Thanks For The Clarification
Well, I thought he was just being a coward and that the fear-mongering tactics of his campaign were because he has no ideas of his own. But, it turns out, Paul Martin is actually afraid of Conservative plans. When asked by a reporter to name one far-right element in the Tory platform, Mr. martin was able to come up with three.
The first was the Tories plan to cancel the national day-care program (note that the word is proGRAM not PROgrom). And, yes, there is a difference in policy here. Martin wants a government-run program because beaurocrats always know best. Harper wants to give money to families to put toward whatever costs they feel are most importnat to their family, just in case people don't agree with what the government thinks is most important to them. But far-right? I'm not so sure. What would Genghis do? Not sure, but probably not good for a healthy, happy childhood. But, let's give Martin the benefit of the doubt and say harper's idea is far-right. By that standard, Martin's would have to be merely Stalinist.
Up next, Harper's proposal to reject the Kyoto protocol. Martin desperately wants Kyoto implementation. But why? Seeing how emission rates have gone up 24% while the Liberals have been in power, the reduction to below-1990 levels by 2012 seems a little doubtful. Of course, Canada doesn't need to reduce emissions at all. We can just purchase emission credits from Third-World countries. Thus, Ontario Power Generation can keep those coal plants fired up, the government can appear committed to the enivronment without doing anything, except giving money to other countries to keep them from developing their own industries, which can only be good for Stelco, Inco and GM Canada. But, I can hear you asking, what's the point of Kyoto if our emissions can just stay the same? Is it just a way to transfer money to under-developed countries to keep them under-developed and dependant on Western economies? You tell me. This is Liberal policy? Sounds a little Bush-league-Republican to me. But let's go further. Canada spends tons of money to get Canadian companies to limit carbon dioxide emissions or sends billions of dollars overseas. End result - reductions in world-wide carbon dioxide emissions may reduce the effects of global warming which may or may not be a result of industrial activity.
Harpers idea appears to be to reduce smog and visibly improve the environment of Canada for Canadians. I'd rather see less smog. I should confess that I have no desire to reduce my own carbon dioxide emissions. I like to breathe and intend to keep on doing it for may years to come.
Martin's third example was in regards to the recent First Ministers/First nations agreement. From what I could see on the Indian and Northern Affairs website, the agreement was to develop this and that, support (idealogically much more than financially), develop supporting frameworks for further developing and supporting, recognizing various things, exploring various other things, and create a multi-lateral forum for further devloping, recognizing and supporting, and, maybe most importantly (bu maybe not importantly at all) to accept responsibility for assisting with all these various recognizings, developings and supportings. Apparently, the most important thing for First Nations in Canada is to talk endlessly about what the best thing for First Nations is. And if you can talk about it in terms of ten-year plans, so much the better. The best part of a ten-year plan is that you don't have to do anything before the next election, and by the election after that, nobody remembers that you had this ten-year plan in the first place.
Harper's policy for First Nations is much more radical. He supports individual property ownership on reserves, thus letting aboriginals invest in their own communities, let aboriginal parents choose teh schooling they think is best for their children and replace the Indian Act with new legislation which "provides for the devolution of full legal and democratic responsibility to aboriginal Canadians for their own affairs within the Constitution, including the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Does Martin mean far-right as in opposition to far-wrong?
So to sum up, Paul Martin is a sourpuss. If he was on South Park, he'd be Eric Cartman. But, let's cut the guy some slack. he's probably feeling like an idiot. He wanted the campaign to be long because he was convinced (and said so) that the lopnger the campaign went, the worse things would go for the Conservatives.Now being behind the Tories in Quebec (yes, behind the Tories in Quebec), he's probably wishing he had made it the shortest campaign ever instead. Or, wishing he had talked to Ernie Eves about how running without much of a platform (and just insulting the other guy) went for Ernie.
The first was the Tories plan to cancel the national day-care program (note that the word is proGRAM not PROgrom). And, yes, there is a difference in policy here. Martin wants a government-run program because beaurocrats always know best. Harper wants to give money to families to put toward whatever costs they feel are most importnat to their family, just in case people don't agree with what the government thinks is most important to them. But far-right? I'm not so sure. What would Genghis do? Not sure, but probably not good for a healthy, happy childhood. But, let's give Martin the benefit of the doubt and say harper's idea is far-right. By that standard, Martin's would have to be merely Stalinist.
Up next, Harper's proposal to reject the Kyoto protocol. Martin desperately wants Kyoto implementation. But why? Seeing how emission rates have gone up 24% while the Liberals have been in power, the reduction to below-1990 levels by 2012 seems a little doubtful. Of course, Canada doesn't need to reduce emissions at all. We can just purchase emission credits from Third-World countries. Thus, Ontario Power Generation can keep those coal plants fired up, the government can appear committed to the enivronment without doing anything, except giving money to other countries to keep them from developing their own industries, which can only be good for Stelco, Inco and GM Canada. But, I can hear you asking, what's the point of Kyoto if our emissions can just stay the same? Is it just a way to transfer money to under-developed countries to keep them under-developed and dependant on Western economies? You tell me. This is Liberal policy? Sounds a little Bush-league-Republican to me. But let's go further. Canada spends tons of money to get Canadian companies to limit carbon dioxide emissions or sends billions of dollars overseas. End result - reductions in world-wide carbon dioxide emissions may reduce the effects of global warming which may or may not be a result of industrial activity.
Harpers idea appears to be to reduce smog and visibly improve the environment of Canada for Canadians. I'd rather see less smog. I should confess that I have no desire to reduce my own carbon dioxide emissions. I like to breathe and intend to keep on doing it for may years to come.
Martin's third example was in regards to the recent First Ministers/First nations agreement. From what I could see on the Indian and Northern Affairs website, the agreement was to develop this and that, support (idealogically much more than financially), develop supporting frameworks for further developing and supporting, recognizing various things, exploring various other things, and create a multi-lateral forum for further devloping, recognizing and supporting, and, maybe most importantly (bu maybe not importantly at all) to accept responsibility for assisting with all these various recognizings, developings and supportings. Apparently, the most important thing for First Nations in Canada is to talk endlessly about what the best thing for First Nations is. And if you can talk about it in terms of ten-year plans, so much the better. The best part of a ten-year plan is that you don't have to do anything before the next election, and by the election after that, nobody remembers that you had this ten-year plan in the first place.
Harper's policy for First Nations is much more radical. He supports individual property ownership on reserves, thus letting aboriginals invest in their own communities, let aboriginal parents choose teh schooling they think is best for their children and replace the Indian Act with new legislation which "provides for the devolution of full legal and democratic responsibility to aboriginal Canadians for their own affairs within the Constitution, including the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Does Martin mean far-right as in opposition to far-wrong?
So to sum up, Paul Martin is a sourpuss. If he was on South Park, he'd be Eric Cartman. But, let's cut the guy some slack. he's probably feeling like an idiot. He wanted the campaign to be long because he was convinced (and said so) that the lopnger the campaign went, the worse things would go for the Conservatives.Now being behind the Tories in Quebec (yes, behind the Tories in Quebec), he's probably wishing he had made it the shortest campaign ever instead. Or, wishing he had talked to Ernie Eves about how running without much of a platform (and just insulting the other guy) went for Ernie.
posted by MyMaidMary | 10:54 p.m.
1 Comments:
You mean to tell me Harper is actually going to try and HELP people and do things FOR the people of Canada? That BASTARD!
Post a Comment
<< Home