Compare and Contrast

Compare
Doing the hard work required to unite parties, not divide them:



Respecting those you differ with, as opposed to pointing fingers. Relying on a genuine desire to achieve a common good rather than reneging on your own commitments and blaming others.



and Contrast

The head of the United Nation's climate-change agency is a careful diplomat. So when he took the unusual step of firing a sardonic barb at Canada Monday, it was a sign of how far Canada's reputation has sunk.

Yvo de Boer, the UN climate chief, portrayed Canada as a climate hypocrite. The Canadian government, he said, is demanding cuts in emissions by Third World countries after failing to meet its own commitments.

“I personally find it interesting to hear Canada just a little while ago indicating it would not meet its commitments under the Kyoto protocol and now calling on developing countries to take binding reduction targets,” he told a press conference Monday at the Bali climate-change conference.

It's one thing when the opposition here at home criticizes the government, it's quite another when we are being mocked by the head of the UN on Climate Change and countries around the world are doing the same.

While I'm still angry about this, I would have to agree with a commenter on this blog yesterday, ryan, that the more this goes on, the more ridiculous we look and that will have an impact here at home.

Harpercrites are quick to support Baird of course. Few of us would expect anything different. It is rather astonishing however that they do not understand what this means for the country. This reaches beyond Climate Change, though it's tough to downplay the importance of that. It speaks to the credibility of this country overall and they seem unable to grasp that.

I was accused yesterday of simply not liking the direction the country is going in. Damn straight!

Abandoning International commitments, backing away from our stellar human rights record, backing away from our stance on the Death Penalty, reneging on our responsibility to care for the planet, doing nothing meaningful in Darfur, doing nothing for poverty in this country, oh the list is too long.

Indeed, I do not like the direction this country is going in. It seems to me that the Conservatives are oblivious to it. Unless of course they are really saying that we should bring back the death penalty, ignore human rights unless they address their moral code, we don't believe in climate change, Darfur is not meaningful to Canada and the poor in this country should just pull themselves up by the boot straps.

If that is what they really mean, I suggest that they should have the courage to say it.

Government by deceptive sound bite, serves no one.

All of this I would remind you is happening on the anniversary of Pearson having won the Nobel Peace Prize. It takes leadership, talent and skill to build a structure. It requires none of the above to knock it down.

Contrast and compare.

Bairdfaced in Bali

It's difficult to articulate how I feel about what is going on in Bali. Ashamed and embarrassed are descriptors that come to mind but the anger I feel seems to trump those two.

The transparent game being played by Baird and this government is almost too bizarre to believe, but believe it we must.

I imagine that Baird glommed on to the concept of pushing all countries to sign on to binding targets in order to make a difference, with absolute juvenile glee. I imagine him saying, Finally a way to do nothing while looking principled! We can sell this! Canadians will buy this! Ladies and gentleman, we now have our talking point!

How the bureaucrats get behind this stuff is beyond me. The problem of course is that it makes no sense. Their strategy is obvious. It is meant to sabotage the meetings. That's it, that's all. There can be no doubt that they knew the US would never sign on as long as Bush was in power. In fact, I suspect that the US was alerted to this strategy clearing the way for Canada to proceed with it, while not doing any damage to the relationship along the way. After all, their end game is the same isn't it?

If we had actually gone there with some sincerity, wouldn't our Finance Minister and Trade Minister have gone as well? 30 countries sent their respective ministers. Surely the meetings for these ministers are an integral part of the process? I may be wrong, but I do not believe that either Flaherty or Emerson are attending. If I'm wrong, feel free to correct me. Both of their websites are more concerned with attacking Dion than the Climate Change Meeting.

The meeting does not end until the 14th of December. What is the view of Canada so far?

Canada's lack of credibility was reinforced this week when Rajendra K. Pachauri - chair of the Nobel-Prize winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - said that Canada has “a government of skeptics” that “do not want to do anything on climate change.” Also this week, Canada was ranked 53rd out of 56 in a comparison of the climate change performance of the world's top emitting countries.

Of course there is the fact that we won, 1st, 2nd and 3rd place on day six of the conference. The leaked memo made us look idiotic. The Con's don't seem to register that though and so they plod along.

In the end, I think that they have played this very badly. We remember Ambrose in Nairobi. We know that they have no intention of doing anything. Baird hasn't changed one word of what they intend not to do, he just speaks louder, screams in QP for that matter. For some reason he has been able to dupe some of Canada. He gets himself on the news often. He's usually re-gifting or putting out Liberal plan.

I think they have played this badly because not only will Canadians react, but we will react to how the world is reacting to us. When is the last time you saw the world view Canada as a pariah?

In this, the year that we should be celebrating Pearson's accomplishments, we are instead taking action that would have him roll in his grave.

The Con's are out there and obvious. They continue to see the protocol of Kyoto as nonsense. That is the crucial point of course, not the Kyoto Protocol, but the protocol itself.

To my NDP readers, I ask only this. The Liberals indeed did not prioritise, rather the PM of the day did not. Dion did, but he had to fight for that recognition. That will never be articulated properly in general media. What I say to you is this. I know come the next election you see a way to gain more seats, but you will not be government. What's the risk of pushing that? A Harper majority.

To my Con readers, I say keep on doing what you are doing. You are now doing what most of the world rejects and what the majority of Canadians reject. Kindly spare me the Dion, 13 years nonsense. You have been in power longer now than Dion was Minister of the Environment. He actually accomplished important projects in 17 months and all you have done is cherry pick what you can deal with.

We, or more aptly, the Government of Canada is going about this in all the wrong way. We are willing to hurt people and the planet in the name of ideology.

"Wake up Canada!"

Can You See the Difference?

Watching the coverage of the Schreiber affair is almost more fascinating than watching the proceedings themselves.

On one hand you have Don Newman meticulously recapping the the proceedings, putting it into context and objectively presenting the evidence. He states the facts, then paraphrases those facts in such a way that he creates a cohesive narrative. He reviews how the committee conducted itself and looks at the possible implications of what Mr. Schreiber says.

That is what I would call objective, interesting and professional reporting.

On the other hand, let's call it the right hand shall we, you have Mike Duffy doing everything in his power to discredit Schreiber and the proceedings before they had even started. I noticed this the other day too, but today's effort was really remarkable. In scrums with MP's he puts forward his own conclusions and looks to the Conservatives for agreement. In essence, feeding them talking points.

On his show later he makes a comment: "Can you believe that some people around here are actually taking this guy seriously?" Instead of reporting what happened at Committee, he gives us his impression of Schreiber and goes on to defend the Con's, both the PC's and the far more odious contemporary version of that party, by flippantly dismissing Schreiber at every turn.

I suppose there is no real surprise here, but I don't think that Duffy's loyalties have ever been quite this obvious. With L. Ian MacDonald (who is quite forthright about his loyalty), often by his side Duff, seems quite prepared to fully exonerate Mulroney before having heard from him.

I know Duff has been around a long time and knows many people but any pretense of impartiality in the future is laughable. Any reference to Duffy by conservative posters on this blog will be roundly chuckled at as having no credibility whatsoever and there is no loss of convincing proof of that.

As for the actual meeting today, it was interesting. Schreiber revealed that there seemed to be some scheme in the works to pass Airbus money to Mulroney through a lawyer in Switzerland. Schreiber testified that he was taken aback by such a proposition, put to him by Mulroney advisor Fred Doucet. He raised the issue with Frank Moores and was told to forget all about it. (Doucet has since denied that. So, there will be some he said, he said .) Doucet has apparently said that, "there was no funneling to to the former PM of Airbus money", paraphrased. He does not speak to the plan to perhaps do that.

So, did that scheme go forward or not? Schreiber doesn't know because he was now out of the loop. I'm not sure what other witnesses could be called to tell us who is telling the truth, but I hope that the Committee can come up with one.

Now, all of this is apparently meaningless according to Duffy, because Schreiber is simply not credible. To be honest, I don't know whether he is or not, but he seemed to be telling what he knew with some relief, gratified by the fact that it was finally out in the open.

Given how business was apparently done in the '80's, it's easy to be dismissive of a man like Schreiber but given that he is so at ease in speaking about it, it must have been pretty damn commonplace don't you think? Most people do not speak of easily of the past, even when it is uncomfortable in the present, unless in your mind it was just the way it was. Did Mr. Schreiber do everything on the up and up? I have no idea, but it does seem illogical to me to assume that everything he says is a lie. That the Con's suggested that Scheiber had committed perjury is curious. Indeed he signed a letter that he didn't fully endorse, but he believed that was his way out. Perjury? He did not do this under oath. He did this in an effort to finally push the Con's to bring this all to light. He believed Harper when he said he'd "clean" things up. Mr. Schreiber is an example of how Canadians were duped by this government, though he remains on a different end of a political spectrum than I do.

Curious that. It would seem that there are many conservatives who just do not know where to go now. From the ultra right to the good old PC'ers.
Interesting times.

The MP's did a better job today of obtaining information, imo. Most asked very straightforward questions. The Conservatives however were on their usual nasty war path, but the rest of the MP's
seemed more restrained and focused than last time. That seemed to yield more information.

It strikes me that Mr. Schreiber is an anachronism being judged through a contemporary lens. Four contemporary lenses in fact, as each party is interested in having Schreiber confirm their own conclusions.

A contemporary lens is not useful. I'm loathe to spend the kind of money required for an Inquiry but there seems to be an awful lot to pursue and that is a venue that can speak from the platform of history.

Food for Thought

I'm not much for conspiracy theories. Overall, I think the temptation to make a case based on issues that have not been substantiated becomes an obsession and generally goes nowhere. I think such theories go nowhere for a couple of reasons. Either they were based on a desire or wish rather than factual information, or there was a nugget of truth and it's exposure enabled the offender to change tact and effectively cover up.

So, with that said, it is not my intent to promote a conspiracy theory. I simply raise an issue that piqued my interest and one that I intend to follow.

I read an interesting short article by Naomi Klein today. Right wingers who dismiss Naomi as a leftist loon and her new book The Shock Doctrine as a conspiracy theory are simply wrong and show their lack of depth, not to mention an inability to view the world from another angle. There is no question that Ms. Klein is on the left and I do not agree with her on all issues but as far as this book is concerned, it's not based on a vague theory. In fact she goes out of her way to illustrate that there is no grand plot to create shock, she simply points out how a specific ideology capitalises on it.

The article speaks to market reaction to climate change and it's rejection of green technology in favour of markets that deal with the outcome of climate change inaction. So, those means by which we could ameliorate the damage we have done and are doing are less profitable that what we'll require to contend with our inaction.

In other words, Governments with an ideology that support free markets and more importantly overall privatisation, based on their own articulated claims stand to realise their ideal more effectively by NOT engaging in meaningful action.

Here is the article.

So why did this pique my curiousity? It's an article about the US after all. The answer is obvious of course. We have only one ally going to Bali and that is the US. Baird blusters about getting the US on side, but come on, the history of our current government on this file is pretty obvious. They have crafted a position that is long on rhetoric, announcements that do not impede their inaction while leaving room to criticise the US, with their blessing I am sure.

So, can Naomi's assertion be brought to bear here? I don't know frankly but having read this and remembering this, gave me pause for thought. At the very least we are developing relationships with those groups and that is of concern to me.

The Cons have passed no legislation vis a vis the environment. They seem content to allow the "market" to take care of it all. They still have not announced who the renown advisers they are bringing to Bali with them. It's tomorrow right? Are they free market/privatisation supporters? We don't know and no one seems to be asking the question.

So, I put this out there. Is there a reason for concern?

You tell me.

Updates: This supports the inaction concept.

Timing is Everything

It's now been a year with Dion at the helm and let it not be said that it hasn't been a tumultuous one. Highs, lows and out right fabrications by dissenters have peppered this past year.

It's been fascinating and sometimes infuriating to watch, but it has kept people with an interest in politics rapt. What percentage of the population that entails I have no idea, but I suspect the number of those who really watch the minutiae is quite low.

What I do think people pay attention to are issues that affect their own environs, no matter how narrowly or broadly each individual chooses to define that.

We've watched Stephane Dion through the journalist's micro-scope this past year and beyond really. There was no optimism there before his election and since that time there has been precious little support. Perhaps they were ticked at their inability to predict the outcome and then went after him with a vengeance? As frustrating as it has been to watch this, it does have the potential to produce unexpected consequences.

Being defined as something you are not only works for so long. At some point in time you are given an honest forum and the myth is destroyed.

It is with that in mind that I read about and read into, the gathering in Montreal. Dion, in taking the time to speak directly to the party faithful is reminding them of the man, not the caricature. They are being reminded that this is a man of integrity, conviction and above all a man who is determined to correct the direction of the country.

No he's not flashy and indeed grammatically his English is not perfect, though he is not difficult to understand in spite of what is reported, but he has many outstanding quality's that cannot be ignored. He's not a typical politician. Got it.

Maybe though, just maybe, we are at the point that we long for that? I believe in Canada and Canadians. Our perception of ourselves has shifted vis a vis current policy and I do not think most of us are comfortable with that. The mean spirited PM that we see in Harper has presented quite a different view of Canada to the public. Those of us who follow knew that would happen. Con's are comfortable with this new outlook, I do not believe most Canadians are though. In Dion we have a powerful reminder of how this country and it's people view the world and perhaps more importantly, their place in it. Juxtapose that against a view. a government, that throws all of that away.

Drip, by painful drip, Harper is changing our standing and it's now starting to actually show. Gun control, joining the infamous GNEP after months of denial, the Environment, the shift on the Death Penalty, Human Rights... well you know the list. My point here is that the list of changes is far reaching now and at long last, this redefinition of our country by stealth is being reported on. By far reaching, I mean it's starting to touch many individuals and groups.

Dion is on the right side of all of these issues. That's not just my opinion. The polls bear it out. As individuals and various groups begin to feel uncomfortable in their particular environs, they will look for someone to put it right.

That's where timing comes in. As uncomfortable as this past year has sometimes been, we may be now seeing an unintentional plan coming together. If the Liberal Party can actually rally and stop reading the fantasy that the press puts out, they may realise that the pain has been worth the prize.

Consider the fatigue factor. People are tired of all the yelling, debasing and inciting. The mood the Con's seek to set has given the right a platform, but they are not gaining ground in this country. No, in fact they are becoming tedious and full of empty rhetoric.

There is still work to do, but with serious policy and real issues to combat, we are now at a point that Dion could actually prove that all the infantile advertising the Con's have put out was money wasted.

While reporters seem to be surprised, I think Dion may indeed prove that, timing is everything.