Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Friday, May 18, 2007
Dumb mouths, that ope' their ruby lips
The other Harperite perversity on ample display this week has been vicious, short-sighted, destructive policy petulance. The cuts to the Canada Summer Jobs program are a prime example.
Heard about this? Like the Court Challenges Program, like the Status of Women Office, like the money for museums, Canada Summer Jobs doesn't cost, in the grand scheme of things, a whole lot - it subsidizes/funds temporary positions for high school and university students in organisations that wouldn't otherwise be able to hire over ther summer. So why has $11 million been axed from its budget? Disabled little league baseball; an award-winning camp for autistic kids; daycamps in Jamestown - none of these things are apparently "worthy" enough, to quote Human Resources Minister Monte Solberg, to qualify.
While the fracas in the House is bad, this is reprehensible. Paul Wells thinks that the Conservatives are preparing a grand new human capital strategy. Well, denying young people in urban areas home to 80% of Canada's population, not to mention all of Newfoundland, summer job opportunities - and money, experience, skills development and the chance to innovate - is really such an outstandingly original way to develop a workforce, isn't it?
Harper knows that with a minority government, he can't chop away at some of the bigger strands of the social safety net. But it's open season on the small fry - and I bet you a $1.3 billion tank purchase that the Primer Minister thinks it will be easier to do away with the big stuff by softening up the victim with a thousand cuts.
Cuts, cuts, cuts. Cuts to the regulation of prime-time television commercials. Cuts to the Official Languages Plan. That holy shibboleth, tax cuts. Students, and everyone else, might want to bone up on their Classics - Canada has become like a man who goes in for a hair cut and is instead attacked with the shears. Or like Caeser stabbed in the back, by a fat man with a lean and hungry look.
Heard about this? Like the Court Challenges Program, like the Status of Women Office, like the money for museums, Canada Summer Jobs doesn't cost, in the grand scheme of things, a whole lot - it subsidizes/funds temporary positions for high school and university students in organisations that wouldn't otherwise be able to hire over ther summer. So why has $11 million been axed from its budget? Disabled little league baseball; an award-winning camp for autistic kids; daycamps in Jamestown - none of these things are apparently "worthy" enough, to quote Human Resources Minister Monte Solberg, to qualify.
While the fracas in the House is bad, this is reprehensible. Paul Wells thinks that the Conservatives are preparing a grand new human capital strategy. Well, denying young people in urban areas home to 80% of Canada's population, not to mention all of Newfoundland, summer job opportunities - and money, experience, skills development and the chance to innovate - is really such an outstandingly original way to develop a workforce, isn't it?
Harper knows that with a minority government, he can't chop away at some of the bigger strands of the social safety net. But it's open season on the small fry - and I bet you a $1.3 billion tank purchase that the Primer Minister thinks it will be easier to do away with the big stuff by softening up the victim with a thousand cuts.
Cuts, cuts, cuts. Cuts to the regulation of prime-time television commercials. Cuts to the Official Languages Plan. That holy shibboleth, tax cuts. Students, and everyone else, might want to bone up on their Classics - Canada has become like a man who goes in for a hair cut and is instead attacked with the shears. Or like Caeser stabbed in the back, by a fat man with a lean and hungry look.
The Bully Pulpit
You know, my immediate greivance with the paralyzing imbroglio slowly consuming the House of Commons has less to do with the tactics being employed by the Conservative government, than with the philosophy of governance the Harperites reveal by doing so. It's reasonably safe to say that most peoples' idea of government is of an institution that, well, governs - sets public policy, uses its authority to supervise a state, yadda yadda yadda. It's the Opposition that's supposed, by definition, to do the opposing.
So what kind of responsible government cancels committees because things aren't going their way, lies blatantly about events that happened, literally, last week, obstructs inquiries into its own alleged malfeisance, and lets the friggin' Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons physically harass an opponent? This is not, as the Globe's byline writers suggest, a war of procedure - it's a kamikaze assault by the governing party on the basic processes of the House that it was elected to protect. It's obscene, it's disgusting, and it's entirely consonant with Stark Contrast's theory about Stephen Harper: that he wants Canadians to expect politics to be as nasty as possible - because he's the reigning king of revile.
________________________________________________________
UPDATE - Hmmmm...I'll tell you what kind of government engineers the above-mentioned dirty tricks - the same kind of government that has 200 pages of material about said kamikaze assault, and an itchy printer finger.
Let's be charitable - maybe it was the clipper again? Someone call the RCMP!
So what kind of responsible government cancels committees because things aren't going their way, lies blatantly about events that happened, literally, last week, obstructs inquiries into its own alleged malfeisance, and lets the friggin' Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons physically harass an opponent? This is not, as the Globe's byline writers suggest, a war of procedure - it's a kamikaze assault by the governing party on the basic processes of the House that it was elected to protect. It's obscene, it's disgusting, and it's entirely consonant with Stark Contrast's theory about Stephen Harper: that he wants Canadians to expect politics to be as nasty as possible - because he's the reigning king of revile.
________________________________________________________
UPDATE - Hmmmm...I'll tell you what kind of government engineers the above-mentioned dirty tricks - the same kind of government that has 200 pages of material about said kamikaze assault, and an itchy printer finger.
Let's be charitable - maybe it was the clipper again? Someone call the RCMP!
Sunday, May 13, 2007
The art of the possible?
Liberal leadership contenders, progressives of all stripes, and anybody who's recently bashed Elizabeth May, take note: the separatists seem to know a trick that most other politicians in Canada can't manage. Namely, how to cooperate.
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
A Gay May Day Roundup
Yours truly is twenty-three years old today (seriously, are we sure I'm not seventeen? Or maybe five?) To my loyal readers, I apologise for the dearth of blogging of late: le palais du bureaucracie has been keeping me on my toes (literally, you really don't want to see my feet right now).
On that gross note, we proceed to a roundup of the last little while's political news:
a) Boisclair resigns, Luke weeps. I have written elsewhere of a sneaky liking for Andre Boisclair (yes, he''s cute) though not of his pet political project. I don't greet his resignation with good cheer - if nothing else, it simply proves that, poorly-written CP stories to the contrary, you can't as yet be openly gay and a First Minister in the True North, Strong and Free.
But why are federalists chortling? Would they really prefer Gilles Duceppe, quite a capable politico these days, leading the sovereigntist charge in Quebec? Are they really so sure there's no one capable of replacing him in Ottawa? Or that Mario Dumont is actually a slimy federalist, as opposed to a slimy opportunist? Have they looked at the latest SES poll, which seems to show the BQ's public support holding steady? (it's Stephen "Quebec is a nation" Harper who's losing points to those nefarious allies, the Greens and the Grits) And finally, have they considered the possibility, so often written, so seldom read, that Qubeckers are less interested in independence these days because they, in so many de facto ways, already have it?
b) Speaking of that poll.... I'm not going to, except to say that SES is usually exceedingly accurate, that the poll (the second of late to show the LPC and CPC in a dead heat) has received almost zero press coverages from the columnists and commentators who were so eager to trumpet numbers when it seemed the Conservatives were ascendant, and that you might cast your eye over three very interesting regional numbers - if they're actually trends and not stat glitches, they bear watching:
1) The Conservatives are up in Atlantic Canada, despite Danny Williams' monstrances. Bad news for Liz May in Central Nova if that keeps up;
2) NDP and Greens are up big-time in Ontario. Vote-splitting on the left? More Red Tories than we thought? We shall see;
3) The Greens are doing very well in the West, at the expense of the usual suspects.
This might all be bad news for progressives - except that the percentage of uncommitted voters has jumped to 14%.
c) Money, Money, Money. No kidding that it's a rich man world, or will be if the Conservatives get their way in banning loans to politicians over $1,100. The whole campaign-finance conglomeration is a great example of the Devil being in the details. Surely it's intuitive that if big companies and rich people weren't allowed to give as much money to politicians, they'd have less influence in politics, right? Right?
No sirree bob. We will have the unappetizing prospect of political candidates being tested based solely on their net worth, credit rating, and assets - not their intelligence, empathy, skill, or ideas. It's an Ayn Rand wet dream. Consider this: which individuals, these days, have the excess income to donate to political parties? Young people? Don't make me laugh. The poor, the lower middle class, or immigrants? Unlikely. Nope, it's retirees and the top 10% of income earners, exactly the people the Conservative Party relies on to rake in the cash.
The problem is, of course, that changing one procecedure or structure in a society without changing a bunch of other procedures or structures isn't necessarily going to affect the goal you want - in fact, it might have the opposite effect. And with political financing, progressives have been hoodwinked by what I like to call the Lisa Simpson/Malibu Stacey effect: assuming big + rich means = evil /forgetting that regressive conservatives are way better at making sure folks like their brand, and keep liking it.
d) And finally....
That last point, about making sure folks like the Conservative brand, is so key that I think I will expand a little bit on it. I thin the crux of the matter is this: it's so....easy, living in our society, to believe what the Conservative Party tells you, up to a point.
As a culture, we in North America have evolved to feel increasingly powerless about our lives - and indeed, in work, education and even leisure, our actions are more and more being orchestrated by outside agents and institutions. Paradoxically, capitalist propaganda's barrage of "choice" and "access" signifiers has meant we also expect ourselves to be able to obtain, in a whole host of spheres, infinite access with zero effort. In this dual context, easy choices must always be attractive: we believe we are acting autonomously, in our own best interest, and most importanty, within the regular pattern in which the world should exist. Hard choices are exhausting, difficult, complicated. But worst of all, they're uncertain.
So to believe that global warming is a crock, that we should lock all those crooks up and stop those kids from carrying on, that it's impossible to do anything about our problems and that we should hunker down and be happy with our lot - these are human reactions that come from feeling powerless, and from the defences (denial, fatalism, anger) that stem from it: human reactions that liberate us from choice, and therefore from uncertainty. And neoconservatism asks nothing of us other than to be certain: to side with the status quo, hearken back to saccharine (and surely, true!) memories of some bygone Utopia, and know that if only things would stop being so unclear, that the little guy (and of course, everyone thinks he or she is the one in question) would be tops, know all the answers, and be sitting pretty. We're so certain, we believe so well, that we averr things that our own eyes (if we could, as the Book of Proverbs exorts us, look, see, and observe) would tell us were untrue.
In fact, it's a miracle (of Grace or good sense) that so many people, despite this onslaught, still believe other things - the ones involving justice, and mercy, and empathy, and cooperation. Those are things that make living in the real world more bearable. If there's any real world left, by the time the neocons are through.
On that gross note, we proceed to a roundup of the last little while's political news:
a) Boisclair resigns, Luke weeps. I have written elsewhere of a sneaky liking for Andre Boisclair (yes, he''s cute) though not of his pet political project. I don't greet his resignation with good cheer - if nothing else, it simply proves that, poorly-written CP stories to the contrary, you can't as yet be openly gay and a First Minister in the True North, Strong and Free.
But why are federalists chortling? Would they really prefer Gilles Duceppe, quite a capable politico these days, leading the sovereigntist charge in Quebec? Are they really so sure there's no one capable of replacing him in Ottawa? Or that Mario Dumont is actually a slimy federalist, as opposed to a slimy opportunist? Have they looked at the latest SES poll, which seems to show the BQ's public support holding steady? (it's Stephen "Quebec is a nation" Harper who's losing points to those nefarious allies, the Greens and the Grits) And finally, have they considered the possibility, so often written, so seldom read, that Qubeckers are less interested in independence these days because they, in so many de facto ways, already have it?
b) Speaking of that poll.... I'm not going to, except to say that SES is usually exceedingly accurate, that the poll (the second of late to show the LPC and CPC in a dead heat) has received almost zero press coverages from the columnists and commentators who were so eager to trumpet numbers when it seemed the Conservatives were ascendant, and that you might cast your eye over three very interesting regional numbers - if they're actually trends and not stat glitches, they bear watching:
1) The Conservatives are up in Atlantic Canada, despite Danny Williams' monstrances. Bad news for Liz May in Central Nova if that keeps up;
2) NDP and Greens are up big-time in Ontario. Vote-splitting on the left? More Red Tories than we thought? We shall see;
3) The Greens are doing very well in the West, at the expense of the usual suspects.
This might all be bad news for progressives - except that the percentage of uncommitted voters has jumped to 14%.
c) Money, Money, Money. No kidding that it's a rich man world, or will be if the Conservatives get their way in banning loans to politicians over $1,100. The whole campaign-finance conglomeration is a great example of the Devil being in the details. Surely it's intuitive that if big companies and rich people weren't allowed to give as much money to politicians, they'd have less influence in politics, right? Right?
No sirree bob. We will have the unappetizing prospect of political candidates being tested based solely on their net worth, credit rating, and assets - not their intelligence, empathy, skill, or ideas. It's an Ayn Rand wet dream. Consider this: which individuals, these days, have the excess income to donate to political parties? Young people? Don't make me laugh. The poor, the lower middle class, or immigrants? Unlikely. Nope, it's retirees and the top 10% of income earners, exactly the people the Conservative Party relies on to rake in the cash.
The problem is, of course, that changing one procecedure or structure in a society without changing a bunch of other procedures or structures isn't necessarily going to affect the goal you want - in fact, it might have the opposite effect. And with political financing, progressives have been hoodwinked by what I like to call the Lisa Simpson/Malibu Stacey effect: assuming big + rich means = evil /forgetting that regressive conservatives are way better at making sure folks like their brand, and keep liking it.
d) And finally....
That last point, about making sure folks like the Conservative brand, is so key that I think I will expand a little bit on it. I thin the crux of the matter is this: it's so....easy, living in our society, to believe what the Conservative Party tells you, up to a point.
As a culture, we in North America have evolved to feel increasingly powerless about our lives - and indeed, in work, education and even leisure, our actions are more and more being orchestrated by outside agents and institutions. Paradoxically, capitalist propaganda's barrage of "choice" and "access" signifiers has meant we also expect ourselves to be able to obtain, in a whole host of spheres, infinite access with zero effort. In this dual context, easy choices must always be attractive: we believe we are acting autonomously, in our own best interest, and most importanty, within the regular pattern in which the world should exist. Hard choices are exhausting, difficult, complicated. But worst of all, they're uncertain.
So to believe that global warming is a crock, that we should lock all those crooks up and stop those kids from carrying on, that it's impossible to do anything about our problems and that we should hunker down and be happy with our lot - these are human reactions that come from feeling powerless, and from the defences (denial, fatalism, anger) that stem from it: human reactions that liberate us from choice, and therefore from uncertainty. And neoconservatism asks nothing of us other than to be certain: to side with the status quo, hearken back to saccharine (and surely, true!) memories of some bygone Utopia, and know that if only things would stop being so unclear, that the little guy (and of course, everyone thinks he or she is the one in question) would be tops, know all the answers, and be sitting pretty. We're so certain, we believe so well, that we averr things that our own eyes (if we could, as the Book of Proverbs exorts us, look, see, and observe) would tell us were untrue.
In fact, it's a miracle (of Grace or good sense) that so many people, despite this onslaught, still believe other things - the ones involving justice, and mercy, and empathy, and cooperation. Those are things that make living in the real world more bearable. If there's any real world left, by the time the neocons are through.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
