A Piss Poor Idea: Winnipeg's Water Park Scheme

Tomorrow Winnipeg's City Council will vote on whether or not it should give a private developer $7 million tax dollars to build a less-than-world-class water park on one of Winnipeg's most prized parcels of land. Fervently backed by Mayor Sam Katz, the Hotel & Water park scheme calls for the new attraction to be built in the heart of Winnipeg at the historic Forks. As luck would have it, the proposed site for the new water park just happens to be across from Mayor Katz's very own baseball stadium. As majority owner of baseball's Winnipeg Goldeyes, Mayor Katz has recused himself from Wednesday's votes on both the land sale and the tax dollar give-away. Yet, notably, he only did so after some Winnipegger's worried about the state of the city raised serious questions about Katz and his role in the affair. And, again notably, he only recused himself after he had already done the local media rounds to promote the deal and was secure in the knowledge there was zero chance his confederates in his 'cabinet' would fail to back the scheme at the committee level. As such, j'accuse that Katz's je me recuse was, at its core, a purposefully disingenuous ruse and too little too late to be considered a truly ethical and effective recusal. 

The Mayor's insincere ruse aside, there are many other troubling aspects to the present water park scheme before City Council. For instance, whose idea was it to offer the designated land (Parcel 4 at Winnipeg's Forks) exclusively to this particular developer instead of opening it up to other competitive bids?  Where is the detailed plan? What happens to the provision that binds the water park developer to issue $700,000 in vouchers per year to low income children for 25 years should the developer go bust and/or sell the property?  And finally, why is City Hall so hell bent on ensuring $7 million tax dollars must go to a private water park rather than to our local community centres?  As Dennis Lewycky of Winnipeg's Social Planning Council pointed out on CBC radio this morning, the monetary math of the scheme doesn't add up. The plan, he says, "Just doesn't make sense." And because it doesn't make sense, its important City Council say no to this scheme now.

Councillors Steen and Sharma, are you listening? Despite all the propaganda you've heard from Mayor Katz & Co., the proposed water park (at 50,000 sq ft) will, most assuredly, be 'less-than-world-class'. We don't need a substandard 'Wally World-esque' structure at the Forks. We need to stop wasting taxpayer money on back room deals. We need to redirect the funds in question to our existing community recreational facilities. We need to do better by our historic site at the Forks. A piss poor idea from the start, this scheme should be thrown out with the bathwater - anything less would be a civic crime. Councillors Steen and Sharma, Winnipeg deserves better, please vote NO on Wednesday.

Election Fraud Endangers Us All: Legitimacy or Bust

When a civil society looks away from evidence the vaunted Ship of State may be afloat atop a rotting hull - the abyss draws nearer. And if the rot is allowed to escape examination, keep festering, and remain immune from the only disinfectant citizens have at their disposal... the VOTE - all bets are off!  Without a demonstrably free and fair exercise of our franchise we are but nothing; nothing but a ship of fools. Inquiry now!

Selinger's Siesta: Silence, Stealth and the 40th Manitoba legislature - Part I

Over the last four months, Manitoba's NDP government and its hapless opposition have been more than happy to cede the political stage in this province to the federal government. In stark contrast to the House of Commons in Ottawa, Manitoba's Legislative building has been operating under a consensual all-party code of silence since last November. All the plebes, politicos, and politicians toiling away within the bowels of the legislature since last fall's election have seemingly gone mute. And, this suits Manitoba Premier Greg Selinger just fine.

With Manitoba's provincial economy performing reasonably well and with the annual flood (drought?) drama still weeks (months?) away; Greg Selinger is under no pressure from his party to recall Manitoba's legislature. As for Manitoba's official opposition, currently flailing about like a headless chicken in search of savior ... any savior... they too are in no hurry to reengage the government. For these reasons, coupled with the fact that Ottawa is seemingly hellbent on stealing ALL the national, provincial and local headlines anyway, Greg Selinger may be forgiven for believing that "the silence" is golden. From his perspective, delaying the resumption of the 40th Manitoba legislature and continuing to govern by stealth is political no-brainer. The NDP's stealthy governance not only makes for greater management efficiencies; it also allows it all the time it wants to craft, define, refine, then redefine, re-refine, etc., etc., a new course for our future - all without having to respond to the silly partisan questions that routinely arise when a legislature is in session. As such, Selinger has no good reason to recall Manitoba's legislature at this juncture. Err... save one niggling thing... it's high time we regular citizens (i.e. Manitoba's average Joe & Jane Blow's) were kept abreast of what exactly the NDP government has planned for us in the days, months, and years ahead.

Now some will say: "But, but, we had an eight day session in late October that included a throne speech. And, okay, okay, sure it passed no bills and ended early - but really, what more did you Joe and Jane Blow's expect after our election victory?"  Well, in a word: Clarity. We Joe & Jane Blow's want clarity on what specific bills the government intends to bring forward in a new session. We want clarity on how the provincial government will adapt should Ottawa's fanatic fidelity to fiscal retrenchment end up hurting either our provincial treasury and/or our overall general welfare. We want clarity on how our provincial government proposes to continue to strive to fix our public school system's abysmally poor graduation rates. We want assurances the NDP government has plans in place to insure that healthcare in Manitoba will remain viable, available, and manageable in the face of finite front line resources. In short, we want the kind of clarity that can only be achieved when the process of governing is laid bare - the kind that only comes when a Legislature is, in fact, in session. After a break approaching four months, with no end in sight, it's time Premier Selinger for you to tell us when you'll be calling an end to this post-election victory siesta. Manitobans expect some clarity.  Bottom line, we deserve to know when the Manitoba legislature will be recalled.

Lemmings! Canada's Conservative MP's & Bill C-30

   "Vic Toews' flying circus is a cartoonish distraction from troubling legislation. The dangers hidden in this bill are subtler than they might seem." - Ivor Tossell, Globe & Mail

True the twitter campaign against @ToewsVic and Bill C-30 has been fun. Indeed, for some of us (hello mirror), err,... perhaps too much fun? By happily partaking in the tit-for-tat tweeting orgy ridiculing Toews divisive demeanor, some of us (as the Globe & Mail's Ivor Tossell has pointed out) have let the real issue slip away. I agree with Ivor. Amid all the hoopla attached to the anti-Toews twitter campaign, the underlying dangers the new bill poses to our privacy must be kept front and centre. Further, we must remind ourselves that while Vic Toews may be the current face of Canada's proto-police state, he is not the only one. Within the current Conservative Party of Canada there are other hardcore elements aside from Mr. Toews who are also well and truly committed to undermining our privacy rights. How do we know this? We know it because the vast majority of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's backbench MP's have chosen to remain mute on the draconian intrusive state surveillance measures contained within Bill C-30. And by their silence these Conservative MP's are sending us all a very simple message - one that reads: WE believe YOUR privacy is OUR business.  It's indefensible really.  Canada's Conservative MP's: Lemmings, lemmings all.

McFadyen blames NDP's sowing of "Fear and Deceit" for loss? Hardly.

In 1969, after losing to Ed Schreyer, defeated PC Premier Walter Weir infamously proclaimed: "The people have spoken. And the people are wrong."  Thankfully, defeated Manitoba PC leader Hugh McFadyen didn't pull a Walter Weir last night. No, instead of pulling a Weir; in defeat McFadyen pulled "a McFadyen". After being bested by Premier Greg Selinger's NDP machine, Mr. McFadyen told his shell-shocked PC supporters they'd lost because: "in Manitoba it appears that fear and deceit have won the day." Harrumph... hardly.  Despite the negative tenor of the NDP campaign (and make no mistake, it was negative) it wasn't the NDP's sowing of "fear and deceit" that sealed Hugh McFadyen's fate last night... Hugh McFadyen did it to himself.

Now did I want Hugh McFadyen to win last night? No, absolutely not. Greg Selinger deserved to win his own mandate and, having done so, I am optimistic he will govern us ably over the next four years. That being said: Do I think Hugh McFadyen could have and should have run a better campaign? Yes, absolutely.

Had Hugh McFadyen run a better and smarter election campaign he may very well have won 24-27 seats last night.  Had he run a campaign truly based on hope and "vision" he could have damaged the NDP brand and put Selinger on the defensive for the next four years. And, had McFadyen run a quality campaign, he could have remained at the helm of a PC party ideally positioned to win power in 2015. But McFadyen didn't run a dynamic campaign with a difference; instead, he ran a reactionary campaign: one that saw him call the Premier a liar on everything from the deficit to taxes, from health to Bi-pole, from crime to employment, and beyond. Instead of providing the electors with a forward looking cohesive narrative, he instead tried to instil within the voters a deep-seated "fear" of four more years of NDP rule. He preferred to bemoan the NDP's twelve year reign rather than expound clearly and concisely upon what his PC party would do differently over the span of the next four. Finally, he absolutely failed to project an image of a man who was confident in his own abilities and at peace with his party's policy platform. In short, he failed to lead.

When a losing politician publicly voices post-vote sour grapes, it leaves the whole polity with a bad aftertaste. Hugh McFadyen did this last night. By trying to place the blame for his defeat on an NDP campaign he says was rooted in "fear and deceit" McFadyen is conveniently forgetting to admit his own complicity in the same equation. True, Manitoba votes 2011 was an ugly no holds barred political campaign. But McFadyen entered the bare knuckled melee willingly, and after having swung away only to lose - its poor form for McFadyen to look at his bruised and bloody knuckles and now complain he lost because his opponents were playing by the same rules. He took the gloves off, they took the gloves off - fair is fair. When announcing his resignation as PC leader last night Hugh McFadyen need not have stooped to blaming the NDP's campaign tactics. His failure to lead was really what had sealed the deal... and his resignation said it all. It's a pity he chose to lash out, for in the end, rightly or wrongly: "The people have spoken." 

An ugly turn: Selinger & McFadyen "go to the mattresses"

Here in Jets and Bombers land the leaders debate on Monday gave Manitoba's voters a preview of what to expect in the closing weeks of the provincial election campaign... it's gonna get ugly, very ugly. Absent a defining election issue, and with little separating their respective platforms, the two major contenders have obviously decided it's time to "go to the mattresses". And both NDP Premier Greg Selinger and PC leader Hugh McFadyen are doing so with a gusto rarely seen in these parts; with each seemingly committed to assassinating the political character of the other before October 4th.

For his part Selinger has staked his fortunes on the plausible but negative "McFadyen's too big a risk" strategy. Designed to insulate the NDP against some legitimate (though not fatal) criticisms of its twelve year record while in office, the strategy seeks to paint the PC leader as a politician with a closeted privatization fetish "who doesn’t mind urine in Lake Winnipeg ... and [who] will fire hundreds of nurses with a stroke of a pen." While it's hard to say at this juncture if the strategy will pay off, it's clear Selinger is embracing the approach. Further, owing to the nature of the strategy, Selinger is occasionally letting his contempt for some of PC leader Hugh McFadyen's more egregious slurs shine through. At times during yesterday's debate Selinger's tone was indeed sharp. Yet, considering where the respective campaigns are at present, it's safe to say Selinger's "sharp" tones may be just the tip of the iceberg. With the PC's opting to shrilly go where all other desperate campaigns before them have gone (to the planet Negative), it's virtually assured that Premier Selinger will be upping his attack game on McFadyen in the days to come. 

Meanwhile, back on PC planet Negative, Hugh McFadyen is busy painting Selinger's government as being responsible for ALL that ails our contemporary Manitoba society.

Too much crime? - It's all Selinger's fault.

Too much rain and flooding? - It's all Selinger's fault.

Too much drought? - It's all Selinger's fault.

Too much sickness? - It's all Selinger's fault.

Too rich and angry about paying taxes? - It's all Selinger's fault.

Too many challenges for the private sector amid a global recession? -Yep, all Selinger's fault.

Too stupid and poorly educated (even if you attended school under Gary Filmon's regime)? - Yep, you got it, that too is all Selinger's fault.

In short, in the world according to Hugh, ALL the angst, depression, insecurity, frustration, and melancholy in Manitoba has but one root cause. A root cause that goes by but one name: SELINGER. And if you let McFadyen talk long enough through his perpetual vacant smile he'll try to convince you that Selinger is singularly responsible for every ort, bite, and crumb of all that presently ails us in our fair prairie Eden. Problem is, while there may be some legitimate points to be made against the current government... Greg Selinger and the NDP simply can't be responsible for everything. After all, Manitoba is hardly a hermetically sealed polity unaffected by the macroeconomic and societal afflictions now taxing all western democracies. And to pretend otherwise, as McFadyen does, is simply not credible.   

Sure election campaigns are war by other means, but this one is getting downright silly... and mean. Having abandoned the poignant politics of purpose and promise both leaders find themselves bogged down in their trenches as their jaded backroom generals run negative ignoble campaigns centered on character assassination. Campaigns which, at their core, are doing a great disservice to both the credibility of the leaders, the spirits of their front line troops, and to us, the hapless voters. And though I am no friend of Hugh McFadyen or his politics, I am disappointed that Premier Selinger has chosen to indulge in a childish tit-for-tat on the electoral schoolyard with an opponent who, by rights, could be easily defeated on the basis of his nonexistent vision. Instead, we are confronted by fear mongering and name calling from both sides; the kind that will only get uglier as October 4th approaches. Buckle up Manitoba, it's going to be a rough ride.

Are Manitoba Fiscal Conservatives being taken for granted?

Fiscal conservatives in Manitoba can be forgiven if they are feeling somewhat abandoned this election campaign. After all, the brand of fiscal conservatism currently on display in Hugh McFadyen's PC party platform hardly fits the bill.

With each passing day of this election campaign there seems to be another PC party spending announcement that, I suspect, is leaving most fiscal conservatives in this province not feeling the love. Moreover, despite McFadyen's constant accusations of alleged NDP "waste and mismanagement" he's yet to demonstrate to his right-wing economic base exactly how ridding Manitoba of such monstrous waste would translate into real fiscal retrenchment and savings. So far? Nothing, ... nada, ... just crickets.

The lack of concrete promises to date by McFadyen as to how he will transform Manitoba's treasury into one fiscal conservatives would be proud to call their own speaks volumes. No word on what social services he will cut down the road. No word on who will have to assume the burden when the state steps away from said services. No word on how much can be saved. It either means that Manitoba's treasury is not, as McFadyen alleges, in danger of imploding; or that he's decided to take his (mostly rural) right-wing economic base completely for granted this election campaign as he makes his big progressive push to capture the coveted political center.

For the greater Tory good Hugh McFadyen has decided there is another way to go in 2011... a very progressive way. And in the meantime, Manitoba's fiscal conservatives have been left on the outside looking in, no doubt wondering what has become of their party.

Lucid ideas coming soon...

Believe it.

Gene Simmons not worthy: Winnipeg Mayor's office KISSes one Ass too many?

Damn James Hope Howard over at Slurpees & Murder and his prodigious blog posting of late... he took the words right outta my mouth with his latest post: You Get a News Story Like This and the Jokes Write Themselves. A must read, it illustrates how Winnipeg Mayor Sam Katz decision is to award serial womanizer & fading KISS rock star Gene Simmons the key to our fair city is absurd. Sheesh, ... when did chronic self-indulgence and highly publicized sexual debauchery become the criteria for who gets the Key to the City? Cripes, whose next? Charlie Sheen?

Surely Winnipeg Mayor's Office has better things to do... don't they?

[Update: I just realized that PolicyFrog also has two great posts on this Kafka moment in our city's history. See "Stop The Madness - Part 1" & "Stop the Madness - Part 2"]

Hey Warren Kinsella! It's not always about you!

On April 27th, Warren Kinsella posted a lament about his non-relationship with Michael Ignatieff and a perceived hypocrisy regarding a possible Liberal shift on the idea of a merger between themselves & the NDP (see: "Tales from under the bus"). Kinsella included a gruesome picture, presumably of a corpse (?) under which he wrote: "Me, not exactly as pictured."

In the middle of a hard fought election campaign with the Liberals trying to unseat Stephen Harper, Warren's post struck me as unwarranted & ill-timed and, quite simply, as reeking of self-serving sour grapes.

In his post, Kinsella included a link to a year old Toronto Star article involving his oft disputed claim that he was privy to knowledge of merger talks between the two political parties in 2010 (a claim strongly denied by both Layton, Ignatieff, & their respective staff). It was a claim later characterized as "ridiculous". Hm, I was puzzled. Truth be told, in the middle of a federal election, I thought Warren was being a bit too petulant about his lot in life.

Further, I saw his post included a link to a DecisionsCanada.ca story posted that day by Althia Raj (posted 1:41pm est.), one speculating that, in fact, Ignatieff may have not ruled out a merger with NDP. A story that clearly fit with Warren's "look-at-me... see-I'm-right" narrative. However, in very short order after she posted said story (and hours before Kinsella posted its link) Althia Raj twittered: "Ignatieff came by to tell me that he is "not in this for a merger," or for a coalition, or union of the left. He is in it to win Lib govt"

Hm, ... did Kinsella choose to acknowledge this fact? No. Why? Because it didn't serve his personal purpose. Hm, ... did Kinsella choose to update his blog with the facts contained in Raj's updated story (wherein Ignatieff irrefutably rejected any merger talk)? Again no. Why? Because, again, it didn't fit Warren's narrative of 'Warren as victim' - of poor Warren being on par with an actual dead corpse in a real picture under a real bus.

So, I decided to leave a very short comment on his blog post that began: "Respectfully Warren" this election is not always about you (n.b. it included no profanity). He did not post it. So, I left a second, similar, comment. He did not post it. Finally, I posted a third and final comment:

Fat Arse says: Your comment is awaiting moderation. April 27, 2011 at 4:40 pm

Warren, once again with punk based attitude of respect... fact you barred both my original & my follow up comment tells me you are getting too thin skinned as time passes. Christos, it wasn't like I was slamming your integrity and/or calling into questioning your views. All I was doing was subtly asking you to take a step back and realize this election is not all about you and those who did you wrong. There are bigger issues at play here (especially in Winnipeg South) and if you're not man enough to hear a little chiding... cripes ... grow up the fuck up!

And I left it at that. I'd said my piece, even though I knew he would not publish it.
And so, I moved on.

Hours later, after supper, I then read this email from wkinsella@hotmail.com that had been sent to me at 4:48CST:

I don't do my web site, for no pay, to take life tips from guys who lack the balls to use their own frigging name.
Punk enough?


How odd? So my comments were disallowed because he does his "web site, for no pay" & refuses "to take life tips" (actually it was an observation- not a life tip) from a guy with no "frigging name". Okay, fair enough, it's his blog; he can do what he wants. Rules are rules. IF ONLY! See, if indeed Warren has a policy of not allowing bloggers with pseudonyms to post on his blog - fine. Problem is he doesn't. Fact is, Warren often and frequently allows those who don't use their real names to post comments (see comments on his site), ... err... just not those whose comments cut too close to the bone, to the truth about the man, a thin-skinned man, known as Warren Kinsella.

It matters if CBC's Rosie is on your trail: The Election Twitter Coverage

The Twitterverse is a funny thing.

Last night Iggy was in Winnipeg in front of a motivated and passionate crowd numbering about 1,100. He gave a barn-burner of a speech; one that clearly articulated his positions and was even newsworthy for what he had to say about the polls. Sadly, the event received very little "twitter" coverage from the national reporters tasked to Iggy's campaign. I am not blaming them - just stating a fact. The reporters in question just don't happen to twitter all that much.

On the other hand, Jack Layton is in Winnipeg this morning at a considerably smaller rally (600 people max.) giving a much less substantive speech than Iggy gave last night - but he is receiving 4-5 times the twitter attention. Especially from CBC's @RosieBarton. Again, I am not blaming Rosie. She is a fine reporter, as are many of the others from other news-outlets now covering Layton. It's just a fact that Rosie twitters more than most - so, ergo, Jack is getting more digital ink today than Iggy got last night.

Guess it has always been true. Even before the advent of the age of social media. Simple fact is and always has been that: who a news organization assigned to a given campaign greatly impacted how that campaign was portrayed to the public. J.W. Dafoe comes to mind. Not all reporters or their "inks" are created equal. And for those of us today who occasionally dwell on social media networking sites such as Twitter,the impact is both immediate, perceptible, and stark. In today's world, he who gets the most "ink" on a campaign trail is invariably the one being covered by those reporters with the most active thumbs! Is it fair to the under-served candidate trying to get his message out? Probably not. Is it biased? Absolutely not. A news organization's resources are tight, and not all campaigns can be accorded equal treatment. That being said... I do think Iggy has been under served in the last week and a half.

So what's the scoop? Fact, if an @RosieBarton or an @kady from CBC are covering your campaign you have a much better chance of getting your message out quicker & more often than those candidates who get two crotchety old dudes with bifocals, carbuncles, & arthritic thumbs assigned to their trail. In the Twitterverse that's just the way it is!

Stephen Harper is still in Contempt this #elxn41

I believe election campaigns should be fought on the issues. I believe that during an election campaign all our political leaders are obligated to engage Canada's electorate. I believe that leaders who are asking for our vote are duty bound to honestly tell us where they plan to take our country.

I believe any political leader who consciously tries to downplay and/or avoid the scrutiny of voters during an election campaign is doing democracy a disservice. Moreover, I believe any leader who attempts to limit public access to his events during a campaign is in contempt of our electoral process and, in effect, thumbing his nose at us.

I believe Stephen Harper's "one-trick pony" fear-mongering coalition message has become tiresome. I also believe he has intentionally avoided giving Canadian voters the straight goods on his party's long-term fiscal plans for our country. I believe his unending efforts to try to frighten we voters into giving him a majority- or else - once again demonstrates his utter contempt for both his opponents and our political system. I believe Stephen Harper is unworthy of a parliamentary majority. And I firmly believe it is in Canada's best interests if we hand he and his party a defeat on May 2nd.

#elxn41's "Other Quebec": A Conservative Disneyland

In the past 36 hours, much ado is being made over the legitimacy of the French language debate. Many say it was unnecessary. Among them a majority of those who constitute Stephen Harper's English Canadian base. Dismissing the second debate as a flawed exercise, they assert it reeked of overindulgence by placing an unwarranted focus on a "biased" province. They are wrong of course. Just as they are wrong about why Canada's "other Quebec" should be allowed to retain its own special status during this #elxn41. A privileged status that will see it's political culture emerge unscathed, unchanged, and quite possibly the most powerful political force in Canada after May 2nd.

Wedged between a more populous province to its west and some relatively insignificant provinces to its east (at least in terms of population and economic output), this "other Quebec", this monolith, is failing the rest of us. Having no desire to have other Canadians examine the true power and influence they wield over the Harper regime, this province's current federal incumbents are doing everything possible to avoid the media. A province with a tradition of ideological bloc voting that revels in its own political distinctiveness - it's leaders believe they are "right" to avoid the current electoral fray that is #elxn41.

Curiously, they are correct. For despite their abject blind allegiance to Stephen Harper, the power-brokers in this "other Quebec" really are relatively immune from any criticism on the national stage. The rest of the country, and our national media, just takes them for granted and lets them be. Comforted by this knowledge, they can and will continue to deliver the goods for Stephen Harper on election day. They are also sitting pretty because they know they are the absolute key to any hope that Stephen Harper has of forming a majority government. And, because of this, the province's current crop of MP's also know that, should Stephen Harper get his majority on May 2nd, they will, in turn, get everything they want from the federal government. All without having their values or their disproportionate sway over our national economy questioned. A sweet deal really, especially when you consider that all that is being asked of the "other Quebec's" MP's by Harper is to just: "Keep your frigging heads down... until May 3rd."

I am speaking, of course of Alberta. "Welcome to [the real] Conservative Disneyland"!

Discuss.

Post Debate - Harper diminishes us still

Okay, I'll admit I was disappointed to see Stephen Harper perform semi-competently during last night's election debate. Clearly, his pre-debate prep must have included the meme: ape the calm automaton and you'll present a believable banality that keeps your base happy and will not not send centrist voters running & screaming into the arms of the Liberals. And so he did. But he still lied.

He lied when he stated the choice in this election is all about the economy. Of course, this election is partly about the economy; but mostly it is about his abject CONTEMPT for our democracy and its institutions. He lied again when he accused the opposition of triggering an "unnecessary election". This election is necessary. Now more than ever.

This election is necessary because when we exercise our collective democratic right to pronounce a decision on Mr. Harper on May 2nd, it will inform who we are and what we value. And should we misstep that fateful day, it will see us fundamentally alter our society in a way that diminishes us all as a people. Bottom line, if Harper achieves his much sought after majority on May 2nd, our future will be bleaker. Unencumbered by any real checks and balances on his power, we'll see a man already found guilty of not respecting our institutions take us down a dark path bound to weaken our country, deprive us of fairness, and lessen our freedoms. A Harper majority will, in short, lead to disaster.

So to those of you who thought Prime Minister Stephen Harper of the Conservative Party of Canada performed "okay" in last night's debate, you're right. He did "okay". But "okay" is not good enough... for he still sat there before us and lied.

For me in this election it's not about a one-off debate performance. It's about the principles and values of the different players who are asking for our trust. It's about the merits of their respective visions for our future possibilities. It's about their commitment to us as a people AND how they believe our polity should function.

This election is about what the candidates are are offering Canadians. Will they bring out the best in us? It's not about taking a path borne of cynical calculation and contrived memes. Rather, its about us having the courage to choose a path that balances the needs of the many with the avarice of the few and, a path, that is committed to protecting our rights, laws, freedoms, and the integrity of our institutions. It's about taking a path Stephen Harper is not offering each and every time he stands before us and lies about why we are having this election. We are having this election because it is needed to combat his CONTEMPT. We are having this election to pronounce our judgment on a man who think us fools and who really believes we're willing to overlook his lack of integrity. We are having this election because, frankly, there has to be a better way to run this country called Canada!

Yellowstain Harper: A liar worthy of Contempt!

Harper will try to tell you his government fell on a budget that was never debated. He will try to tell you that there is a conspiracy afoot to unseat him. He will try to tell you that Jets, Jails, & corporate tax cuts are what you need. He will tell you, after challenging his main opponent to a 1:1 debate, that he's yellowstaining it because that “train has left the station”. He will tell you he knew nothing of his top political adviser's criminal past. He will tell you he knows nothing of why his Conservative campaign is doing background checks on attendees and forcibly removing some of them from his appearances. He will tell you his plan to keep the $6BILLION in Canadian Corporate tax cuts are good for you and your family. He, in short, will tell you anything! AND he will be lying! It's all lies... Stephen "Yellowstain" Harper is quite simply a LIAR! Proof? See here:

Corporate tax cuts don't spur growth, analysis reveals as election pledges fly

Already deemed to be in CONTEMPT of our democracy by the MAJORITY of our duly elected parliamentarians, Stephen Harper has no shame, he simply continues his streak... he is, quite simply, a contemptuous LIAR!


[photo courtesy of Globe & Mail]

Andrew Coyne touchy on Twitter this #elxn41: I thought he was made of sterner stuff.

acoyne acoyne

Fascinating. Ppl who know nothing abt physics generally defer to physicists. But economics... ppl think they can craft it to their designs.

14 hours ago Favorite Retweet Reply

WinnipegFatArse Fat Arse

@acoyne re: "Ppl who know nothing abt ...economics... think they can craft it to their designs." = A $55B CPC Harper deficit! #elxn41

acoyne acoyne

Ivison http://j.mp/g2bIJ4 and Ibbitson http://j.mp/fPcM01 see it more the way I do.

WinnipegFatArse Fat Arse

@acoyne re:"Ivison...and Ibbitson ...see it more the way I do." No surprise, you're all in the same bubble and spit swaping the same meme's!

acoyne acoyne

Let's be clear: 5 fraud convictions is certainly more shocking than 2. But still a mystery why a guy w/even 1 conviction was anywhr near PM

WinnipegFatArse Fat Arse

@acoyne re: your Q-"still a mystery why a guy w/even 1 conviction was anywhr near PM"- A: he knows, your bias - - he can get away with it!

acoyne acoyne

I'm sorry: I wouldn't hire a guy with a fraud conviction to deliver a pizza.

WinnipegFatArse Fat Arse

@acoyne "I'm sorry: I wouldn't hire a guy with a fraud conviction to deliver a pizza." No? WTF? But U endorse his boss? #elxn41 #cdnpoli

acoyne acoyne

@WinnipegFatArse I don't endorse any1. U hv rare ability 2 ignore evidence that contradicts yr pov. Have u read anything else I've written?

WinnipegFatArse Fat Arse

@acoyne With all do respect Sir, yes... I 've read all your writings for decade+. From my vantage point you are this election, solidly [1/3]

WinnipegFatArse Fat Arse

@acoyne [2/3 con'd] an economic determinist who is prone to "70's era' reductionism about LP platform -but unwilling to apply 80's analysis

WinnipegFatArse Fat Arse

@acoyne [3/3] that highlights the similarities of the flawed economic assumptions Harpo [i.e. Reagan?] is betting on during our recession.

acoyne acoyne

@WinnipegFatArse You can call me an economic determinist, whatever the hell that is, if you like. But spare me the "partisan" crap...

WinnipegFatArse Fat Arse

@acoyne re: "spare me the "partisan" crap"? A determinist who only sees one side of the ledger IS "Partisan"= economy needs social component

acoyne acoyne

@WinnipegFatArse Fine. So you *disagree* with me. Adults disagree without impugning each other's motives, ethics or professionalism.

WinnipegFatArse Fat Arse

@acoyne I'll leave you be now... BTW, wasn't impugning your motives "just the lenses you use" - ever in WPG look me up- we can resume then;)

acoyne acoyne

@WinnipegFatArse We have nothing more to discuss, then.

WinnipegFatArse Fat Arse

@acoyne Pity, but do take care.

[...THEN THE "UN-FOLLOWING" OCCURED... COYNE BARRED ME!]

WinnipegFatArse Fat Arse

@acoyne On the basis our earlier give&take U took offense? Now I am prohibited from "following"? Really? Silly, sad, and surreal. #elxn41

8 hours ago Favorite Reply Delete

*** FIN ***

[addendum: I really thought he was made of sterner stuff.]

Stephen Harper says: "Hey, what the fuck you guys! You know I don't answer questions."

(i.e. "What you talking about Willis?")

Jason Kenney Desperate for Tweet Cred? His tweet & my reply

@kenneyjason Jason Kenney

Did an interview on the @JimRichardsShow on Newstalk 1010 in Toronto. He asked me for a policy to deport mothers-in-law!

MY REPLY:

@WinnipegFatArse Fat Arse

@kenneyjason @JimRichardsShow Well, if they were innocent Sri Lankan mother-in-laws of Tamil descent I'm sure you'd figure out a way!

*** FIN ***

Update @3:05 CST - My mother-in-law says the CPC has just lost the "mother-in-law" vote!

Update #2 @3:08 CST - In a desperate attempt to pull an Oda-esque "NOT" losing the mother-in-law vote the Harper Government's Immigration Minister,Jason Kenney, is now going to try and bury his earlier tweet with more banal tweets; to wit:

kenneyjason Jason Kenney

Interesting column by Jonathan Chevreau comparing the retirement income plans of the Conservative and Liberal parties: http://bit.ly/eX64Qj

»

kenneyjason Jason Kenney

#CPC West Van Sunshine Coast candidate John Weston & I did roundtables w enthusiastic supporters from the #yvr Persian & Chinese communities

Hm, ... I wonder if he did those roundtables before or after the radio interview. And if it was before, why didn't he tweet about it then?

Shelly Glover's gaffe and her ensuing lies about Anita Neville's voting record

Conservative Shelly Glover is prone to gaffes and tripping herself up. Yesterday she accused Winnipeg South Centre Liberal MP Anita Neville of being too old to do the job. Of being past her "expiry date". Rightly her comments were viewed as ageist. Today, panicked, Glover was in full frontal damage control mode. Yet, rather than apologizing, she then tried to explain away her face-planting gaffe by lying about Anita Neville's voting record.

Yep, that's what she did. You see, rather than admit her remarks were wrong, Glover opted instead to flat out lie about another Honourable Member's parliamentary voting record. Professing she never meant to "insult" senior citizens across this land, silly Shelly then said that all she really had meant to do was "remind" seniors: "that Ms. Neville just voted to oppose the Conservative Government’s plan to increase [Guaranteed Income Supplement] payments to the most vulnerable, lowest income seniors in Canada..." Problem is, Glover's new assertion is patently false!

Ms. Neville never did any such thing. The legislation that Glover refers to was contained in the bogus Tory Budget 2011 which, as CBC pointed out, was never brought up for debate and/or voted upon. Why? Because Glover and her party were found to be in CONTEMPT of Parliament. So tell me Ms. Glover, hours before your petulant and power-hungry leader is scheduled to set down here in Winnipeg: Do you stand by this lie?

Sorry... I can't hear you. "Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?..."

[photo courtesy of ChrisD.ca]

My second "Tweet" ever; Stephen Harper; and a serious philosophical question

"If a Harper tree falls in the forest & nobody is there to see it... does it keep on LYING? Or does it just lay there in CONTEMPT?"

- courtesy my new Tweet thingy at WinnipegFatArse Fat Arse

p.s. Now if only somebody could teach me how to load the damn twitter blogger gadget!