", "liberating" taxpayers from the cost of supporting the CBC.

My initial rejoinder would be that perhaps Canada should be liberated from governments that spend taxpayers money on fake lakes and gazebos.  And this was just the tip of the iceberg.  That meeting of G8 leaders became a sinkhole into which a staggering $47 million disappeared.  The "Government of Fiscal Responsibility", indeed.  Party loyalists might have forgotten, but this model of "fiscal restraint" was all in the news back then.

But back to the CBC.  I understand that some people just don't like the idea of the CBC, or perhaps it's the reruns of "Anne of Green Gables" or really, who knows.  It ain't Fox News, that's for sure, proving that there is at least some sanity in this crazy world.

Detractors wave their arms and shout that the CBC is a Liberal Party mouthpiece.  Now, I've been around a few decades, long enough to have seen the CBC handle a number of different federal regimes.  There was the Liberal "Sponsorship Scandal".  I'm deliberately providing links to CBC reporting here, by the way.  Then there is this list of the Top 10 Scandals in Canadian Political History, provided by the CBC.  The assertion that the CBC goes easy on the Liberals is nonsense.  There was a good deal of critical comment when Jean Chretein attacked demonstrators and the RCMP pepper-sprayed students and other demonstrators exercising their right to peaceful assembly and their right to peaceful protest.

I could provide other examples, but a possible conclusion is that Conservative or other right-wing loyalists just can't handle criticism and when a broadcaster, any broadcaster, is critical of the party they cherish, they see red and feel rage.  They forget the grilling of parties they hate.  In particular, they seem to forget that the job and the duty of any broadcaster is to ask questions and to take any government to task.  I think the CBC does a pretty good job of this and, quite frankly, a better job than many other media outlets.

Nation-building is also important.  Canada is a big country and holding it together is a difficult task.  Having a National Broadcaster that is able and mandated to present stories that reflect the diverse nature of this diverse and large country is a significant part of maintaining our identity and our cohesiveness.  Likely there are those who don't think this is important.  Maybe they should stand up and let everyone know how little they value the country that is our home.  The story linked to above also points to other matters that need to be fixed.  It's not just about the CBC.



And finally, just remember the 3-hour+ concert featuring the Tragically Hip.  As a friend of mine pointed out: "With no commercials? In prime time? When it went overtime? During the Olympics?"

With any luck, the Conservatives will continue down their current path, the one that resulted in their defeat at the polls last fall.  Their stay in political oblivion could continue.  Perhaps they too can join the Dodo.....



Fixing Harper - Part 11 - Trade Deals

In the aftermath of Brexit, the lurking debate over the TPP here in Canada, Donald Trump's rhetoric about trade deals in the USA and bringing home jobs, I discovered this post I put on Facebook sometime back during the election.

Letter to the Editor, Toronto Star:
"Stephen Harper has been boasting of the 43 trade agreements Canada has, implying that this somehow is good for our economy and a tribute to his economic policies. He neglects to mention that of the agreements he has signed with 38 countries since 2006, we have a trade surplus with only one, Norway.
We are actually supporting the economies of the other 37 countries although this includes countries of the European Union with which he signed an agreement in principle but which has never been settled nor finalized by the governments of any of the countries including Canada and is currently in limbo.
Of the other five countries with which we had an agreement before 2006, our trade surplus is with only one, the United States, and that has fallen drastically as the auto industry deserts us for Mexico and the southern U.S. states. Other than the U.S. and Mexico and Korea (since January of 2015), the trade with all the others is minuscule and, while negative, is only a tiny part of our global trade.
Mr. Harper has a well-honed skill in dropping figures without context to confuse the voters and cover up his incredibly poor economic skills."
Denis McKee, Toronto

We learned yesterday that Mr Harper had cleared out his office and has officially resigned his seat in Calgary.

Friday, August 05, 2016

More Chats with Climate Change Deniers

Yes, it seems I can't resist temptation....

It all started, as most things do these days, with a post on Facebook.  The Fraser Institute (you know, that neoliberal "think tank" funded by right-wing fanatics and the oil industry... that "charitable organization" that the Harper government refused to examine along with others during it's witch-hunt a couple of years ago) recently came out with a paper claiming that "A Carbon Tax is Not a Price" .

I noticed some comments that were taking the usual climate change science denial tack.  So I decided (ie: what better judgement?) to stick in an oar or two.

Almost all the comments posted must come from people who wait expectantly on the edges of their chairs for the latest missive from the Fraser Institute and then jump in to show how much they support whatever regressive notion the Institute is promoting this time.  At least that's what I think is going on.  How else to explain the sheer number and almost complete unanimity of message apparent in their comments.  A selection (I've included names just to prove that I'm not making this stuff up):

Doug Dawdy Please man. Most of what you wrote is bullshit and has been proven as such. Read something other than what enviro fasists put out and promote. Spend some time researching the subject instead of sipping away at the koolaid.

 Ryan Marsh Of course the climate is changing! It's always been changing, and will always be changing. Do you really believe that we're the cause? We have such an insignificant effect, that it's not even worth trying to change. One volcano pumps out more green house gas than our species has in all of history. The solar cycles are more of a contribution to climate change than anything else. Maybe if we tax the sun we can save the climate!

 Danny Cameron anyone that supports this is a fool.they aren't doing anything to reduce pollution or to clean up the mess that is all over the world.if you want to change things how about taking the profits from oil companies and invest it into our country to make things better instead of taking more from the people who doesn't have enough to survive now.
Of note here is the complete lack of anything to back up their claims.  Of course, this is the usual tactic - spew vitriol and attacks but avoid facts.... probably because there aren't any.

 
For instance, the comment about volcanoes and solar cycles.  First, the sun's activity has been decreasing so we're actually getting less heat from the sun and, second, volcanoes are an insignificant contributor to climate change.  In fact, most volcanoes will temporarily cool the climate.  For a reference, there is this. 

 In fact, every single argument trotted out is old, tired and answered, in many cases, years ago.  You can see them all here, posed and answered.

You might well ask.... Why bother?  These people can't be convinced.  They have no evidence.  Evidence doesn't matter to them.  So why bother?

I have a simple, two-word answer:  For Fun.