Dear Left of centre political folks;
Reading the following Could raise blood pressure... cause uncontrollable striking of your keyboard... and may be hard for you to believe...
Conservative folks go ahead and read this.... it may have a calming effect that is beneficial to your well being!
"Harper isn’t changing Canada. He’s demonstrating that Canada has changed
Kelly McParland, nationalpost.com, Last Updated: Dec 28, 2011 11:50 AM ET
Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his wife, Laureen give a year-end interview to CTV anchor Lisa LaFlamme, December 22, 2011.
"One of the more popular themes of the traditional year-end political assessments has been the end of Canada as we know it due to the determination of the federal Conservatives to do things previous governments haven’t done. They’re “changing Canada,” and we’re supposed to be nervous about it. It’s possible we could wake up and find ourselves in a country we don’t recognize. Given the extent of the changes that have taken place during minority government and six short months of a Harper majority, Lord knows what irreversible alterations could yet be in store.
It’s a curious case to be making, given that it’s based largely on an assumption that change is bad, and any alteration to the status quo is to be feared. Especially since resistance to change is supposed to be a conservative trait, whereas “progressives” like to see themselves as warriors for new approaches and ideas. It’s also odd in that the Harper government is giving its attention largely to problems that have become chronic, which suggests that the old methods weren’t working, and stubbornly sticking to the same failed approaches would therefore seem inadvisable, if not flat-out foolish.
Let’s look at the areas of alleged concern:
•Harper has dangerously altered the approach to healthcare by refusing to hold negotiating sessions with the provinces, and handing them a take-it-or-or-leave-it funding plan for the future.
•Harper has destroyed, or is in the act of destroying, Canada’s reputation on the international stage by making clear Ottawa’s support for Israel, and readily joining military ventures such as the one in Libya.
•The Conservatives glorify the military.
•The Harper government has given vent to its ideological rigidity by closing down the gun registry, seeking to end the Wheat Board’s monopoly, and by altering the terms and ceremonial aspects applied to immigration applicants.
•Ottawa has brought scorn on Canada by refusing to play along with the global environmental movement. And it has played to the knee-jerk reactionary impulses of Conservative diehards by building prisons and toughening crime legislation at a time when many crime statistics are falling, not rising.
If you look closely at these claims, you will quickly find they’re made up largely of a belief that new approaches are not to be supported because they’re at odds with the practices of past governments, Liberal and Conservative alike, and are therefore radical and alarming. Past governments have generally been viewed as moderate and middle-of-the-road. Taking a different approach must therefore be immoderate and radical.
Except that most of the past attitudes produced little but failure. On health care, for instance, the Tories have rejected the traditional approach in which the premiers and prime minister got together to fight about budgets and proposed reforms, mainly because Ottawa knows it would lead nowhere.
Health care is a provincial responsibility, but decades of promises have produced little in the way of improvements and much in the way of ballooning budgets, which the premiers then sought to offload on Ottawa. The Conservatives have simply acknowledged as much, by putting in place a package of long-term, generous budget contributions while advising the provinces to sort out their own fixes as they see fit. In other words, they refuse to pretend they have all the answers and would like the premiers to fulfill the responsibilities they’re accorded by the laws. That’s radical?
Similarly, making clear Canada’s support for Israel replaces a failed approach in which we tried to give equal attention to Israel and those forces trying to destroy it. How can a government insist on Israel’s unquestioned right to peace and security, then offer sympathy and support to governments and movements dedicated to removing it from the face of the earth? It makes no sense, and it earns Canada no credit, other than for unreliability and a failure to stand by its principles.
The Harper government’s willingness to offer praise and admiration for the sacrifices made by the military falls into the same camp. Liberal governments, especially those of Trudeau and Chretien, seemed embarrassed that we had a military, and treated it like a problem child that needed to be starved of funds and kept away from polite company. The Conservatives, on the other hand, figure that if you’re going to send people off to risk their lives on your behalf, you better let them know you appreciate it. It’s known as patriotism, and the outpouring of public support for the government’s approach suggests Canadians overwhelming approve of such displays of pride in ourselves.
The bitching about the gun registry is just a display of sour g****s by people who can’t accept that one of their pet policies has been a failure. The registry was never more than a very expensive example of show over substance. It achieved little if anything to stop nutbars from getting guns and using them, which was the intent, while imposing unnecessary costs and restrictions on law-abiding citizens who were never a threat in the first place.
As they did with the wheat board, the government made no secret of its plan to put an end to the waste, and was elected in full knowledge of that. Beefing about it now is to complain about politicians keeping a promise. The same argument applies to the government’s harshly realistic approach to the environment: In an admirably candid year-end interview, Mr. Harper pointed out that Canada is simply too small a player to make much impact on its own, and pretending otherwise is just likely to sentence us to extensive sacrifices for little practical purpose. “It doesn’t matter what Canada does. It doesn’t matter what, frankly, Europe does. Unless we get all of the major emitters to be part of an accord that has mandatory targets, we’re not going to get anywhere.”
That isn’t what Greenpeace wants to hear, but Greenpeace is a one-issue organization which would quite happily have millions of Canadians pay the price in lost jobs and a struggling economy if it enabled them to puff out their chests at the next UN summit on climate change, where actual accomplishments always come second to fervent declarations of good intentions.
Canada’s moderate, middle-of-the-road approach has long been to align itself with whatever consensus was viewed at the moment as representative of the best intentions. It was an approach crafted to avoid criticism rather than achieve concrete goals. The Harperites have rejected it, and thus earned the enmity of diehard fence-sitters. The popularity of the government, and the majority it was handed in May, suggest many Canadians have had enough of the fence, and no longer see it as dangerous for Canada to have an opinion of its own."
Reading the following Could raise blood pressure... cause uncontrollable striking of your keyboard... and may be hard for you to believe...
Conservative folks go ahead and read this.... it may have a calming effect that is beneficial to your well being!
"Harper isn’t changing Canada. He’s demonstrating that Canada has changed
Kelly McParland, nationalpost.com, Last Updated: Dec 28, 2011 11:50 AM ET
Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his wife, Laureen give a year-end interview to CTV anchor Lisa LaFlamme, December 22, 2011.
"One of the more popular themes of the traditional year-end political assessments has been the end of Canada as we know it due to the determination of the federal Conservatives to do things previous governments haven’t done. They’re “changing Canada,” and we’re supposed to be nervous about it. It’s possible we could wake up and find ourselves in a country we don’t recognize. Given the extent of the changes that have taken place during minority government and six short months of a Harper majority, Lord knows what irreversible alterations could yet be in store.
It’s a curious case to be making, given that it’s based largely on an assumption that change is bad, and any alteration to the status quo is to be feared. Especially since resistance to change is supposed to be a conservative trait, whereas “progressives” like to see themselves as warriors for new approaches and ideas. It’s also odd in that the Harper government is giving its attention largely to problems that have become chronic, which suggests that the old methods weren’t working, and stubbornly sticking to the same failed approaches would therefore seem inadvisable, if not flat-out foolish.
Let’s look at the areas of alleged concern:
•Harper has dangerously altered the approach to healthcare by refusing to hold negotiating sessions with the provinces, and handing them a take-it-or-or-leave-it funding plan for the future.
•Harper has destroyed, or is in the act of destroying, Canada’s reputation on the international stage by making clear Ottawa’s support for Israel, and readily joining military ventures such as the one in Libya.
•The Conservatives glorify the military.
•The Harper government has given vent to its ideological rigidity by closing down the gun registry, seeking to end the Wheat Board’s monopoly, and by altering the terms and ceremonial aspects applied to immigration applicants.
•Ottawa has brought scorn on Canada by refusing to play along with the global environmental movement. And it has played to the knee-jerk reactionary impulses of Conservative diehards by building prisons and toughening crime legislation at a time when many crime statistics are falling, not rising.
If you look closely at these claims, you will quickly find they’re made up largely of a belief that new approaches are not to be supported because they’re at odds with the practices of past governments, Liberal and Conservative alike, and are therefore radical and alarming. Past governments have generally been viewed as moderate and middle-of-the-road. Taking a different approach must therefore be immoderate and radical.
Except that most of the past attitudes produced little but failure. On health care, for instance, the Tories have rejected the traditional approach in which the premiers and prime minister got together to fight about budgets and proposed reforms, mainly because Ottawa knows it would lead nowhere.
Health care is a provincial responsibility, but decades of promises have produced little in the way of improvements and much in the way of ballooning budgets, which the premiers then sought to offload on Ottawa. The Conservatives have simply acknowledged as much, by putting in place a package of long-term, generous budget contributions while advising the provinces to sort out their own fixes as they see fit. In other words, they refuse to pretend they have all the answers and would like the premiers to fulfill the responsibilities they’re accorded by the laws. That’s radical?
Similarly, making clear Canada’s support for Israel replaces a failed approach in which we tried to give equal attention to Israel and those forces trying to destroy it. How can a government insist on Israel’s unquestioned right to peace and security, then offer sympathy and support to governments and movements dedicated to removing it from the face of the earth? It makes no sense, and it earns Canada no credit, other than for unreliability and a failure to stand by its principles.
The Harper government’s willingness to offer praise and admiration for the sacrifices made by the military falls into the same camp. Liberal governments, especially those of Trudeau and Chretien, seemed embarrassed that we had a military, and treated it like a problem child that needed to be starved of funds and kept away from polite company. The Conservatives, on the other hand, figure that if you’re going to send people off to risk their lives on your behalf, you better let them know you appreciate it. It’s known as patriotism, and the outpouring of public support for the government’s approach suggests Canadians overwhelming approve of such displays of pride in ourselves.
The bitching about the gun registry is just a display of sour g****s by people who can’t accept that one of their pet policies has been a failure. The registry was never more than a very expensive example of show over substance. It achieved little if anything to stop nutbars from getting guns and using them, which was the intent, while imposing unnecessary costs and restrictions on law-abiding citizens who were never a threat in the first place.
As they did with the wheat board, the government made no secret of its plan to put an end to the waste, and was elected in full knowledge of that. Beefing about it now is to complain about politicians keeping a promise. The same argument applies to the government’s harshly realistic approach to the environment: In an admirably candid year-end interview, Mr. Harper pointed out that Canada is simply too small a player to make much impact on its own, and pretending otherwise is just likely to sentence us to extensive sacrifices for little practical purpose. “It doesn’t matter what Canada does. It doesn’t matter what, frankly, Europe does. Unless we get all of the major emitters to be part of an accord that has mandatory targets, we’re not going to get anywhere.”
That isn’t what Greenpeace wants to hear, but Greenpeace is a one-issue organization which would quite happily have millions of Canadians pay the price in lost jobs and a struggling economy if it enabled them to puff out their chests at the next UN summit on climate change, where actual accomplishments always come second to fervent declarations of good intentions.
Canada’s moderate, middle-of-the-road approach has long been to align itself with whatever consensus was viewed at the moment as representative of the best intentions. It was an approach crafted to avoid criticism rather than achieve concrete goals. The Harperites have rejected it, and thus earned the enmity of diehard fence-sitters. The popularity of the government, and the majority it was handed in May, suggest many Canadians have had enough of the fence, and no longer see it as dangerous for Canada to have an opinion of its own."
Comment