Sunday, February 22, 2009

In A Nutshell

Susan Riley column, which succinctly sums up the Obama/Harper connection on climate change:
"Ultimately, the key difference between the two may be that Obama believes the climate crisis is real and wants to fix it, while Harper wants to look like he is trying."

Lest we forget:


RuralSandi said...

Do you think for a minute that Obama doesn't know about Harper? He has family in Canada, he's close friends and has had deep discussions with Al Gore and Robert Kennedy, Jr.

And, do you think for a minute that Obama is leaving it up to a North American plan when he has Hillary Clinton in China discussing the environment?

Obama knows Canada - he knows Toronto well, Scarborough well and has vacationed/a wedding in the Muskokas and has relatives in Burlington.

The only thing Obama and Harper have in common is 2 kids each and age - other than that NOTHING.

RuralSandi said...

Forgot to mention - remember when the Harper bunch (Baird) tried to misrepresent Gore and Gore shot back? Betcha Obama knows this.

Anonymous said...

I think Susan Riley hit the nail on the head, and I'm glad to see it.

I still find media have dropped the ball on matching the Harper government rhetoric and statements with the actual piddly actions. But it is nice to see that with this opportunity, some are looking beyond the basic coverage since Harper's statements this past week were so beyond the pale. We're supposed to believe someone's been holding him back - geez.

Steve V said...

"I still find media have dropped the ball on matching the Harper government rhetoric and statements with the actual piddly actions."

I think the government strategy is predicated on the notion of media short term memory. The sheer audacity of saying you've been "waiting for a partner" is a great example. A few peeps here and there, but basically it's a free ride.

Anonymous said...

Do you think for a moment, Pres. Obama doesn't know about Iggy?

Iggy thought he looked tired when they talked, are you surte that wasn't BORED?

The only thing he and Iggy have in common is, Iggy has seen some of his Cabinet at work.

The LPC is wasting precious funds putting Iggy's picture up in Times Square? I'd be pissed if it was my money.

Bring back Dion, at least he had a pair.

RuralSandi said...

Anon 4:38 - what total BS and you're off topic.

Quit acting like a kid in hiding.

I see Australia is after Harper now about the environment.

What was holding Harper back? HIS idealogy.

Steve V said...

"Do you think for a moment, Pres. Obama doesn't know about Iggy?"

I don't think for a second his doesn't know about that fraud you call a "leader". Don't confuse diplomacy with knowledge, because Steve's a known quality.

Steve V said...

Oh, and the btw, the amount that everyone is talking about the Times Square deal, tells me it was money WELL spent :)

Anonymous said...

Steve you've been one of the few even-handed fair and balanced commentators on Israel, so I was wondering your thoughts on the latest salvo from the head of Ignatieff's War Room Warren Kinsella. I would say what CUPE has done is far over the top and borderline-biggotted but I'd say Kinsella's proposed response is pretty extreme in its own right days...



Sunday, February 22, 2009, 08:21 PM
With this move, they have embraced bigotry and anti-Semitism. That is so obvious, it isn't even worth debating, now.

As some of you have observed, however, I'm not into small talk about bigotry. I say we need to show CUPE there are consequences for this one.

First, actively seek to decertify the union, as it has arguably violated its own charter and charters to which it is a signatory. Second, petition for the termination of collective agreements entered into between CUPE and post-secondary institutions, on the grounds that publicly-funded institutions are not permitted to have contractual relations with entities which discriminate. Finally, bring human rights code complaints against them, in as many jurisdictions as possible, because that is the best place to confront an outrage like this one.

I'll be interested in the response of the libertarian blogs to that last one.

I'll be interested to the response of Michael Ignatieff to teh guy HE put in charge of HIS war room and who HE sends to represent the Liberal Party on ALL the news talk shows.

Apolgies for putting this on an unrelated thread but I don't expect to get a fair opinion on this issue from any other Lib blogger.

Anonymous said...

And I guess a better question is why is Kinsella allowed to speak more freely on this topic than ANY member of the Liberal caucus. Unless what Kinsella is proposing (a full-scale campaign to ruin CUPE and tear up their collective bargaining agreements reached in good faith) is actually what Ignatieff supports as well.

Steve V said...

It's a debate amongst extremists.

What the hell is a union getting involved like this, a freaking union? I think it's embarrassing.

As for the reaction, it's not like anything coming from that lobby is particularly rational. You say anything that dares implicate Israel, introduce even a DEGREE of shared guilit, or actually invokes some sort of historical understanding, and suddenly your against the Jews. There's no reason to any of it, but I don't claim to understand certain sensitives, which aren't always unfounded.

As for Ignatieff, this seems more a personal debate, than any guilt by association. I'm pretty sure he's well enough versed to form his own opinion, whether it's articulated is another story at the moment. Qana sort of spooked, in politics it seems, best to hide in the bushes on this issue because raw emotion rules. Obama too.

Anyways, Israel has gone to the extreme now, with this election, so they've much in common with their Gaza counterparts, supposed civilities aside. Just as unyielding, close minded and intolerant.

Anonymous said...

Glad I count on another balanced response.

I agree CUPE's reaction is bizarre and I find extremely puzzling that if they want to talk about human rights why they only single out Israel makes no sense, why not boycott the US until they officially close Guantanmo, or boycott Sudan for an ACTUAL genocide? They've got some nut jobs running the show there for sure.

But this resolution was passed by just a committee of the membership and there's no solid evidence that a vote of the entire membership would back this, so Warren's response to tear down the union and tear up their agreements seems completely over the top.

Given the gravity of what Warren suggests and that he does represent us on all the talks shows I think Ignatieff should reprimand him just like he did on the dog comment (which I happen to believe was completely overblown but it was obviously Ignatieff who made Warren do the video apology).

Warren should at the least have to say he over-reacted and that this is a sensitive issue for him, etc... etc..., if there's no retraction whatsoever I think we do get into guilt by association here because he does speak for the party on CTV and other programs and Warren himself likes to do guilt by association with Ezra Levant all the time when Ezra has a far less senior role than he does.

I do wonder what people like Warren would say though if PM Bibi continues where he left off and EXPANDS the illegal Israeli settlements and categorically rules out a two-state solution (yes he's never supported it in the past but he will face immense pressure to finally relent now).

I mean unless I'm mistaken it's official Liberal party policy (and I think even Conservative Party policy) to support a two-state solution and at a minimum a freeze on existing settlements not expanding them.

If we side with Netanyahu now without a critical word just because "the Israeli people elected him and we have to work wit him" then I've lost all hope for Ignatieff to ever have a coherent foreign policy we could be proud of. Sadly I have greater optimism for Obama being critical of Netanyahu (as I believe Clinton was when Netanyahu was last PM) than I do Ignatieff.

We'll see soon but hope we can still count on you to speak the balanced truth here regardless.

Anonymous said...

Oh and I'd love to hear Warren's thoughts on the RACIST Yisrael Beitanu party being included in the new Israeli government, a party that essentially wants to kick all Arabs out of the country.

Warren has done lots to oppose hate against minorities and I'll give him lots of credit for that (it's why the whole dog thing was overblown) but now that such a hate group will be in the Israeli government, what will he say if they act on Lieberman's demands?

I predict silence unfortunately...