Republicans For Ignatieff - The Politics of Confusion

I'm a little late in the game to be talking about the website dominating the Canadians Blogosphere, that site being republicansforignatieff.com of course. But regardless I'll toss in my two cents, with a possible raise to a dime.

There are lots of newsworthy events happening in Canada right now.

-The economy is in recession, with some voicing concerns about a possible depression.
-A shortage of radioactive isotopes, delaying treatment for Canadian cancer patients.
-The federal treasury that's gone from a forecasted surplus to a projected $50 billion deficit
-Ever increasing casualties for Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan.

What Canadians need to be asking themselves right now is this...How is our elected government handling these challenges?

On the recession the Harper Conservatives are proudly announcing that 80% of their "plan" is already being implemented. "Already being implemented"??? I'm still not 100% sure exactly what that means. Does it mean that 80% has been implemented? Or that 80% is 'in the process of' being implemented? Perhaps I'm expecting too much of the Harper Tories, plain talk after all is hardly any politician's forte. I do know that a lot of Conservative supporters were not happy with Toronto's Gay Pride festivities receiving something like $400,000 in stimulus money. But does that really matter?

What does matter is that the government needs to be working at setting a course for getting the nation's economy back on the rails. Are the governing Conservatives doing a good job of managing this nation's economy during this difficult time? You can argue they are, or you can say that they're not...but it is something that merits attention.

The shortage of medical isotopes is of grave concern to many cancer patients and their families. Stephen Harper recently announced that Canada is going to stop producing them. This is a big news story but the underlying issues are incredibly complex. Still, this is something that Canadians should be thinking about while judging the current government's performance.

Then there is the matter of Canada's fiscal well being. In less than a year we've gone from a projected surplus to a massive deficit. The latest figures being punted put the shortfall in the neighbourhood of $50 billion for this year, with continuing deficits for years to come. Canadians made a lot of sacrifices over the past 15-20 years, and those sacrifices enabled Ottawa to eliminate annual deficits, and to begin paying down the accumulated debt. Again, this is something Canadians should be talking about and mulling over when formulating an opinion on the current government of the land.

And then there's Afghanistan, with a recent spate of Canadian casualties. Our mission is slated to end in 2011, but many are anticipating that Canada will be asked to remain well beyond that date. How firm is the current government about sticking to the withdraw date? Should we be scaling back our troop levels as we move closer to 2011? A difficult issue to be sure, but something of importance to all Canadians, and certainly to our brave men and women and their families.

That's what we should be talking about. That's what the Harper government and its supporters should be discussing. Instead we're being inundated about an anonymous website and wondering at its impact.

Conservatives like Stephen Taylor, the creator of bloggingtories.ca thinks this is great, he's practically giggling over all the attention RFI.com is receiving, and the fact that Liberals like Warren Kinsella are talking about it. And frankly, I can't blame him.

Seriously, if you're Stephen Harper and/or one of his supporters, would you rather be talking about the economy, or a website who's owner is too ashamed to take credit for it?

If you enjoyed reading this, please click on this icon to vote for this blog at Canadian Blogosphere, then click on the green button and help put Canadian Soapbox into the top 3.

Conservative strategist Tom Flanagan Defends Tory attack ads

Former Conservative war room strategist and Stephen Harper advisor Tom Flanagan defends the use of Conservative attack ads in today's Globe and Mail.

This American professor of political science at the University of Calgary sees attack ads as an integral part of campaigning. In fact he laments Republican presidential nominee John McCain's refusal to play up Barack Obama's association with Jeremiah Wright.

This is power politics at its best and worst my friends, predicated on the belief that the electorate is populated mostly by ignorant rubes who thirst for this kind of childish combativeness. "We're good...and they're a bunch of elitists..they're soft on pedophiles...their spending will ruin the economy".

We've seen it all before.

Flanagan pops onto the scene at a very interesting time. The Tories have had a really rough stretch lately: Wafergate, the funding of Toronto's Gay Pride festivities, being late for G8 photos, attacking Michael Ignatieff for things he never said.

All the gaffes and missteps are forcing Stephen Harper and the Conservatives into very unfamiliar territory, that of playing defence.

Why wasn't the Prime Minister properly briefed on the Roman Catholic sacrament of communion? Why was Diane Ablonczy hung out to dry over the funding of Toronto's Gay Pride events? Why didn't Mr. Harper or his aides check their facts first, before embarrassing Canadians in front of the entire planet by blasting the opposition leader about things he never said?

The opposition parties don't need to run attack ads right now, the Conservatives are doing it to themselves.

Into this meltdown steps Mr. Flanagan in an attempt to get the heat off of the Prime Minister, and onto the opposition. He wants the media focusing on the Tory attacks, and the opposition's responses. He wants Ignatieff and company playing defence instead of Stephen Harper....because frankly, Harper defends like a goalie who's been hit in the head by too many pucks.

Flanagan's little op-ed piece does demonstrate one very obvious reality though. Canadians should know that the governing Conservatives are in full election mode, even though there isn't an actual election going on.

And that's truly a shame, if Stephen Harper and his advisers devoted as much effort to restoring Canada's economy as they do to smearing the opposition, we'd all be millionaires.

If you enjoyed reading then click on this icon for Canadian Blogosphere, then hit the green button to vote for this blog.

Stephen Harper goes to Europe and becomes...a Socialist

When Stephen Harper was last seen on our shores he was the Canadian champion of "Big C" conservatism. You know the variety, heavy on the libertarian side of the political spectrum. Get the government out of people's lives and off their backs, lower taxes and let the marketplace regulate itself. That's the Stephen Harper Canadians have come to know, the Stephen Harper some Canadians even love.

Well folks, something has happened. Maybe the communion wafer was tainted, or perhaps the Prime Minister's plane was routed over the Bermuda Triangle on its way to the G8 summit in Italy. Conspiracy theories will no doubt abound, but the simple fact is that the Stephen Harper talking to reporters in Italy is not the same Stephen Harper who governs this nation's ruling party like some kind of anointed king.

This champion of small government is now advocating "global governance" of the world's financial markets. TALK ABOUT A 180!!! He even prattles on about unregulated capitalism like a latter day convert to the Marxist League.

I couldn't believe my ears when Harper said that having the banks and financial institutions pay back their billions in loans, and then if they were to say to governments 'get out of our lives', our Conservative PM thinks this would be "the worst of all worlds".

I realize at this point there are likely more than a few doubters, particularly die hard conservatives who think I must be making this up. Here's the evidence on youtube, complete with Stephen Harper's Idiot Toady (SHIT for short) Tony Clement nodding idiotically in the background.

I suppose we'll have a clearer picture once Stevie is back in front of Canadian cameras. We can then see if this conversion is short lived or enduring. With the way our government is handling the global economic crisis though, I'm gaining a better understanding of what Michael Ignatieff meant when he said in a recent speech that the Conservatives under Mr. Harper:

"...have been forced to carry out liberal stimulus programs their own ideology previously rejected, only proving that it is tough to do something well when you don’t believe in doing it at all".

Don't think this has gone unnoticed in Tory circles. Blogging Tory and former Harper colleague with the National Citizens Coalition Gerry Nicholl's says of this video: Harper channels Layton

If any senior Conservative party members make their way to this progressively moderate little soapbox, I have a question for you. Is that really Tony Clement standing next to Mr Harper, or just a life sized bobble head doll?

If you enjoyed reading take a second and click on this Canadian Blogosphere button, then click on the green button on the Gateway Page to vote for this blog.

Why would a man dare to write about abortion?

This blog is primarily about Canadian politics and current events, but every now and again I decide to write about different things. I've touched on sports a few times, as well as my opinions on dating and divorce. Heck, I even reviewed the Hannah Montana movie.

But in terms of response, nothing has generated as much interest as the twelve posts I've done on the subject of abortion. I've taken a fair degree of abuse from those aligned with what I'll call the 'Militant Pro-Choice' lobby. Canada has no laws on the books concerning abortion whatsoever, and that is exactly as it should be some will argue. Advocates of the status quo say that any decisions regarding continuing a pregnancy to term, or aborting a fetus, that those decisions should be left to a woman in consultation with her doctor.

I have expressed my opinion often enough re my concerns about later term procedures, and have read numerous rebuttals posted in reply...I'm not looking to walk all over the same ground again.

My most recent post however did generate a comment from "JJ" of unrepentantoldhippie, in which she asks:

"This topic obviously intrigues you. Why is it that whenever you start a discussion about it you always come at it from the direction of being anti-choice? I know you're not anti-choice, so it seems like an odd position to take. Just wondering".

Okay JJ I'll enlighten you, and anyone else who's curious, about the reason the issue of abortion interests me. It relates to personal experience. There are no shortage of personal stories concerning abortion offered up on the Internet, with all the ones I've seen coming from a woman's perspective.

Its impossible to know if the experiences being written about are genuine or not. One can't know if the intention of the writer is to advocate for one side or the other, either Pro-Choice or Pro-Life. The most recent one I've come across is HERE, it strikes me as heart felt and totally legitimate...but one can never be one hundred per cent certain. Anyway, here's my story.

There are plenty of men out there who have gotten their girlfriends pregnant, and I'm one of them. It was back in my first year of university, 1987 if memory serves. The news hit me like a ton of bricks, all of a sudden there existed the very real possibility that I was going to be a father...at the age of just 20. Of course the child wasn't in my body, I wasn't going to have to carry this little human being inside of me for 9 months, and then give birth...that would be my girlfriend's job.

Abortion was very much in the news back then, with Dr. Morgentaler's Toronto clinic being a lightening rod for both supporters and detractors. I had always argued on the side of Pro-Choice whenever a discussion came up, which was often given that Canada's Supreme Court had yet to strike down this country's abortion laws.

I told my girlfriend that I would support whatever decision she made. She was from a Roman Catholic family, so I knew there was the very real possibility that she might decide to keep the child, but she didn't. I will admit to there being some relief on my part, knowing that my life wasn't about to be turned upside down.

She made an appointment at Dr. Morgentaler's Harbour Street clinic, and while I seem to remember driving there, much of the experience is a blur. I do know that we were told to enter from the rear, so as to avoid the many protesters who normally were out in force. As chance would have it we went on a bitterly cold February morning...so cold that not a single protester was to be found.

The first thing I remember after getting in the door was sitting in the waiting room and my gf being told to fill out a medical questionnaire. She was very anxious and nervous as one might expect, so I took the clipboard from her and proceeded to ask her the questions on it...marking the boxes appropriately. A very officious woman (she might have been a nurse) then came over and snapped the clipboard out of my hand, admonishing me by saying: "She has to fill it out". Under different circumstances I might have argued or made a fuss, but I was feeling somewhat anxious myself.

Having filled out the form we waited for her name to be called, or for someone to come and get her. A younger looking girl sitting near us, she was dressed liked Madonna and used that name to boot...seeing how nervous my gf was, she offered up some words she probably meant to be comforting. I forget exactly what she said, but the gist of it was that she'd had 3 abortions done already, and that it wasn't a big deal.

After they took my gf in, I was left to wait. I was the only guy there, so I made my way back to the rear door where there were two men smoking. One was a contractor, and the other I think was providing security. They told me that normally there would be at least a dozen or so protesters out front. The security gaurd had a sign of his own that he told me he liked to wave at them. I don't remember what was written on it, but it had a drawing of a man with his penis encased in a large iron tube or something like that. He told me that when the protesters got on his nerves he'd wave his sign at them while shouting..."That's what you're all bloody like"....he was a Brit obviously.

I don't remember much beyond that, I know that I drove my gf to her sister's place where she was going to rest for the next day or so. Me? I went back to my dorm room and was basically numb. We broke up shortly thereafter...which is probably common. But that experience stuck with me in the months and years that followed.

I've always been a fan of folk music, and included in my tapes was one by Peter Paul and Mary. One of their songs took on new significance for me, Day Is Done. If you'd care to listen to it you can find a rendition of it HERE on youtube. I'd always found the words moving, but after the experience I'd been through, they brought tears to my eyes...they still can.

The song is about a father asking his child three questions, with the answer to each being: '...if you'll take my hand my son, all will be well when the day is done'.

I can't properly convey the impact this song had (and has) on me, without providing the words to the 3 questions, so here they are:

Verse 1
Tell me why you're crying, my son,
I know you're frightened, like everyone
Is it the thunder in the distance you fear?
Will it help if I stay very near?
I am here.

Verse 2
Do you ask why I'm sighing, my son?
You shall inherit what mankind has done.
In a world filled with sorrow and woe
If you ask me why this is so, I really don't know.

Verse 3
Tell me why you're smiling my son
Is there a secret you can tell everyone?
Do you know more than men that are wise?
Can you see what we all must disguise
Through your loving eyes?

Why did this song affect me so deeply? Why does it continue to do so?

There's always thunder in the distance, always something scary over the horizon. For me that scary thing became the prospect of fatherhood at an early age. This world filled with sorrow and woe, that's something almost everyone can relate to. We'd all like to change it, but nobody knows how...there's always been pain and suffering and we accept that there always will be.

But in the end the child is smiling...perhaps possessing some secret knowledge hidden behind 'his loving eyes'. And always the father's answer is "if you'll take my hand my son, all will be well when the day is done".

Only I didn't offer my hand, I didn't say to my child..."all will be well". I know I'd left the decision to my gf, it was her body after all. But what if I'd suggested we not go through with the abortion? I realize some might say that we probably weren't ready to be parents...But who's to judge? Who has a perfect crystal ball? How many people will tell you their lives have turned out perfectly? That the path they envisioned at 20 is the path they're now walking?

I don't see myself as a religious person...but there are others who do consider me as such. I was brought up until the age of 12 or so with church being part of the Sunday routine. No doubt the lessons taught to me in Sunday school still resonate in my subconscious. And one of those lessons is that life is sacred.

Does this mean I'm changing course...that I'm switching allegiance to the Pro-Life side of the abortion debate? No it doesn't. At the end of the day I believe the decision to abort or to have a child should rest with the mother...not with the state. Morality is a matter of personal belief, and nobody has the right to impose their moral belief system on another. If various religions would stop trying we'd eliminate a lot of the justifications for war.

But I also believe that our "ME" centred society is definitely lacking. Many Canadians are consumed with money and status, and having a child can sometimes been seen as a barrier to consumerist dreams. I'm not talking about just women, but of men as well.

After that experience I promised myself that I would try and have more faith...that if something like that ever happened again, that I would suggest keeping the baby. If it ever happened again I would believe that 'all will be well when the day is done'.

Years later, it did happen again. When it did my gf became my fiance and we decided to keep the child. Sadly she later told me she'd miscarried. I'd told her that I had been planning to propose regardless, and that the pregnancy had merely affected the timing...and so we continued making plans for the wedding. But then she became pregnant again, only this time she needed to abort because she hadn't had a D&C after the miscarriage.

I had told my future wife of my first experience with my gf in university, I'm not one to keep secrets. When it came time for the D&C I went with her to the hospital and was in the room where the procedure would be preformed. Then the nurse came in. I'm not sure if she was actually a nurse, but she told us she wanted to be sure that we wanted to go through with the abortion. I was confused...my fiance had said it was a necessary procedure. The nurse was quickly told to leave by my now ex-wife, while she told me that there must be some confusion.

The whole experience had me doubting whether or not there had really been a first pregnancy or not? Had she lied to me knowing that I would propose? I'd told her about my feelings with my gf before, and about the decisions I'd made. My soon to be wife was also from an RC family, and no doubt there would be a certain degree of shame with having a child under less than ideal circumstances from a religious perspective.

Anyway, that's my story. I'm not seeking feedback, so don't feel compelled to comment. If there are those who genuinely wish to express some feelings, I don't have an issue. I will merely ask that there be no arguments. I've had my fill and I am done with this topic.