So to slake my thirst for political enragement, uh, I mean engagement, I looked up the previous debate held August 7th between the Rat Ownable Stephen Harper, Justin Beiber Trudeau, Thomas Mulclair and I think I heard some other voice accasionally being drowned out by the bellowing of the other three... oh, right, Liz May was there from the Green Party.
To preface, I'd like to insert some quotes from the eminently quotable P.J. O'Rourke, an actual member of the detestable American Republicans, who I enjoy reading. O'Rourke, that is. Not the Republicans. I don't enjoy reading Republicans. Although it can be entertaining. Reading their body language when they're lying. Or in the case of Mr. Bush the elder, his lips. But not their books. Or their speeches. Or any of their rhetoric. At any rate, I like reading P.J. O'Rourke. P.J. believes in capitalism and the free market economy eventually correcting itself, and a few other of the fairy tales republicans promote to the unvarnished masses whose intelligence they underestimate, yet whose votes they begrudgingly require to legitimize their delusions of grandeur. But he shares a great deal of other beliefs with me and has a refreshingly blunt and non-political way of expressing them.
So here is his description of politics - see if you don't agree: "(There's) really only one political goal in the world. Politics is the business of getting power and privelege without possessing merit." He goes on to say "Politicians are always searching for some grave concern which will cause individuals to abandon their separate concerns... and act in concert so the politicians can weild the baton." I get so sick of hearing these stuffed suits and pant suits bullshitting about how hard they're "fighting" for us! O'Rourke says they're always fighting wars, (not real ones - too much merit involved). Wars on poverty, drugs, pollution, AIDS, racism, the Russians, aliens, zombies and now terrorism or more specifically ISIS. Or ISIL or whatever our common enemy that we must band together and fund our heroic politicians to vanquish is known as lately. This bullying of fellow citizens by means of dreads and frights has been going on since paleolithic times, O'Rourke tells us, and it continues today.
So let's just investigate the last debate, or the first quarter and a bit of it because I can't stomach much more of it. If you haven't already guessed, I have little to no respect for politicians. I believe, as does P.J. O'Rourke, that they are a bunch of swelled-headed narcissists who fancy themselves the only ones worthy of saving the world, and who consider themselves deserving of excessive payment for that service. Not just power and privelege, but also payment. By and large, that is. There are some good ones. I've blogged in support of Bernie Sanders. But the broken system of politics, which has been transformed into a brotherhood of fatcats selling favours to the massively obesecats of the corporate world holds little attraction for those with the moral standards to ACTUALLY give the world a bit of a saving.
And, "LET'S BE CLEAR," (Harper's favourite filler, which he said so many times in the following debate I thought he had summoned the spectre of L. Ron Hubbard, (usually followed by statements which further muddied what he proposed to clear up.)), that's really what it is: moral standards. There IS an intelligence in public speaking, rhetoric, sophistry, lying, misleading the public and politics. Screwing people out of money by straight taking their money requires no intelligence or merit. Just cold-blooded ethical elasticity. It's not clever to take something from someone any more than it's stupid for that person to allow you to keep it. You are taking advantage of their kindness. You are not strong and they are not weak. In fact it's the opposite. You are an asshole and they are putting up with you. Nothing more. Entire cultures have existed, and still exist, in which people didn't and don't practice this kind of assholery. Not just ownership, but the desire to own more than everyone else, is viewed as a sickness not of the body but of the soul. So this is neither natural, nor progressive, nor is it in any way necessary for the survival of our species. It's just selfishness and it has been the driving force behind 9 years of Harper government.
So needless to say, I loathe Stephen Harper more than most other people who participate in the loathesome practice of politics. And I'll be the last to defend him, but in this debate, it seemed like the other candidates were bent on riding the wave, (a well-earned wave), of Harper hatred sweeping the nation and just decided to contradict every single thing he said. OR, is everything that escapes the mouth of our leader of the last decade a lie? I can't believe that the other candidates are completely innocent in this. I'm sure they are using well-thought-out word combinations to create "truthiness" where the facts get in the way. After all, they're politicians. But this debate was nothing more than somebody, usually Harper, stating something and the others stating the exact opposite. Somebody is lying on EVERY FUCKING POINT!
Anyway, here's how it went. I'll just sum up the litany of contradictions that was called a debate.
Trudeau is asked about the economy, the first topic. His reply is Harper messed it up in the last 10 years. We have had 8 deficits in a row after a decade of surplusses. Canada's the only G-7 country in a recession. Wages are falling. We need to tax the wealthy and lower taxes on the middle class.
Harper then replies that Canada has had, during his reign of terror, the strongest economic growth, job creation, and income growth for the middle class among major developed economies. Then he launches into his infamous growth going forward nonsense. "Believe me THIS time, sure we suck and have sucked for 9 years although Baby Pierre can't figure out how many years I've been in office, but TRUST me, it's gonna get better if you keep me even longer." Then spouts some REALLY confusing crap about how he wants a "low-tax" plan rather than high taxes, high debt, high deficit which is failing everywhere else. The other parties, Harpy claims, want to spend billions creating permanent high taxes and permanent deficits... just like I've done in the 9 years I've been P.M.
Then Mulclair weighs in. He starts with the requisite NDP, "Canadians work hard!" comment but it's quickly followed up by, "Harper messed up the economy." Canada lost 400,000 well-paid jobs during Harper's reign. There are 200,000 more unemployed now than in 2008. (remember, Harper claimed job creation) Incomes are flatlining, household debt is skyrocketing. Harpy and Justin Bieber wanna give 10s of billions to the rich corporations even though Beiber claims he wants to tax the wealthy and Hardon claims he has some mysterious "low-tax" plan. We must assume he is referring to the zero or negative taxation the foreign investors and large corporations enjoy. NDP want to give tax breaks to small and medium corporations.
Then Elizabeth May is allowed to talk without being interrupted for the only time during the debate. She says that Harper said in 2008, which is when the recession started, "If there was gonna be a recession, there'd be one already." Not a good track record spotting recessions. He can't even admit the one he has driven Canada into today. Canada has a weak and shrinking economy. We need to invest some of what Mark Carney called the $630 Billion of "dead money" in Canada.
This is a great point that nobody seemed willing to get into. What the hell is dead money? I think it's like this: When a foreign investor wants to move into Canada, they need to have 800,000 bucks in the bank. At least that's what it used to be. It's given to the provincial government where the investor invests or starts a company or whatever. I believe it is kept for 2 years. If after two years the business is going swimmingly, the money is GIVEN BACK TO THE INVESTOR!!! So it's not really a tax, it's a loan to the government. In two years just the interest on a million bucks, (which is probably what the charge is today), would help the country. If it's invested, let's say into the can't miss, sweetheart deals that are unavailable to any individuals but the government of Canada and the provincial governments, are proposed every single day, that money could make a huge difference in the Canadian economy! But, this point was never pursued.
Harper pipes up with 1.3 million new jobs since the financial crisis. See? He's still not calling it a recession. This is the best in G-7. Let's be clear, incomes are rising, (Mulclair said "flatlining"), we have a balanced budget, and we are able to invest in infrastructure, health care, benefits for families, we DON'T, but we are able to. Nice choice of words though Stevieboy!
Trudeau then attacks Mulclair's suggestion of a $15 minimum wage stating that it will only help less than 1% of Canadians who earn minimum wage. How the fuck is THAT even possible? Minimum wage is lower than 15 bucks. Raising it will help EVERY person who makes minimum wage! Won't it?
Mulclair: Over 100,000 Canadians will be helped by the 15 buck minimum wage. Canada has 36 million people. 1% of that is 360,000 so, yes, less than one percent will be helped. But 100,000 seems like lots of help and less than 1% doesn't. Aside from the slick sophistry going on here, are 99% of Canadians REALLY making more than 15 bucks an hour??? I have NEVER made that in Canada! So a university degree and 16 years of teaching lands me in the bottom 1%? Maybe THAT is something these superheroes should try to save Canada from!
Mulclair goes on to explain Harper's claim to job creation. The CIBC says these are mostly part time, precarious jobs. The new job quality in Canada is the worst in a generation.
Harper: Let me be clear: 90% of those 1.3 million new jobs are full time. (Stats Can) Incomes are growing, he repeats.
Then there's some arguing about pension that doesn't make any sense. Then Trudeau mentions that Harper raised the retirement age from 65 to 67. What the Liberals will raise is 315,000 kids out of poverty with their more generous childcare benefits. But, what is that, reader? That's right! It's less than 1% of the Canadian population. Politics 101 here. Trudeau then accuses Harper of writing government checks to millionaires. Which he does.
Harper rebutts with, Let me be clear, retirement age won't go up for over 10, uh, for 10 years. This is part of his "going forward" plan I suppose. This is what Trudeau SHOULD have said. Instead he replied, "Oh so that's for our grandkids to worry about." Again, his sense of time is a bit skewed possibly by 48-hour coke and hooker binging. How he figures 10 years will equate to grandkids is enough to raise some doubt. Keith Richards partied with the Trudeaus. Nuff said.
Liz May pipes up with a nice one. She mentions in passing that other G-7 countries, such as Germany, have fewer newcomers joining the labour market so net new job stats are misleading. It's a political way of saying that there are tons of people immigrating to Canada and they get the shitty, new jobs because they're the only ones who want the friggin' things. When Harper comes back from his frequent visits to China he may have thousands of these "newcomers" in tow with fresh, shiny, new jobs being part of the tour package for all we know. Working for the Chinese-owned businesses in Canada for 2 bucks an hour beats the hell outta working in China for 2 bucks a day! There are good reasons Harper is so popular in China and it's not his hairstyle. Anyhoo, 1.3 million new jobs and 2 million new workers ain't job creation.
Harper pulls out the rhetoric. Immigrants are an important part of our Economic Action Plan to help drive our economy. Into the poor house. He didn't say that last part. I did. Again all part of his vision for Canada's future. More people than jobs. Nice.
Mulclair: Harper added 150 billion bucks to Canada's debt in the last 10 years. Last week he spent over a billion. We can't afford you, Harpy!
Harper: We, uh, we have, um, er, uh, a balanced budget. Other countries, (none cited), don't.
Liz clarifies by repeating the 150 billion federal debt stat and states that in a 2 trillion dollar economy she doesn't believe the budget WILL balance this year. The budget is a work of fantasy worthy of J.K. Rowling. If it balances or not depends strictly on its creative writers.
Mulclair suggests Canada grab a piece of the 5 trillion dollar green energy world market over the next 15 years. We're missing out on it because Harper doesn't believe in it.
Harper talks about a strong "foothold in Asia" and Liz May mentions the investment treaty Harper signed without any consultation with politicians or citizens that Canada can't get out of until 2045. Beijing is gonna be calling the shots and deciding which laws to pass for the next P.M. and many more.
Harper ignores the comment completely and states that greenhouse gas emissions have been reduced while growing our economy.
Liz May says that's not true.
Mulclair says that he reckons Harper thought that by gutting our environmental laws, we'd somehow get our energy resources to market faster. How's that workin' for ya, Harpy? Canadians want clear environmental assessments before pipelines can be accepted.
Anyway, knowing what I know about the oil pipelines and how Harper wants to pipe oil all over the beautiful country in its most dangerous forms, crude and bitumen from the oil sands, knowing that pipelines WILL fail and spills WILL happen, and knowing that Harper has consistently defunded the environmental agencies that will work to prevent such disasters or clean them up when they happen, I puked a little in my mouth when reading this crap and had to stop. Harper is owned by oil companies. Mostly in China and America and he will continue to mire Canada in the evil, antiquated business as long as he's the PM.
I got riled up reading these word games. Canada is a very rich country. 630 billion is just what the Central Bank head figures corporations in Canada are just holding on to. Waiting for something to spend it on. The example I gave is just one example of how Canada IS one of these corporations and how IT has dead money too. If these jagoffs had any authority to distribute the truckloads of spare change Canadian corporations have hanging around not a single person in Canada would make less than 100 grand a year. But these clowns are all beholden to big money. It's not different than the States. In fact, in the U.S. they have a dude who is going to do his best to fight the true powers that be if he gets elected. I believe what he wants is what almost everyone in the U.S. and Canada wants. I'm referring, of course, to Bernie Sanders. It's going to be tough for Bernie and I hate to say it but I think if he wins the presidency, he'll be in a lot of danger. I can't wait to see the revolution he will start if he gets in though!
Canada needs this same kind of revolution. Sanders is pissed off at the despotic billionaires destroying the U.S. Canadians need to get angry too. I don't see any of these candidates bringing about the kind of revolutionary changes needed. Certainly none worth a very valuable vote. But that's always the case. And, unfortunately, the Canadian people will put up with a lot of crap from there piliticians before they get pissed off.
I wouldn't even be surprised to see Harper win again because, like me, people watch these candidates contradicting each other, speaking in riddles and truthiness and get the feeling that they're all a bunch of typically meritless politicians. They're doing all their fighting to be the baton wielding leader of the parades against taxes, deficits, unemployment, environmental concerns and all the other issues, but when and if they win they will likely do as little as all those before them to come up with the incredibly simple solutions to these problems. Because they're not the ones in power. So Canadians might just refuse to waste a vote on any of them. But I can't vote anyway. Yet another of the little adjustments Harper has made to improve his chances. He has obviously done some research and found that among the Canadians who are overseas and will vote, he won't get many of their votes, so he has chosen to take that right away. That's just how he rolls. So some would argue that taking away my vote was "smart." Let ME be clear, Harper is not smart. He is just a hideously selfish human being who has the moral relativism one needs to screw an entire country. In short he's a jerk who needs to be pushed into a mud puddle.
I would have voted for not Harper but none of the candidates other than Harper will give me, or I suspect the country, what it wants. Certainly not what 50% of us want. So it's going to remain a fake democracy no matter what the election results. Leastaways, that's what I reckon.
This was posted by a friend on facebook a bit too late to attach it to this post:
