Comments on The Burd Report: Another lost chance to demonstrate integrity

Deb O'Connor says that Liberals, "just wa...

2009-06-09T18:07:51.287-04:00

Deb O'Connor says that Liberals, "just want to get elected, and they will do or say whatever it takes to reach that goal."

The Raitt Tapes reportedly contain this quote about why Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff backed down from defeating the Conservative government in early January. Raitt says this:

“They did it at the Canadian Council of (Chief) Executives, there was three presidents of major banks who stood up in the room — and this is not from cabinet so I can talk about it — stood up and said, ‘Ignatieff, don’t you even think about bringing us to an election. We don’t need this. We have no interest in this. And we will never fund your party again.’ That was very powerful. So he heard it from very powerful people in the industry. He was definitely muzzled.”

Here is the story that I read today.

Deb, you wrote "they just want to get elected...

2009-06-08T20:25:07.397-04:00

Deb, you wrote "they just want to get elected, and they will do or say whatever it takes to reach that goal" and earlier you described the tories as "a bunch of irresponsible lying toads". I would conclude that if you accept the motive for seeking election as written by you above, the second quotation would apply to whomever was elected on that basis.

I sense a frustration that is shared by many, but appears to be unassailable to any degree of success. As long as one is "driven by ideology" as you describe the tories, there will be conflicts with those of other ideologies. I'm puzzled by your rationalizations of ideologies because you also wrote "why the old CCF came about, and why its goals should never have been abandoned" In what way do you differentiate goals from ideologies? How is it that any party, whichever, that has goals doesn't have them because of its ideologies? One could say that the CCF were "hung up on a(ny) particular philosophy or ideology" themselves, and it just happens that you identify with those ideologies.

As for my questions, it's interesting that you answer "I don't like any of the options very much" yet you clearly prefer one over another for negative rather than positive reasons, and you also are at a loss, as many of us are, as to what the preferred solutions might involve.

And lastly, that you wrote "their vision would not be clouded with right wing ideology preventing them from making reasonable choices" leaves me wondering what you call "reasonable choices" because my own experiences tell me that my choices are more successful when they are dictated by a combination of circumstances, objectives and available resources, to name the most significant elements.

It seems to me that you need both a "left" and a "right" "wing" to fly in a direction that you choose as best, and you rely on both to give you the control to avoid obstacles and dangers that always lie ahead. You just have to know how much of each to use at any one time to navigate successfully.

While I enjoyed playing Silly Buggers with Manfred...

2009-06-08T18:45:27.992-04:00

While I enjoyed playing Silly Buggers with Manfred's question in my first comment I wanted to give him the respect of a serious reply.

He asked me who I would like to see in charge of government, and what I think would be different.

Well, I don't like any of the options very much, but if I had to pick a party, it would be liberal. I find them much less dangerous, because unlike the tories who are driven by ideology, the libs are "business" politicians who make decisions based on whichever way the wind is blowing, ie voter popularity.

They aren't hung up on any particular philosophy or ideology, they just want to get elected, and they will do or say whatever it takes to reach that goal. That makes them willing to listen to public opinion and change their policies accordingly.

Because the tories want to save us from evil (as they define it) and deliver us onto righteousness
(again, their definition) they are extremely dangerous. They think they know what's best for every body, and they are determined to make sure their world view prevails no matter what.

That kind of paternalism and zealotry closes off opportunities for growth and change, and is exactly what the world does not need right now.

As for the NDP, I just wish we could bring back Tommy Douglas to remind the dolts who are running the party now just why the old CCF came about, and why its goals should never have been abandoned. Nuff said on that.

I won't waste my battery time writing about the Greens, they missed the boat entirely and have already peaked and are starting to crash. That should have been the NDP's golden opportunity to expand, but they blew it, they all blew it.

As to what would be different with the Liberals in charge, the answer is not much, but at least their vision would not be clouded with right wing ideology preventing them from making reasonable choices. It would not be quite so scary, that's all.

Since Manfred asked, I will respond by saying I am...

2009-06-08T18:18:52.124-04:00

Since Manfred asked, I will respond by saying I am in favour of benign dictatorships, and of course I will be in charge, since no dictator is more benign than me.

The first things to go will be items that fall into the category of conspicuous consumption. No cadillacs where K-cars will do, and no cars at all where bicycles are sufficient.

All jewellery will be melted down into useful objects and make up will be banned, along with hair dye and cosmetic surgery. We will abandon fashion and all wear a simple toga like outfit, expressing our individuality in the colours we choose. Excess bare skin won't be tolerated unless it's on the beach, and even then, community standards will apply.

Mass entertainment will be transformed into opportunities for learning as we are entertained. No more reality TV shows, American sitcoms or evangelicals. People will learn to rejoice in reading again.

Pesticides and all petroleum based fertilizers will be gone. Likewise artifical colours, flavours, preservatives and enhancers.

People who make their money parasitically, like insurance agents, consultants, financial advisors and their ilk will be required to learn a real skill, like carpentry or baking or teaching.

The blatantly rich will be rounded up and re-educated so they can make productive contributions to the world instead of just sucking up the resources for themselves that we all need. They will be trained to do farm labour so they can understand the value of work.

Hey, this is fun. I'm signing up recruits if anybody's interested.

It was just suggested to me that Cameco may want t...

2009-06-08T16:58:17.026-04:00

It was just suggested to me that Cameco may want to own and operate the Chalk River lab. Hmmmm! If so, the deal may be all but signed.

Sad to note that this Slash-and-Burn fire sale of public institutions would be a thing of the past had Iggy pulled the chain in January and flushed the sorry Tory lot of them down.

Just as a point of curiosity, whom would you like ...

2009-06-08T15:49:23.641-04:00

Just as a point of curiosity, whom would you like to be in charge, Deb? If they indeed were, what do you expect to be different? Why? Just a few little questions.

Thanks to Mr. Hayes for digging that article up an...

2009-06-07T11:47:36.355-04:00

Thanks to Mr. Hayes for digging that article up and reminding me what a bunch of irresponsible lying toads the tories are.

Compared to this disturbing reality, isn't the lost document scandal much more fun? Who cares about isotopes and the pointless sale of Canadian assets anyway, we don't need that stuff. With people like Flaherty, Harper and Raitt in charge, what's to worry about?

Deb O'Connor says the actual issue has to do w...

2009-06-06T12:06:43.309-04:00

Deb O'Connor says the actual issue has to do with selling the Chalk River lab. The planned sale seems a bizarre response to the operating problems at that facility.

Sun Media reporter Greg Weston asked this tough question of Raitt about problems at the lab:

"Sixteen months ago, your government took pretty extraordinary steps, fired the nuclear safety regulator and ordered the startup of the NRU because, in the words of your government, 'people will die'. Now we have a situation where the NRU is going to be shut down for months. Some are saying it will never come back online and we can't even find your Health Minister. What has changed? And was the government exaggerating the last time or does it just not care this time?"

Click here for the story, which reports that the lab "will be managed privately with no requirement that it continue manufacturing medical isotopes at the site."

after more consideration and reading Don Martin...

2009-06-04T11:46:12.851-04:00

after more consideration and reading Don Martin's column, I must admit I am not quite comfortable with my earlier posting. Trouble is, I'm still not convinced Raitt should be fired.

Guess I am displaying two damning female traits at the same time: indecision and a nagging fear that another woman is somehow being shafted by the big bad boys of Parliament.

Think I'll take a bubble bath and go back to bed for awhile, maybe that will help.

Deb O'Connor

Thinking about the lost secret paper scandal, I am...

2009-06-03T17:53:58.063-04:00

Thinking about the lost secret paper scandal, I am forced to agree with Harper, who noted that Maxime Bernier was fired when he left documents behind in his girlfriend's apartment, and that firing was completely justified.

However, in Raitt's case, it was her aide, not her, who left the documents behind. She is much less culpable, although certainly bears some blame.

Point being, as a lesser faux pas, this Minister deserves a lesser punishment.

But the real shame here is that nobody is talking about the actual issue: that of the impending closure of the Chaulk River facility that produces isotopes for world wide usage in cancer diagnosis.

Here are the questions we need to ask now: why do the feds. want to sell this facility?
why should a mere 72 million dollars (a drop in the bucket of federal spending) affect their decision, if that $ is even the reason for the proposed sell off.

There's much more here to investigate than what may or may not have been a deliberate leak to the media by a government aide. It could even be a smokescreen to prevent us from asking the real questions, wouldn't be the first time.

Deb O'Connor