Quick, Into the Wayback Machine!

I don't believe the latest dropping out of the HarperCon$. Susan Delacourt has the story.

As if I needed more evidence to reinforce my opinion that the knuckle draggers are in control of the HarperCon$, we find the "Honorable" Helena Guergis creating a program that basically is built around resurrecting the neanderthal notion that sexual violence is a function of how girls dress (and, apparently by extrapolation, that males are simply unable to control themselves).

Talk about stepping back into the dark ages. What's next? Rape defences along the lines of "but your honor, she was dressed provocatively!" coming back?

Do we really have to keep these idiots around?

So, You've Reviewed All Those Cases Minister Kenney?

So, Mexicans and Czech citizens will need visas to travel to Canada now.

Why? Because Mr. Kenney has himself worked into a lather because he feels that there are too many refugee claimants coming from those two countries:

Ottawa placed the restrictions on citizens of Mexico and the Czech Republic to counter a rising number of travellers who claimed refugee status in Canada rather than return home.

In the first three months of 2009, 3,648 Mexicans and 653 Czechs claimed refugee status after arriving in Canada – many of the Czechs are said to be from that country's Roma minority.

Okay. Your point, Mr. Kenney is what? You can prove that all of these claimants are not legitimate refugee claimants? Or do you just think that they aren't?

Or ... is this just more Conservative mendacity coming to the fore, and instead of solving the real problems, you just want to punish those that you consider to be the source?

Jason Kenney has since said that we need to "reform" our refugee system:

“When we raise with our partners in foreign countries the issue of false asylum claims, or large flows like we've seen from Mexico and Czech Republic, they turn the discussion back on us, and say, ‘Your system is inviting this kind of abuse. And you need to fix your system,' ” Mr. Kenney said.

He wouldn't say what he has in mind to speed up the system, but noted Britain's 2004 changes as an “interesting reference point.”

Britain fast-tracked asylum claims from countries considered generally safe, to discourage false claimants from those countries by deciding their cases quickly, and sending home those rejected.

Uh huh. Sounds like more of the Conservative "get tough on crime" BS. Punitive measures taken against people on the assumption of wrongdoing instead of actually engaging due process and making sure that things are resourced in a way that the system can deal with the demands.

This business of "it's the fault of our system" is smoke and mirrors - it's an attempt by the minister to deflect attention away from the egregious and unnecessary travel restrictions which have tones that only neo-nazis and skinheads would approve of.

If there are real problems with the immigration system, Mr. Kenney and the rest of the HarperClones should start enumerating how they intend to address these issues, instead of taking precipitous and punitive actions against other nations.

Mr. Kenney is musing about adopting some approaches that Tony Blair attempted in Britain in 2004 ... but he's avoiding committing to any sensible dialogue of what he intends to do. Once again, we have the HarperCon$ doing meaningless grandstanding without presenting any kind of meaningful policy that Canadians can discuss.

Harper is eroding Canadian democracy and values one issue at a time - and in a manner that is uniquely destructive to Canada.

That Was Smooth?

Oh. My. God. You know the bar has been lowered when Harper's performance at the G8 summit is described as "smooth".

Mind you, that assessment is coming from the Asper-controlled Calgary Herald - so I'm not exactly hopeful for unbiased journalism here.

Says the Herald:

Stephen Harper’s visit with Pope Benedict XVI could have capped a triumphant diplomatic and political foreign excursion — if not for his disastrous partisan attack on rival Michael Ignatieff, a political analyst said Sunday.

Ummm...not to mention his utterly ridiculous statements about Parliamentary Budget Officer Ken Page's comments (which Darryl Raymaker quite nicely skewers here).

Of course, the Herald makes it clear that Harper's been playing - as always - to his base:

“I expressed my deep appreciation for the Holy Father’s moral and humanitarian leadership as an advocate of human dignity, peace and religious liberty, and for the spiritual leadership he provides to Catholics in Canada and throughout the world.”

How the current Pope can claim any "moral authority" is beyond me. Among the most egregious things the Church has ever done - conceal its child-molesting priests by moving them about as the heat started to get turned up - was reinforced by then Cardinal Ratzinger in 2001. That policy is contained in this document. Some moral authority, there.

But then again, as we know from Harper's behaviour to date, he's not overly interested in truth and reality either.

I will disagree with Darryl Raymaker in one key respect - Inspector Clouseau was an amusing character on television...Harper is anything but amusing.

Dear Honda:

I've never understood why you dropped the Civic hatchback in the '90s. (Other than the mid-90s version got excessively boring). I was in Europe recently, and saw the Hatchback styling you have over there.

Frankly, the current Civic sedan/coupe in North America is a yawn - it's grown to the size of the '98-02 Accords, and the styling just doesn't do it for me.

The European hatchback, on the other hand, is one of the best looking designs I've seen come out of your studios in recent years:




* Pictures from Honda's UK website

With hatchbacks re-emerging as a style of car that more fuel conscious North American consumers will consider, it strikes me that it's a good time to make the Civic what it has been renowned for - a small, practical car that's good looking and fun to drive.

When I saw the Civic HB in the skin, my first thought was "There's a hatchback I'd consider buying".

24 x 7 Campaigning ... Foot, meet Mouth

Harper just couldn't help himself, could he?

During the news conference, Mr. Harper attacked Mr. Ignatieff, saying he was irresponsible for comments he allegedly made about Canada's position within the Group of Eight industrial nations. Mr. Harper was basing his criticism on a fragmentary quote supplied to him by a staff member before the news conference began. The quote, uttered by an academic, that Mr. Ignatieff is alleged to have said suggested a new configuration of the world's big powers to replace or augment the G8 might leave Canada out.

“Mr. Ignateff is supposed to be a Canadian,” Mr. Harper said. “I don't think you go out and float ideas like this that are so obviously contrary to the country's interest and no one else is advocating them.”

Mr. Harper, you're on the world stage - leave the petty, partisan politics at home. You have embarrassed not just yourself and your party, but Canada and Canadians by trying to make your appearance on the world stage another campaign stop.

But, there is something to be said for giving Harper enough bait that he embarrasses himself at such a high level:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has apologized to Michael Ignatieff for questioning the Liberal Leader's support for Canadian international interests, saying he based his attack on a quote Mr. Ignatieff never uttered.

“During that press conference, I attacked Mr. Ignatieff for some things he had allegedly said about Canada and the G8,” Mr. Harper said this afternoon at a wrap-up news conference of the Group of Eight major industrial nations.

“This was not a quotation of Mr. Ignatieff. I regret the error and I apologize to Mr. Ignatieff for the error.”

That's as close to an apology as Canadians will ever see out of this Prime Minister. Unfortunately, he hasn't apologized to his peers in the G8 for trying to use it as yet another campaign moment, nor has he apologized to Canadians for making the entire nation look like a bunch of rubes.

Of Bibles, Marriage and Overactive Imaginations

In the wake of Diane Ablonczy's recent faux-pas that has likely terminated any chance of ascending the ladder of Stephen Harper's cabinet, I find this little turd floating in bowl of the internet.

It appears to be an attempt to justify opposition to gay marriage because ... well, apparently men are beasts if they aren't in the company of women:

Homosexual male culture is the way it is because it centers upon encounters between men and men alone. Everything that's most animalistic about men when they are not in the company of women has an excellent opportunity to emerge to the fore.

Ummm...sure. Right. Somehow, this doesn't quite mesh with any of the gay couples that I have known, but then I won't say I'm wildly familiar with their bedroom encounters.

But, beyond the blithe suppositions that the author starts with about gay male behaviour, it's what he posits will happen if the US allows gay marriage.

... But then he goes on to describe the rest of his lifestyle, which is not exactly domestic. I'll spare you, but one detail caught my eye.

I had previously assumed that in his "marriage" he and his boyfriend are monogamous. Not so. Savage writes about how he would like to detail their adventures but his "boyfriend" vetoes the idea.

What was I saying about those tenets of sexual adventurism? Oh yes, that they may please Dan Savage and many other gay men. Sexual sterility goes inevitably with their lifestyle. Even in a "marriage" like Dan's, monogamy isn't expected. And there's no necessary limit on lurid public expressions.

Monique, don't you see? Girls and women were hurt by males with increasing and heartbreaking frequency as the Sexual Adventurist Code of Values was progressively adopted since the 1960s as the norm among heterosexual males. No, we didn't need homosexuals to teach us these things. It was old fashioned heterosexual adventurism. Many women are still paying the price.

Well, let's just think about this for a moment. Sexual promiscuity in men has been met with a nudge and a wink for centuries - going back to the earliest recorded civilization. Among the Romans, the men of the house bedding slaves, the neighbor's wife and whomever else happened to be convenient was tacitly accepted - mostly because it meant that there was less chance of a woman being perpetually pregnant. An early, and crude form of family planning, but planning nonetheless.

Of course, since the 1960s, what has happened is that women have started to assert that they have a say in whether or not they want to have sex, and when they want to bear children. Something that has long offended the holier-than-thou crowd.

But there's a real problem with the writer's implicit assertions. First, he seems to believe that men are incapable of managing their sexual desires. This is blatantly false, and as has been pointed out in numerous sexual assault trials where the defense tried to claim that they "couldn't help themselves" because of how the victim was dressed, an line of reasoning that is simply insulting to both men and women.

But now gay activists want society's seal of approval on their lifestyle, and it is, on average, far more extreme in its adventurism. And you think that will not encourage heterosexual men and boys to keep on hurting women as they do now, or worse? If homosexual males treat each other that way, with their activity officially endorsed by the government, why can we heterosexual males not relate to you, heterosexual women, in a similar fashion?

Wait a second, here. How can you possibly make such a leap with any intellectual honesty? Let's just consider something for a moment. Homosexual couples have been a visible and tacitly accepted part of our society since the 1960s. To the best of my knowledge, the rates of domestic violence have not substantially changed; and if he is referring to subjects like marital breakdown, well, I don't think you blame that on the homosexuals somehow.

Imagine a man and a woman, of impeccably heterosexual tastes, with an open marriage on the Dan Savage model. Every woman with a brain in her head knows that in such a relationship, she's likely to be the one who gets hurt.

Ummm...I hate to point this out, but heterosexual couples have engaged in "swinging" for a lot longer than a few decades. It may have been quietly hushed up, but rest assured that it went on. This is perhaps the great irony of the entire construct of marriage - it creates a set of boundaries and rules for people to live by, and the first thing that half of them seem to want to do is find ways around those rules. (and don't get me started on the delightful church practice of "indulgences" and other ways to sidestep supposed scriptural prohibitions!)

No, sorry, but blaming homosexuals for the infidelities and abuse that happen in heterosexual relationships is simply stupid.

However, the article's author in a subsequent writing goes on to describe women as sluts. Well, I suppose it fits into whatever weird idea of relationships the author has. Sadly, I think he's spent to much time with his nose buried in scripture, and not enough time looking around the world and reveling in the diversity that resides here.

There Goes Ablonczy

I'd say that Diane Ablonczy's career in Harper's cabinet is toast:

Federal Tourism Minister Diane Ablonczy has given up responsibility for overseeing a major stimulus fund that sparked controversy in Conservative Party ranks after it gave $400,000 to a Toronto gay pride celebration in mid-June.

Conservative MP Brad Trost, a critic of the Pride Week grant, is suggesting that the Harper government stripped Ms. Ablonczy of responsibility for the fund as a punishment.

If you want more of what Trost said, it's here - on Lifesite News - a "backdoor source" for the PMO to signal to the religious right wing without most of the population picking up on it. (I had seen the Lifesite article a couple of days ago, but I consider Lifesite so biased that I waited for a more credible source to pick up the story as well)

Trost's statements in the Lifesite article are telling - as they give us a pretty good idea how much influence and/or control the fundagelicals have in Harper's government:

Speaking to LifeSiteNews.com from his riding office in Saskatoon today, the 36-year-old Conservative said, "The pro-life and the pro-family community should know and understand that the tourism funding money that went to the gay pride parade in Toronto was not government policy, was not supported by - I think it's safe to say by a large majority - of the MPs. This was a very isolated decision."

Trost also hinted that Minister Diane Ablonczy, who was responsible for the funding, lost the file as a consequence of the embarrassment to the Party. Protesting more than once that there was no "official connection," he said, however, "it should be noted that the file has been reassigned to a different Cabinet Minister since that announcement was made." He added, "The whole tourism program and funding for major tourism events is being reviewed."

Trost claimed that "almost the entire Conservative caucus" including "most of the Prime Minister's Office were taken by surprise at this announcement."

"It shouldn't be deemed to have been a change in Party policy," he said, adding, "Most of the caucus is still strongly pro-traditional marriage."

Ablonczy was one of the few reasonable members of the Reform/Alliance band. You can pretty much guarantee that she will be quietly banished to the backbenches. If Harper could afford to lose the vote in the House of Commons, I'm sure he'd turf her out of caucus as well - he hasn't exactly shown himself willing to forgive mistakes.

[Update]
From the Toronto Star:

But in his criticism of his colleague, he did not mention his government funds Saskatoon's Pride parade. The Saskatoon Diversity Network received $9,000 from Canadian Heritage this year for last June's Pride Festival.


So ... Trost's interview was for what purpose, precisely?
[/Update]

More Dog Whistles Out of Edmonton

So, Premier Stelmach finally said something about his direction yesterday.

A defiant Alberta premier broke ranks with some of his own senior cabinet ministers Tuesday, declaring that, under his watch, taxes will never increase to help the government escape from its multibillion-dollar deficit and a deepening fiscal hole.

One day after some of his most trusted ministers said both tax hikes and program cuts are needed to redress the province's revenue crunch, Premier Ed Stelmach said his government won't hike personal or corporate taxes, and vowed never to adopt a provincial sales tax.

This is another dog whistle moment - to the extreme right wing base that now seems to have control over the Alberta PC's. It's a signal that under Stelmach, the government is going to get axed down to as small as he can make it.

It shows a disappointing lack of vision and wisdom on his part though. He has just shackled himself to only surviving on existing revenues - by far the majority of which are coming in from a natural resources sector that has been pummeled in recent months.

Stelmach has just taken so many tools off the table, that his government's ability to respond to the economic situation we see today is reduced to two things: borrowing money and cutting services. That's it.

It's a sacred cow in Alberta that we will never have a provincial sales tax. When times have been good, that's been feasible for the government to get away with, and it plays well at the ballot box. What Stelmach, and others, fail to recognize is that a Sales Tax would go a long ways to stabilizing the revenues that the Alberta Government sees.

Unfortunately, Stelmach is playing to his base - he has been more blatantly since the April budget, and it's going to get a whole lot worse in the coming months. Especially when the leadership of the governing party isn't even willing to consider all of the tools that are available to him in addressing the current situation.

Stelmach's approach is going to make the recession in Alberta lot worse, and a lot deeper for longer in short order - purely so he can shore up his support within the party.

Talk about a government being past its "best before" date!